The Young Turks - Dystopian Reality

Episode Date: November 3, 2022

The United States has instigated China by deploying Nuclear B-52s to Australia. The Young Turks interview Michael Fanone. CVS and Walgreens have tentatively agreed to pay $10B for opioid cases. Billionaires are whining because President Biden’s new tax will inhibit their profits. Dunkin Donuts have resolved its child labor law violations. Host: Ana Kasparian, John Iadarola 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. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too.

When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. hormone harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves.

A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. Woo! It's up! What's up, everyone, I'm your host, Anna Kasparean, and we have a jam-pack show ahead for you today, so I'm not going to waste any time.

I'm gonna get right to it, starting with a looming crisis that is really mostly created by the United States and its military industrial complex. Let's get right to it. In furthering tensions with China, the United States is reportedly set to send bombers, six B-52 bombers to northern Australia, in an effort that would honestly provoke even more conflict with China at a time when clearly we don't need it. China doesn't need it. The international community doesn't need it. But military contractors absolutely love it. So I should note that these B-52 bombers that will be sent over to Northern Australia would have the capacity, the capability to also carry nuclear weapons, although we're hearing from both the Australian government and the United States government

that they will not be armed with such weapons, at least for now. But they would be located close enough to strike China, which is why this is such a huge problem. An investigation by Four Corners, that sets a show over in Australia, can reveal Washington is planning to build dedicated facilities for the giant aircraft at Tyndall Air Base in South Darwin. The U.S. has drawn up detailed plans for what it calls a squadron operations facility for use during the Northern Territory dry season, an adjoining maintenance center and a parking area for six B-52s. Now, since the Obama administration and his so-called pivot to Asia, the United States has been ratcheting up tensions with China. And that has led to

in my opinion, an intentional arms race between China and the country surrounding China that we are sending our military weaponry to. Now, there's also a lot of frustration among the military contractors based here in the United States who have noticed that some of those weapons manufacturers in China have turned out to be a bit of a competition for us. So an arms race is economically beneficial for these companies, and it's something that you should keep in mind. Now, Becca Wasser, who is from the Center for New American Security, admits that this tactic is in fact meant to be sending a big warning to China. Having bombers that could range and potentially attack mainland China could be very important in sending a signal to China

that any of its actions over Taiwan could also expand further. Meaning if they do anything that's even remotely hostile toward Taiwan, if they indicate in any way that they plan on challenging the, I guess, somewhat of an autonomy that Taiwan has at the moment, well then, of course, we'll have the United States expand military capability in that region, including in countries like Australia. Now, the bombers aren't the only part of this arms race. There have been investments in other defense assets in Northern Australia, including the expansion of the so-called Pine Gap Intelligence Base, which of course they're using

to kind of keep an eye on China. The intelligence base would also play a pivotal role in conflict with Beijing. And in a statement to the show Four Corners in Australia, the U.S. Air Force said this. And keep in mind, they're being very transparent about what they're up to. They're not hiding anything here. The ability to deploy U.S. Air Force bombers to Australia sends a strong message to adversaries about our ability to project lethal air power. How is this helping the situation, our relationship with China?

I don't really understand why we continue ratcheting up tensions with a country that of course we are intertwined with, economically speaking, a country that we would need cooperation with when it comes to, I don't know, important things happening in the world like the climate emergency. But now that we're wrapping up the so-called war on terror in the Middle East, I mean, all of these economic assets, they got to find some. someplace else to operate, right? And that's really what Obama's pivot to Asia was about. This isn't something that started under the Biden administration or the Trump administration. It really started under the Obama administration. And part of the fears had to do with, of course,

China's rapid rise economically, but more importantly, the concerns that weapons manufacturers have had in the United States in regard to some of the competition they're seeing among manufacturers in China. But regardless of what the motivations are here, it's very clear that it is irresponsible for the United States military, the State Department, the U.S. government, to continue increasing tensions with China. Now, there's more to this. Some are concerned that it will make Australia a potential target for the Chinese government. Richard Tanter, who's a senior research associate at the Nautilus Institute says this.

It's a great expansion of Australian commitment to the United States war plan with China. It's a sign to the Chinese that we are willing to be the tip of the spear. It's very hard to think of a more open commitment that we could make. A more open signal to the Chinese that we are going along with American planning for a war with China. And guess what? China happens to agree. In a recent statement made by their foreign ministry, they make clear that these actions are sending a clear message to China in regard to a potential conflict, a potential hot war with the United States. Let's watch. The relevant U.S. behaviors have increased regional tensions, seriously undermined regional peace and stability, and may trigger an arms race in the region.

China urges the parties concerned to abandon the outdated Cold War and zero-sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical thinking and do something conducive to. to regional peace and enhance mutual trust between countries. Kind of hard to enhance mutual trust when you're sending B-52 bombers that have the capacity to carry nuclear weapons to northern Australia, knowing full well that they are within range to strike the Chinese mainland. I mean, that is as hostile an act as you could possibly engage in. And we are spending money on this already. In fact, when it comes to this specific effort to send these B-52s over to Northern Australia, in April, the U.S. Department of Defense budgeted $14.4 million for the squadron operations and maintenance facilities at Tyndall.

The squadron operations facility is required to support strategic operations and to run multiple 15 day training exercises during the Northern Territory dry season for deployed B-52 squadrons, the U.S. documents say. And of course, those military exercises are considered provocative as well. But of course, we're going to ramp that up in Australia along with the deployment of these B-52 bombers. Now, the buildup is making some nervous, again, that northern Australia could be a potential target for China. But one MP, Madeline King, says it's totally fine because these military investments, they create jobs. Let's watch. That buildup with those B-52s at the Tindle Air Base in Catherine is not the only build-up

of U.S. forces in this region. Of course, we've seen the Marines rotating through here since 2012. And also, there's been plans announced for the United States to build a fuel storage facility in Darwin Harbour. Madeline King, the Minister for Northern Australia, has been asked whether this build-up of defence assets should have people here in the Northern Territory worried that they're becoming a target for a potential attack from a foreign power. Here's what she had to say. There's been a lot of investment in Darwin and towns that host aircraft right across

this country, but particularly in the Northern Territory. And that's welcome investment. It's good for the communities. It's good for jobs in those areas, the indirect jobs that come with having defense force people there, I do not think it increases the risk to those communities. Yeah, I mean, I guess ratcheting up war between two superpowers could be beneficial to your economy? I, the fact that you see people in positions of power in various governments. that is an MP in Australia, rallying in support for war efforts because it might be

economically beneficial, kind of insane, right? Especially when you consider that we're talking about B-52 bombers that can carry nuclear weapons that can cause the complete and utter destruction of entire countries. But this is just the smooth brain thinking that we see from these politics. without thinking ahead, without thinking about maybe some of the unintended consequences, thinking about how this could completely tank the global economy, considering just the critical nature of China within our global economy. It's just the short-term thinking and the obsession with war profiteering in Western countries, countries aligned with Western

countries, it's just complete and utter destruction. It's so stupid. And to see this happening with absolutely no real critical analysis in our media, tells you everything you need to know. I guarantee you we're getting closer and closer to a potential hot war with China because all of these irresponsible efforts are taking place without Americans even knowing about it. All of this money, tens of millions of dollars already in regard to what we're doing with Northern Australia right now, being allocated without Americans even being informed about that. There's no debate, there's no question about it, there's no critical thinking. And there's also this insane realignment that I'm noticing in the United States that makes

me incredibly uncomfortable and increasingly politically homeless. I remember feeling like the left really resonated with me. I mean, broadly speaking, the left. I'm not just talking about leftists. Back in 2003, right before we invaded Iraq in this preemptive war. I remember knowing, all right, one political party clearly wants to, you know, raise some alarm over a preemptive war, even though there was widespread support for invading Iraq. And one political party, the neocons, in the Republican Party specifically, wanted to invade no matter what.

Now I don't know where I fall politically, because I'm seeing progressives all of a sudden take this innocuous, harmless letter politely asking Joe Biden to maybe try diplomacy with Ukraine and Russia, instead of automatically sending more weaponry and tens of billions of dollars in military aid. to Ukraine, maybe also try some diplomatic approaches here. The fact that progressives took that letter and retracted it after they got a little bit of backlash from hawkish members of Congress, blows my mind. I mean, the cowardly nature of that is infuriating. Seeing progressive commentators online and in the media also bang war drums is incredibly disturbing? You know, it's one thing to be critical of any individual who says, no, we shouldn't assist Ukraine. We should just leave them to fend for themselves. No one said that. Not a single

progressive who signed onto that letter said that. But the idea that you would have a negative knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that, hey, in addition to sending all this aid, maybe we should do what we can to bolster peace negotiations. The fact that anyone is outraged about that on the left is so incredibly disturbing. So I don't know where I belong, really, because we should be pushing for any and all efforts necessary to avoid more lives being lost and more money being spent on these wars that drag on for years and years and kill countless people, innocent civilians. You can dislike Russia all you want.

You can have deep concerns and issues with China and the way it treats its people, the way it's treated Uyghur Muslims, those criticisms I agree with. But at the same time, you can also take a look at what's before us and understand that pushing for more conflict, more war does more harm than good. The only people who seem to ever benefit from it are the individuals who have private businesses that profit for more. And I think that's the direction we're headed in right now with China. And it's terrifying, especially since the media by and large is completely asleep at the wheel. We have to rely on Australian press to know what our government is up to.

It's disgusting. And please spare me your DMs or your tweets or your messages about how bad China is and how wrong you think I am. I've seen your bio. You work at the Atlantic Council. Go kick rocks. Not interested. Sick of seeing our taxpayer money go to this garbage over and over again. When we come back, Michael Fanon will join me for an interview about the January 6th Capitol riots, the investigations surrounding the riots, and more. Don't miss it. Welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have an interview for you today, an important interview, someone you've probably heard of in the media already. Michael Phanone is here to join us to discuss the Capitol riots that took place on January 6th.

You may have seen the video that he released, his body cam video specifically, showing how he was violently assaulted by the violent mob who rioted in the Capitol on January 6th, over the fact that their favored candidate didn't win the election. Michael, thank you so much for joining us today. Yeah, thank you guys for having me all. So there's a lot I want to ask you about, but before we get to what transpired that day and your thoughts on how the January 6th investigations have been going, I am curious how the experience had an impact on you ideologically. You know, it had a huge impact on you physically, huge impact on you mentally. But did it have any impact at all on your politics or more importantly, how you view the United States?

I mean, it made me much more cynical than I was prior to January 6th. I mean, as far as like ideologically, no. But I think if you read my book, most people would be surprised to to see how nuanced of a person I was, you know, even before January 6th. That being said, it made me respect or have a deeper respect for my role and all of our roles to play with regards to democracy in this country. Absolutely. And you mentioned your book. I wanted to name the book that you wrote. It's titled Hold the Line, the Insurrection and One Copts Battle for America's Soul. And you really have put yourself out there in an effort to ensure that there would be some accountability for the individuals who helped to incite the violence that transpired that transpired that day. You know, and I'm sure it came at some personal cost for you, considering the political climate and the kinds of threats that politicians are dealing with, members of the media are dealing with.

I am curious, following the capital riots, has anyone approached you in any kind of hostile or combative way? Have you dealt with any threats? No, I mean, I don't think most people have the balls to confront me in public. That being said, I get an awful lot of angry messages directed at me on social media anonymously. I also get a lot of angry phone calls and text messages and emails. Some of them even threatening my life and that of members of my family. I have had some individuals show up at addresses that were previously associated with me in the past. Relatives of mine, my ex-wife's address, things like that.

So just people showing up and throwing out threats when they show up or did anything escalate further than that? I mean, they were looking for me, they didn't find me and so they just moved on. You know, the thing that's been frustrating for me personally is watching just how extensive the investigation into the riots were, the House Select Committee I think has actually done a pretty great job in doing the investigation and then also through these public hearings, disclosing what their findings are. And in a recent interview, you said that there is enough evidence, and this is something a federal judge said as well, to indict Donald Trump.

But as the days go on, I'm beginning to think that it's actually more likely than not that the DOJ will avoid, you know, indicting Trump or Trump. charging Trump, I think there's this real fear of holding a former president accountable criminally for what he might have been involved in. That's just my prediction and my read of the situation, but I'm wondering if you have a different perspective. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that the train of thought within the Department of Justice is just that, that, you know, the, you know, the, you know, in my weighing whether or not pursuing criminal charges against a former president would be too

dangerous in the current climate. I think that DOJ would opt on the side of caution and to steer clear of pursuing criminal charges against Donald Trump for fear of what the retaliation might look like. That being said, I think it's incredibly naive to think that at this point, point in time in our country that by somehow modeling good behavior, people will somehow, you know, behave well. I think we're far beyond that. I think that, you know, the only path is accountability. And that means that no one is above the law. And then if there's evidence that Donald Trump or any of his supporters and allies broke the law, that they need to be held accountable. They need to be indicted and tried. And we should respect the results of those

trials. Yeah, I mean, when you look at the history of bad behavior, potentially illegal behavior of administrations, including, you know, there were war crimes committed under the Bush administration. And once Obama gets elected, he says he wants to look forward. He doesn't want to look backward. He definitely does not want to pursue any criminal charges against members of the Bush administration based on the war crimes they might have been involved in. And I bring that up as an example because it kind of sets a tone for people in positions of power, especially administrations. If you know that the incoming administration or the justice system will shy away or completely avoid holding you accountable, well then you're going to

try to up the ante. And I think that we saw that with Donald Trump. I mean, why not try to overturn in the election. He's gotten away with so much already. And it's pretty likely that even though all the individuals that he directed to go do what they did that day, they're going to suffer criminal consequences for it. Some of them already have. They've already been sentenced in some cases. Donald Trump gets to walk away, gets to walk back to the White House, sit there, watch all the destruction as it unfolds without any real fear of genuine consequences. And I think I think you're right. If there is an accountability, it just sends an even larger message to whoever the next

president is. And, you know, we do know that Trump is thinking about running again in 2024. I mean, if he wins again, I can't imagine how emboldened he would feel to really try anything to keep maintaining his power. No, I mean, I couldn't agree more. And I mean, listen, speaking to past presidencies, like, I'm not a political pundit, and I'm not here to, you know, I'm not debating policy with anyone. I'm not telling you to vote Democrat or vote Republican. But what I am here to tell

you is that in my experience on January 6th, that was a real assault on democracy. And it was carried out as, you know, evidence brought forward by the select committee by Donald Trump and his allies, and that there was a pre-planned, organized effort, not just to defraud the American people, but also to commit acts of violence to prevent Congress from certifying the election. And what happened to me on January 6th actually happened. It's real. And so going forward, and this is why I think the midterms are incredibly important. is it's our first opportunity after January 6th to reject fascism in this country at the ballot box. And so I would ask Americans to take that into consideration when they go and cast their vote.

Not just to think about themselves and what policies would best represent or best accommodate them, but also to think about their fellow Americans and think about the future of our democracy. in this country and what type of country you want to give to your children? Absolutely. I mean, democracy is so fragile and I think we're starting to see that here in the United States. I think it's something that's been taken for granted for so long among the electorate, but it is fragile and all you really need is one person who refuses the peaceful transition of power. You know, after the riots took place that day, there were still six Republican senators who decided to challenge the electors. So they were undeterred,

even that violence, even the fact that people were killed that day. You have Josh Holly, Ted Cruz, Tommy Tuberville, Roger Marshall, John Kennedy, Cindy Hyde Smith, still challenging the electors. And, you know, in order to actually carry out a real insurrection, you would need the institutions to kind of play along with it. And it's terrifying. to see senators still willing to do this. There were still hundreds of members of Republican lawmakers in the House who were still challenging the electors. But you also need the military on your side if you want to carry out an actual insurrection and you would need, you know, law enforcement on your side. It appears that the majority of law enforcement

present there were not on their side. But I am concerned about some of the reports I've seen following the Capitol riots, which indicate that some of these police officials and officers had ties to right-wing gangs and militias. Can you talk a little bit about that? There was one name that came to mind, and that was a lieutenant, a D.C. police, Lieutenant Shane Lehman. Is this something that you were at all familiar with? Is this a widespread problem within policing, or is this something that's completely shocking and new to you? Well, I'm actually familiar with Shane Lamont. I knew him at the police department. I wasn't familiar with his politics. That being said, in that particular instance, and this is a litmus

test that I use for police misconduct, were they dumb or were they dirty? I think that's more of a case of Shane Lamont being dumb that actually being dirty. That being said, it's not to dismiss the reality that law enforcement and the military are a microcosm of society. And just like you know, an element or a portion of our country is completely dedicated to Donald Trump, not to democracy. I think that element also exists within the law enforcement and military community. In fact, I know it does that there are individuals who feel their loyalty lies with Donald Trump, an individual rather than democracy. Why do you think that is? I mean, I haven't seen this with any other political leader in the country, at least as long as I've been alive.

What do you think it is about Donald Trump that would persuade individuals who have taken an oath to this country to essentially turn on their country and prioritize Trump before anything else? I mean, I think a lot of it, and I'll go back to my own personal experience, because I voted for Donald Trump in 2016. And when people ask me why, I tell them, well, in 2016, I was a single issue voter. And my issue was law enforcement. I saw rhetoric that was being spouted by Democratic politicians and supporters of the Democratic Party that I found to be incredibly violent towards law enforcement and counterproductive towards the conversation of bringing law enforcement and the community together. That being said, I mean, I quickly realized that

that Donald Trump was full of it. And I supported Joe Biden in 2020, but there are a lot of people, members of the military, members of law enforcement who like the idea of the win at all costs candidate, somebody who at least espouses to support them and is willing to set aside the rules, set aside, you know, traditional conduct and candor, and, you know, give it to the man. You know, people are cynical with politicians. Congress has what a 6% approval rating.

This was a guy that, you know, took office and, and, you know, got in all of their faces. That being said, they didn't have the same experiences that many of us did. And I don't think they really took the time to think about how counterproductive his administration was was to law enforcement and building our relationship with the communities that we serve. Yeah, yeah, I mean, I totally agree with you on that.

And it is interesting to see, you know, the Trump brand of Republican essentially talking about how much they love and support law enforcement, but once it doesn't suit them and whatever their agenda is, they'll turn on law enforcement immediately. They certainly did that with what happened on January 6th. I mean, look, we had shown the video that you had, your body cam video on the show. We covered it the day that you had released it. And you can hear one of the rioters say, shoot him with his own gun. They wanted to kill you.

And luckily, you got out of that alive. But the fact that you have a huge portion of the Republican electorate, but more importantly, Pretty much every Republican politician try to provide cover for what happened that day really just blows my mind because it's not just anti-police. It's it's just anti-America. It's anti-democracy. It's everything that's supposed to make this country so great, right? I mean, the fact that, you know, when you go and you cast your ballot, it's supposed to mean

something, they don't want to support or protect that at all. All the things that they purport to care so much about, how much they, claim to love our troops because they protect our freedoms, apparently they don't, they don't actually mean any of that stuff. Because in order to have freedom, you need to have democracy. You know, so they'll turn on any of those institutions or any of those groups of people they claim to love so much, as long as it stopped suiting them politically. Yeah, no, I think that it shows the vast majority of individuals that I occupy Republican offices in this country are more concerned with their own political careers,

their own political future than they are with the future of this country. And you have, I think, really a vast majority of them are just completely indifferent to the experiences of average everyday Americans. And then you have those that are beholden to Donald Trump. And they see their path to, you know, glory through Donald Trump. And so they'll make any excuse that they can or that they have to, including demonizing and vilifying me and many of the other officers that have, you know, stood up and spoken out about our experience on January 6th. Final question for you, you know, you worked for the Metropolitan Police Department for a while, 2001 to 2021. So you stepped down following the assault on the Capitol. You

loved policing. What's next for you now? Do you ever have any regrets for walking away from being a police officer? No. I mean, I missed the job. but I missed the job prior to January 6th and I knew a long time ago that there was going to be no returning to law enforcement as I had come to love it. I don't regret leaving the department. As far of my future, I have no idea. I got this gig at CNN. I don't know how long that's going to last as you're Producer reminded me before the segment, I have a tendency to use four-letter words flagrantly. My favorite kind of. I don't know. It's not going to both.

And I just, you know, listen, I'm, I'm always going to speak, you know, my mind and talk about things a certain way. I don't know how that fits necessarily into this particular environment. But I don't enjoy it either. I mean, it was a means to an ends. I mean, I look forward to accountability for January 6th so that I can return to obscurity. Obscurity is pretty sweet, I will say that. So I totally understand you there. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today.

And more importantly, thank you for doing what you're doing now. because I know that it takes a lot of courage. I know personally what it's like to be targeted by Trump supporters. And everyone please help support Michael Phenone's work. You can check out his book, Hold the Line, The Insurrection and One Copts Battle for America's Soul. Michael, thank you so much again for joining us. Yes, ma'am, thank you guys for having me. All right, we are gonna take a quick break.

When we come back, we've got more for you, including a settlement that's been by CVS, Walgreens, and more in regard to their role in fueling the opioid epidemic. We'll be right back. I want to say massive settlement, except in the grand scheme of things, not so massive settlement involving the opioid crisis. CVS agreeing to pay about $5 billion over the next 10 years to settle outstanding state, local, and tribal opioid litigation. Bloomberg reporting that it's part of a tentative $12 billion global settlement that includes Walwings and Walmart. Last August, a federal judge ordered the three. They're the largest pharmacies in the country to pay a $650 million in damages in a suit brought by two Ohio counties.

Turns out that major chain pharmacies will be paying a settlement. It's not completely finalized, but it appears that this is likely going to be the outcome. And it's due to the fact that the executives over at these big chain pharmacies were warned over and over again by the pharmacists working there that, hey, we should question some of these prescriptions. It looks like we're dispensing quite a few painkillers here that could be leading to or helping to fuel the opioid epidemic. And clearly the executives, according to these trials, did not listen. So let's give you some more details on this. CBS Health Corps, Walgreens, Boots Alliance Inc. and Walmart Inc. have agreed to pay about $13.8 billion to resolve

thousands of U.S. state, local, and tribal government lawsuits accusing the pharmacy chains of mishandling opioid painkillers. Now, when you look at how much each one of these companies will pay in the settlement, and then you consider how much the opioid crisis has cost the United States government, you'll get a better sense of how this is nonsense. I'm just going to say it. Because these are companies that made a tremendous amount of profit by dispensing these opioids, dispensing these painkillers, fueling the opioid epidemic, fueling the overdose deaths that the country is still grappling with today.

They made a ton of money off all of that. And while they privatized those gains, we socialize the losses to the tune of $1.7 trillion. So I'll get to those numbers in a moment. But CBS said Wednesday that it had agreed to pay about $5 billion over 10 years. It's nothing. It's chump chains for them. And Walgreens disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, that it had agreed to pay about $5.7 billion over 15 years.

Neither company, though, admitted any wrongdoing. Walmart has agreed to pay $3.1 billion, mostly up front, according to two people familiar with the matter. The proposed settlement, which would be the first nationwide deal with retail pharmacy companies, follows nationwide opioid settlements with the drug makers and distributors, which totaled more than $33 billion. Previous settlements netted $21 billion from the three large, U.S. drug distributors, 5 billion from Johnson & Johnson, 4.35 billion from Teva or TiVa

pharmaceutical industries, and 2.37 billion from AbbVee and 450 million from Endo International. Now, the evidence presented during the trials were telling. So my sense is they wanted the trials to stop and they just agreed to a settlement, even though honestly they got a better part of the deal because again, when you think about the profits they made, this is really a slap on the wrist. And when you compare it to how much we, the U.S. taxpayers have had to pay in response of this crisis, again, you'll get a better sense of how we're really the ones who got screwed at the end of the day. But I do want to go to this video because it talks about some of the evidence that was presented during the trial.

Documents from CVS and Walgreens have been entered into the record that suggests that employees of these pharmacy chains were saying to corporate executives, look, we're worried by what we're seeing. We're not sure that we're doing enough. We think that some orders are coming in that could wind up with these powerful addictive pills being diverted and abused. And I should say that, you know, NPR's own investigative reporting has has found pharmacists at Walmart in particular who say over and over. We tried to reach out to corporate executives. We tried to warn them that this was going wrong and we were silenced or we were ignored. So when I first read about how, you know, these pharmacies were dealing with these trials,

I was like, I don't know if it's really the pharmacy's fault, right? I mean, you've got, yes, the pill mill pharmacies that are dispensing these drugs without really double checking to make sure that the prescriptions are, you know, accurate, they're not fraudulent, like that was an issue. But, I mean, my experience with CVS, for instance, they get the prescription from the doctor. If they ever have any questions, they hit up the doctor to make sure the prescription's real. And I feel like they go above and beyond in making sure that there isn't anything questionable going on. But no, what was transpiring was in some cases, right?

these pharmacies were, the pharmacists working at the pharmacies, looked at these prescriptions, realized that they were ordering and dispensing an insane amount of opioid drugs. And they said, well, this is a red flag. And once they reached out to the corporate executives to say that there's something up, and maybe we should, you know, kind of evaluate the situation to ensure that we're not assisting and fueling this opioid epidemic, based on the evidence shown in the trials, no, I mean, the executives didn't want to do a damn thing about it because it was helping their bottom line. So let's now talk a little bit about what the opioid epidemic has caused

in this country. As many as 100,000 people died of drug overdoses last year alone, 2021. Not all of those overdoses were due to prescription painkillers, but the vast majority of them were due to opioids, both synthetic opioids and prescription opioids as well. So fentanyl took up the bulk of the overdose deaths last year, and it continues to be a huge problem. And if you look at how much it's costing our government to respond to this crisis, you'll get a sense of how these settlements are nowhere near enough. A congressional report just last month put the economic toll of the opioid crisis in 2020 alone at $1.5 trillion.

Just let that sink in for one second. 1.5, this is according to Reuters, this isn't some random publication. And it's based on a congressional report put out last month. The U.S. government spent $1.5 trillion in response to the ongoing and ever-expanding opioid epidemic last year alone. Two years ago, actually, 2020. Cases are still pending against smaller, more regionally focused pharmacy operators, including Rite Aid and Kroger. Unfortunately, overdoses have continued to shoot up during the pandemic. No pun intended there, I apologize.

Overdoses involving opioids, including prescription drugs and heroin, searched further during the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing 38% in 2020 over the previous year, and another 15% in 2021, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Now, what will happen with that money that these companies have agreed to pay through these settlements? Well, various states want to invest that money in drug rehabilitation programs and efforts to respond to the ongoing epidemic. But again, I mean, considering how much we're already spending, this settlement money is barely even a drop in the bucket.

The fact that we can have corporations engage in profit-seeking behaviors, knowing full well that it's going to lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans per year, and just kind of get away with it with a little slap on the wrist. It tells you everything you need to know about how this country and the way it functions puts profits over literal human lives. So I don't want to hear a damn person talk to me about how we need to strip women of their bodily autonomy and their reproductive rights because they care about human life so much when it comes to zygotes and fetuses.

Fact of the matter is, not a damn person in Congress, not a damn person. politician genuinely cares about human lives. If they can sit back and stomach the garbage that we see time and time again with these corporations praying on our fellow Americans, just to turn a profit, and then they get no punishment in the end, or barely any punishment. I'm just fed up with this garbage man. It's just endless. So maybe I'll cheer up after making fun of one of my favorite people, Leon Cooperman. Let's do it. We have terrible leadership out of Washington, terrible leadership out of Washington, terrible leadership. I mean, this idea of a windfall profits tax, how do you get increased production?

They were to send the President Biden to school to learn a little bit about economics. That's our old billionaire friend, Leon Cooperman, who I'm sure is very salty over the fact that his precious stock portfolio is experiencing the same decline anyone else invested in the stock market is. He's upset, though, at the Biden administration for wanting to hold greedy oil companies accountable for price gouging fellow Americans. And for some reason, Cooperman doesn't think that Biden should hold them accountable. For some reason, Cooperman doesn't think that Biden should do a damn thing to get prices a little lower at the pump. So before we get to the rest of his rant, let's give you some more context about why he's upset with Biden and what Biden is proposing. Now, as we've talked about before, the way gas prices at the pump are really calculated has to do with oil prices. production. Oil production relies on oil producing countries, which make up the so-called OPEC

Plus cartel, producing enough oil to ensure there's enough supply to meet demand. But they have intentionally, in some cases, withheld production of oil in order to manipulate the price of oil to artificially inflate the price of oil, which translates to higher prices at the gas pump. Now, why would they want to do that? Let me give you the deets. Let me give you the details and you'll know. Saudi Arabia is a huge player here. Saudi Aramco, that's the name of their major oil company.

It's also the world's largest oil company, said on Tuesday that it had earned $42.4 billion in net income in the third quarter. In one quarter, guys, in one quarter. The figure was more than double the nearly 20 billion that Exxon Mobil. earned for the same period. It also enabled Saudi Aramco, which is state controlled and has a near monopoly on Saudi Arabia's oil output to pay a large dividend, $18.75 billion, mostly to the country's government. So this is how it works. This is how the sausage is made.

Saudi Arabia's government financially benefits from its major oil company, essentially manipulating the price of oil by lowering output, lowering production. So less supply that can't keep up with demand means that the price is going to be higher. So when you consider these profits and how it helps Saudi Arabia's government, you can understand why a country like Saudi Arabia's government. would want to manipulate these prices, right? Now, in an effort to bolster prices, Saudi Arabia and Russia, as leaders of the OPEC plus cartel, recently announced a cut in oil production amounting to about 2% of global output. The move angered the Biden administration, which is pushing oil producers, including those operating in the United States, to ramp up output to lower gas prices for consumers.

And you also have to keep in mind, everyone. I mean, the midterm elections are coming up. Poll after poll indicates that there are two major issues that Americans are most concerned about, two major issues that they're going to base their votes on. And those two issues happen to be inflation, gas prices fall under that category, and crime. And so Biden is panicking about that. Democrats are panicking about that, and they want to lower gas prices. One of the things that Biden has done is he has released more and more oil or gas, I should say, from the petroleum reserves, which are now, like, running very low.

But the U.S. midterm elections, with the U.S. midterm elections nearing President Biden threatened on Monday to seek a new windfall tax on major oil and gas companies unless they increased production. In fact, why don't we take a quick look at some video from that speech he gave earlier this week? America or giving American consumers a break. Their excess profits are going back to their shareholders and are buying back their stocks so the executive pays are going to skyrocket. Give me a break. Enough is enough. Look, I'm a capitalist.

You've heard me say this before. I have no problem with corporations turning a fair profit and getting a return on their investment and innovation. But this is remotely what's happening. Oil companies record profits today are not because they're doing something new innovative. Their profits are a windfall of war. The windfall from the brutal conflict that's ravaging Ukraine and hurting tens of millions of people around the globe. You know, at a time of war, any company receiving historic one profit like this has a responsibility to act beyond

their narrow self-interest of its executive shareholders. Biden pretending like he doesn't know how capitalism works? You know me, I'm a capitalist. I love capitalism, which is why I believe that these companies have a what, a responsibility to ordinary people? Really? No, no, no. They have, by law, their responsibility is to their shareholders. He knows that Biden's not stupid. He knows that. He's from freaking Delaware. He knows it better than anyone else in the world. Okay. So the idea that these oil companies will do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts, are we talking about the same oil companies that, you know, knew about the impact they were having

on climate change decades and decades before the rest of the world did and intentionally hid that information? Those oil companies? Is that who you're talking about Biden? Okay, so I guess I'm the one who's actually more livid with Biden right now because the last part of the video that we just showed you is infuriating. But the thing with Leon Cooperman, the crybaby billionaire, is he's going after Biden for another reason. It's not because he's concerned about price gouging by oil companies. It's not because he's, he really wants to ensure that we lower the prices at the gas pump. No, he has, he has a different thing to cry about, which means it's definitely time to watch a billionaire cry. Let's go to our bumper.

I care. So what does quivering-lipped Leon Cooperman have to say about Biden? Well, let's watch his comments in context, and then we'll break it down. I don't like a lot of things. I think we're heading towards a recession. I think that labor seems to have the upper hand. We have terrible leadership out of Washington, terrible leadership. I mean, this idea of a windfall profits tax, how do you get increased production?

They want to send the President Biden to school to learn a little bit about economics. And I voted for him, you know, it was more of a vote against Donald Trump than a strong endorsement to the president. But, you know, he's doing so many things that are just patently obvious that it's all done to try and improve the election outcome in November. You know, the marijuana relaxation, the student loan forgiveness. He's not going to get a win for a profit tax in. There's no way to pass Congress. So he's making proposals to design to get votes that make no economic sense. There was one Colonel of Truth in what he said there, which is he's not going to get a windfall profits tax.

It's a one-time tax toward these oil companies. If there was a caveat to what Biden had proposed, if they refused to increase production of oil, he threatened them with a one-time windfall profits tax. Cooperman's correct. That's not going to happen. No one in Congress, well, some politicians in Congress would support it, but it wouldn't get the majority necessary in the Senate to pass that tax on oil companies. And Biden is putting that statement out there as we approach the midterms to kind of give

this illusion that he's doing something. But look, if Biden was serious about holding, let's say, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia accountable for refusing to increase output and the fact that they're manipulating the price of oil by intentionally withholding production, he could cancel weapons shipments to Saudi Arabia. You know, we have some leverage too, like actual leverage. Is Biden willing to flex that muscle? Probably not.

He could declare a crisis, a real emergency in the United States. United States, considering the fact that so many Americans are already struggling financially, and we're about to enter the winter with insanely expensive energy prices, people are going to need energy to heat their homes. They're going to need energy to go to and from work, obviously gas in that case. So I don't know, maybe you rein in this private industry by declaring a crisis and preventing them from exporting our resources to the highest bidder internationally. He wouldn't do that either. So, yeah, what Biden's up to, what Biden is saying, the empty threats, super frustrating.

So Leon Cooperman's right about that. But when you look at his statement as a whole and what he's complaining about as a whole, Cooperman's not frustrated because Biden is saying something that he knows he can't accomplish. Cooperman's frustrated that Biden would dare threaten increased taxes on his wealthy buddies. Anytime you hear about taxing the wealthy, Leon Cooperman will be on CNBC to cry about it. And by the way, like, dude, like your weird reefer madness nonsense, like get over it. Move it along. Move it along, Cooperman, okay? Crying and whining about marijuana legalization and then also adding in that little rant about student loan debt.

I asked you just canceling student loan debt. What is he up to? I mean, I voted for Biden, but it was mostly a vote against Trump. Shut up. You're not impacted by inflation the way ordinary people are. You don't have to worry about drowning in student loan debt for the rest of your life. Don Cooperman, multi-billionaire, homeboy is good, he's good. Yet it's still not enough for him. He still has to show his mug on CNBC to whine about increased taxes on his millionaire buddies that he knows won't even come to fruition. Because when you're that wealthy and that comfortable in the United States, I mean, you've got to find something to kill your time with.

So why not cry about something that you know isn't even going to happen? That's Leon Cooperman for you. Wimpy, crying little baby. Just loves going on cable news to embarrass himself. Anyway, we got to take a break. When we come back, we've got some cheery news, including companies that have decided to break labor laws for children. And then later on, we will actually lighten it up.

I forget what the stories are. Just come back. You won't be disappointed. I care. Stop whining. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple podcast at Apple.com at Apple.com. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.