The Young Turks - Fictional Reality

Episode Date: July 1, 2022

The Oath Keepers will tell a jury they believed Donald Trump would turn them into his own personal militia on January 6th. Clarence Thomas suggests Covid vaccines are developed using cells of ‘aborted children.’ Planned Parenthood said it will remove the marketing trackers on its search pages related to abortions and that no protected health information has been breached thus far.  Hosts: Francesca Fiorentini, Cenk Uygur, Jordan Uhl *** The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://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 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 #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews 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. Big my team, Big MacD, Big MacD, Big MacD, Big MacD,

Big MacD, Big MacD. Power, power, power panel, Jake Uger, Francesca Furrentini, Jordan Yule, the twitcheration rooms in the house or in the room, so is obituation of rooms, so is a deep dive. Okay, so you're going to check out deep dive in Twitch, and Twitch, RITUATION room on Twitch.TV slash, TYT, of course. And of course, Situation Room is in our podcasting network. Okay, so guys, we got a lot of show for you guys.

Of course, as usual, in these days in America, lots of disasters. But we also have hilarious stories. You're going to love the one on Rudy. What's the up to now? The Rudy Chronicles. Okay, anyways, Francesca, you got the news, let's take it away. Yeah, the Rudy Krocconnells. I'm sorry, I had to try to make that fun and it didn't work, but it's okay.

What's up, everybody? All right, let's get into our first story. The militia group, the Oath Keepers, is currently under fire because nine of their members are facing seditious conspiracy charges for their role in the January 6th. coup or attempted coup. And I think we all knew that, but we didn't know that their defense lawyers are taking a very interesting new tack. So check this out.

Jurors are going to be told when the trial begins that the far right extremists believed President Donald Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act as they gathered at the Capitol 100 strong in their camel colored tactical gear and turned them into his own ultra-loyal federal militia. Now, that sounds nuts, but effectively, the argument is if they become the president's militia, then you can't touch them. This is what they thought they were going to do. I don't know if it's going to work on this jury, but it makes sense that the head of the oathkeepers, which by the way, if you guys didn't know, is made up of current and former U.S. military personnel from all different aspects of U.S. military. So that is who they recruit. That is who they continue to

recruit. But Elmer Rose, who's the head of it, said that day, do not concede, do not wait until January 20th, 2021, inauguration day. Strike now. And he urged that in an open letter to Trump on December 14th, 2020, quote, you must call us up and command us. Now, mind you, mind you, this This is a week where we're finding out the Trump did want to go command the oathkeepers and others from the Capitol itself. But okay, let's look at this legal strategy. So James Lee Bright, the lawyer for Rhodes, acknowledged that most people will be shocked to learn the oathkeepers thought they'd become federal militia. They believed what? Bright imagined people thinking these guys are effing crazy. So that's a lawyer for the head of the oathkeepers trying to sort of like soft

the blow that I think most people and will have and most the reaction that we will have which is what they thought that but I wanted to turn it over to you guys is this going to work on the jury yeah so guys I actually there's a couple of different issues here one is the one Francesca mentioned about whether it's going to work is it a good legal defense and the other is did they actually believe it because even their own lawyer says it sounds nuts. So I want to tackle one at a time. In terms of whether they actually believed it, absolutely is my answer.

And it's, I think it's hard for a lot of people that live in the rational world that we live in to understand that and to believe it. They think, no, they didn't really think that Trump was going to come and go, you are now the militia. And you might go and grab your guns and they literally thought this and they admit this. You can now go get your guns that were stashed, not just the spears and the bear spray and all and the nooses, that you already have those weapons. That's going to come into the second part of the conversation. Go get more weapons and now start to kill the Democrats. And they do they, and people think there's no way they actually thought that. No, they did.

They absolutely positively did think that it's in the recordings. They talk amongst each other. He's going to do the Insurrection Act. And to be quote unquote fair to them, Trump has said on several occasions during his presidency that he would use the Insurrection Act in different contexts and not necessarily to kill political opponents, but that he would use it to put, for example, to put down the George Floyd protests. So before we go on to whether it's going to work as a legal defense, do we all agree to that that these guys were genuinely nuts and actually believed this stuff?

Yeah, I wanted to give a little bit more context for that, Jordan, before I let you jump in, let's just, because I think Jenks, right? And I think that the proof, the evidence bears it out. And so they have a little bit more to stand on other than like, we thought maybe he would. I don't know. Okay, so this is also from insider reason. One, they were invited security force for rally planners and participants on January 6th, including Roger Stone, Ali Alexander. I remember he was one of the main organizers, Latinos for Trump, Virginia women for Trump, reason two, they were awaiting Trump's orders. That feels a little more vague to me, but the first one feels concrete. And the Insurrection Act is, as we mentioned, this is Graphic Six, is actually

pretty broadly written. So it's so broadly written that leaving words like insurrection militia, militias of the state without clear definition. Trump actually could have federalized the oath keepers. Rhodes lawyers will tell jurors it's so far-fetched and yet it's legal, at least until a court decides otherwise. Again, that is the lawyer for the oathkeepers, but he might not be wrong in this case. Jordan, what are your thoughts? I don't want to make any predictions about how this case is going to go, because especially the past couple weeks, we've, it just really underscores how bad our judicial system is in this country. So I'm just going to hope and pray that it's, we don't have a worst

possible outcome. But what this really represents is just how close Trump and his administration was to just some of the most fringe aspects of our country. The groups they were closely linked to the communication between a lot of these intermediaries, these kind of fringe figures, like you mentioned, Ali Alexander, and of course, James O'Keefe, which we just saw this week from Jason Leopold from BuzzFeed. He obtained documents that showed Mark Meadows was sharing James O'Keefe tweets with other members of Trump administration, of the Trump administration. So they're just totally all in on some of the worst actors in the conspiracy space. So it's not really a surprise that these people might have thought he could have activated them or were following

his orders. And it really is another dark reminder, as we've seen throughout all of these hearings, just how close we were to things getting much more violent. We're very lucky. It wasn't a lot worse. And a lot of people have said this is a trial balloon. And as we'll get to you later in the show, there are things that really showed that this could happen again and be much more effective and much and much more violent. Yeah, so now as we transition to could this legal defense actually work, that's a different question. But I, in that bridge, I want to tell you what legal experts are right about and wrong about. They're right that the wording of that statute is very vague.

It's from 1792, got updated. in some ways in 1956, and did the update say that the president can't do that? And if you just declare some people in militia, what are the rules? Do they have to follow the same military code? Do they not have to follow military code? But one of the experts, Joseph Nodd from the Brookings Center, which is, I'm sorry, the Brandon Center, which is a very legitimate place. But he said, quote, there's no world in which it's remotely likely where the president of the

United States would invoke the Insurrection Act and call on what is fundamentally just a social club of guys who have firearms. Joseph Nunn is incorrect. Not even remotely true. Trump definitely would have done that, was considering doing that. Okay. So now, having said that,

can you just go into court and say, well, I thought Trump was going to turn me into a violent mob that got to murder people? And the answer, the simple answer is, no, you can't say that. Okay, so they, hey, I thought the vaguely worded statute allowed me to do political murder if the president told me to, it's not going to work.

First of all, the president didn't tell you to do it. To be fair to Trump, as far as we know at this moment, he certainly didn't order it on that day. And he might have considered it. And if he did, then that is very bad news for him because then he was planning a seditious conspiracy. But as far as we know, there was no orders given by Trump, you are now militia. Go murder people, right? So the orders were not given. So they, I mean, that blows their defense completely.

But the second line of their defense is, well, that's why we didn't go and get our guns and start killing everybody. That's why we only use the smaller weapons that we had. No, that's not a defense either. Okay, I remember my friends, I've told the story before to the members in a bonus episode. But my friends had gotten attacked by a bunch of guys in our hometown when we were younger. They actually went to court for assault charges, and the guy who attacked them to say, oh, no, that's not true, Your Honor. I didn't punch him in the face.

I punched him in the stomach. No, that's still assault, and you're still in a lot of trouble. And so saying, oh, I plan to do the seditious conspiracy, even though Trump didn't order, but I thought he was going to order it. And I just speared the cops and smashed their heads against the wall. But I didn't actually, you know, use my AR-15 is not a great defense. No, and whether or not it absolves anyone, if anything, it further impugns them. And it definitely shows that the president, even another piece of evidence that he knew there

was going to be violence. He knew there were armed people. And if you needed a reminder, let's just briefly take a look again at what this week revealed from the January 6th hearings. Cassidy Hutchinson, top aide to Mark Meadows, the chief of staff, who testified that Trump knew there was going to be violence. And then, oh yeah, he knew the names of these militias. Take a look. The president apparently wanted all attendees inside the official rally space and repeatedly said, quote, they're not here to hurt me. And just to be clear, so he was told again in that conversation or was he told again in that conversation that people couldn't come through the mags because they had weapons? Correct.

And that people, and his response was to say they can march to the capital from the ellipse. Something to be effective, take the effing bags away. They're not here to hurt me. Let them in, let my people in. They can march the capital after the rally's over. They can march from, they can march from the ellipse. Take the effing mags away. Then they can march to the capital.

Right. And I want to follow that up immediately with this, showing that Trump did know the kinds of militias who were there that day. Although Ms. Hutchinson has no detailed knowledge of any planning involving the proud boys for January 6th, she did note this. I recall hearing the word oathkeeper and hearing the word proud boys closer to the planning of the January 6th rally when Mr. Giuliani would be around. we needed more evidence that this presidency colluded very, very intimately with these far right extremist militias. There you go. It was effectively his security squad on that day.

So I don't know if that's gonna exonerate them. It seems pretty weak, but it also just shows you the delusion under which they were operating on that day. exonerating them, it implicates Trump. It's remember the charge's seditious conspiracy, that they conspire together, work on a plan to commit sedition. And the oathkeepers are saying, in essence, yes, we did. That's why we had our heavy weapon restashed away in Arlington, Virginia, or in our hotels, we were going to go grab them and come back. We had our light weapons on us. We were planning to be declared a militia. We thought that would make it legal. But You think that might make it legal, but your actions are still violent and illegal.

And so, but if Trump said, yeah, get ready to do that, that doesn't mean that the oathkeepers are innocent. It means Trump is guilty because he was part of that seditious conspiracy. And so, and guys, I will leave you on these two horrifying thoughts, though. One of our members wrote in Lou B, and we'd love to do the show with you guys. t-y-t.com slash join to become a member. Lou B wrote in, this will go to the Supreme Court where all notions of reason or consistency go to die. And I was like, oh, no, Lou makes a really good point.

I mean, they'll lose in the lower courts, even their lawyer says, I mean, I know it sounds nuts. And when they ask him about the details of the law, he's like, well, I'll have to get back to you on that. We need a deep dive on that, if you will. And but what if it goes to the Supreme Court? And the Supreme Court's like, yeah, sounds pretty good to me. Insurrection Act, anytime the president wants us, oh, those randos over there, go kill the Democrats.

Yeah. Okay, I mean, it's unlikely, but it's now in this horrifying hellscape we live in, not impossible. Speaking of which, that leads me to my last number here, a poll just came out today. The question was, it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government. So how many people agree to that? 36% of Republicans say, yes, it may soon be necessary to take up arms against the government. But it's not just, as you look at that graphic there, it's not just 36% of Republicans. At the NU states, 35% of independence and 20% of Democrats agreeing.

Among Americans who have guns in their homes, 37% agreed. So here we are waiting for a ticking time bomb where everyone or at least a third of the country feels like, yeah, I might have the right to go and let's finish the thought. What is taking up arms against the government? I might have the right to go and kill government officials, whether they're cops, their military, or their politicians. We have a third of the country planning to murder government officials as we speak. This is not going to end well. This is an absolute epic disaster in the making.

Yeah. Jordan, any final thoughts? I know you want to get to the next story, but that's just something that's been on my mind a lot, Jenks. So it's, it's really frustrating to think that this is, this is a sentiment that a lot of, especially Republicans, but some people across the board are exploiting, sometimes for personal or political expediency, but it's just really horrifying to think what that looks like in five to 10 years. The distrust of institutions, the crumbling infrastructure, these systemic problems that continue to keep people in bleak material conditions. What does that look like?

And it's, it's really devastating if you think about it. So that we're already there, we've got a third Republicans saying that this is coming soon, I think that spells disaster. Yeah. Some things you can't just vote harder on. Let's turn to this. Speaking of the Hellscape, we're in. Clarence Thomas continues to be a pub on America's Coke can. This time, claiming that COVID-19 and its vaccine are made of aborted fetuses. That is, it's got all the things, it's got all the things. Thomas made those remarks in a minority dissent after the Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging New York's vaccine mandates based on religion for healthcare workers, specific.

Specifically, right? So this is a group of 16 doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers brought the case, sued the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in an objection to the state's vaccine mandate on religious grounds. District court issued a preliminary injunction, but the second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed it, and the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the challenge on Thursday. Thomas is real mad. He really wanted to stick this landing of a week from hell. So he wrote, they object on really. religious grounds, referring to the health care workers to all available COVID-19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children. Okay, now it's unclear whether that is their religious objection. He might just be saying that. Now, I want to just say that does sound nuts, and it is nuts, and it's not actually true. But vaccine technology actually has relied on cells of fetuses. Incredible life saving.

If you want to be pro-life, life-saving science here. So this is from National Geographic, just explaining how it works. The cells are grown in a lab that were derived from a few elective abortions. That means choice abortions performed more than three decades ago. The same cell lines are also used to test in advance understandings of several routine drugs, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, aspirin, and they continue to be used for treatment in such diseases, Alzheimer's and hypertension. So many people don't realize how important fetal cell lines are to develop life-saving medicines and vaccines that they rely on every day, says Amesh, Ajala, an infectious

disease expert at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. They use, their use in development of COVID-19 vaccines isn't anything different or special. So he's not wrong, but he's still crazy. And of course, this feeds into a broad anti-vax Q&ON, far right logic and agenda. Just before I get to you guys, for some context, the Vatican itself, super pro-COVID vaccine, not pro-choice, pro-COVID-19 vaccines. The watchdog office for doctrinal orthodoxy had said in 2020 that it was morally acceptable for Roman Catholics to get the jab after anti-abortion groups had raised concerns about vaccines.

I want to get your guys' opinion. My personal thought is there's a lot of research that is done thanks to like this kind of technology and like stem cell research is one of those things that the right freaked out about. And honestly, I'm like, no, this is a good thing. If you're going to terminate a pregnancy, I would want to create a vaccine off of that. Yeah. I'm just to be real. Yeah.

So I have a lot of strong opinions on I said, I know you're a shock. I'm going to get to research involving fetus cell lines. A quick summary of that for you is I love it. Oh my God, are you allowed to love things that I object to religiously? Yes, I am. so you can suck it. We'll get back to that. So, and of course, I'm right and you're wrong. If you're in that so-called pro-life position, in fact, this shows you how wrong you are. So let me explain the facts. So Francesca's right. The original in the production, but this is very important, guys,

in the production of the vaccine in the first place, they use fetal cell lines that's not actually from the aborted fetuses. It is in a, in a, in a, laboratory that they create those, but they created them in the beginning all the way back in the 1970s and 80s from voluntarily aborted fetuses back then, okay? But the new ones that they are creating are just in a lab. They're not going and getting new fetuses or whatever along those lines, right? But much more importantly, the vaccines themselves, see, when they hear stuff like this, the right wing thinks, oh, the vaccine is filled with aborted fetuses. No, it's the vaccine itself has none of that, none of that.

As they were doing the research for the vaccine, they use fetal cell lines created in a lab. Okay, so just to be clear on it. Now some people, the reason why Francesca says Clarence's isn't totally wrong is some people do object to that religiously. They go, no, I don't care, I don't care that the vaccine doesn't have it, I don't care that this was, these cell lines are created in labs, their origin of those cell lines back in the 1970s, et cetera, right? Okay, well then do you really have a pro-life position? Do you realize how counterproductive that argument is to your so-called pro-life position? You say, well, I don't want any abortions because they might use aborted fetuses to create vaccines that save millions of lives. And you're pro-life? The vaccines so far,

And in a recent survey that I saw, the study that I saw, have saved over two million lives. Two million lives. And religious nut jobs, zealots, fundamentalist, American Taliban, go and say, we shouldn't have saved those lives because I'm pro life. Well, no, you're not pro life. You're a lunatic who doesn't understand science. And finally, that gets me to using fetal cell lines. I love it. Are you like, so I'm not supposed to use science?

When someone chose to have an abortion, 40, 50 years ago, I'm not supposed to use that to create something in a lab that saves millions of lives? No, I refuse to be an idiot, okay? And you say, well, I have religious objections. Well, good news, we don't live in a Christian nation. We don't are not ruled by the American Taliban. We actually live in a secular country. It was the first secular country on earth.

We are known, we are the core of our country and the constitution is that we are secular and not guided by any religion so that we can save millions of lives when science finds a way to do that instead of somebody going, oh, no, man, the invisible man told me I don't like it, okay? That's not even true. Read the goddamn Bible. Numbers 5 through 11 through 31. God is definitely, definitely pro abortion. And if you think your wife cheated on you, God will deliver the, perform the abortion for you. Read the Bible. Stop being so ignorant. And besides which, even if you disagree with me on the Bible, I don't care. We don't live in a Christian country. Yeah.

We live in a country that is secular and supposed to be guided by all of us deciding in a democracy based on reason and logic. I know you hate that idea. You hate logic if you're pro life. despise it. And you're like, no, I want the invisible rules of the invisible man that he whispered into my ear or to into a rabbi's year, 2,500 years ago. And I totally misinterpreted the thing that he whispered it 2,500 years ago. But I don't care. I don't want you to save those lives. No deal, no deal. We're going to go save those lines. And if we use fetal cell lines,

that's fantastic. George. Yeah, really quickly, I just want to say, those health care workers did resign. They, and they had every right to, but the hospitals they were working on also had a right to actually impose a vaccine mandate. Their healthcare workers, Jordan, I'm surprised, though, that they didn't take up this case. Maybe I could get your thoughts on, on them, like, passing this one over. I don't know. I think I kind of want to bring it back to the Clarence Thomas thing specifically, because I do think, like, I'm listening. It's great. It's great to watch the to show happen. It's it's a reminder of how like horrifying it is that Ginny Thomas and Clarence Thomas are such powerful people in Washington. I think you were being very generous in your

deference to him. Like oh, well, you know, he's kind of right. Like, well, not this vaccine specifically from what I understand. But it's also just like it really, it's a dark reminder that she has been pushing these conspiracy theories and has been such a major player in like the fringe right wing world that I can't help but think there was some overlap there and why even like focusing on that in his in his opinion. I'm really really disturbed that she's still a figure and he's not removed from the court. He has no business being on the Supreme Court. Yeah. Yeah if you don't think we should save millions of lives The government should not save millions of lives because of fetal cell lines.

Yeah, I think you're totally nuts. Don't get me wrong. I mean, I think Clarence Thomas belongs in a mental asylum way more than he belongs on the Supreme Court. Let me be perfectly clear about that. But let me enrage the so-called pro-life people one more time. Of course, they're anti-life. They would kill everything and anything in their way as long as they think Yahweh wants it. Or some stupid evangelical preacher that has nothing to do with God.

trick them and rob them of all their money. They'll listen to him rather than scientists and doctors. But guys, for me, abortion, I, to me it's like knee surgery. Like, a lot of people go, no, how can you think that that's so wrong? That's what I think. It's not at all wrong. I am far more correct scientifically, empirically, empirically, logically, humanely, morally.

So again, we are not forced into having your opinions. I know right wingers hate that. They hate the idea of freedom. They think that everyone should be ruled by the demons inside their heads. No deal. It's called America. We all get to have our opinions. And then we vote.

That's how it works. I think we have to take a break, Mr. Yuzer. Yeah, indeed. All right. When we come back, more craziness. Yes, there's more rage. But also later in the program. we lighten it up because the right wing losing their minds is sometimes horrific,

as you've seen in this segment, and sometimes it's hilarious. All right, we'll be back. Jordan and Danny Dernick just joined by hitting the join button below on YouTube. We appreciate it. All of you can do likewise. Come help us do real news, truthful news, be honest with everybody. You guys make that possible. You get all of our shows anytime you want when you sign up.

If you're not on YouTube, t.com slash join. Francesca. All right. So we all know that the GOP has iced out Representative Liz Cheney for just upholding democracy. And now all eyes are on her seat in Wyoming and the primary on August 16th. And there are four other GOP candidates who are going against her, challenging her, of course, from the right.

And they had a debate the other night. And we can all see that they are quite formidable idiots. And look, I'm not trying to sing Liz Cheney's praises, but you all need. need to get a load of what happened. So just for a smattering of commentary, we had businesswoman Robin Belensky. There's Harriet Hagameth, who is endorsed by Donald Trump. And they decided to both weigh in on election integrity and relying on just rock, solid evidence. Take a look. I understand when I talked to Mike Lindell, he did say that there was a small portion of voter fraud in the state, but that is alarming anyway. What I think that you see in terms of the election

integrity issues are what we've seen more on the national level that has a lot of people concerned, including me. You know, the 2000 Mules movie is something that I think we have great concern about in terms of the use of the drop boxes. Oh, I'm sorry, I've got to do a donkey noise, that's Ayrid Hagman, referencing Dinesh D'Souza's very self-funded documentary project. I also wanted to give a state senator, Anthony Bouchard, state senator, okay, okay, maybe we're working with something real here. He had a lot to say about the election and the internets. I say that elections are always square. We know in several.

states, they use COVID, they use the ballot process. What about Facebook using the system to steer people? We know for a fact all the major internets do that. All of them, every single Facebooks. Let's just juxtapose that with Liz Cheney giving her answer to questions about the 2020 election and election security. The claims that Mrs. Hageman is making about the 2020 election are the same claims for which the president's lead lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was disbarred. They are the same claims for which Sidney Powell has had her law license suspended. I won't say something that I know is wrong simply to earn the votes of people to earn political support. So I'm asking for your vote and I'm asking you to understand that I will never violate my oath of office. And if you're looking for somebody who will, then you need to vote for somebody else on this stage because I won't.

I will always put my oath first. Ooh, okay, Liz, okay, sticking it to the voters. What do you all make of her strategy very much not backing down from the fact that she's going to call Trump out? She's one of the people leading this January 6th hearing, and she's not about to water it down for her voters. So there's two huge parts of this story. Okay. So first is, can someone stick to the truth in the Republican Party and win? Can they stick to their guns and be super strong and win? Because if you run mealy mouth and you run, you half jump off that cliff, there's no way you're going to. to win. But that's not what this Cheney's doing. She's saying, no, this is true. This is not true. And even if you're under the cult of Trump, I don't care. I'm going to tell you to be honest.

Okay. It's a, and that's, I mean, I hate, despise the Cheney family. I disagree with her on every other issue. I think she's dangerous in the wars that she starts, et cetera. But if she loses, that means no Republican can dare tell the truth to their voters, because they will definitely be eliminated, okay? And that is dangerous. But I think the second part is more dangerous. But first, let me fill you in on how it's going. Cheney right now is losing 56 to 28. She's losing by nearly 30 points. So the lady there talking about, oh, no, I don't, I don't have 2,000 mules, right? She's winning by nearly 30 points.

Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, right? And then the other guy who was worried about all the internets, he's sitting at like 12 points. He's kind of closing in on Cheney. So that leads to the second point, guys. And I'm curious about your take on all this. I watched a longer clip of that debate and I know the Cheney team put it together and so they took the worst parts of the other guys, etc. But even so, it was it was unbelievable how incompetent and absurd and idiotic the other candidates were. But we look at that debate and she looks at that

debate and she publicizes it saying, look, I'm obviously the only one with more than seven IQ points on this debate stage, right? But the Republican primary voters generally look at that and go, yeah, they nailed it. The Looney Tunes guys nailed it. I think they're so smart. I think they're so right. Can you believe how ridiculous Liz Cheney's being? How do we live in a world where we think each other is nuts?

I mean, how can you look at those other idiots talking about the internets and mules and think that they haven't figured out. Well, that's what Republicans in Wisconsin think right now as things stand. Yeah. Jordan. Yeah, it shows how crazy the Republican Party has gotten that Liz Cheney is the voice of reason there. And I would discourage people from celebrating her as I've seen some pundits in mainstream media do as like a good exemplary Republican. I need to remind a lot of people, she doesn't believe climate change is real. She's anti-choice. She cheered on Trump's tax cuts. Like Jenks said, she's a warhawk. Across the board, she is horrible. She just cleared a bar that is literally on the floor to say, okay, yeah, that's how the election turned out. She's just acknowledging an objective truth. And that's it. Sure, she's done an okay job in the January 6th hearings, but that she's the voice of reason there is really sad. And the thing is, it goes beyond her state. There's people, there's a ton of people like this in Arizona. There's definitely.

people in, you know, we've got some in Colorado and you've got some in the Carolinas in Georgia and the south. They're popping up more and more because it seems to be a viable political path for people. Just appeal to these conspiracy theories, pander to, you know, the Facebook boomer conservative brain, push things you know aren't true because it's sensational and it might get traction on the internet. And you just hoodwink a lot of people in the voting for you by lying to them. You know, politicians lie, but this is just a new type of lying. It's horrifying. Yeah.

Yeah, speaking of people running out of juice and anyone who will run for office, I got to play this Robin Balensky part of the debate. She's my favorite. She's not a frontrunner. That's that's Hageman, again endorsed by Trump. But here's Robin, just a gem. Look at this sound bite. January 6th was a setup from the beginning.

beginning. We cannot have actual, um, um, oh gosh. Um, see, um, anyway. Nice safe, Robin. Uh, anyway, uh, show a picture of your car. Quick, quick, quick. Here's, here's my website. This is the car that I drive. Hell yeah. Save. I'm surprised he's not leading. girl. So this is the alternative. And like I totally hear you on Liz Cheney. I'm very torn because as someone sitting on the sidelines who is not living in a state where I would even switch, switch parties in order to vote in the other primary.

I'm like, I don't know, that's y'all's mess. And these Republican super PACs that are trying to back Cheney, some even Democrat led, I'm like, I don't care about where you put your money. Sure, try and saver. Let's see if you do. Yeah. But at this point, though, it is a scary proposition that if a Republican says that two plus two equals four, that that might mean that they're going to automatically lose their primary. Right. Like, no truth is allowed in the Republican Party. The Republican voters actively hate it. They're like, oh, you tell me the vaccines work, which in 99% of the

doctors and scientists agree to, then I hate you and I'm going to vote against you. I don't want to hear the truth. I want to hear maniacal lunatic conspiracy theories. And if you don't give them to me, I'm not going to vote for you. That's why Cheney's down by 28 points as we stand. I wish there was a way they could all lose, but I'm also really distracted by that car and really want to know what the base model is. It looks like a late 90s Chevy Cavalier, which is just classic. That's incredible.

This is a beautiful ride. Businesswoman. See, we're fair. We're fair. We're libs, but we like the ride. Okay. And if that was her number one issue, oh my God,

I'd be so relieved. I'm like, yes, by all means, do whatever you want with your car. It's a free country, okay? But what you did with your mind, that's another issue.

I think we need Another break? Yep. Yep. Yep. Yes, another break, more madness when we return. Ramsey, Andrew Snell, and Jeffrey Guth. You guys are all awesome. Thank you for joining. They did that by hitting the join button below the video on YouTube. And you can do it by going to t.com slash join with school trade, try to create some

positive change in the world. All right, Francesca, news back to you. Yeah. So if you've ever used Planned Parenthood for abortion resources, planparenthood.com, your data might have been accessed by a third party company. Planned Parenthood did just this week end any practices that allowed for market data research or an access to any of its data. So rest assured that's ending now, but the alarm bills were going off for a while and it is not a good week to have third party companies accessing data

of people seeking abortions, obviously. It was probably never a good idea in the first place. Now we know this because there was an an investigation by lockdown privacy, which is an app that stops that kind of tracking. And they detailed that Planned Parenthood, for example, was sharing this kind of information with Google, TikTok, hot jar, things like an IP address, a site visited, behavior on the site, reason for visiting, user selected method of abortion, the time zone, your zip code, time. whether you went to came to plan parenthood through a search engine or you typed it indirectly client ID I mean honestly all stuff that on a regular day surfing the internet let's be real most of us are getting our data tracked around now this is just another reason why we need protections as citizens as people who use the internet as people who want autonomy over our own bodies but lockdown privacy

said, and this was from the founder says, it was shocking. We analyzed and reviewed the tracking behaviors of hundreds of apps and websites. It's rare to see this degree of carelessness with sensitive health data. To let's give, you know, Planned Parenthood a chance to weigh in. So this is, let's jump to graphic four. They said, let's be clear, no scheduling or protected health information. PHI has been breached. Out of an abundance of caution, Planned Parenthood will suspend marketing pixels on web pages related to abortion searches, and will it be engaging with meta slash Facebook and other technology companies about how their policies can better protect people seeking abortion care. Now, I just want to remind everyone that this is also a week

that that meta and Facebook have been scrubbing the posts of organizations like Planned Parenthood, organizations that are trying to either raise money for or get resources on how to still obtain an abortion, how to get the plan C pill sent to you if you live in a state where abortion's been banned. Those have been scrubbed. And a lot of that has to do with, God, who knows, but them trying to avoid any kind of liability if they are at the other receiving end of a lawsuit. because, you know, they don't have the money. They're just, you know, meta and Google. But I wanted to get you guys' initial thoughts before I give you sort of like why this matters,

why this is so important. Yeah. So there's as usual a couple of issues here. First, HIPAA is a law that's supposed to protect your medical privacy. So if they go to Planned Parenthood without a court order and they say, all right, give me their medical files, Planned Parenthood can say no. Even with a court order, they might be able to say no. It's a little bit complicated, that particular law, but it's pretty strong protections.

But if you're going to Planned Parenthood's website or any other website, and they have these trackers that almost all the sites have, then other people can then get around HIPAA and just grab that information from the third parties because of the way that the Internet works. And so that is not protected by HIPAA. That is why this is an issue. But it's an issue only because we now live in, well, at least some of us do, in fascist states. So where they would say, oh, what is a woman doing? Oh, she's going to do something to her own body with, we don't want her to have that freedom.

The state now owns their body and will tell them what to do with it. Oh, my God, we found a way to track them so we could track their every movement. And then if we think they're violating, they're doing something to their body to the government, tyrannical government has decided they're not allowed to do their to their body. We'll snatch them up, put them in jail, and make sure we take their freedom away for good. None of this would ever be an issue if the right wing wasn't fascist to begin with and trying to take away women's freedoms and literally use their bodies for government purpose. Yeah.

In 2015, Julia Angman published a book called Dragnet Nation. And in it, I mean, this was several years ago now, she warned about future problems with mass data collection in the private sector. Because Congress, as you all know and viewers all know, is very slow to catch up with developing technology. And they often don't understand it. I don't think, I would say a majority of Congress doesn't understand. understand most social media platforms in general, let alone the data collection behind it. But she talked about as it intersects with health data, it's totally different because you can just apply a couple different layers of data from different data brokers and you

can find out exactly who that person is online. And I checked to see if she had written about anything in this world and she has recently. So I encourage people to read it, but she said there are anti-choice groups geofencing clinics, like Planned Parenthood clinics, like Planned Parenthood, and other abortion clinics and targeting people in those clinics with false information and ads trying to dissuade them from exercising their own their own bodily autonomy. That is such an invasive tactic for a deeply personal decision. And again, Congress could regulate how companies can access your health data and how they can sell it and deal with it and whatever. But the problem is they don't understand it. it. We have a really slow archaic Congress. And to speak to both of those points, the idea that

this is a right wing tactic and the idea that Congress doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to the internet. I want to point you guys to, you know, a little bit more information. So the National Right to Life Committee has released model legislation that criminalizes providing or hosting information or assistance on how to get a medical abortion. It specifically says is that anti-choice laws must be written to prevent state residents from seeking abortions in states where it is legal to do so. And this law is likely to pass in several states. In other words, we're going to put the clamp down on the information spreading, which happens through the internet, anyone utilizing that information, putting in their own information,

in order to prevent people from traveling to states where abortion is still legal. And again, we know that the, you know, this is something the Biden administration, the one thing that they're trying to combat against is protecting the right of people to travel. But it speaks to, and let's jump down to Graphic 7 about the ways that we misunderstand Section 230, which has been used. It is really the last line of defense, according to this article, in keeping reproductive health care support information and fundraising online that does not provide immunity. if the platform develops or creates content, and it does not provide immunity from the enforcement of federal criminal laws, but crucially, it does protect against criminal liability from state laws.

Okay, so that was a little muddled, but the idea is it is something that even Democrats have taken aim at because they believe, for example, in the Fasta Sesta bill that was trying to combat human trafficking supposedly, that because these sites were hosting, you know, back pages or ads for escorts, that they were contributing to trafficking of minors,

et cetera, et cetera, and human trafficking. So that's why we need to get rid of Section 230 to hold the platforms accountable. But no, in fact, people including sex workers, and now you see in reproductive health, they're like, no, Section 230 is super critical because that way the platforms like Google, like Facebook, they don't face lawsuits.

They can say, look, this is people spreading information about healthcare and you can't come after us, States can't criminalize us for hosting this kind of information. And we then don't have this sort of ridiculous thing to rest on when we scrub posts as they're doing right now. Yeah, look, I know section 230 sounds arcane. You're like literally referring to a very specific section in a giant bill. But it's super important. It means that any website, if you take it away, will be liable for anything that any of their users say.

So if someone on Facebook, on gigantic Facebook, puts up a post saying, hey, this is where you can get an abortion or you can get an abortion pill, they can say, nope, that's it. It's Facebook's fault. Now Facebook owes the state of Texas billions of dollars. Well, what's Facebook going to do? Or any website, they're going to say, no, that's it. Clamp down. We're not going to have any information that could help people because the red states have made it criminal to help people. So we're gonna end all user comments. It was just, it would literally, it would destroy the internet. And there's honestly a bunch of total idiot Democrats in several different laws who are trying to take away some of the protection of Section 230. Idiots, don't do that. You'll destroy the internet if you do that. Now back to Republicans. So understand what they're doing.

They're now using the internet to spy in on every part of your life. trying to catch if you did something with your own body that the government doesn't want. I mean, you want to talk about the tyranny of government? The right wing is constantly talking about, oh, if a government tyranny comes, man, I'm going to murder everybody. What are you talking about? You are government tyranny. And get a load of these fascists who say, oh, if you made the mistake of ever living in a red state, we're going to track you no matter where you go.

We're going to track you in other states. We're going to track you in other countries. and we're going to imprison you because you made the terrible mistake of living in a red state. And we're just going to make sure that you could never exercise freedom over your own body. It's disgusting. Because we believe in small government. Yeah, small government in my ass. All of your Republicans admit right now that you love big government.

You love it. Even if you don't think it's tyrannical, you're like, no, I have to protect zygotes. Zygote are the most important people that aren't people. Okay, fine. But you can't say that it isn't big government to say you can't decide what to do with your body. The government, giant government, decides what to do with your body. And we track you down if you ever disagree with the government and put you in jail if you ever dare to do, try to go to a state that has freedom. Yeah. I think France's point about Sesta Foster is a good one.

And I want to remind people that only one Democrat in the Senate voted against it, that was Ron Wyden. And he's pretty good on tech bills because he hired somebody who used to be at the ACLU who is just a technologist. That's his entire life, is just thinking about these things critically. Christopher Segoian, who I admire and respect greatly, just has advised him on all of these bills, so he's making smart votes. No other Democrat voted no on it. And that like, like Fran said, it pushed it pushed sex workers into much more unsafe situations because they couldn't vet their clients anymore. So however you feel about sex work in general, we don't want people to be in danger because of a dumb move by Congress. But that's the consequence of not having people who understand what they're dealing with legislating on these issues.

Yeah, I want to, I have to bring in two more pieces of context before we leave this story. Just so you guys know, the Department of Health and Human Services this week did issue a statement sort of clarifying that, and Jenk alluded to this earlier, but in the absence of a mandate enforceable in a court of law, and in the absence of sort of basically a court order to get your medical records, the privacy rules permission to disclose protected health information for law enforcement purposes does not permit the disclosure to law enforcement where a hospital or. other healthcare providers workforce member chose to report an individual's abortion or other reproductive health care. So there's no requirement from health care workers to report an abortion or alleged abortion. So they clarified that. Sadly, they also clarified something else and this is what we're talking about internet data. We're talking about our privacy. The department warned that patients warn patients that data collected by third party apps such as period trackers, which is potentially plan parenthood is not protected health information under federal rules

and could be shared with other entities. Guys, I'm pregnant right now. I have flow, it's an app you like track the big, you're like the baby as big as, you know, corn on the cob or something stupid like that. And I'm terrified where you're like, you know, these are apps that regularly feed third party entities all of your data. So of course, I'm not going to use it anymore, as cute as that is to know that, you know, this is the size of a corn on the cop. No, I got to say one last thing here, Francesca and anyone else who's pregnant, do not travel to a red state. And because Frannie is planning to have the baby, and that's a great choice,

but what if something goes wrong? What if you have health complications later? And you have to take some normal medical procedure. If you went through a red state, they could track you through the apps and then potentially look to imprison you because you made the disastrous decision to step foot in a fascist state that doesn't allow you to control your own body. Yeah. No, these are super scary times. Yes, very much so. Everyone donate to abortion Funds.org, please. Yeah. There's a fundraiser happening tomorrow.

Adiana Vega's friend of ours and TYTs is doing a fundraiser for the Texas Equal Access Fund. If you go to protectabortionrights.com, you can donate now. Nice. All right, excellent. All right, everybody check out Jordan Yule on Deepdive and Francesca on TwitchEation Room and also Bituation Room. Bituation Room is in our podcasting network and TwitchEation Room and Deep Dive are in our Twitch network, that's twitch. TV slash TYT. Thank you so much guys. Appreciate it. And when we come back, we'll make a lighter fun of the right wing, included what Rudy's selling to try to pay for

his legal defense. It's hilarious. We'll be 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.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.