The Young Turks - False Alarm

Episode Date: February 2, 2022

Israel has called on Amnesty International not to publish an upcoming report accusing it of apartheid. At least six historically black colleges and universities received bomb threats Monday morning, disrupting campus operations and launching police investigations. Martin Shkreli must return $64.6 million in profits he and his former company reaped from jacking up the price and monopolizing the market for a lifesaving drug. Garrett Soldano, a GOP candidate for governor in Michigan, says we must inspire women who have been raped to understand how heroic they are in giving birth and see that ""God put them in this moment."" 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. All right. All right, well, the young Turks, Jake Uyghur, I had a conspirer with you guys. Serious news, light news, fun news, disastrous news, news, that's what we do. Casper. We begin with some international news, actually, beginning with Russia.

Later, we'll talk a little bit about Israel and how the government of Israel attempted to prevent amnesty international from releasing a report in regard to apartheid. We'll get to that later. But first, here's some updates on the escalating tensions with Russia. Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has addressed the accusations lodged against it by the United States in regard to a possible invasion into Ukraine. This is an ongoing escalation in tensions. It's been happening for weeks now. And unfortunately, it appears that the United States, in some instances, might be exaggerating the threat. That's according to Ukrainian officials. Now let me give you the details on what Putin said during his joint press conference with the leader of Hungary. Putin speaking in Moscow in a news conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said the Kremlin was studying U.S. and NATO replies to recent Kremlin proposals seeking to check NATO military activity in the region. But it is already clear, says Putin, that Russia's fundamental concerns have been ignored.

NATO refers to the right of countries to choose freely, but you cannot strengthen someone's security at the expense of others. And what he's referring to is the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. That has been a red line for Putin, and he's been vocal about that for quite some time now. And it's because of the fact that Russia shares a border with Ukraine, a 1,300 mile long border. When you consider this in the context of Ukraine receiving billions of dollars of weaponry from the United States, you can understand why Russia is concerned about a potential security threat for them.

At the same time, the United States continues to say that the potential invasion of Russia into Ukraine is imminent, even though not just one, but several Ukrainian officials have countered that. They claim that is not true. They believe that that is leading to an escalation that's unnecessary. It's leading to panic that's unnecessary. And I'll give you more details into that in just a second. I just want to be clear that while the United States continues to note that there are as many as 100,000 Russian troops at their border with Ukraine, there are as many as 320,000

American troops in Europe who have remained there even after the Soviet bloc collapse. So Russia sees that as provocative. Russia sees that as a threat. As I mentioned earlier, Russia sees Ukraine joining NATO as a threat. Now, U.S. officials have said that the West did not bow to Russia's demand that NATO end its open-door policy and bar countries such as Ukraine and Georgia from joining the military alliance. And I also want to note that NATO has expanded from 16 countries during the collapse of

the Soviet Union to 30 members. And the whole point of NATO was to check Russia. So that's why Russia sees NATO as a threat. That's why Russia sees Ukraine joining NATO as a provocative move and something that puts their security in jeopardy. And Russia, for its part, claims that it has no intention to invade Ukraine. I mean, obviously I take what they say with a grain of salt, but you do have to see this situation as incentives and disincentives. There are a lot of disincentives, a lot of deterrence already in place to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine. Jake. Okay, so I'm going to solve this in a little bit. He's going to solve it. Okay, so good news for everybody, okay? But first, we've got some strange bad fellows here. So I am not a big fan of Vladimir Putin, to say the least.

I might even be slightly famous for that. Victor Orban is a terrible guy. He's pretty much a fascist in Hungary. But Hungary's part of NATO. Yep. So he probably shouldn't be there at all with Russia, and he's obviously reaching out as someone who's incredibly right-wing and proto-fascists to a fellow proto-fascists and right-winger in Putin. So already we've got a strange situation there. And then Tucker Carlson just last night, not only attacked Republican senators that were warmongering against Russia, but I'll give him credit on this one.

not a guy I give credit to very often, he called out their defense contractor donors. Okay, that's real and that's true. And so he called out Lockheed Martin and others for contributing to Republican senators who now all of a sudden see Russia as a big, big threat. Can I add something very quickly to that, Jank? Just last week, on Friday, actually, we covered a call that Raytheon executives had with their shareholders, and they were specifically talking about escalating tensions with Russia and how they plan to profit off of it.

So we have to, again, think about the incentives and disincentives at play here. Continue. Yeah. Now, so nonetheless, I think that America is on questionable grounds here, and I think that Putin has an interesting point to make. Now, that is not something I say very often at all, almost never. And the reason is, how can you tell? Well, as Anna pointed out, the Ukrainians are telling us, whoa, cool it. We don't think it's as big a threat as you guys are hyping it up to be. Now, when the Ukrainians, who would be the ones in mortal danger, are telling us that they are not in mortal danger and that we're overhyping the threat, well, that gives you some pretty significant evidence, if not extraordinary evidence, of who's closer to being right here. And so now, again, that doesn't mean that it's not nuanced. I'll get into some of that nuance in a second and solve it again as well.

But you can tell there, we seem to be hyping it up in a way that is weird. So we'll come back to that in a second. So just to buttress your point and add some evidence to that because it's one thing to say, you know, Ukrainian officials don't want an escalation. They think this is exaggerated. Let's hear from a sociologist based in Ukraine. He spoke to democracy now just this morning about what Ukrainian intelligence is indicating in regard to a possible imminent threat from Russia. Let's watch.

Zelensky, but not only Zelensky, the Minister of Defense, the Secretary of the National Security Council, they all tell that according to Ukrainian data, according to Ukrainian intelligence, they don't see the massive invasion. to Ukraine with occupation of the large territory of the big cities as likely, not only in the coming weeks, but maybe in this year at least. So that's what the Ukrainian intelligence says. And apologies, quick clarification, he's not based in Ukraine. He's in Dresden, Germany, but he's talking about what intelligence is saying on the ground in Ukraine. And this has been an ongoing issue. Biden had a call with Vladimir Zelensky just last week. It was a contentious call. It was a combative call. That's how it's being

reported, because they disagree on how imminent this threat really is. Biden claims it is an imminent threat, whereas Ukraine claims, no, that is not the case. And by exaggerating this threat, it is actually leading to a larger possibility of war. Yeah. So it's not that Russian aggression hasn't happened before it has, very significantly so, including Crimea, which was in Ukraine. So I, you know, unlike the anti-imperialist fake left in America, that is only concerned about American imperialism, I'm concerned about American imperialism and Russian and Chinese and any other authoritarian right-wing government in the world. But in this case, when the Ukrainians are saying, we are not under threat, I don't know why you guys are saying this, that is a big,

flashing sign saying America is the one that's creating this problem, not Russia. It doesn't mean that he won't do it, he can't do it. He has amassed troops, apparently, and although now I even question the veracity of that, given what Ukrainian intelligence is saying, but if they're not concerned, that's a pretty good sign we shouldn't be concerned. So there's something weird going on here from the American side. In terms of how to solve it, look, Anna's right, Russia has legitimate concerns. Just because they're not us doesn't mean they don't have legitimate concerns.

And just because they're wrong on many things doesn't mean they're not right on some things. So, and Russia is not wrong on anything. The current Russian government has been wrong many times because it's authoritarian. But do they have legitimate security concerns about us parking missiles all over their borders? Of course they do. Of course Anna's right that we wouldn't stand for it. if the Russians did it to us. In fact, that's not in dispute.

That's what the Cuban missile crisis was about. When the Russians moved missiles into Cuba, we threatened world-ending nuclear war. So amassing troops on the border would have been the least of what we would have done if we were in Russia's situation. You just have to be honest about that. It's not that hard to be honest. And now it looks like American media is beginning to catch on to that. So would you like me to solve it now? Well, before you solve it, just one other thing I want the audience to take into consideration.

Remember, I mean, I'm old enough to remember when the United States was attempting to convince Americans that Russia was paying bounties to the Taliban for American soldiers in Afghanistan. And then that story turned out to be garbage. The Washington Post, all of a sudden they have to backtrack and retract the original reporting on that because that did. not end up being true. So you have to take the situation, you have to, of course, be skeptical of the claims coming from both sides, but that in my mind is a clear example of the United States attempting to escalate tensions with Russia by accusing it of doing something that it was not actually doing.

Doesn't mean that the Russian government is completely innocent, doesn't mean that we like Vladimir Putin, but it does mean that we want to be cautious in moving forward. with any type of escalation toward war. And that's what I'm seeing from the Biden administration right now. It's pretty terrifying. Yeah, so look, my fix here is relatively easy, so I don't want too much credit for it. So look, you usually resolve these in a simple way. Are we right to expand NATO all the way to Russia's borders on nearly every side?

If we truly want peace and deterrence, that's probably less productive. It's probably, it'll make us less safe, not more safe, if we put those missiles right on Russia's borders. So I don't think it's that productive to expand NATO that way. On the other hand, we're not going to want to lose face and walk backwards, especially Biden, who's trying to prove that he's a tough guy in domestic politics. He's completely failed. So now he's going around saying, oh, yeah, I'll push Russia around. So he can't say, no, we will withdraw putting NATO into Ukraine as a request or anything along those lines. But what they can do is say, okay, we have reconsidered the timing with which we will deal with Ukraine applying to NATO.

Okay, and behind the scenes, you tell the Russian diplomats, okay, we're not going to do it. We're not going to do it for X number of years, one year, three years, five years. Publicly, we're saying we're still open to it. Every country has a freedom to choose NATO and to choose their alliances. but we will back away diplomatically for X number of years. Problem solved. The Russians would be at ease. They would be unlikely to invade in that scenario.

We lose nothing. In fact, we're probably a little bit safer if we do that than if we expand NATO, which would be seen as provocative. So that's the reasonable, relatively easy way to solve this. But the question is, does either side, particularly America in this case, want an easy resolution, or do they want some sort of mess for some other reason that is not clear at this point? Right. I mean, this could be an attempt at engaging in some sort of Cold War to sell weaponry. There's that possibility as well. But you're playing with fire because you're dealing with two nuclear countries. So if this is just an attempt to bolster the defense industry, it's pretty sick, right? And incredibly risky. And you know, one of our viewers wrote in and says, why would Russia be worried about Ukraine joining NATO?

There's no threat to Russia from Ukraine. They're the ones who invade an annex territory. Well, I would argue if there was an international alliance that was providing weaponry to Mexico, specifically in regard to the United States, would we see that as a threat? And that's what's happening here. The United States government over the past, since 2014, has provided literally billion, of dollars worth of weaponry to Ukraine. And I think that we need to be real about how any country would perceive that, especially

when they share a border with the country, receiving the weaponry from a country that is hostile to it, like the United States, you know? Yeah, and so, in fact, Putin asked in his press conference today. So if we have a conflict with Ukraine and Crimea, which Russia now currently controls, but Ukraine has claimed to, he said, am I now in the middle of a war with? the rest of Europe and America. Well, if Ukraine's in NATO, yes, technically

we would be at war with Russia. And that is a very, very dangerous situation. You don't have to lose face if you're the one who needlessly started the conflict in the first place. Back away. Back away. I'm ready to be super aggressive with Russia

diplomatically, financially, you name it, in the appropriate circumstance. But this doesn't look like it's anywhere near appropriate. So I don't know what the hell we're thinking. And guys, last thing is that it's so hard to tell America's intentions because our officials are bribed by so many different interests that it's hard to keep up. Could it be that there's some giant hedge fund or several hedge funds that have bet one way

or another on the Ukrainian economy or the Russian economy and they are giving funneling millions of dollars to Democrats and Republicans? Yeah, that's totally possible. Look, in this case, I have no evidence of that. I'm just giving it to you as an outlandish case that is not at all outlandish. Could it be the defense contractors? Could it be the oil companies? And they think it'll drive up prices.

Anything is possible. In fact, a foreign government could be doing it. How? They just give money to our politicians. It's so easy to buy them. For the foreign governments, you need a tiny bit of loophole. But we explained that yesterday, a Democratic majority for Israel right now is trying to buy 15 different seats. And they say, yeah, it's for Israel.

It's not for America. We want to buy them for Israel. That's just American politicians that they buy. So could somebody be buying a war with Russia? I don't know. Bribery is legal in America. So anything is possible. So we'll keep filling you in. And look, if our analysis ends up being wrong, we'll be the first to come on the show and tell you, oops, we were wrong and we apologize. But this is the way that I'm reading the story and analyzing the story as someone who has no dog in the fight. I don't have any love for this. the U.S. government and its war-mongering ways. Same with Vladimir Putin. He's not innocent either. But you got to look at the facts on the ground. And more importantly, I'm going to go with what Ukrainian intelligence is saying. I would argue that's incredibly important.

No, and I want to be clear, we're not wrong. It might turn out that Russia does take action at some future point. But that doesn't change the facts on the ground today. And today, Ukraine is saying America back away when, if they were, about to get invaded, they'd be in a panic saying, give us weapons, give us a way to defend ourselves. They're asking Europe to back away. So the facts now are relatively clear. They could change later, but right now it doesn't look like Russia's the aggressor. All right, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll continue with international news, including a story about

Israel trying to prevent the release of an amnesty international report. Come right back. All right, back on T.I.T. Jank and Anna with you guys, news. All right. The government of Israel attempted to prevent Amnesty International from releasing a report, accusing the country of engaging in apartheid. But Amnesty International just today decided to release the report anyway. And it is pretty damning. I can totally understand why Israel would not want this report to come out.

Now this was after a four year long investigation by Amnesty International in partnership with human rights watch and Israeli rights group Bitslelem. Now here's what we know based on the report. The comprehensive report, Israel's apartheid against Palestinians, cruel systems of domination and crime against humanity, sets out how massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions. and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law.

They also write that this system is maintained by violations which Amnesty International found to constitute apartheid as a crime against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute and apartheid Convention. And so they point to very specific instances, including discriminatory policies within Israel and in annexed East Jerusalem. They write about Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip. They also point to the de facto annexation of the West Bank where it's where the government of Israel exerts overall control and is actively building and expanding Jewish settlements

that most of the international community considers illegal. And you know, we're gonna go to a video that helps you visualize some of this in just a moment. But this is a damning report to say the least, and the real question is what the international response will be to it. There are some suggestions in regard to what Amnesty International believes the United States and other major powers should do to basically end this apartheid. I don't think the United States is going to do a damn thing about it. They want the international criminal court to also be involved in investigating this.

We'll see how that plays out. But, Jank, what do you think? I mean, I am noticing a change in the way various organizations and even media talks about the situation on the ground in Israel. Yeah, well, you'll be punished if you're honest here. But Israel has had a headlock on American media and American politics for decades. Anna, I think is right that headlock is now loosening. And I would actually give credit to a lot of Jewish progressives who said these constant charges of anti-Semitism are just not merited.

And that has given space for people to say, yeah, if there's any kind of racism or bigotry here, it looks like it's being done to the Palestinians, not to the Israelis. And that is actually fairly obvious unless you're being gaslit for decades that the people that are being occupied are though somehow they're oppressors. That makes no sense in the rational world. I'm glad that we're beginning to snap out of it. So now, is Israel an apartheid system at this point? The answer is obviously yes. So, I mean, think about the core of what they're saying. We cannot let the Gaza Strip have control its own borders. We're going to blockade it and we're not going to allow it to have its own military, its own defenses, its own borders, and the West Bank is still under our control. So those are all open-air prisons. And why? Because the Palestinians cannot be trusted to not be

violent. That is by definition racist. They're saying these people as a whole, millions of them are untrustworthy, that if we allow them to be free for even a minute, they will turn to violence. while ironically they have used overwhelming an oppressive violence against that group for 55 years now those are facts they might make you uncomfortable but they're indisputable Israel is not occupied

Palestine is occupied so Israel in its response to amnesty international did the usual absurdities first oh it's anti-semitic no you've overused that excuse a billion times is there real anti-semitism in the world a ton of it, a ton of it.

And right now there's massive growing anti-Semitism in America. Synagogues are getting attacked, et cetera, right? So do not use that phrase for your political purposes when it's real and it's a massive problem that is growing every day in America. But the Palestinians and Amnesty International are not being anti-Semitic to Israel, they're the ones that are occupied. No, the Israeli government is saying you people cannot rule yourselves, you're savages, and all you understand is violence.

No, you're the racist ones. That's just a fact. And I hate that that's true, but it is true. So the second absurd claim they had was amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and other human rights groups are all denying our right to exist. No, they're not. They didn't say that at all, you're lying. And there is one country denying the existence of another. snap out of it, you should know the answer, Israel is denying the existence of the Palestinian

territories by not allowing them to be a state. How do they not allow them? They roll in tanks and kill them. Where is the question? Don't tell me about, look, the existence of Israel is important. It should not be questioned, okay? But you don't get to say, hey, I'm theoretically questioned my existence, when in reality I have tons and tons of nukes to back me up. ain't nobody gonna take it from us, right? But you, I'm not gonna let you have a state because I'm racist against you and I think you're savage and then talk about the existence of a state.

You're blocking their existence right now. Snap out of it, America. On this issue, there is no question, Israel is not the good guys and they're not a democracy. So along with this report, Amnesty International also released a video to kind of help people interested in this story visualize what the conditions are for Palestinians and how they're sectioned off and fragmented in various parts in this area, right?

So let's take a quick look at that video and then I'll give you some specific examples that were noted in the report to make the case that there is in fact an apartheid system. Where do all the Palestinians live now? 3.4 million live outside of Israel in the occupied territories, mainly in refugee camps in neighboring countries. 2.5 million Palestinians live in Israel and East Jerusalem, restricted to enclaves that make up around 3% of the entire area. 3 million Palestinians live in the occupied West Bank, but are only allowed to access 40% of the land to live and work.

The rest of the area is for the Jewish-Israeli settlers only. 2 million are trapped in the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas in the world. fragmentation of the Palestinian society and the dispossession of their lands are key pillars of Israel's apartheid system to maintain domination and control. Now clearly in response to that, Palestinians protest and when they do, they're usually met with brutality and violence. For instance, and this was outlined in the Amnesty International Report. In 2018, Palestinians in Gaza began to hold weekly protests along. the border with Israel, calling for the right of return for refugees and an end to the blockade.

Before protests even began, senior Israeli officials warned that Palestinians approaching the wall would be shot. By the end of 2019, Israeli forces had killed 214 civilians, including 46 children. And so in response to their findings, Amnesty International is calling for international action to ensure that Palestinians live lives of dignity, that their human rights are supported and protected. And so it calls for countries like the United States to stop enabling the Israeli government with weaponry and with funding. Governments who continue to supply Israel with arms and shield it from accountability at the United Nations are supporting a system of apartheid under undermining the international legal order and exacerbating the suffering of the Palestinian people. And here's what else the report recommends. Amnesty International is calling on the international criminal court, the ICC, to consider the crime of apartheid in its current investigation in the occupied Palestinian territories and calls on all states to, to exercise universal jurisdiction to bring perpetrators of apartheid crimes to justice.

What they're recommending makes sense, it's not going to happen. And it's for many of the reasons that we've talked about on this show repeatedly. I mean, you have legalized bribery in this country. You have well-funded groups that have one objective and one objective only in ensuring that we protect our relationship with Israel at any and all costs, continue to provide foreign aid to Israel with no conditions, no strings attached. And it's really, really hard to fight back against that. You know, the system of legalized bribery in the United States is what fuels many of the foreign policy foibles that we see by our government.

Yeah, in terms of our reaction, we will have none except to shun Amnesty International, not the government that's doing the apartheid. So this is the, by the way, I have personal experience with how this propaganda works, because when I was growing up as a kid under the influence of honestly Turkish propaganda, when Amnesty International did reports about torture in Turkey, the government of Turkey would do propaganda saying, oh, Amnesty International is working with foreigners and terrorists and against the interests of Turks, and we were told that we were supposed to hate Amnesty International because they were biased against us.

That, of course, is nonsense, total utter nonsense. That's what every government says that's actually doing terrible things that human rights groups are calling out. So I don't say that just in relationship to Israel now in their reaction, but to the American reaction. They have a 0% chance of caring about this. Because honestly, and this is deeply uncomfortable, and Ilhan Omar was sanctioned for pointing out the super obvious. In America, everyone has lobbyists, and some are more powerful than others. and so drug companies have the biggest lobbyists. Somebody give dozens of examples.

In this case, there's a group called the A-Pact that's been doing it for decades. Now there's another group called Democratic Majority for Israel. We just did a story yesterday unrelated to this. They're going in and declaring we're going to basically buy 15 legislators. We're going to pour in millions of dollars, and then they're going to owe us. And they claim proudly, we will make the difference in these races, and then they will have to support Israel unilaterally. And those candidates, a lot of them who are incumbent American politicians in the United States Congress right now have public quotes where they say they will not question Israel, that their bond is unbreakable. It doesn't matter what Israel does.

So American politicians are very literally bought by Israel. And I hate to say that because there's old anti-Semitic tropes about how the Jews do this universally. They do not. Most of the donors are not at all Jewish in America. They're a tiny, tiny percentage of it. But in this case, and it isn't about Jewish people overall, Democratic majority for Israel is targeting Jewish legislators. Okay?

But is it a lobby on behalf of a foreign government that completely controls those politicians that make the difference in America? The answer is yes, yes. So Israel does have apartheid and America will do absolutely nothing about it. Well, by the way, pretending to care about human rights abuses in other countries. Yeah, I mean, look, it's all propaganda. Hey, Venezuela and Iran have a lot of oil we'd like, ExxonMobil to have contracts with. So they're the bad guys. They're the bad guys.

Saudi Arabia is a vicious dictatorial fundamentalist government. Oh, they sell us oil for cheap. They're good guys. And by the way, not to you and me. The deal is with the American oil companies. Those are the guys that are getting rich, not us, right? So as long as you butter up American companies and you butter up American politicians, you can pretty much buy anything here.

So in this case, America's foreign policy is very clear. I hope one day progressives will overturn that. And that's exactly why that lobby is attacking progressives all across the country. They're like, we don't want our lock on American politicians to be broken. And that is what's at stake. And reporters barely ever cover it. All right, now let's get to something that we promised that we would do in, you know, coming days, an update on the possible Supreme Court nominee for Joe Biden. We now know what her past experience entails, and you guys deserve to know about it.

So we're learning more about Biden's likely replacement for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who announced recently that he plans on retiring, giving Biden an opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice. That's great. Now, J. Michelle Childs is the favorite to replace Breyer. And there was a lot of complimentary coverage about her. Complementary commentary coming from the likes of Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump supporter and right winger. She has been endorsed by Representative Jim Clyburn. And so we were a little skeptical because there was very little talk about the substance behind this woman, what were her previous, you know, rulings as a judge, what kind of work did she do as a lawyer? Now we're learning quite a bit about how she's actually sided with employers over employees in various cases, including cases involving discrimination

and sexual harassment. Now, at the law firm, Nexon-Prueitt, Childs worked primarily in labor and employment law, principally working on behalf of employers against allegations of racial discrimination, civil rights violations, and unionization drives. Now, I think it's important to remind you all that the reason why Jim Clyburn has been pushing for her is because he wants an African American woman to serve on the Supreme Court, which is all fine and dandy, but what does it matter if it's an African American woman when her work history includes fighting against employees who have experienced discrimination in the workplace. Now Bloomberg law has 25 cases registered in which childs participated during her time at the firm.

23 of those involve alleged employment discrimination or other employment related civil rights violations. Race and gender were common factors in such suits. Seven such cases entailed race-based job discrimination, and another three involved sex-based job discrimination. In all but two registered instances, Childs was not representing the plaintiff, but the defendant, meaning that she overwhelmingly represented employers, accused of violating civil rights and gender discrimination laws in the workplace. Now, when Lindsay Graham was defending the possibility of her being nominated to replace Justice Breyer, he specifically mentioned her experience in labor law. And this is what he was referring to.

Look, Lindsay Graham is not going to endorse anyone who's actually fought for the workers. Let's keep it real. But we've got more on this, including a few specific cases where she represented the wrong people. But before we get to that, Jank. Yeah. So, and I'm going to show you what we said about it yesterday because I think it's important for you guys to know how the news actually works and how you could see it for yourself and what honest reporting looks like.

Okay, so in this case, look, let's give you a bunch of caveats that are important. Can someone be sued for discrimination and it's not true? Definitely. That's, of course, possible. So is it possible that someone is going through a unionization effort, but they need a lawyer? Well, that's not possible. That's definite. Whether you're in favor of the union or against the union, it doesn't matter you need a lawyer either way. And so why did you represent employers more often? Well, that's because they're the ones with all the money. And so all of that stuff within the legal world is fairly normal. But what we told you yesterday and what we're emphasizing today is, yes, but we don't have to pick that person, right? We have, you know, presumably thousands of African American women who are jurists in this country that you have. have to choose from. And that's only because Biden made that core promise on the campaign trail that it would be an African American woman. You certainly have thousands of judges to choose

from overall who could be great and have the perspective that we want and not have these issues, right? And here she seems to be overwhelmingly on the side of the employers, overwhelmingly on the side of defending discrimination. Were the people she was defending, they were right on all of those cases, I could see one or two, but 23, and they were all right, or it's possible. Some of them did some terrible things. And I get it. It's her job to represent them. But if that's the perspective she's going to come in with as a judge and then a Supreme Court justice and think, well, I know from my experience, the employer is almost always right. Well, that's a pretty disastrous perspective to have. And you can't really pretty that up with identity politics.

And think you're curing it. Well, look, Jank, we have specific cases where she represented the employer in accusations of discrimination and the employer lost. But before we get to that, I do want to also just note, Jim Clyburn made it abundantly clear during a recent interview on CNN that he was endorsing her because she's his favorite, but more importantly, he wants to ensure that Biden nominate someone who will get bipartisan support. that's very important to him. Bipartisan support. So why would any Biden SCOTUS nominee receive bipartisan support? There's only been one instance where there was bipartisan support for what Biden was pushing for, which was the corporate handout infrastructure bill, correct? Yeah.

So. So look, Clyburn's one of the most corrupt members of Congress. There isn't a corporate-backed bill that he wouldn't love and push for. anything that's progressive, he's going to go out of his way to try to kill. So if Clyburn's in, that means that pick is 100% corporate. They will not disagree with business interests, okay? But Lindsey Graham already said that he loved the pick. Lindsay Graham, maybe the only guy who was more pro-corporate than Clyburn in the whole country. And Clyburn, by saying, I need all Republicans to agree to it, or enough Republicans to agree to it, is saying, I'm guaranteeing you

a pro corporate pick because there's zero percent chance that Republicans are going to agree to someone who's on the side of labor. Why can't we find, look, Biden made a campaign promise that he would pick an African American woman for the Supreme Court. Great, why can't we pick someone who is both an African American woman, but has a history of, you know, defending the very people that the Democratic Party claims to care about, workers, the disenfranchised, individuals who have experienced discrimination in the workplace, they claim they care about those issues. But when push comes to shove, they'll give you the optics of change. They'll give you this, you know, the pretty little, you know, illusion of change.

But in reality, it's more of the pro-corporate nonsense that we've come to expect. Now, I wanted to give you a few specific examples. In Green versus Kinesco finance, for example, the plaintiff, an African-American woman, alleged race and pregnancy discrimination in a situation where the company denied her a promotion and then terminated her outright. Childs represented the employer, Kinesco. The case eventually resulted in a jury siding with the plaintiff, awarding her $193,000 in damages after Child's withdrew.

But there's more. In Harris versus L&L wings, a plaintiff alleged near daily sexual assault by a workplace supervisor for years. Childs represented the company. A jury eventually sided with Harris, the plaintiff, awarding damages and even attorney's fees. So as a judge, she's ruled in favor of the employer several times. So already we see a pattern here. It's not just being a lawyer and representing your client. when she has to decide she's voting with the employers.

And so, guys, we, no judge should blanket be in favor of discrimination or non-discrimination cases. Depends on the facts. And in favor of labor or employment, it depends on the facts. But the Democrats, let alone the Republicans, are all picking judges with a proclivity to side with employers overwhelmingly. Well, that's just not fair. It's not fair to the average American worker and to this process. So look, almost every article says she's the underdog. There's two other candidates that are very qualified and more likely to be the favorites,

which then gives you a good indication. If she winds up winning, it was Clyburn working with Republicans to screw over the Democratic agenda yet again and handed over to business interests that pay Clyburn, literally pay his campaign donations. They give him millions of dollars, and he works for them. Now, the reporters say, oh, no, you can't say that about Clyburn. Why not? I just said it. I can say it about any politician.

Almost all of them corrupt. They all take the money. It's not, why would Clyburn randomly hate the average American worker? He gets paid to be against your interests. That's why he does it. So the dead giveaway is him saying, we need Republican permission. That means my donors have spoken, and I'm going to push in the, this direction. And you know what? The more I read it, the more I thought, uh-oh, we're screwed.

Because all Clyburn and Mansion have to do is just put their foot down. And Biden will immediately give them this pick instead of a much more qualified and much more fair pick. There's two excellent, apparently, African-American women. I say apparently because I've read only a little bit about them, but there's great evidence that they are fair. And instead, Of course, the worst Democrats in the country are working with the worst Republicans in the country to fix someone who's going to be unfairly in favor of business. We got to take a break. When we come back, we have more news for you, including black colleges and universities having to deal with bomb threats over the last two days. Come right back. We'll give you those details and more. All right, back on TYT, Jay Canana with you guys, news.

All right. At least 13 historically black colleges and universities have been facing a serious bomb threats over the last two days. The FBI has investigated these bomb threats and luckily no bombs have been found. However, classes have already been canceled. Students have been forced to attend classes online virtually as a result of these threats. And it creates a sense of terror, a sense of fear among these students who are just attempting to go to school and get their education. The first round of threats started on Monday of this week. The second round came a day later, meaning today.

The schools that received threats on Tuesday include Coppin State University, Jackson State University. University, Mississippi Valley State, Morgan State, Alcorn State, Kentucky State. I mean, the list goes on and on. Again, luckily, there have not been any bombs found. And luckily, the FBI is investigating this and more importantly, looking for the perpetrators, the individuals who have issued these threats. But this is what we're dealing with in America. You know, the FBI doesn't want to just speculate in regard to what the motive is.

But we've seen, you know, these targeted cases where synagogues have been targeted, where black colleges and universities, Howard University, for instance, received the threats two days in a row. And this is the third threat that they've gotten in one month. This is what we're seeing across the country. Sometimes the threats are actually carried out. Other times, they appear to be empty threats. But you can never be too sure because political violence has become commonplace in this country. Yeah. So in this particular case, they haven't solved who did it yet. And sometimes it turns out to be someone you didn't expect. But overall, what is the pattern? The pattern is white right wingers who are trying to terrorize anyone they view to be opponents, either people on the left or minorities. And so is it likely to be that? Yeah, of course it's likely to be that. It's fairly obvious. And this is a form of cross burning.

It's the modern version of it. Remember, the cross-burnings didn't kill people. They killed people in other ways, lynchings, et cetera. But the cross-burning was meant to terrorize you and to intimidate you. And so now, even if there are no bombs, everybody in those universities are told you might die today. There's a bomb threat and you're to stay in your dorms, et cetera. And you have effectively terrorized those people. The bomb threat is the assault.

It is the cross burning. And so now, why is it happening more these days? This is a pretty spectacular case of it. Well, it's because this type of stuff is done to people on the left all the time. And if they don't have power, law enforcement completely ignores it. And so the right wing is now used to it. You out there in the real world never see it. So you have no idea what we're talking about.

But progressives are targeted by the right wing like this fairly regularly. And since there's never, ever any consequences, they probably think, oh, it's no big deal. Now we'll do it to black colleges and terrorize more people on a larger scale. Now, these are large universities. So I assume they have some degree of power. They might be able to fight back. I hope they can because law enforcement should find out who did it and give a very, serious prison sentence to them.

I mean, we talk about how the United States is such a great country, it's so free. But think about how there's so many things happening right now simultaneously that make it clear that we're not free. So many people live in fear because of these threats, because of the fact that you have literal elected officials inciting violence against those who are already disenfranchised in our society. Imagine being a student on one of these campuses hearing that you have to shelter in place, that the school is on lockdown due to a possible bomb on campus. This is meant to intimidate. It's meant to terrorize. And it's all happening with the trauma that's caused by COVID,

by the way. Think about it. These are students who have already had to deal with probably not even having a regular graduation ceremony, probably not being able to go to their prom, probably not being able to enjoy the things that young people typically get to enjoy because of the pandemic. And now they're finally in college, they're finally able to go on campus to learn in person, and they're met with these threats. Yeah, and I look, if it turns out that it's a right winger who did it, what do you think the right wing response is going to be? They're going to say they're patriots, let them go.

They just were doing freedom of speech. Or they're going to downplay it? Of course they are. They're going to say it's freedom of speech. No, a bomb threat is not freedom of speech. That's assault. But you know what? Invading the Capitol and threatening to murder people is also not freedom of speech.

And they're calling the freedom of speech now as we speak. Yeah, Trump dangling the possibility of pardoning them if he gets elected in 2024. Yeah. So nonstop threats to the bodily integrity of people they disagree with. And every time they brush it off, like, that's no big deal. They went to endless sports school meetings and threatened violence. And then when the Justice Department said, oh, it's violence, we're going to look into it. They're like, how dare you?

It's freedom of speech. These are, you know, Nazis who are taking our rights away, our rights to threaten to murder you. No, that you don't have that right. That is illegal. So I hope they capture the perpetrator here. And like I said, you should not listen to a single right winger. and they're crying about freedom of speech or cancel culture or any of that crap, and you should have very severe consequences for the person who did this.

And by the way, one other point that shouldn't be lost on anyone. I mean, the threats come on the first day of Black History Month. So, gee, I wonder what motivated these bomb threats. All right, let's move on. Let's end the first hour with some good news. Okay, we got an update on the pharma bro, Martin Schrelli. that I want to share with you all. Martin Schrelli, who's best known as the pharma bro,

has been ordered to return tens of millions of dollars in profits that he made by price gouging patients who needed an HIV medication. He's also barred from working in the drug industry in the future. I should also note that he's currently behind bars for defrauding investors. That'll get you in trouble here in the United States. More on that later. But here's what we know. Companies founded by notorious pharma bro, Martin Screlli, has agreed to pay up to $28 million to settle a class action lawsuit over its staggering price hike of the prescription medication, Daraprim by 4,000%. Schrelli controversially raised the drugs price from $13.15 per pill, which by the way is already insanely expensive, to a whopping $750 per pill in 2015.

Now, part of this settlement has to do with the fact that he was being investigated for creating a monopoly for this drug, and this is actually very commonplace in the pharmaceutical industry. Let's not make a mistake by thinking that Martin Screlli is the only one who has done this. It's currently taking place right now as we speak. I did a lengthy report on a drug called Revlimid that is being turned into a monopoly to ensure that drug manufacturers can maintain. their profits. But nonetheless, in her ruling against him this month, Judge Denise Cote found that Schrelli initiated a scheme to block the entry of generic drug competition so that he could reap the profits from Deriprin sales for as long as possible when he increased the price of the drug. And the way that they do this, by the way, is by restricting access to the active ingredient of the drug. So some of the generic drug manufacturers won't have access to it won't be able to test it or produce it. Again, this is very commonplace in the pharmaceutical industry. Martin Schrelli made the mistake of being this like boisterous guy who would brag about

it, drawing attention to himself, and that's why he's facing consequences. The other mistake he made was he screwed over investors. That will get you in trouble in the U.S. Price gouging patients, that's not enough to get the attention necessary to ensure prosecution. So I'm glad that. I'm glad these cases came out the way that they did, he is guilty and I'm glad he's paying this. Unfortunately, if he's paying the number, that means he probably made more, and so he's probably going to get to keep a lot of it. But we don't know the details of that. But the most important part of this story, guys, is how much of an exception it is and not the rule. And there's a very good reason for that. Sherelli did a number of things wrong. One, he was

flamboyant about how he was ripping people off. That'll draw attention. But he would have easily survived that too. If he was part of a larger company that regularly gave campaign contributions, but he wasn't. So in fact, he ripped off, this is his third and most lethal mistake. He ripped off other rich people. So he's currently serving seven years sentence for ripping off wealthy investors. That's the only thing you'll ever go to jail for in white collar crime. Same thing Bernie Madoff went to jail for, et cetera, right? So, but in this case, What did he, who was suing him? Blue Cross Blue Shield.

They're the ones with the political power. So don't get it twisted. The same corrupt companies that control our government still won in this case. If Sherk Kelly just had ripped all of us off, he almost certainly would have gotten away with it. And in fact, honestly, I don't even understand what distinction any judge would draw between this case and what every pharmaceutical company does in almost every case. So they say he did price couching. Yeah. Every pharmaceutical company does price couching. In fact, the second most famous example of it is done by Joe Manchin's daughter. Yep. When she was a pharmaceutical company executive. Yeah,

when she was the CEO of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, she created a monopoly for the EpiPen. She prevented Pfizer. She made a deal with Pfizer to prevent the release of a generic version of the EpiPen. And promise to share profits with Pfizer as long as they agreed to that deal. She engaged in very similar behavior, got away with it. Yeah, I'm sure Biden will be pursuing her through his Justice Department. No, of course not. They're crooked, so they're never going to do that, right? And so look, anti-competitive practices, who are we kidding?

The drug companies have told the American government, you are not allowed to negotiate drug prices with us. It doesn't get any more anti-competitive than that. And all of our politicians, Republican and Democrats agreed to it, because you know why? They took bribes from drug companies. They got millions of dollars in campaign contributions. You can call it legal, but it's still a bribe. And so finally, I mean, look at that name up there, Pfizer.

Well, what is Pfizer and Moderna doing right now? They're preventing generics from getting into the market in developing countries because they're not getting paid enough on it. They want higher profits. What do they want to do? They want to do anti-competitive practices, prevent generics, because they want price gouging. And by the way, in this case, literally millions across the world have died because they will not share that technology. They, on the other hand, are free to go.

And they're celebrated as heroes in Washington. Whereas he went to prison and he's going to have to give up most of his money. And that's how so-called justice works in America. All right. I mean, it was a good story, but there's a downside to it. You know, we've managed to make it negative. Yeah, I know, but it's true. It's true. It's true. Look, I'm thrilled that he's being punished. He was a jerk. He did do all those things. Great, let's use it as precedent and now go after all the bigger fish.

But I say that facetiously, because there's not a politician or a prosecutor in the country who would oppose business power like that. They will all give in. And if they got to a court, there would be a pro business judge appointed by other corrupt politicians who would kill the case. And that's how this system works. All right, we're going to take a break. But when we come back, we have more news in the second hour, including an insane NYPD cover-up after one of their cops assaulted a teenager with his vehicle. And then later on, we'll also discuss some fun stories, including Trump calling on an investigation for his own vice president, Mike Pence. More on that when we come back.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.