The Young Turks - Excusing War Crimes

Episode Date: December 21, 2023

Trump goes on a furious posting bender after being dumped off ballot for Jan. 6 insurrection. Most kids losing Medicaid come from just nine states all led by Republicans. The Hawaii governor wants 3,000 vacation rentals converted to housing for Maui wildfire survivors. $40.6 million on the way to low-income Washington residents as a result of the AG Ferguson lawsuits. HOST: Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. On July 18th, get excited. This is big. For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited.

Sorry. Smurfs. Only theaters July 18th. Woo! It's up. Ice cream. Thank you. Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Casparian.

And today I will start the show with analysis that will upset literally everyone, because no one's interested in nuance, everyone's interested in black and white thinking. Unfortunately, I'm not going to engage in that today in the first story specifically, where we talk a little bit about Colorado's Supreme Court decision to essentially boot Trump from the ballot. So we'll get to that in just a moment. But before we do, I wanted to give you a little sneak peek on the rest of the show. Later, we're going to talk about how the United States is working effortlessly behind the scenes to prevent the United Nations from holding a conference to consider the possible war crimes committed by Israel. That's all happening

while the State Department and Biden keep telling us over and over again that they're trying to ensure that civilians are protected in the Gaza Strip. I think that's bunk and I'll explain why, again later in the show. In the second hour, John Iderola will be joining me to talk about a whole host of stories. We will lighten things up a little bit. We have some positive news today, specifically on a state level, both in Hawaii and also in Washington state. I want to show you what real leadership looks like, what a government that actually represents

the best interests of the American people looks like. So we do have those good news stories, which we'll share with you later in the first hour as well. As always, just want to encourage you to like and share the stream. It's a free and easy way to help support the show and the message we're trying to put out into the world. You can also support TYT by becoming a member by going to t.com slash join. Or if you're watching us on YouTube, you can become a member that way by clicking on the join button. All right, without further ado, let's get to our first story. I wanted to revisit the election related news that broke out of Colorado when we were live on air last night.

For those who missed it, the state's Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump will be banned from Colorado's presidential primary ballot because he engaged in an insurrection. Now, the news was so shocking and unexpected that I didn't really know how to immediately react to it. But something didn't feel right. And I couldn't really articulate why in that moment. So today, after thinking it through, I wanted to provide some updates on both the story and what I think about it. First, here are some more details on the matter. Trump's candidacy was challenged by invoking the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause.

It states that anyone engaging in insurrection cannot hold public office. That, of course, refers to his actions on and before January 6th. So I want to be clear about something, because I see a lot of people on the right arguing that the justices in Colorado Supreme Court were citing what happened specifically with the riots on January 6th to make their argument of disqualifying Donald Trump from the state's ballot. But they're focusing on the broader picture, which involved the intricate plan of installing fake electors. More on that in just a moment. Now Colorado's justices cited Section 3 of the Civil War Era 14th Amendment, which cites that no person shall hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the United States to support the

Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. In their four to three decision, Colorado Supreme Court argued that the sum of these parts is this. President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president. We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we read. In other words, they're saying, look, we can't really consider the reaction of Trump supporters

when we make this decision. We need to look at the facts and come up with the correct conclusion based on those facts. Now NBC News reported that even if someone is found to be ineligible to serve, the amendment says Congress can overturn that decision with a two-thirds majority. That's very unlikely to happen. But what about the merit of the court's argument? Well, legal experts argue that the wording in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is vague, as is the case with most things in our Constitution, and allows for different interpretations

of whether Trump's participation in the fake elector scheme would disqualify him from the ballot. This textual vagueness is why the trial judge kept Trump on the 2024 ballot, but the High Court disagreed, and this was the linchpin of their decision to disqualify Trump. At question is whether the 14th Amendment specifically applies to the president. Now, believe it or not, many legal experts argue that it doesn't, including Ty Cobb, who used to be one of Trump's White House lawyers, but is currently a pretty fierce critic of the former president. Can we just dig into the law here just a little bit? Because when you read into Section 3, the 14th Amendment, the language, which is what the Supreme Court,

if they take this up, is going to assess, quote, having previously taken an oath. as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States. That part doesn't say president. And here's what Ty Cobb, former White House lawyer under Trump and now has been very critical of Trump, here's what he said about this. Listen. And to the extent that the president or the vice president are included as an officer or included within the admonitions of the Constitution, they are typically highlighted, like

in the impeachment clause, which specifically says. president, vice president. So I think this case will be handled quickly. I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump. Now obviously four out of the seven Colorado justices disagreed with Cobb's interpretation. They write, it seems most likely that the presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an office, the court said, adding that a conclusion that the presidency is something other than an office under the United States is fundamentally at odds with the idea that all government officials, including the president, serve we the people.

Now Trump's legal team is certainly going to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court and the Colorado justices put their ruling on hold pending SCOTUS's decision. Keep in mind that Trump can still win the election even if he's disqualified in Colorado. Now sure, he lost the centennial state in 2020, allowing Biden to snatch Colorado's nine electoral votes. But Trump also lost Colorado back in 2016 and went on to win the general election against Hillary Clinton. And look, I'm not a constitutional law expert and can't really credibly weigh in on the legal

questions that arise from this case. I can only say that logically speaking, the decision seems to make sense. Trump did attempt to install fake electors after losing the 2020 presidential election, including in states like New Mexico where he had no pending litigation alleging voter fraud. His lawyer, Kenneth Chesabro, who was one of the architects of the fake elector scheme, stupidly circulated memos where he clearly referred to the electors as fake or fraudulent, basically telling on himself. And many of Trump's co-conspirators, including Chesabro, have taken plea deals in Georgia.

Now, Trump and his team wanted to go against the will of the American voters who were ready for a new leader, albeit one that's currently deeply unpopular. But I think it's worth separating the legal question, which might definitely have merit from the political one. Now if you have trouble with distinctions, just stop watching now because you're inevitably going to mistake my analysis as support for Trump when it's not. But the truth is, I honestly don't feel great about how Colorado's ruling could impact the country.

As the New York Times, as Maggie Haberman explains, if this unprecedented decision is upheld by the United States Supreme Court, the consequences would be extraordinarily grim for Trump at first. But I'm worried about the precedent it would set and how it would affect elections in the future. I don't think they want the Supreme Court to uphold the decision, right? And that is obviously within the realm of the possible, although they don't think that that's the likely a scenario, because if that happens, I mean, to Ellie's point, you are going to see

people in other states trying this anyway. And if the Supreme Court does that, he'll get kicked off the ballot almost everywhere. Now, I have no doubt that most of Trump's detractors think the possibility of SCOTUS ruling against him would be a fantastic development for 2024's Trump-Biden rematch. After all, it would come as Biden insists on running for reelection despite getting demolished in every poll. But there are political ramifications that come along with Colorado's decision. And those consequences could be further compounded if SCOTUS upholds the ruling.

For one, Trump is really good at taking what would typically sink one's political career and using it to his electoral advantage. After all, we're talking about a guy who has capitalized on his mugshot. to make Trump campaign merch that sells out, and it sells out quickly. He successfully built a victimhood narrative around the very legal issues he brought onto himself, including four separate indictments. He claims that all allegations and all indictments he's facing are part of an anti-democratic conspiracy against him, even despite mounting evidence proving otherwise.

Trump has repeatedly collapsed all those cases into what he has called a witch hunt, one aimed at stopping his candidacy as opposed to holding him accountable. He and his allies are already folding the Colorado ruling into that same narrative. Trump has perfected a playbook of victimhood, raising campaign funds off each indictment and encouraging Republican officials to defend him. Now, he's already put out campaign emails, fundraising off of Colorado's decision. The ruling by Colorado's justices is no exception. Like he's making money off of it as we speak.

What are you hearing from Trump insiders about the reaction to the ruling tonight? They generally see it, Caitlin, as a gift. I mean, you know, Trump is not happy about any of these cases, particularly cases that tie him to a charge of insurrection. but they see the way that they anticipate this will play out. They feel pretty good about their chances that it will get overturned. And either way, they see this as something that they can use to argue that he is being victimized. It's something that's easy for voters to understand, Caitlin, which is, you know, effort to throw someone off the ballot. Some of these legal cases, the criminal cases that are more complicated.

So, again, none of this in the aggregate is the kind of news that most people would like, But somehow every time Donald Trump gets a piece of legal news that in normal times would be problematic, it is at a rallying effect on his supporters. Now, based on the average of polls and the massive lead that Trump has on every Republican challenger in the GOP primary, it was already pretty likely that he was going to win the party's nomination. But the news out of Colorado might just seal the deal. Officials with Trump's rival GOP campaigns privately feared that the decision would be seen as an overreach by Democrats,

one that could bolster his current lead among Republicans in the Iowa caucuses on January 15th and in the primaries immediately after. Well look, there are other issues, more important issues that come along with perceptions of overreach. We're already dealing with a massive problem in the country where Americans have completely lost faith in our institutions and system of government. Some, like Tim Poole, for example, are just itching for a civil war as a result. We're in dangerous territory, and I'm not really sure that the elites are fully aware of it. This is going to make things, this isn't going to make things any better, since Trump supporters are going to feel disenfranchised by what they perceive as a politically motivated effort to kneecap Trump. I'm not the only one worried about this.

Here's Trump's former lawyer and critic, Ty Cobb, once again. This vindicates his insistence that this is a political conspiracy to interfere with the election and that he's the target and people shouldn't tolerate that in America. It's, you know, do-da, but that's his, that's the way he tries to sell this. So then there's the inevitable, and we know it's inevitable, tit for tat that will make our already frustrating electoral process even more unbearable. dysfunctional. For the most part, states are free to conduct elections how they choose with state officials and legislatures setting the rules. If the Supreme Court upholds Colorado's

decision, it could open the floodgates and allow for red states to retaliate in ways that I'm sure Democrats would not be fond of. In fact, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has already raised the possibility of taking Biden off the ballot in the state of Texas. makes me think, except we believe in democracy in Texas, maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the borders since he's been president, disrupting our state, far more than anything anyone else has done in recent history. I want you to also consider the fact that Trump hasn't been convicted of anything yet. He hasn't been convicted in the election interference case in Georgia or the federal case brought

forth by the special counsel Jack Smith. Similarly, Biden has been accused, without any evidence at all, that he has profited off of the foreign business deals that his son Hunter engaged in. Wouldn't Republicans be able to encourage activist judges in various red states to take Biden off the ballot? I'm just saying Republicans love to play tit for tat because they have no problem going low, real low, and they do hit hard. And look, I don't know if Patrick would even have the legal standing to do what he just floated in the video we watched, but I have no doubt that red states would try all sorts of stunts. And honestly, guys, I'm just, I'm tired of all of it. I'm so tired of all of it. I'm tired of the political games. I'm tired of the partisan garbage

by two overwhelmingly horrible parties who care less about representing the best interests of Americans and more about their own political power and careers. As much as I personally dislike Trump, it does feel as though Democrats are putting their thumb on the scale here. Ryan Grimm was able to articulate what I was having trouble finding words for when the story broke yesterday. Let's watch. Liberals just keep looking for a manager.

Like they want somebody that they can call that's going to fix this situation. That's so good. Like in 2016, after he got elected, at first it was the faithless electors. They were going to find these members of the electoral college who they could persuade to just change their votes because of Russia or because of whatever else. And they would elect Hillary Clinton that way. You know, afterwards there was, you know, Bob Mueller was the manager that they were going to call in. And then eventually this like Elliot Nass wannabe comes in with his, you know, big case that doesn't even bring insurrection. Right. Like bring insurrection, lock the guy up, and then disqualify him. Like, that's your option. Or you beat him at the ballot box. Like I think this middle ground where they're kind of letting him hang out for four years, roaming the streets of Coral Gables or Palm Beach or wherever he is. And then with him 10 points up in the polls saying they're going to disqualify him, I think is kind of ugly.

I totally agree with what Grimm said there. Beating Trump should be a layup. It's an indictment on the Democratic Party that they seem to have trouble doing so. I also feel that Colorado Supreme Court is putting the cart before the horse because, again, Trump hasn't even been convicted in the election interference cases yet, and he has not been charged with insurrection at all. the very argument that Colorado Supreme Court is using to boot him from the primary ballot. I think a far better path forward for Democrats would be the allowance of a robust primary to ensure that Democrats have a competitive nominee to duke it out against Donald Trump and the general.

Since 2016, the main message we've heard from Democrats is vote for us because the other guy is horrible. or he's tied up in legal problems, he's bad, real bad, or we suck, but the other guy sucks more, vote for us. If Trump is awful and I believe he is, Democrats should be able to beat him easily instead of resorting to legal stunts. What's happening now is only going to rip the country apart further at a time when I genuinely feel we need to heal and rebuild trust in our institutions. something tells me we're not headed in that direction and we're headed for more chaos.

Now in response to all of this, the Republican Party in the state of Colorado is now considering switching their primary election to a caucus system, which would essentially ensure that Trump supporters in the state would be able to vote for him in the GOP primary. That would have all sorts of obstacles in the way of accomplishing what they're trying to accomplish. We'll see how that plays out. But everything really hinges on how the United States Supreme Court rules on this matter. And to be quite frank, I do expect them to rule in Trump's favor. But who knows?

You never know what to expect. I guess we're going to have to wait and see. But again, I am worried about the negative ramifications of this, even though I do believe that Donald Trump has engaged in election interference and attempted to overturn the results of 2020. Anyway, let me know what you all think. I'm sure everyone hates me for saying what I just said. But again, it's not because I'm supportive of Trump, it's more because I think it would be a better path to just defeat him.

Dude's like 77 years old, this is his last chance. He's not going to run again after this. So let's just defeat him with the best possible candidate. Instead, I think resorting to these legal maneuvers is not going to bode well for the future of the country. All right, we gotta take a break when we come back. I'm gonna give you an update on what's happening in God. how the United States is responding to a possible UN conference to investigate war crimes. It's an infuriating story to say the least.

That and more coming up. Don't miss it. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show. We've got a lot more news to get to, including some updates on the ongoing war in Gaza. So let's discuss. Israel has now killed at least 20,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as the war in Gaza rages on.

And while most countries in the international community are calling for a permanent ceasefire and considering investigations into possible war crimes, unfortunately the United States, our government, continues to provide cover for possible war crimes. In fact, Huffington Post, or Huff Post, I should say, is reporting that the Biden administration is working pretty hard behind the scenes to ensure that Israel doesn't get held accountable for possible war crimes being committed in Gaza. So let's get to the details. Specifically, Huff Post reports that U.S. diplomats are finalizing a diplomatic initiative to their Swiss counterparts that Washington hopes will scuttle plans for a meeting to discuss violations of the Geneva Convention. in the current war between Israel and Hamas. I'm gonna pause and just let you take that information in.

Because what is the point of the Geneva Conventions? What is the point of international laws if the United States can just unilaterally dismantle them and pick and choose who has to abide by those laws? It just totally disempowers international law, All because the U.S. wants to provide cover for what Israel's doing. Okay, now the initiative was requested by Palestinians who have faced intense aerial bombardments and artillery fire in the Gaza Strip, along with brutality by extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank, which, by the way, as we've said multiple times, is not governed by Hamas.

Now, Palestinian diplomats and a significant group of U.N. member states, including some European nations, allied with the U.S., are, are preparing a call for Switzerland to launch such a conference focused on the fighting on Israel, Palestine that would cover Geneva Convention's violations by all parties, according to the State Department documents, and a person familiar with the Palestinian effort. Now such conferences have previously been held in several years, 1999, 2001, and 2014, and all of them focused on the war between Israelis and Palestinians. Now, the, historically speaking, we might be wondering like, why is the US trying to like pressure Switzerland specifically?

Well, apparently historically neutral Switzerland is the depository of the conventions, which means it determines when meetings of the parties involved are held to discuss compliance. So that's why the pressure is specifically directed toward Switzerland. Now just let's rewind a little bit and understand what the Geneva Conventions are all about, okay? It was established following the atrocities that were committed during World War II, and they're the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, which really determine the actions or what actions are legal during a war. And it's meant to essentially have international pressure to ensure that countries engaged in war are not

carrying out atrocities. It's meant to protect civilians through these wars. And obviously there are flaws. Sometimes the Geneva Conventions fall short, but it's really all we have in terms of international law governing how wars are conducted. Every UN member state, by the way, is party to some aspect of the Geneva Conventions,

including the United States and Israel. Now there is a growing, there is growing support within the UN conference, including within the UN conference and also humanitarian groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Juris. But by early January, American diplomats plan to lobby their Swiss counterparts to reject the request from the Palestinians and watchdog organizations.

So what reasoning is the United States giving to Switzerland? What is the argument that they're making? Is there a good argument? Well, international documents seen by Huff Post direct U.S. officials to convey serious concern about the Palestinian effort and make a series of arguments against it. Okay, great, what are they saying? Well, American diplomats, according to Huff Post, should say holding a conference would mean politicizing the Geneva Conventions by creating the impression they are being primarily

cited to target Israel, the documents suggest. The materials advise American officials to say that impression would hurt the credibility of both Switzerland and the conventions themselves. No, no, what's undermining the conventions themselves is the fact that these rules are not being applied evenly. Okay, the rules or the international laws seem to only apply to certain countries, especially when the United States wants to point 50. at, you know, humanitarian violations to rally support for their military missions. But when it comes to Israel, a U.S. ally, apparently these rules do not apply. Well, I disagree with that. The rules should apply. And there is overwhelming evidence that we share on the show almost on a daily basis about

violations that the IDF, the Israeli defense forces have carried out in Gaza. of hospitals, okay, bombings of churches, just absolutely shooting and killing, even their own Israeli hostages in the Gaza Strip as they are shirtless speaking Hebrew and carrying a white flag. Okay, there is a ton of evidence. The idea that Israel should be held to a lower standard than other countries in the international community is insane. Let me read the rest of that graphic to you though, the materials advise American officials to say that impression would, again, hurt the credibility of both Switzerland and the conventions themselves. Obviously, I completely disagree with that. Now, it's obvious to me why the United States would want to prevent the

UN meeting from happening, okay? Formal determinations that Israel has violated the conventions in its U.S. back defensive in Gaza would really represent a serious global condemnation for both countries, both Israel and the United States. So part of this is the U.S. providing cover for its own ass, which I find incredibly deplorable. Instead of doing that, the U.S. should maybe rethink its undying devotion, unmitigated support for Israel as it's carrying out atrocities in the Gaza Strip. But of course, they're unwilling to do that. Now Michael Safarad, who is an Israeli international human rights lawyer, says the following.

Because America is supporting the Israeli campaign, it will be affected by anything that charges Israel with crimes or demands that Israel adhere to something. And that's because America absolutely does provide cover, along with military support for Israel as it carries out these war crimes. So please spare me the Biden administration declarations about how they're urging Israel to be careful with civilians, please stop killing so many civilians, please listen to us. Because really at the end of the day, what Israel is hanging its hat on is the fact that the State Department is behind the scenes working real hard to protect Israel from any accountability

whatsoever. And just take a look at how State Department spokesman Matt Miller responded to journalist Ryan Grimm's question about how Israel is conducting this war. Pope Francis said recently he said quote unarmed civilians are subjected to bombings and shootings and this even happened inside the parish complex of the Holy Family where there are no terrorists but families children sick and disabled people nuns someone says it's terrorism it's war yes it's war it's terrorism unquote so first is the Pope wrong about this and is the US concerned about its standing among the international community if the Pope is willing to describe what Israel is doing as terrorism.

So one of the things that we have made clear to Israel from the outset is that we do not want to see churches, mosques, schools, hospitals attacked. In the secretary's last trip, he had a very candid conversation with the Israeli government about the importance of protecting those civilian sites and ensuring that they are on deconfliction list, so they are not targeted. I will say with respect to this particular incident that you raised, we raised this with directly with the Israeli government and asked tough questions about it, and we will continue to do so. Oh, wow, wow, everyone. They're asking tough questions. Okay, yeah. What Israel sees is that the

United States continues to supply them with 2,000 pound bombs, continues to provide them with rhetorical support, continues to provide cover for them in the international community by a essentially pressuring other nations to avoid holding conferences to investigate potential war crimes. The United States, of course, vetoed a UN Security Council vote that would have essentially called for a ceasefire in this war, a permanent ceasefire. The US's actions are what matter here. Not their alleged pressure, their alleged pressure campaign behind the scenes to get Netanyahu

to stop being a war criminal. So again, spare me the finger wagging toward Israel, they don't care. What matters is the actions that the US is engaging in, and their actions have only enabled Israel and the IDF to continue carrying out its atrocities. And what this means, what this really means, in my opinion, is that any time the United States purports to give a damn about human rights abuses in other countries, they don't have a leg to stand on because kids are getting slaughtered with the United States support in the Gaza Strip. You can't point to the Uyghur Muslims in China and decry the way they're being treated

as, you know, the Palestinian population is getting bombed to smithereens as we speak. Now, obviously, I have huge problems with the human rights abuses that China is carrying out. But whenever the U.S. points to those issues, it seems to only be in regard to rallying support or rallying support for some war efforts or rallying Americans to be against a certain country. It's never really about the human rights abuses. Because again, if the Biden administration and the U.S. government cared about human rights abuses, If they cared about war crimes, if they cared about protecting civilian lives, they would not be providing military aid to Israel, but they continue to do so.

They would not be intervening in efforts to hold Israel accountable for possible war crimes. And final thing I'll say about this is, we've been hearing again and again from various Israeli officials that they're not committing war crimes. It is anti-Semitic to even accuse them of committing war crimes. Now, if I were accused of something that I knew I had not engaged in, I would want my opportunity to prove that I haven't done what I've been accused of. Wouldn't this conference be a great opportunity for Israel to plead its case to make it abundantly clear, showing evidence that they did not, in fact, engaged in war crimes? It's weird that they don't want that. It's weird that the United States doesn't want that opportunity.

But here we are. Anyway, let's move on to some other terrible news, this time domestically, because a bunch of people have been kicked off of their state Medicaid programs, And it is devastating, especially for children. So let's talk about it. For this family in South Florida, Medicaid is their lifeline, reducing the costs of Penelope's medications. This first medication, she takes for seizures.

This is about $1,000. But in the first week of May, Gillian and her husband, Rocky, say they found out their daughter had unexpectedly lost her health care coverage. Just as states began to roll back pandemic era protections, removing millions from their role. That's right. Ever since COVID-era protections expired, millions of children, like Penelope,

have been removed from their state Medicaid programs. And surprise, surprise, children in red states are faring the worst in this scenario. Now, for three years, states were in fact barred from kicking people off the program and recipients were auto-enrolled each year. That was a great way of responding to the pandemic, you know, a virus that many people were getting sick from. If you don't have health insurance to protect you, to go to the doctor to get the health care you need, well, then you're in a terrible position. So I was very happy to see that the government rolled out this program in response to the coronavirus pandemic. As a result, Medicaid enrollment actually grew significantly by more than 30 percent. And it covered more

than 90 million people. But that rule, unfortunately, was expired. It went out of effect back in March. And now we have some analysis to see what the ramifications of that happened to be. Now, a new government report shows that Medicaid enrollment for kids has declined in nearly every state. So what you're looking at is a map that will show you the states where Medicaid enrollment decreased the most. Everything you see that's not either gray or Purple means enrollment dropped in that state. So obviously most places in the country. At least 2.2 million kids have been removed from Medicaid and its sister program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, during the so-called unwinding of pandemic era coverage

protections as of September, according to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services. More recent data tracked by Georgetown University, for instance, as a actually suggests that this number is much higher, close to three million people. Now, they estimate that the total decline in enrollment for adults and children is approximately 7.8 million. And many have also disenrolled, have been disenrolled because of various procedural errors.

So for instance, some people didn't even complete the applications on time. They might not have even known what the deadlines were. Some were never even notified that the program was going to expire and they were going to get dropped from the Medicaid program. The loss of coverage isn't even evenly distributed across the country. If you look at the map, you'll notice that some states are doing worse than others. 60% of kids who have lost Medicaid coverage this year came from just nine states,

all of which are Republican-led, according to new data from the Biden administration. And honestly, I'm not surprised by that because when the, Affordable Care Act was passed, what it did is it provided federal money to bolster the Medicaid programs in states. It's free money to states. Take the money from the federal government to expand your Medicaid program and ensure that low income individuals who previously wouldn't be able to get Medicaid can get Medicaid. That means more constituents in your state will have Medicare or Medicaid coverage. They'll have health insurance. It'll be good. But a lot of states actually rejected it, red states specifically because they were so salty about the Affordable Care Act.

They rejected federal money that would have provided resources to ensure that their constituents had the health coverage they needed. Now, the states that are doing the worst now that the Medicaid expansion under COVID has expired include Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Dakota, and Texas. Texas. South Dakota and Idaho actually recorded the sharpest decreases in Medicaid enrollment among kids between March and September with a 27% drop. And kids enrollment decreased by more than 10% in most other states receiving warning letters. Now states with the smallest decreases in kids enrollment were largely blue states. Enrollment actually increased slightly in New York, Oregon, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and also Washington, D.C. So look, why is this all happening? Well, for one, as expanded federal pandemic protections ended, states had leeway to actually

oversee the process of kicking people off Medicaid to ensure that people who still qualify are still covered by Medicaid in their states. But some states didn't really care to do that. In addition to mistakenly kicking some people who were still eligible off the rolls, red states have decided not to take advantage of opportunities CMS provided to basically prevent enrollees from being dropped. So the flexibility included things like allowing states to use enrollee information. They have to renew coverage, auto renew the coverage, so they don't automatically get dropped from the coverage when they are obviously eligible for it.

Allowing states delay termination for one month while the state conducts additional targeted outreach and also allowing pharmacies and community-based organizations to facilitate reinstatement of coverage for those who were recently disenrolled. But a lot of these red states just decided against taking advantage of these various methods to keep people on the roles. On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Javier Becerra sent letters to nine states where the most children lost coverage, saying that there have been more than 400 options put forward to make coverage renewals easier for people.

Here's what he wrote, I urge you to ensure that no eligible child in your state loses their health insurance due to red tape or other bureaucratic barriers during the Medicaid enrollment process. The letters note that HHS will not hesitate to take action to ensure state's compliance with federal Medicaid requirements, though they don't specify what the department might do. Mostly because I don't think the department can do much. The federal government can't force states to ensure that their constituents are enrolled for Medicaid if they are in fact eligible for it, just like the Obama administration couldn't force red states to take that federal money to expand the Medicaid programs in their states. Earlier this month,

CMS also warned that it will find states that don't properly report data about who is losing coverage. But here's the bottom line. According to federal Medicaid director Dan Sai, we cannot force the states to take these flexibilities up, but we are strongly urging states to take these up. I don't really understand why Democrats, especially on a federal level, don't do a better job drawing attention to the fact that these red states are denied their own constituents the health care coverage that they so desperately need. I would make this a rallying cry. I would spend most of my time talking about this, especially if I have the bully pulpit, but we're not seeing that from Democrats,

and it's infuriating. But many of those states are pushing back defending their actions. For instance, A.J. McWhorter, who's a spokesperson for Idaho's health department said this. Idaho cares about our families and particularly our children, but Medicaid, state and federal eligibility requirements exist for good reason. Yeah, that doesn't really answer the question. People who are eligible are being disenrolled from the Medicaid rolls. There's also, you know, it's not, there's even, I mean, it's just, it's frustrating. It's frustrating because it's like a lack of concern for their constituents, for human lives.

And in this case, we're literally talking about children. We're talking about the children that Republicans on one hand, in many cases pretend to give damn about when the abortion issue comes up. But when push comes to shove, when we're talking about actual living, breathing human beings, real children who exist are viable outside the womb, they do very little to offer protections for them. Even before the pandemic, children in red states already had it way, way worse. The 10 states refusing the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid to low income adults have disenrolled more kids than all of the expansion states combined, the administration also reported. In non-expansion states, youth who turned 19 during

the COVID-19 public health emergency account for, on average, 27.6% of the disenrollments among children in these states compared with 12.1% of disenrollments in expansion states. Listen, I get that stories like these aren't sexy, you know, it doesn't involve some fight or conflict in Congress. It doesn't involve someone embarrassing themselves. all it does is it involves the lives of actual human beings in states that are refusing to provide the health care coverage that these human beings are eligible for. But it shows you the rot in our government, the unwillingness to represent the best interests of ordinary Americans who elect these people in many cases to represent their best interests. It's frustrating, it's infuriating,

and I wish that stories like these got a little more attention than they're currently getting. So if you're watching this and you care deeply about issues like this, if you happen to be a constituent in one of these red states that has screwed you over, then by all means, please share this video, share this message, talk to your neighbors, tell them about what's actually going on because I do feel that elected lawmakers on a state and local level should be held accountable for this. They obviously don't give a damn about people living in their own states, and it's disgusting. Anyway, we got to take a break when we come back. We have more news for you, including, let's see, what are we going to talk about. I want to share some good news, including what we are seeing in states like Washington. Don't miss it, we'll be right back. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus,

IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. Welcome back to TYT, I'm your host. Anna Kasparian. Look, there's some good news in the world as well. And I wanted to share two stories in particular where you see some pretty good leadership of elected officials. And I hope it gives you a little bit of hope. Because if you pay attention to primaries, if you ensure that the best possible candidate wins and then runs in the general, you could

have leadership in the country that works on your behalf, that serves your best interest. I want to give you a few examples, starting with Hawaii. The 12,000 individuals were displaced in Lahaina, and within 14 days, 7,996 people ended up in hotel rooms. And many of those individuals are still in hotel rooms because we just don't want anyone to be homeless. And long term, as you know, we're going to rebuild housing for people. It takes a lot of energy, a lot of resource, and a lot of time. What we need to do right now, the only housing that's truly available is short-term rentals. Hawaii Governor Josh Green has what I would argue is a fantastic idea to help the victims of Maui's devastating wildfires.

He wants to turn short-term rentals into housing, temporary housing, of course, for the victims of the fires who lost homes, whose homes are so damaged they can no longer live in them until they're rebuilt. And I like this idea a lot. A lot of these individuals are currently living in hotels and they're being moved around. Obviously that leads to all sorts of instability in one's life and we should prevent that from happening. And that's precisely what Josh Green is trying to do here. Now the Lahaina wildfire on August 8th left nearly a hundred dead and thousands of residents without homes because of the destruction that the fire caused. Now, some victims have had to switch hotel rooms multiple times since the fire, like this mother who lost her home.

Let's watch. Kamalani Kaholakula and her two-year-old daughter have moved five times between different hotels since losing their Lahaina home. Now they got noticed to clear out of this one before the new year. I have to think about move day again. And I just, it's hard to get comfortable when you know you're going to have to move. Kamalani fears Lahaina will be shortchanged in federal funding due to world events since the fire. I understand that, you know, that's how you create allies and whatnot, whatever the case is. But we're your people.

There's even a group of people who are currently camping out on a beach just in front of a resort. And they're vowing to stay there until short-term rentals are basically converted for the, use of residents who have been victimized by the fire. Take a look. Today, there's the second reading on a bill over at the county council on Maui. They have proposed with the mayor behind it. They've proposed to give people tax relief, to give them property tax relief so that for a period of time, I believe it starts at 18 months, they won't have to pay any property taxes. And that could help people to the tune of thousands of dollars per month be able to afford to convert over to long-term rentals.

Also, and this is very important, we're going to be offering fair market value offers to the people that are right now renting out their properties as short-term rentals. This is with support of FEMA. This will be support of the state. Is it expensive? Yes, it is. Is it necessary? Well, in the short term, it is also necessary because leaving people in hotels, and as of yesterday,

It was 6,297 people still in hotels. It's extremely expensive and it's difficult to live that way for much longer. So apologies, I thought that was going to be a video featuring the group camping outside the resorts that feature the short-term rentals. But that was actually the governor explaining how he intends to implement this program. And I do think that providing a financial incentive for the property owners makes a lot of sense. Hopefully that will persuade them to go along with this plan, and I think it is a good plan. It's a short-term plan. It's not a permanent plan.

It's not a situation in which people are going to have their property confiscated from them. It's just a situation in which Hawaiians need a place to stay until their homes are rebuilt. And using up properties for short-term vacation rentals at a time when there's this crisis taking place, in my opinion, does it make much sense? But I do agree that the property owners should be properly compensated for being part of this program that's being floated by Governor Green. Now, FEMA will pay for units rented out to about 2,000 of the families who need housing. The state of Hawaii and private philanthropists will cover rent for the remaining 1,000 families. So that's really good news. It's good to hear. But if the incentives FEMA and the Maui government are offering aren't enough,

Green said he's prepared to use the hammer of post-fire emergency orders to make sure owners of short-term vacation rentals extend them to long-term units if enough spaces aren't converted voluntarily by mid-January. Difficult times call for difficult measures. and I totally understand why some property owners would feel that this is government overreach. But I honestly disagree with that, and this wouldn't be a permanent measure confiscating their property. This would be a measure to ensure that people who have been victimized by this fire or no longer are finding themselves in this unstable situation where they're being moved around

from one hotel room to the next. It's unfair to them. And if there are spaces available for them in short-term housing, or short-term rentals, I should say, they should be able to, again, temporarily take advantage of that until they have a permanent home rebuilt, a place for them to permanently stay in. And again, if the financial incentives are there, I do think that most people are kind enough to go along with this. But what I really want to focus on just briefly is the leadership that we're seeing from Governor Green in Hawaii, because we need more of that. We need more people to look out for the best interests of ordinary people who have been victimized in one way or another by extreme weather events, by wildfires. God knows we're

dealing with more and more of that thanks to a rapidly warming climate. And so if we can all chip in and if we can actually have real leadership in local government, as is the case here, I do think that Americans would fare much better following these tragic events. Unfortunately, we're not seeing this kind of thinking all across the country, but we are seeing an example of good leadership, in my opinion, here in Hawaii. So let's try to take this as an example of what we should expect from lawmakers all across the country, whether we're talking about federal lawmakers who represent our districts or our states or whether we're talking about local lawmakers on a state and local level.

So we'll see how this plays out. I love the thinking that we're seeing from Josh Green, and I hope we see more of it moving forward in the future. But I have, believe it or not, another example of good leadership, this time in the state of Washington. So let's discuss. Low income households in Washington state will receive more than $40.6 million in restitution following a huge settlement with chicken and tuna companies accused of price gouging the residents of Washington. Now, the story highlights how public servants can actually act as, you know, officials who serve the best interests of their constituents. Now, here are the details of what happened. So Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson's office reported that 19 broiler chicken producers, and broiler chicken just means chicken that's raised for human consumption,

had been gouging their prices since at least 2008, causing customers to overpay. the companies by millions of dollars. So he sees this happening. He sees the price gouging happening. And rather than doing what Biden did in wagging his finger at the companies engaging in price gouging, he decides, no, I'm gonna engage in litigation here. And I'm gonna win a settlement. And that's exactly what happened here. The Attorney General's office recovered $35.5 million as a result of resolutions with 15 of 19 broiler chicken producers named in the 2021 price fixing lawsuit. The 19 broiler chicken producers named in Ferguson's lawsuit account for approximately 95% of the chicken sold in the United States. So understand something. This not only

has a positive impact for the people of Washington State, since these are companies that produce chicken that is purchased by 95% of the country, this also has a positive impact for everyone living in the country. This is great news because these companies were taken to and held accountable for price fixing and price gouging. So in the remaining chicken companies are set to go to trial in October of 2024, but let's get to the tuna lawsuits because they're involved as well. So funds also come from more than 5.1 million from cases against major tuna companies. Those include a $4.1 million resolution with Star Kist, a $500,000 resolution with Chicken of the Seas,

the C, a $100,000 resolution with former Bumble B Tuna CEO Christopher Lischewski and $450,000 in sanctions against Starkist's parent company, Dongwan, which I did not know was the parent company of Star Kiss, but I guess it is. Anyway, with that said though, according to the attorney general, the executives at these companies didn't even want to be suspected of doing anything wrong, but clearly they did. So for instance, Bumble B Tuna CEO Christopher Lischowski complained to other Tuna executives before they began the price fixing scheme that canned tuna was too cheap and wanted to price artificially increase, I'm sorry, price artificially increased on customers.

So basically he hit up all of the other companies and was like, listen, Why don't we all raise our prices, which is price fixing, and that's illegal. And luckily, the AG looked into this and found evidence of this happening, and as a result, decided to take them to task for it. And so it looks like there was action following the orders of this CEO, because according to fishchart.com, which released a report last year, the cost of canned tuna has increased by more than 50% just in the last five years. In 2016, the average price per can was 75 cents.

In 2017, it increased to 85 cents. In 2018, the price jumped to $1.15. The main reason for this is due to the increasing demand for canned tuna globally. According to the National Fisheries Institute, global tuna consumption has increased by 30% since 2000. And look, that makes sense. There's increased demand, so that is going to drive up prices. But in addition to that, they raised the prices even more over the last five years, specifically after they engaged in this price fixing scheme and colluded with one another

on raising prices simultaneously. Now, Washington is the first state to hold chicken production companies accountable for their roles in price gouging. They're also the first state to do so with tuna companies. And so let's talk about the payout that people living in Washington are going to get as a result of this. So according to the AG's office, the $40.6 million restitution

will be provided to every household whose income is at or below 175% of the federal poverty level. So here are some of the examples. And look, the reason why they're doing this is because the price gouging obviously impacts low income earners the most. They stand to lose the most

and are the most bonerable. to the price gouging and the price fixing. So as a result, here's how the money will be doled out. A family of five with a household income of less than $61,495. They'll receive some money, single parent raising three kids on an income of $52,500 or less. A single parent with two children making less than $43,505 per year. A single parent of one or a retired couple living on two fixed incomes that total less than $34,510, and finally a retired individual who lives alone on a fixed income less than $25,515

per year. And so approximately 402,000 people living in Washington State will receive checks. This accounts for $1.2 million. Okay, so they will receive checks. And the amount of money they receive really depends on their income. So one person households, for instance, will receive $50 in restitution and a household with two people, two or more, two people or more will receive $120. And Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said this in a statement, and I like this comment a lot. He says, when powerful interests break the law and harm Washingtonians, my office holds them

accountable and prioritizes getting money back to those who were most impacted. Washington families were cheated by corporate price fixing conspiracies. they knew nothing about, and now those who felt this gouging most severely are receiving checks from my office. The holiday season puts a financial strain on families, and we hope Washingtonians are helped by these checks. Listen, what I care about the most is ensuring that corporations are held accountable when they engage in price gouging and price fixing. The only way that happens is if we have attorney generals like Bob Ferguson paying attention and actually pursuing litigation against these companies.

I'm really happy to see that that's what happened here. I'm happy to see that there was some justice in this case. And again, it not only impacts people living in Washington state, it impacts the entire country since these are corporations that sell their products again to 95% of the country. So I love to see it. I think this is the kind of action we should be expecting from lawmakers, from attorneys general. And so I wanted to give Bob Ferguson credit for doing this. It might seem like a small thing to some, but in a world where we keep getting disappointed by her elected lawmakers and

various politicians, this is a little bit of a bright spot that I wanted to draw attention to. All right, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, John Ida Rola will be joining me for the second hour. Don't miss it.