The Young Turks - Dorky but Dangerous

Episode Date: October 13, 2022

If Republicans win control of The House Of Representatives their first move may be to cut medicare and social security. Railroad unions have refused a White House brokered contract. A woman reveals that she had to press Herschel Walker to pay for an abortion that he wanted. Trump supporters blame rape victims who become pregnant as a way to support the invasive abortion bans. A number of conservative individuals are investing themselves in the school boards to gain control of their local schools. Host: Ana Kasparian 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. Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. Today has been a bonanza, a news bonanza, just breaking news everywhere. We've got an update on the Alex Jones trial. There has been a verdict following three days of deliberations. We'll share that verdict with you a little later in the program.

We'll also talk a little bit about the way John Fetterman was treated during an NBC interview. And the ablest tone of the reporter there, considering they're one of the standard bearers of fair and objective news, the hatchet job that took place in that, in the context of that interview was absolutely disgusting. I'll be talking about that with John Ida Rola in the second hour of the show. show. And we have some fun stories to get to as well, including Bill Maher, sharing his complete nutter frustration over Dave Rubin using his show to incessantly promote his mediocre book. I enjoyed that. Dennis Prager, determining that non-religious people apparently are supportive

of incest, which is insane. But to be fair, if you've watched me debate him, you could probably understand why he would have that kind of thinking. But later in the show, we'll definitely have some fun. We'll lighten things up. As always, just want to encourage you guys to like and share the stream. You can also become a member, which not only helps to support TYT, helps to keep us sustainable and accountable to our audience and our audience alone. It also leads to all sorts of fun, members only exclusives, including our daily bonus

episode, which follows our main show, and lots of other bonus content that only our members get to watch, t.yt.com slash join to become a member or go to YouTube, click on that join button. You can become a member that way as well. Now I want to start the show today with a story that will probably get no attention, even though I would venture to say it is one of the most important news stories in today's rundown. And it's because it's a story that has a major impact on the livelihoods of Americans, their health, their ability to retire. Republicans have their sight set on destroying these government programs. And to be clear, the mainstream media has pretty much ignored this story. This is an

important story. I hope you not only view it, I hope you share it, because I want people to focus their attention on what the Republican Party actually represents. While they dig into endless culture war narratives, behind the scenes, they're taking a lead pipe and blow torch to government programs like social security and Medicare. And so without further ado, let's talk a little bit about that. The Republican Party is already viciously plotting to provoke an economic crisis in which they force the Democratic Party and potentially a Democratic president in the next term to cave to their demands for austerity. In this case, they have their sights set on cutting incredibly popular government programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Something to keep in mind, as I give you the details of this story, this is really important to remember. While you have Republicans co-opt populist language in order to trick voters into believing they have any concern about their economic anxiety, in reality, today's current Republican Party is no different from the Republican Party that we've dealt with for decades. They want austerity, they want tax cuts for the rich. I mean, they've already succeeded with tax cuts for the rich and corporations with Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts. But to be sure, the reason why they want those tax cuts, the way they plan on accomplishing those tax cuts, is by cutting spending. And we're not talking about frivolous pork. We're talking about

spending that prevents elderly people from ending up on the streets, programs like social security. And how are they planning on doing it? Well, they're actually pretty transparent about what their plan is, how they want to accomplish it, and the corporate media, asleep at the wheel, maybe because the corporate media is owned by corporate conglomerates who also want those tax cuts. But let's get to the details of this story. As Jonathan Chain of all people over at New York Magazine writes, Bloomberg's Jack Fitzpatrick interviewed several Republican contenders to lead the House budget committee. They all said with varying levels of specificity that they plan to investigate, or instigate, I should say, a debt ceiling standoff to force

Biden to accept cuts to retirement and health care programs. So the GOP plans on taking over the House after the midterms. There's a pretty good chance that they will succeed. in that goal. And if they do, if they manage to control the House, what they plan on doing is refusing to vote in favor of lifting the debt ceiling unless the Democrats with the help of Joe Biden, assuming, you know, he's willing to do this, will agree to tax cuts for the wealthy, agree to austerity when it comes to Medicare and Social Security. And if they don't, if they don't agree to those things. Well, the Republicans will refuse to vote in favor of lifting the debt ceiling. Now, if you fail to lift the debt ceiling, that means a global economic catastrophe.

But it's really important to remember one thing. The catastrophe mostly impacts stock portfolios. And the individuals invested in those stock portfolios happen to be the wealthiest people in the country, including members of Congress. So this is a warning to death. Democrats, that they are about to engage, assuming that Republicans take over the House, they're about to engage in a game of chicken. And it's really important that they stand their ground on this matter. Now let me continue. Representative Buddy Carter told Bloomberg just openly, quote,

our main focus has got to be on non-discretionary, meaning non-discretionary spending. It's got to be on entitlements. Now, Social Security and Medicare are entitlements because guess what? We pay into those programs. We are entitled to benefit from those programs. That is why they're referred to as entitlements. And that is specifically what the GOP wants to cut or privatize in the case of social security. Representative Jody Arrington from Texas was also clear in his goal to push for stricter means testing.

and also raising the, raising the eligibility age for Social Security in particular. He says, Republicans have a list of eligibility reforms, and we don't like tax increases. Don't like the tax increases. So what he's referring to there is the way Social Security is funded. Social Security is funded through payroll taxes. And fact of the matter is, there is a cap on the amount of income that can be taxed for Social security. So this year, I believe it's somewhere around 134,000, if I'm not mistaken, anything an individual makes above $134,000 will not be taxed for social security. And so when

he says we don't like tax increases, what he's referring to is we don't want to keep raising that tax cap, that income cap, because we want to ensure that as much income as possible is not taxed for social security. That is what he's referring to there. Now, Representative Lloyd Smucker, who's also, of course, a Republican from Pennsylvania specifically, said this to Bloomberg. We should ensure that we keep the promises that were made to the people who really need it, the people who are relying on it. He's lying about that, by the way.

So some sort of means testing potentially would help to ensure that we can do that. Now again, let me reiterate, we're all paying into the system. We're all paying into these programs, Medicare and Social Security, that we are entitled to because we pay into it. The idea of means testing those programs is insane, because again, we paid into it. That's our money. But they want to deny us those programs. This is who the Republican Party is.

And by the way, the way the right wing media covers this is laughable because they hide the fact that the whole intention here is to cut these programs, to privatize social security. They hide it because these are incredibly popular programs, even among Republican voters. So I know we do have some Republicans who watch the show, either to, you know, understand the other side, and I really respect you for that, or to hate watch. And you know what? Do you, boo? You could hate watch me all day long. But it is important for you to understand that while you're constantly fearmonger to about trans athletes and about all sorts of boogeymen who have no impact on your life whatsoever,

they want to cut programs that keep you off the streets, programs that you have paid into. But let me continue. Republicans are committed to scaling back to safety net, but they realize the agenda, again, is toxic and unpopular. So they want to do this under the leadership of the Democratic Party. That's something really important to remember. Because if they refuse to lift the debt ceiling and a Democrat is in the White House, and let's say we assume Democrats are still in charge of the Senate, Well, then if there is an economic collapse, they can point to Democrats and say, it's their fault, it's their fault. But they've tried this before and they failed.

And it's really important to understand exactly how they failed. So, for instance, back in 2011, Obama fell for this strategy. Okay, it was referred to as the grand bargain, again, in 2011. And there were two previous Democratic presidents in particular who showed some willingness to cave to the demands of the GOP. One was Obama, of course, the other was Bill Clinton. In the 1995, 1996, Republican Congress, the Republican Congress instigated a series of government shutdowns in the belief they could force Bill Clinton to accept cuts to taxes and social programs. The crusade blew up in their faces, luckily, and helped Clinton win re-election. But rather than abandon it, they tried it again under Barack Obama, this time using the debt ceiling as the hostage of choice.

That too failed. Now, the reason why it failed is because Obama demanded tax increases in return for cuts to social security, which, by the way, that grand bargain was pretty gross. The idea that you have a Democratic president who is willing to cut social security tells you all you need to know about how far the Democratic Party has moved away from representing average working Americans. I mean, the fact that Obama has the favorability rating that he does is really mind boggling considering how much he was willing to plague ball with corporatists and with the goons in the Republican Party. Now, they do try to, they do intend on trying this strategy again, this time specifically with the debt ceiling as the leverage they need to get the Democrats

to cave. What I'm concerned about is the transformation we have seen. with the Democratic Party over the last several decades, even since the Obama administration. They have been taken over by corporate interests. That culture is even more extreme today than it was during the Obama administration. And I'm worried that we have corporate Democrats who might actually want to privatize social security, might actually want to cut Medicare. care. So they might actually be allies with Republicans, some of them. But I'm also worried that when push comes to shove, once corporate donors make their opinions heard within the Democratic Party, maybe Democrats will be more willing to cave to Republicans this time

around. But that would be devastating for them politically. Because remember, this is a trick. This is a way of ensuring that Republicans get what they want in regard to austerity, knowing full well that that austerity would be incredibly unpopular. But then they get to shift the blame to Democrats if Democrats cave and play ball. They can point to Democrats and say, look, these cuts to Social Security and Medicare happened under the Democrats watch, not under our watch. You had Joe Biden, a Democrat in the White House when this happened. So Representative Jason Smith, who's a Republican, who says, if Republicans are trying to cut spending, surely he wouldn't try to default.

So that is a statement in regard to the debt ceiling and how the failure to raise the debt ceiling will lead to default. And that default would lead to the stock market crashing. The stock market crashing would lead to their stock portfolio suffering. And as we know, as I've talked about on the show multiple times, you have members of both parties heavily invested in the stock market. They don't want to lose money in the stock market by failing to lift the debt ceiling. So if Democrats have a backbone on this issue, they should call Republican out. They should call their bluff and refuse to play ball. It would be stupid if they did. It would be politically, I mean, it would be political suicide if they did.

Because the vast majority of Americans favor Medicare and Social Security, which is why Republicans want to do it this way so they can place the blame on Democrats and not take any responsibility for this little plot that they've come up with and have tried multiple times before, but luckily failed. So one final thing I want to mention here is that last June, the Republican study committee, a conservative caucus that includes more than three quarters of the House Republicans. By the way, Republican Study Committee sounds both ridiculous, dorky, and considering what the Republican parties like today, dangerous in like a predatory way. But let me continue. Released a sweeping domestic budget plan, it received little attention in the mainstream

media. So the mainstream media didn't cover it at all. What that budget plan included was raising Medicare eligibility to the age of 67, raising social security age to 70, 70 years old before indexing both to life expectancy, withholding payment to those who retire early. Remember, that's your money you paid into it. But if you need to retire early for whatever reason, they want to deny you that money that you've paid into the system. The budget plan also endorsed the consideration of options to reduce payroll taxes that fund social security, so tax cuts for businesses. And finally, phase in an increase in means testing for Medicare.

Again, these are all programs that you get taxed on every single paycheck, and they want to deny these programs to you. Now, as I mentioned, the mainstream media did not cover this at all. They totally ignored it. But the right wing media covered it. And I think they're framing, communicate something, and prove something that I've been saying on this show, which is their austerity measures, their efforts to provide more tax cuts for the rich and government program cuts for everyone else is really shrouded in their culture war messaging. So let's go to town hall.

How did they cover it? What was their headline? Exclusive first look, RSC budget blueprint includes protecting kids from woke trans agenda. There was nothing in the piece about cuts to Medicare and Social Security, of course. Let's go to the daily caller. Exclusive GOP budget proposal seeks to reverse decades of anti-family policies. Do you guys get what they do? I hope people understand why it is that they spend all of their time, crying,

about CRT, which doesn't exist in grade schools, crying about trans athletes when they can't even name a single trans athlete that's impacting anyone in their state. The reason why they focus on these made up boogeymen is to scare their own voters and distract from the fact that they want to rob their voters of programs that they've paid into. There's more. National Review. GOP budget proposal would return U.S. to Cold War footing to counter China threat. There's a little bit of honesty, by the way. A little bit of honesty in that headline. Because while they have a huge problem with our taxpayer money helping our fellow Americans, they have no problem with taxpayer money being funneled to defense contractors for all these wars that we get involved in.

And China's next. Make no mistake about it. So the bottom line, if you could read in between the lines with that headline, it's, you know, we need the resources to combat China. Let's give you more, though. Exclusive, this is from Breitbart, Republican Study Committee creates holistic immigration plan to raise wages grow middle class. No, the entire budget that they're proposing is all about privatizing social security and cutting Medicare. That's what it's about. And fact of the matter is, the Republican Party has always been

this way. This is who they are. Co-opting populist lingo and language doesn't change who they fundamentally are and who they fundamentally work for. Tedes Prager had the audacity to come on this show and say he hates corporations. He spits on corporations and he followed that up by saying it's because they're woke. No, no, no. He doesn't dislike corporations. He loves corporate corporate greed. He has enabled corporate greed, much like these Republican goons. But if a corporation might say something that's tolerant or friendly toward an underserved population in America, oh, I hate corporations, they're so woke. They love the corporate greed. They love assisting corporations and robbing you. And it's about time that Republican

voters woke up to that, because they're about to rob you of the programs you paid into. We got to take a break. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show Anna Casparian with you. One story that we needed to update you all on was the whole rail union story. Rail union workers have been threatening to strike because they want incredibly reasonable things like, you know, the ability to take time off to deal with medical emergencies. And there's a pretty big update that should be on your radar. So let's discuss. Last month, everyone in corporate media clap their hands when President Biden helped negotiate a

tentative agreement between rail unions and railroad companies. Then everyone just promptly forgot to check in on that story to see how things are going. Turns out that while the rail union and the rail employers came up with an agreement, the actual rail workers weren't so happy with what had been negotiated. And so there is still some likelihood that a strike could happen, and there's also some likelihood that Congress could intervene and stop them from striking. Now, what they conveniently ignored in the corporate press is that the union workers needed to vote on the agreement that was agreed upon by the union and the rail employers. And it seems like the workers actually are not happy with the meager concessions they got. So on Monday, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way employees, which is a division of the Teamsters, voted on a tentative agreement.

And they voted no, they voted to reject it. Here's what happened. Just under 12,000 of BMWE's 23,900 freight rail workers voted, the union announced October 10th with 56% voting against the deal. Leaders said they're hoping to return to the bargaining table. The union is delaying any potential strike until November 19th at the earliest. Now, the implications of this vote happens to be pretty massive. Okay, so as Jonah Furman tweets, this alone is a huge deal since a BMWE strike would shut down the national rail freight system, but also makes me wonder if it'll affect the two bigger

union votes. Ballots for BLET and SmartTD Railworkers mail out on October 15th and are due back November 17th. By the way, you want to talk about our economy just like effectively shutting down? rail workers striking would lead to just that. So I don't know, I would venture to say that giving them what they're asking for, which is incredibly reasonable, should just happen. And what they need is time off to deal with medical emergencies. If you look at what was negotiated upon, what they agreed upon, it'll blow your mind how meager it is.

So let me go to that. So after the tentative deal was reached, SmartTD, which is another rail union, of course, polled their workers. And they actually found out that 78% wanted the union to reject the agreement and ultimately let Congress decide the national rail contract, which I don't know. It's unclear to me why they think Congress would look out for them, considering how awful Congress is. But nonetheless, they would prefer that over just accepting what the deal.

is as it stands currently. Workers are rejecting the contract because of the, you know, meager concessions, and here's what I mean by that. Press reports made it sound like the deal would create three sick days for railroad workers. But once the actual language came out, what was created turned out to be something less than sick time. Get a load of this. Heavily circumscribed, unpaid time for routine or preventative medical appointments, either on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday with at least 30 days notice, plus no attendance penalties for hospitalization or surgery. Because, you know, I don't know about you guys, but when I have a medical emergency,

I usually know 30 days ahead of time, and I can usually coordinate the situation so it's on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Hey, how about these rail companies hire more workers? You know? Like here at TYT, we trade hosts to fill in. So if Jank is sick, if I'm sick, we're able to take a day off to recover from our illness. That's what a company usually does when, you know, they want to plan ahead. But my read of this whole situation is they don't want to hire more people. They don't want to spend more money because they have a profit motive, of course. They want to increase their profits, knowing full well that what they're doing to

their workers, the very people who generate the profits in the first place is incredibly cruel and inhumane. Not allowing people to take time off for a medical emergency is insane. And the fact that the Biden administration brokered this deal between the rail employers and the rail union and is proud of it is insane as well. But let me continue. The deal also gave workers an immediate 14% raise, which sounds so great, right? With back pay dating back to 2020, except raises totaling 24% during a five year life of the contract. But over five years, that's around half, half of the current rate of inflation. So their raises wouldn't even come close to keeping up with inflation based on this current deal. Can you guys understand why they would

reject this deal. I certainly would. I don't blame the rail workers at all. They would get cash bonuses of about $1,000 a year. There would be a cap on health care premium payments to just under $400 a month, which is pretty pricey if you ask me. And insultingly, just one. Just one additional paid day off, not per month, but per year. One additional paid day off per year. So these half-ass provisions won't do much for the rail workers, which is why they rejected it. I want to read you some quotes from anonymous workers who spoke to the World Socialist website. They probably spoke anonymously because they don't want to be retaliated against. They say, we have horrible working conditions, pretty much 12 hours a day.

And if you're lucky enough to get a day off, they call you constantly. We get no rest. They constantly break federal railroad administration rules and try to force us to do the same. We can't get days off for doctor's appointments or anything. Another worker said this. They lie, cheat and steal. They cut jobs and dump the work on other jobs pushing us to do more. Seems like they really don't want to hire more workers.

It seems like that's the heart of the issue here. One guy at my workplace passed out from the heat and had to be taken to the hospital. All they care about is the price of their stock I've had enough. Meanwhile, the robber barren railroad companies are sitting pretty, real pretty. In fact, let's take a look at this graph because it'll show you the amount of spending these railroad companies have done on dividends and stock buybacks. As you can see from the graph, it has shot up considerably. If you, I mean, compare it to 2004, it's night and day.

So year after year, they spend more and more of their revenue on dividends and stock buybacks. And who does that benefit? Does it benefit the workers who are being crushed right now, the very workers who generate that revenue in the first place? Or does it benefit the shareholders? Obviously, the shareholders. Because that's all that matters in this country. The system is set up this way. They have what?

What do they have? What kind of responsibility, guys? There's a special little F word I like to use on this show. They have fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. They don't care about their workers. They want to crush them. And what makes this story particularly sick is that their union in this case, their unions, agree to this horse crap deal.

No, I'm glad that the actual workers rejected it. We'll see how it plays out, though, because I don't think that Congress is going to look out for them. So while the railroad workers toil away, their union leadership is actually partying in Vegas with corporate Democrats. Doesn't make me feel so good about this situation. The brotherhood of locomotive engineers and trainmen, which is another division of the Teamsters, began their annual convention this Monday in Las Vegas. On that day, Nancy Pelosi spoke to the convention and let me remind the BLET how Pelosi responded to the threat of a rail strike. Pelosi had threatened to issue a congressional injunction against railroaders if they went on strike and admitted that House Democrats had legislation ready to go if they walked out at the original deadline on September 16th.

really important to remember that with the unlimited spending of corporate money toward Democrats and Republicans in their elections, in their campaigns, we're having this two-party system really meld into one, where you have Republicans and Democrats just endlessly engaging in the culture war, right, to give you the illusion of governance, of governing on your behalf, when in reality, because of their corporate donors, because of that corporate influence, they are in cahoots, in crushing workers who are demanding the most reasonable thing in the world, which is time off to deal with life. And I'm pretty sure Nancy Pelosi values the six months out of the year she has to do whatever

she wants, including fundraise. She's got unlimited time off. I'm sure she values that. I wish that she would afford that same privilege to other workers who might need that time off for actual medical emergencies. Democrats make me sick because while, for the most part, Republicans tell you how heinous they are, Democrats pretend like they represent the common working man. But in example after example, corporate Democrats prove otherwise. all right. Well, let's move on to something completely different. A happier story, Alex Jones.

To plaintiff, David Wheeler, A, defamation slash slander damages, past and future, $25 million. B, emotional distress damages, past and future, and $30 million. Total fair, just, and reasonable damages to plaintiff David Wheeler and against Alex Jones and free speech systems, and line A and line B, $55 million, initial by your number one. With plaintiffs sobbing in the gallery, the clerk just read out loud, the verdict in which the jury has decided compensatory damages, Alex Jones has to pay to the parents of the Sandy Hook victims for both slander and for emotional distress. It's a good day in America. And for all of the alleged free speech absolutists who seem to only care about free speech

when it comes to right wingers like Alex Jones who engage in speech that isn't even protected in our constitution, I say good day, bye bye. You have no argument, this is not protected speech, terrorizing parents who lost their children in a tragedy and a mass shooting, using defamatory statements against them, not protected speech. And here's another piece of proof to give you to make that point. Now, how much will he pay in total? Well, the jury ordered InfoWars founder Alex Jones to pay $965 million in damages to the families of eight victims of the Sandy Hook shooting for the suffering caused by years of lies that the massacre was a hoax. If you haven't paid any attention to the trials, you haven't watched any of the trial proceedings, one thing that's

important for you to keep in mind, is that through the trial which was meant to decide what the punitive and compensatory damages would be, we learned, we've seen evidence indicating that Alex Jones knew full well what he was doing. He knew that his broadcasts were defamatory. He knew that he was defaming these parents. He knew that calling it a hoax was complete and utter BS and he continued doing it knowing full well that members of his own audience were terrorizing these victims. Defamatory content is not protected speech. Hate speech, unfortunately protected speech. You can use all the hate speech you want. The government cannot punish you for that. But defamatory speech is not protected. Destroying one's reputation, the way that Alex Jones did

with his audience toward these, again, victims, not protected speech. Let me continue. It's really hard for some people who pander to the right wing to understand that. It's almost like they engage in willful ignorance. This is by far the largest award to date in a multi-pronged legal battle by the families to hold Jones responsible. The size of the damages is a sign that the jurors found the defendant's conduct particularly reprehensible, and I would agree with them on that, and harmful. And it has been harmful. As I've shared multiple times on the show, the Posner family in particular had to move dozens of times just to escape the threats that they were dealing with from members of Alex Jones's audience. Think about the money involved in having to relocate

time after time after time after you lost your child in a tragic mass shooting. The largest single award of $120 million went to Robbie Parker, whose six-year-old daughter, Emily, was killed in the shooting. Jones spent years mocking Parker as an actor. The plaintiffs also included an FBI agent who responded to the shooting and was awarded $90 million in damages. And here's a little more on the trial from ABC investigative reporter, Aaron Kuterski, who was actually present for the trial.

Let's watch. Alex Jones was not present as this jury award was read. Instead, his lawyer sat alone at the defense table, but you saw the families, the plaintiffs, 15 of them, relatives of the dead, plus an FBI agent who responded to the scene, sat weeping in the spectators gallery as this award was read. And they said it was never for the money. It was meant really to shut down Alex Jones. They did not necessarily want the compensation, but they affect us.

He effectively wanted to bankrupt him. Well, I hope their mission will be accomplished. He deserves it. He destroyed the lives of innocent people who had already been victimized by one of the most brutal tragedies, losing their children. And he did it for profit. And I think it's really important to send a message to anyone who works in media that while money might take priority over everything else, including the truth,

You're not allowed to engage in defamatory rhetoric. You're not allowed to destroy people's lives in your quest for profit. Now, Connecticut case, the Connecticut case, which is the one we're talking about here, is one of three cases against Alex Jones. So the pain ain't over yet. In August, a jury in a different case in Texas said Jones must pay nearly $50 million to the parents of Jesse Lewis, a six-year-old killed in Sandy Hook, The actual payout, however, will be far smaller due to limits, meaning a cap on such awards.

In addition, he has another upcoming trial with other families from the Sandy Hook tragedy. This time it'll take place in Texas. But will he pay? That's the real question here. The state of Jones finances are murky. As we all know, he tried to file for bankruptcy to try to skirt any financial liability that's stems from his defamatory content. In the Texas trial, Bernard Pentingill, a forensic economist hired by the plaintiffs,

estimated that Jones and his companies have a net worth of up to $270 million. In fact, this forensic economist also said Jones withdrew 62 million in 2021. Jones has said his businesses are struggling. Earlier this year, InfoWars and its parent company, Free Speech Systems, filed for bankruptcy protection. Now, they might have filed for bankruptcy protection. We'll see how that actually turns out for Alex Jones and Info Wars. Usually wealthy people have all sorts of shell games and all sorts of scams and tricks they engage in to hide their money. But for me, the most important thing here, and I think the families agree with me on this, is that it sends

message, that again, if you put your own profit motive, if you put money above the lives and well-being of your fellow Americans, if you defame them in your quest for profit and money and wealth, there are consequences for that. And I would just love for people in this country to really fully understand our constitution and the limitations that we have. in regard to free speech. Because not all speech is protected. And as we see here, defamation is not something that you can just put out there into the world with absolutely no consequences.

Sometimes when people are willing to fight back after they've been defamed, there are consequences. And I should note, a lot of right wingers have tried to sue us for defamation. They failed because we don't defame people here. But while right wingers claim that they love free speech, they want to protect free speech, oh, they can't wait to try to intimidate you from speaking the truth by filing phony, meritless defamation lawsuits themselves. All right. Well, we got to go. We got to take a break. When we come back, some updates on Herschel Walker and his pretty gross hypocrisy on abortion and parenthood.

Welcome back to the show, everyone. I always get worried that scandal seems to like fade away because the news cycle is so intense. There's so much news to focus on. But I want to make sure we stay on this Herschel Walker story. It's important. So let's talk about the latest. If you have a child with a woman, even if you have to leave that woman, even if you have to leave that woman, you don't leave the child. The fascinating commentary from Senate candidate Herschel Walker, who really wants to win that Senate seat in Georgia.

So while he says all the right things to appeal to Republican voters, while he attacks absentee fathers, while he purports to be against abortion, take a good hard look at how. he has conducted his own life, how he has treated his own children, and you'll see a different story. In fact, the Washington Post spoke to the woman he had urged to have an abortion after he got her pregnant, the woman he paid to get an abortion. And she had some interesting things to say about how she had to take him to court to pay for child support for the other child, the child that they had together, who is now a 10-year-old boy. Remember, Herschel Walker had all these children he didn't tell us about. We had to learn about it through reporting.

And this 10-year-old boy happens to be one of them. And so the woman sued Walker in New York in 2013, according to this Washington Post piece, for child support after he allegedly refused to provide it, according to a person familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details. Walker, who now says he's a multi-millionaire, said in that case that he made about $140,000 per year. So let's back up for a minute, because it's kind of hard to keep track with all these children that he's abandoned and tried to hide and the abortions that he paid for. So let's just try to get the timeline correct. So back in 2009, he got not one but two women pregnant, okay?

One of the women he had succeeded in convincing to get an abortion, he promised to pay for that abortion, that is the woman who's been speaking to the media. That's the woman who came out recently. We don't know her name, which I think is smart, considering how vicious Republican voters tend to be. I don't want her to deal with the harassment. But nonetheless, she didn't even know that that same year, Herschel Walker had gotten another woman pregnant.

Okay. Now, after she had agreed to get the abortion, which he paid for, she got pregnant again from Herschel Walker. And he urged her to get an abortion again, which she refused to. So she had a child with him who is now a 10-year-old boy. Now, I should note that Walker has reported, he did so back in August of 2022, that he had income and assets worth between $27 to $59 million, Those are his financial disclosure. So the idea that anyone would have to take him to court to pay child support is insane. And I mean, I would venture to say that that is an absentee father to the extreme.

But he has no problem judging other fathers, right? While he lives in that glass house. In fact, after Walker pressured her to get an abortion and said he would pay for it, She even had to keep nagging him to actually pay for it. Now, this is in 2009 during the recession. This woman had lost her job. And she says, when I talked to him, I said, you need to send, I can't afford to pay for this, the woman said, adding that she also told him, quote, we did this too.

Both of us did this. We both know how babies are made. And again, she was unemployed at the time due to. to the economic recession. She also had no idea that Walker had impregnated another woman. The woman who lived in the Atlanta area at the time said she became pregnant when she was unemployed and had less than $600 in her bank account. Walker sent a $700 check via FedEx about a week after the procedure, the woman said.

The post reviewed an image of the check that was printed on an ATM slip. This is important with Walker's name, signature, and an address associated with him at the time. It's amazing that he keeps denying this. And we'll get back to his denials in just a moment. Like, this evidence is, it's just, you can't deny the evidence. It's there. It's got his name on it. It's got a signature on it. But it was posted nine days after the check. It was posted nine days after the woman said that she had an abortion. Walker also pressured her to get an abortion a second time. She wouldn't do it, which is why they have a child together.

And he did an interview with ABC where he recently accused this woman of lying, despite all the evidence that's been presented. So let's take a quick look at that video. So I didn't know who it was until last week. And I went, oh, and I said, that's not true. If I can just get you to say a yes or no, did you ever have a Did you ever have a conversation with this woman at any time about an abortion? No. Did you ever, to your knowledge, give money to pay for the cost of an abortion?

No. Is she lying? Yes, she's lying. Yeah, she's lying. Yes, she's lying. This same woman says that you have a 10-year-old son who you've only seen three times. Is that true? Well, that's not true. I've seen them a little bit more than that, but that's one of the things I don't get into because they make it difficult for me to see him. Oh, it's her fault. It's her fault. They make it difficult for me to see him.

I'm sure that this woman doesn't want her son to have a relationship with his father. I'm sure that's what it's about. You know, the same guy who hid all these children that he's had from the public, secret kids, you know, because he loves his kids so much that he decided to lie to the public about his existence. And I love how the story changes, right? Like at first he doesn't know who the woman is, now he does know who the woman is. And what are you exactly implying here? Considering the evidence that's been presented, that's been provided to prove her story here.

Are you accusing her of forging your signature? Are you accusing her of sending herself a get well card with your signature on it? Do she somehow access your bank account and send herself a check with your signature on it? Forging it, I mean, he's just flat out lying. It's amazing. He's just lying. And more importantly, while he has no problem running a campaign that has a platform that would ban abortion, knowing full well that he paid for abortion once it was convenient for him. Like, you have Republicans still endorsing him, still pushing for him, still stumping for him. That just happened recently, in fact.

Senator Rick Scott, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, I mean, these are the most right wing politicians. Rick Scott and Senator Tom Cotton appeared at a rally for Walker in Georgia. And of course, Trump has had discussions about coming to Georgia for a rally in the final weeks before election day. Because it was never about abortion. It was never about a genuine, sincere, you know, ideology that believes, life begins at the moment of conception. It was always about power. It was always about galvanizing religious zealots to give Republican politicians an edge in elections. It's all about power. And for the religious zealots, it's all about control of women's

bodies, of women's lives, because let's keep it real. Reproductive freedom is economic freedom. And they don't like the fact that or economic freedom means that women can be independent. They can make decisions about their own lives, their own bodies, and their own futures. I mean, you heard Dennis Prager during his debate with me on this very show. He can't stand it. He wants women in the household. They love that 1950s style nuclear family where women were miserable, had no power, had no power, independents couldn't even take out a credit card without permission from their own husbands.

And many of them miserable at home resorted to all sorts of drugs to ease the pain of the inequality they were dealing with. The right wing religious zealots in this country long for those days. It's about power for politicians, control for religious zealots, and it has no place in America. And the fact that they have someone like Herschel Walker promoting these policies when he himself has this past is incredible now I want to go back to the rally that Tom Cotton and Rick Scott appeared at because while they're standing beside him Herschel Walker decides to share some weird story and it seems like he really sees himself in the story that he's telling so let's take

Let's take a look at what he had to say. As they've been saying, something is better somewhere else. And I'm here to tell you it is not. So I've been telling this little story about this bull out in the field with six cows. And three of them are pregnant. So you know you got something going on. But all he cared about is kept his nose against the fence, looking at three other cows that didn't belong to him. Now, all he had to do is eat grass.

But no, no, no, he thought something was better somewhere else. So he decided I want to get over there. So one day he measured that fence up. And he said, I think I can jump this. So that day came where he got back. And he got back and as he took off running, he dove over that fence and his belly got cut up onto the bottom. But as he made it over on the other side, he shook it off and got so excited about it.

And he ran to the top of that hill, but when he got up there, he realized they were bulls too. I mean, what? I don't know what that was, I don't know what that meant, but seems like he saw himself in that bull getting the cows pregnant and running away from them, running away from responsibility, running away from, you know, taking care of business like a real man. And today, he stands there presenting himself as the moral arbiter, as the individual who has great advice for men.

Don't be an absentee father, even though I'm an absentee father, who had to be taken to court to pay child support. Don't get abortions. Abortions are bad, even though I paid for abortions myself in the past. He's a hypocrite. He's nonsensical at best. And there you see two Republicans who purport to want to protect life from the moment of conception, openly, transparently backing him, knowing full well, what kind of demons he's got in his past,

what kind of skeletons he has in his closet. That's the Republican Party for you. Because the one thing they understand and they understand it well is power. And they'll do anything to get it. All right. In the next hour, John Ida Rola will be joining me for some more news, including just come back. You'll find out. Ice cream.

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