The Young Turks - Flip Flop

Episode Date: June 2, 2022

A verdict was announced in the Amber Heard, Johnny Depp defamation trial, with the jury finding Heard liable for defaming Depp in an op-ed. The Robb Elementary School teacher who propped open an exterior door that law enforcement said a gunman used to get inside and kill 19 students and two teachers had closed the door but it did not lock, state police said Tuesday. The Supreme Court is set to issue an insane ruling that will lead to more dead Americans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband crashed a new Porsche just five miles from their multi-million-dollar California vineyard when he was busted for allegedly driving drunk. J.D. Vance, venture capitalist and author of the memoir Hillbilly Elegy, last year told a Catholic magazine that he would support an “outright ban” on pornography in America, blaming it (along with abortion) for a host of social ills. Joe Rogan Said ‘Fox News dad my back’ amid Covid controversy. Hosts: Ana Kasparian ***  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 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. The new BMO ViPorter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks. More points. More flights. More of all the things you want in a travel rewards card.

And then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter MasterCard. and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit bemo.com slash the iPorter to learn more. Hello, and welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we've got a good rundown today. Just a diversity of topics, of course we're going to do an update on the ever-changing narrative surrounding the Uvaldi mass shooting.

Story keeps changing, and the big question is, why did reporters, why did the American people get misinformation from the jump from Texas officials in regard to that mass shooting? We'll tell you what the latest is, and we'll clarify some of the, I don't know if they were lies, I don't know if there was miscommunication in the beginning, but we'll tell you what's changing now. We're also going to have an interesting second hour to save the least. John Iderola will be joining me. In fact, John's had a full day already. He did damage report, he's about to do the second hour with me.

And then he's also hosting our special immediately after the main show for Pride Month. So definitely check that out after the second hour of the show. We will not be having a members only bonus episode because we will get started with our Pride Month special. John will be hosting that, so make sure you tune in live. after the main show. But John will be joining me for the second hour to talk about some other topics, including, what are you really eating when you're biting into those hot dogs?

Okay, there's a crazy accident story involving meat byproducts that we should probably discuss because it's good to know what we're eating. And also, J.D. Vance, obsessed with banning porn because just as Republicans continue to attempt rebranding themselves, I'm here to remind you, that they're the same old dorks who have nothing to offer other than their social conservatism. But before we get to that, I want to start off with something a little different today, which is the verdict in the Depp versus Heard trial, which has been going on for weeks, six weeks to be exact. The jury has reached a verdict in Johnny Depp's defamation case against Amber Heard.

Let's watch. As to the statement appearing in the online op-ed entitled Amber Heard, I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change. Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven all the elements of defamation? Answer, yes. Question, the statement was false. Answer, yes. Question, the statement has a defamatory implication about Mr. Depp? Answer, yes. Question, the defamatory implication was designed and intended by Ms. Heard. Answer, yes. Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Heard acted with actual malice?

Answer, yes. So as you can see from that video, the jury did in fact find Amber Heard guilty of defamation. So Johnny Depp did win his defamation suit against Amber Heard. Amber Heard also countersued Johnny Depp and his attorney Adam Waldman. And there was also a guilty verdict in regard to her countersuit. Let's watch that. As to this statement, appearing in the April 27th, 2020 online edition of the Daily Mail. Quote, quite simply, this was an ambush, a hoax.

They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops, but the first attempt did not do the trick. The officers came to the penhouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and rough the place up, got their story straight, under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911." End quote. Do you find that Ms. Hurd has proven all the elements of defamation?

Answer, yes, was false. Answer, yes. Do you find that Ms. Hurd has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the statement by Mr. Walman was made with actual malice? Answer, yes. So for those of you who have not been following this trial closely, just to give you the background information, the context necessary to really understand what these verdicts mean, it all really started in December of 2018 when Amber Hurd had published an op-ed with the Washington Post accusing her ex-husband, Johnny Depp, and of intimate partner violence.

In the piece, Herd had described becoming a public figure representing domestic abuse and seeing in real time how institutions protect men accused of abuse. Now, Depp denied those allegations and blamed the publication for damaging his reputation and career, causing him to sustain extensive financial losses. And so Depp won in this defamation case, which let me just note, winning a defamation case is incredibly difficult, especially as a public figure. You have to prove actual malice. And to be quite honest, Depp's attorneys did a fantastic job,

providing the evidence necessary to find Amber Heard guilty of defamation. Also, in sum, let's get to the financial component of all of this, Amber Heard was found liable for defaming Johnny Depp in an op-ed published in the Washington Post. And Depp was found liable for a statement, his attorney, that's Adam Waldman, made to the Daily Mail calling her claims a hoax. A jury decided Wednesday. So they awarded Depp a total of $15 million in damages and heard $2 million. Now, I want to be clear about how the punitive damages work because the trial was held in the state of Virginia. And so the punitive damages for debt were actually reduced to $350,000.

And that's because in the state of Virginia, when it comes to punitive damages, there is a cap, and that cap is $350,000. But that $350,000 is in addition to the other. So it was a total of $15 million. So I believe it was $5 million, if I'm not mistaken, in compensatory damages and then 10 million in punitive damages. The Virginia law that I'm referring to only applies to the punitive damages,

meaning that there's a $350,000 cap on the punitive damages. Anyway, we're getting into the weeds, which, to be quite honest, isn't that important. Let's talk about what went down during the trial because I do think, based on the evidence that was provided, based on the witness testimony, this was the correct verdict, okay? So Depp went on all three statements in his suit and heard one on one of three in her counterclaim. Okay. So in a statement in regard to the verdicts, Amber Hurd wrote this, the disappointment I feel today is beyond words. I'm heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband. I'm even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women, she wrote.

It's a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when women who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. Well, domestic violence goes both ways. Women are not the only victims of domestic violence. And if you paid close attention to the trial, if you looked at the evidence that was provided by Johnny Depp's, attorneys by Johnny Depp's side, It was abundantly clear that there was domestic violence against him as well, and she really went out of her way to minimize that.

In fact, we'll get to some of the witness testimony in just a moment. But before we do, I think one of the most important pieces of evidence that was provided by Johnny Depp's side was the audio that you're about to hear. He recorded her admitting that she had struck him first. Let's watch. I said to Travis, I said, no, I said, hey, tell Travis what just happened. Oh, you told me to do it. You told me to. You said, go do that. I said, no, tell them what just happened. And I lied. And that you punched me in the thing.

You figured it all. And you said, no, I didn't. What the fuck are you talking about? And I watched you lie. And then I didn't punch you. By the way, you, I'm sorry that I didn't, uh, hit you across the face in a proper slap. But I was hitting you. It was not. punching you. You're not punched. Don't tell me what it feels like to be punched. You know, even a lot of fights. You've been around a long time. You didn't get punched. You got hit. I'm sorry I hit you like this, but I did not punch you. I did not check you. I'm hitting you. I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine. I did not hurt you. I did not punch you. I was hitting you. So there's she. admitting that she's the one who struck him first, that's a pretty important piece of evidence

that I think helped to sway the opinion of the jurors. And remember, when it comes to this verdict, there needs to be unanimous agreement. And they all agreed that Amber Hurd did in fact defame Johnny Depp. But there was other evidence in the form of witness testimony that I thought was also important. It also showed that there were inconsistencies to say the least, possibly deception in some of what Amber heard had said during the trial. So for instance, Morgan Knight, the owner of a trailer park in Joshua Tree, where both Amber Hurd and Johnny Depp had stayed in 2013 testified during this trial, I found his testimony to be incredibly compelling, especially because Amber Hurd had testified that Johnny Depp

was jealous, controlling, possessive, and his testimony actually countered or contradicted what she had to say about a fight they had at the trailer park. It, based on her testimony, it seemed as though he, Johnny Depp, had started some sort of fight with her because of how possessive he is. But the witness here, Morgan Knight, again, the owner of the trailer park, who witnessed their argument, or at least the very beginning of it, said no, that's not how it went down. Apparently Amber Hurd started yelling at him first because he allegedly wasn't paying enough attention to her. And he then said that Depp cowered and seemed afraid. So that was compelling witness testimony. Also, during one night, Depp alleged that Amber threw

a wine bottle at him, which severed his finger. And the evidence of his finger being severed was also, of course, provided during the trial. It was gruesome, difficult to look at. And there was a surgeon by the name of David Culber who testified, this is the surgeon who actually reconstructed Johnny Depp's finger. And he had testified that the heavy cast that he had put on Johnny Depp's finger would make it impossible for him to make a fist or to grab anyone in any type of violent way. Also, Jennifer Howell, the founder of the Art of Elysium, and a former friend of Hurd's sister testified that Hurd was being dishonest about a donation that she had made to this organization. Herd had previously testified that she had donated

a quarter million dollars to the Art of Elysium's children's art program. But Howell had testified that the organization did receive an anonymous donation of $250,000. not from Heard, but from Elon Musk. And so why am I bringing up all of this witness testimony that contradicted what Amber Heard had said or what Amber Heard had testified? Because Depp's attorneys did a really good job making the case that Amber Heard is not honest, not an honest actor, that she said all sorts of things that turned out to be untrue. Another example was Candy Davidson Gold Braun, who also testified that Herd did not, in fact, donate the millions she had claimed to have donated to the Children's Hospital in Los Angeles.

Herd had said that she would donate about $3.5 million to the organization, but she had not done so. She had received, or Children's Hospital had received a quarter million dollars directly from Herd, in addition to a $100,000 payment made by debts. Depp's accountant Edward White on Herd's behalf as part of their divorce settlement. And then there was a TMZ employee, a former TMZ employee by the name of Morgan Tremaine also gave compelling testimony on behalf of Johnny Depp's claims because it does appear that Amber Heard had kind of staged this whole media setup for when she showed up to the LA Superior Court to get a restraining order against Johnny Depp. Tremaine had testified that they were tipped, very likely from Amber Hurd, that she would be at the courthouse,

that she would turn her head to show a bruise on her face that was allegedly the result of Johnny Depp striking her. And later, TMZ had received video that they had published showing Johnny Depp, you know, basically banging and slamming cabinet doors and all of that. Amber Hurd said that she's not the person who leaked the tape to TMZ, but based on Morgan Tremaine's testimony, he did seem to imply that it was in fact leaked to them by Amber Hurd, although he did not say it that directly. He just made it clear that, listen, if someone's leaking us a video, and she's the only one who had access to that video, it was filmed on her phone, how else would they have it? But he does make a point about how if the source is unknown

to TMZ, then it could take weeks to ascertain the copyright before publishing the video. They were able to publish it within minutes, meaning they knew who the copyright belonged to. And since Amber Hurd is the only person who recorded the video, the copyright clearly belonged to her. And she's the only one who would give them the ability to publish it without any legal ramifications. And the list goes on and on. There was another example. Kate Moss, a former girlfriend of Johnny Deppes, was later forced to testify because, Amber Heard had mentioned her by name during her own testimony, alleging that Kate Moss had been

abused by Johnny Depp. When Kate Moss testified, she made it clear that she was not in fact in any way struck or abused by Johnny Depp. Moss testified that Depp had never pushed, kicked, or thrown her down any stairs. She stated that she had accidentally slipped downstairs at a Jamaican resort during a rainstorm and that Depp had helped and got me medical attention afterwards. And I know, look, it was a six-week case. There's so much more that I can get to, but that would literally take up the entire show. So this is my long way of saying that I agree with the verdict that was reached. I think that Depp's side certainly did provide a compelling case. They had mountains of evidence. They did a decent job proving that Amber Heard is not

necessarily honest about a lot of the claims that she makes, whether it be the money that she gives to charity, whether it's the claim she makes about various people, including Kate Moss, who allegedly had been abused by Johnny Depp. But I want to also separate that, okay, the reality of the verdict, how the verdict, in my opinion, was the right one, from something else that I'm noticing attached to this case that's worrying, okay? So there has been a lot of, in my opinion, pent up rage towards some of the dishonest actors involved, or some of the dishonest actors who exploited the Me Too movement. And I'm going to give you a specific example not related to Johnny Depp, okay?

I don't know if you guys remember the accusations made against Aziz Ansari. I remember covering it with Jank Yugar. And we found those allegations to be ridiculous and not an example of a woman being abused in, you know, this incredibly important Me Too era. And so all of a sudden, all these accusations start coming out against prominent men. And I do think it's important to take accusations made by anyone, whether it's a man or a woman seriously and investigate it, right? Take it seriously, investigate it. Slogans like Believe All Women ended up being incredibly damaging because people, in my opinion, misinterpreted that as you should just find anyone who's been accused guilty right off the bat without doing an investigation.

I think that's wrong. And I think a lot of people felt that was wrong, but also didn't feel comfortable speaking out against it, because in that era, speaking out against it made it seem as though you might be making excuses for abusive behavior, whether it be in relationships or in a workplace environment. And so now, I think the pendulum, unfortunately, is swinging to another extreme, mostly because this particular case has been exploited by other bad faith actors as an example of how you shouldn't trust women. No, it's not about trusting or not trusting. It's about hearing

accusations, taking them seriously, and doing a real investigation, looking at all the facts before you come up with whatever decision, right? And if we're talking about the court of public opinion, that's one thing. Certainly if we're talking about a trial, if we're talking about something that ends up in court, it will be investigated. It will be adjudicated. But the court of public opinion is important as well. And I do think that people were a little too quick to automatically assume that everyone who was accused of being a bad person was in fact a bad person. Again, Aziz I'm sorry, I'm going to give that as an example. I don't think did anything wrong. And I think the report that was written about him was a hatchet job and was just not okay.

And so the reason why I think we're seeing a lot of bad faith right wing actors take this Amber Heard trial and kind of run with it is because this is their way of saying, no, don't trust women. A lot of them lie. I don't think that's true either. But I do think that we need to look at all the facts. We need to look at all the evidence. We should take accusations seriously. But withhold our judgment until we know for sure whether or not someone has actually carried out the abuse that they're being accused. of. So with that said, I do want to show what the house judiciary GOP tweeted today. Okay, so this is the official Twitter account for the house judiciary GOP. And so they post a gif of Johnny Depp because for them, this isn't just a victory for Johnny Depp. This is a victory for them. And it's their weird anti-women dog whistle that really bothers me because a, you know, Again, the verdict was right, but I'm worried that they're using this trial and will continue to use this trial as a way to make a blanket statement about any accusation that's made against any prominent male by a woman.

And I want us to be careful about that because I don't want the pendulum to swing in one extreme or the other. Like I've said before, and I'll say it again, we need to be able to look at the evidence, take the accusation seriously, whether they're made by a woman or a man. And investigate them with whole judgment until you have as much information as possible. That's, I think, the best way to handle the situation moving forward. But again, this was a difficult trial. I think it captivated everyone's attention.

Yes, because of the salacious nature, but also because of the incredibly important ramifications associated with it. You don't want people to be wrongfully accused of abuse. You also want to kind of learn from the mistakes that have been made in the past, both in the media and in the court of public opinion when it comes to these types of accusations. Anyway, tell me what you guys think. Write in, send me your super chats. When we come back from the break, we'll get to some other news,

including updates on the Uvaldi, Texas mass shooting that took place last week. Come right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone, Anna Casparian with you. And before we get to our next story, I just want to read a quick comment from Franklin Sharpslicer in our super chat section. He says, Politico uncovered a Republican recording trying to fix elections on a national basis. This included picking on all races. Anna, welcome home from the Poet Dragon and a bit of a gnome, you rock.

So Franklin Strapslicer, thank you for that comment. We actually are planning on covering that story later on in the second hour of the show. So if you guys want to know the details about that, definitely stick around. It's an important story uncovered by Politico, which we will get to the details of a little later. For now, though, I do want to give you some updates on the Rob Elementary shooting in Evaldi, Texas. Turns out, now we're learning that the Rob elementary school teacher who was accused of allegedly propping an exterior door open, which then allegedly let the mass shooter into the classroom, didn't actually do so at all. It's yet another part of the shooting, another part of the story that is changing after officials in the area told us something completely different. So in other words, more of the critical details of the Uvaldi, Texas shooting, school shooting, are changing,

which continues to raise questions about what the intent has been in regard to the police officials in the area. So let me explain. Investigators initially said the teacher had propped the door open with a rock and did not remove it before Salvador Ramos, 18, entered the school. But investigators have now determined that the teacher removed the rock and closed the door when she realized there was a shooter on campus, but that it did not lock. And that's according to Travis Considine, who is a chief communications officer for the Texas Department of Public Safety. So the teacher did initially prop the door open, but then she ran back inside to get her phone and call 911 when Ramos had like crashed. his truck. So apparently there were some workers at a funeral home nearby and they were yelling to the teacher to let her know that this guy was a threat, okay? She came back out while her,

I'm sorry, she came back out while on her phone. She heard someone yell, he has a gun. She saw him jump the fence and that he had a gun. So she ran back inside, removing the rock when she did. We did verify she closed the door. The door did not lock. We know that much as, and now investigators are looking into why it did not lock. So the door is supposed to automatically lock according to what the officials are saying now. Who knows whether or not that part of the story is going to change yet again. But we do know that based on what they have confirmed through their preliminary investigation,

the teacher is not at fault here. The teacher did not leave the door propped open. which leads me to ask, why was there this effort to immediately jump to a conclusion about the teacher, which seemed to put blame on the educator in regard to the terrible, tragic events that happened that day? You know, the story keeps changing, that's bad enough. But we need to ask why the story keeps changing. Why is it that the officials were so quick to point fingers at this teacher, especially

when we're talking about police officials who decided to stand outside for over an hour and do absolutely nothing as the 18 year old gunman was slaughtering students in that fourth grade classroom. Now the employees at the nearby funeral home, as I mentioned, told her that Ramos had a gun, and that's according to her lawyer. The clarification about the door represents just one, and there are many, just one of the shifts in authority's explanation of the massacre's timeline. They face mounting questions over why 80 minutes elapse from when the time officers were first called to the moment a tactical team entered the locked classroom and killed, well, yeah, by the way, by the time the gunman was in the room, the door had

been locked. But yeah, entered the locked classrooms and killed the gunmen. Now, meanwhile, the Evaldi School District Police Chief, who was the incident commander during the shooting, was actually sworn in as a member of the city council just yesterday. Okay, so this pretty terrible person, at least incredibly ineffective and has bad judgment in terms of his job, he got elected to the city council. He ended up getting sworn in yesterday. Pedro, Pete Aradondo has faced criticism for the decision to have officers post. in the hallway outside the classrooms where the shooting took place,

waiting for more than an hour to intervene before a border patrol tactical team entered the room and killed the gunmen. Now we do have some more details on the criticism that the police are receiving as a result of their terrible way of handling this mass shooter. And we do have some audio of the 911 dispatcher communicating to the cops. what these students had been communicating to her. The students who are in the classroom calling 911 begging for help. So let's take a quick look at that video.

Officials say at least two children called 911 multiple times, begging police to come while the gunman was still inside their classroom. The Texas Department of Public Safety Director says one child told a 911 operator, eight or nine students were still alive. Audio from an unconfirmed source revealing at some point law enforcement. was aware kids were inside the classroom. At what point do people not use some common sense here? Listen to 911 calls that are coming in, understand that kids are still alive inside,

and know that they have to go in there, do their jobs under the active shooter protocol. Yeah, I mean, and remember, Remember, one of the arguments that would provide cover for the cops was the idea that, oh, maybe the cops thought that all the students had already been gunned down, or that the shooter had finished doing this terrible, unspeakable act of violence. No, the police, based on what we just heard with the 911 dispatcher, knew that there were still students inside who were alive, people that they should have cared about saving. But they still waited an insane amount of time over an hour to do a damn thing about it.

Again, these are the alleged good guys with a gun who were so cowardly that they refused to do anything for over an hour as literal fourth graders were being gunned down. And then the stories keep changing. And so there is a state investigation into this police department. There's also a DOJ investigation. but there's also a new update to the Uvaldi Police Department and its unwillingness to cooperate. So let's go to the next video. It describes that in more detail. State officials say Uvaldi Schools Police Chief Pete Ardenondo is no longer cooperating with its investigators after his initial interview.

Law enforcement sources say Uvaldi police and Uvaldi schools police are also not complying, but the state later released a statement saying both agencies have been cooperating. Several law enforcement sources tell ABC News. Adendos' refusal comes after the Texas DPS director called Uvali's police delayed response the wrong decision. Adendo reportedly ordered tactical teams to not go into a classroom, wrongly believing there was a barricaded subject, not an active shooter. And ABC News has learned that Uvaldi School's police were trained in March to come. confront active shooters.

The response that day last week, now under state and federal investigation. So state and federal investigation, we'll see what that investigation turns up. But just for further clarification in regard to the Uvaldi Police Department and its cooperation with these investigations, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety, a spokesperson for them said this. The Uvaldi Police Department and Uvaldi CISD police have been cooperating with investments. The chief of the Yuvaldi CISD police provided an initial interview, this is Aredondo, but was not or has not responded to a request for a follow-up interview with the Texas Rangers that was made two days ago.

So it appears that he at first started to cooperate with the investigation. He later decided not to cooperate with the investigation, probably because he advised the officers to handle or respond to the mass shooting in the worst possible way, which is not really responding at all until more than an hour had passed. So that's where we are. Who knows what else is likely to change? But you can understand the rage that people are feeling. Certainly the parents who were tased as they were begging the cops to do something. You can understand the rage that they're feeling. They want answers. They want to know why they receive so much misinformation in regard to the press conference that the officials had given after the shooting,

and people deserve answers. But at the end of the day, you know, blaming a teacher for, even if she had accidentally left the door open, the teacher is not the one at fault. Everything else, all the like scapegoats that gun advocates and the police department are currently like trying to find, don't get distracted by the squirrels that they're throwing your way. At the end of the day, the biggest issue here is the ongoing massacres that we see in this country as a result of easy access to all sorts of weapons, all sorts of assault weapons that certainly an 18 year old should not have access to. An 18 year old who doesn't even

have the legal right to drink alcohol somehow has the ability to buy these weapons that cause mass destruction in a fourth grade classroom. 19 students dead, two teachers dead, 21 people brutalized, murdered by this 18 year old. And the idea that we need to focus on one teacher who allegedly, now it turns out it's not true, but was accused of propping a door open, nonsense. Okay, don't get distracted by their made up scapegoats. Focus on what the real issue is here. Lacks regulations on guns and the corrupt, disgusting, craven politicians who provide cover for the gun lobby and the profit motives that the gun lobbies have. All right, let's move on to our next story.

This will be a quick one. I just wanted to talk a little bit about what to expect from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is unfortunately poised to further loosen America's already loose gun laws by the end of this month. This is something that shows just how broken our institutions are, because even if we miraculously, miraculously get Congress to act, to pass common sense gun regulations, like closing any type of federal background check loophole, getting rid of the gun show loophole, maybe implementing some red flag laws to ensure people who have serious mental health issues don't access guns. Even if they do all that, and that is a tall mountain to climb, it is very likely that those laws, those regulations will be challenged by the same weapons manufacturers.

Those cases will very likely get to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, well, let me tell you what they're up to right now and you'll get the picture. So right now they're hearing a case and they're set to make a decision about this case later this month. The case in question is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. versus Bruin, which involves a 1913 law that requires someone who wants to carry a concealed gun in public in New York to have a license to do so. And in order to obtain said license, prove that they have proper cause. Now what does that mean? Well, in New York, that proper cause can't be some vague fear of violence, but a credible threat against that person's life and one that cannot be mitigated in other ways. So just to sum that up, in New York as we speak, thanks to this law that's been on the book since 1913,

you're not able to walk around New York, you're not, you're not able to go on the subway with a concealed weapon, unless you have managed to get a license. And in order to get that license, you have to prove proper cause. That there is a legitimate threat against your life. There's no other way of mitigating that threat. And you genuinely need that weapon as a form of self-defense. Now, it's incredibly difficult to prove that. You're allowed to have a weapon if you go through the regulations in that state,

in your home as a form of protection. or if you use it for your hobby, whatever it is. But concealed carry, you know, generally speaking, is not easy to do legally in the state of New York. And so that has been challenged. The Supreme Court is hearing that case. And based on what we have seen from the Supreme Court so far as they're asking questions during this case, it does appear that the conservative majority is very likely to strike down

this law. And what would that mean? It sets precedent indicating that any other state that has laws or regulations against concealed carry would now have no power. Those laws would be reversed by the Supreme Court's decision. So during oral arguments last November, the court's conservative goon squad peppered attorneys with a cornucopia of absurd hypotheticals arguing that changing the law so that carrying a gun on a crowded R train is not a public safety.

threat, but should be an essential constitutional right. And Best Levin over at Vanity Fair provides examples from the questions that were asked by these conservative justices. For instance, Brett Kavanaugh, who, like Amy Coney Barrett, was nominated to the Supreme Court in part due to his firearms friendly record as a judge, wanted to know why someone's proper cause can't just be, I want to be able to defend myself. Can you not see why it would be, you know, dangerous to just kind of take anyone at face value and allow, you really want people to be captive on a train, knowing that there's a bunch of people on that train who very likely have a gun concealed? And also, how do you determine as a member of law enforcement whether someone is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun?

So if a bad guy with a gun opens fire on a train, and then there's a good guy with a gun who then returns fire. to defend himself or defend herself, defend everyone else on the train. When the cops arrive, how do the cops determine who the good guy or the bad guy is? Like, wouldn't that actually potentially lead to more unnecessary death? But anyway, it was Brett Kavana. Okay, so now let's go to Samuel Alito because that was one part with Kavanaugh. He's asking a question. Usually the framing of their question lets you know how they're likely to rule on the

this type of case, right? Let's go to Samuel Alito, because I think that was even more telling. It was arch-conservative Samuel Alito who did the hardest bidding on behalf of America's gun enthusiasts, suggesting that New York law is some kind of cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon ordinary law-abiding citizens who need to carry a gun on them when they ride the subway system, which he painted as a crime-ridden hellhole. In fact, we have some sound from that moment in deciding this case. Let's take a listen to what Samuel Lido had to say. For ordinary law-abiding citizens who feel they need to carry a firearm for self-defense. So I want you to think about people like this, people who work late at night in Manhattan.

Might be somebody who cleans offices, might be a doorman at an apartment, might be a nurse or an orderly, might be somebody who wants. who washes dishes. None of these people has criminal record. They're all law-abiding citizens. They get off work around midnight, maybe even after midnight. They have to commute home by subway, maybe by bus. When they arrive at the subway station or the bus stop, they have to walk some distance through a high crime area. And they apply for a license and they say, look, nobody has said, I am going to mug you next Thursday. However, there have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death. They do not get licenses. Is that right?

That is in general right, yes. If there's nothing particular to them, that's right. How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment? Because the core right to self-defense doesn't, as this court said, doesn't allow for all to be. armed for all possible confrontations in all places. No, it doesn't. So the woman that you heard in the audio there was New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, and I think she makes a great point there.

Look, there are limitations to every constitutional right. We know that. And the idea that there should be like no limitations in regard to firearms is absolutely ridiculous. And you know, it's interesting how Samuel Alito's reasoning, is, well, all of our institutions have failed the American people. And so why don't we allow them to live out their delusions of being Rambo by allowing them to have concealed carry under any and all circumstances to protect themselves? So never mind the fact that police fighting crime is a failed institution. Never mind the fact that we have people swimming in a sea of

guns in America where criminals have easy access to guns, legally by the way, legally, okay? You can go to a gun show as a convicted felon and buy as many guns as you want without having to undergo a background check. Maybe we do something about that so, you know, maybe we can do something about lowering crime, especially crime involving a gun, crime involving a gun during a mugging, whatever it is, right? Instead of focusing on, hey, these are all failing institutions. We have failed the American people. We need to find a way to ensure that Americans feel safe as they're commuting, you know, on a train to and from work. No, no, no. Let's actually make the situation less safe by allowing more people to have concealed carry because we all like

have decided to buy this delusion that, you know, as long as you have a gun, you can effectively defend yourself and it's going to be great. Well, as we know, and I think the shooting in Yuvaldi, Uvaldi, Texas has proven it. Yeah, good guys with guns don't necessarily keep anyone safe, okay? Even if they're trained to do so, even if it's their literal job to do so. I don't know. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. I personally do not want to be stuck on a train on my way to work or back home from work, knowing that there are probably several people on that train who are armed with a concealed weapon. Maybe we need to really rethink the laws that make it so easy for criminals to legally

purchase guns. But you know, that would be really tough for conservative justices who were intentionally put on that court to loosen the already laxed gun laws we have. So that's what we get to look forward to with the Supreme Court. Again, this is a disaster because we now need members of Congress who do more than legislate. We need fighters who are willing to reform the Supreme Court, whether it's through packing the Supreme Court, rethinking the Supreme Court, whatever it is. And honestly, I don't see anyone up to that task. They might be able to pass legislation.

I don't even really think they have the ability to do that at this point because of how how weak, cowardly, and feckless they are. But even if they did, you still have to deal with the Supreme Court. And I don't see any fighters in Congress that are willing to do what's necessary to reform that institution. All right, we gotta take a quick break. When we come back, we've got more news, including Fancy Nancy distancing herself from her own husband after he was in a DUI crash. We'll give you those details and more coming right up. What's up, everyone, welcome back to the show, Anna Casparian with you.

I just want to read one comment from our member section. You could become a member by going to t-y-t.com slash join. This is a great comment from Ink Dragon who says, knowing that we can get a good idea of how a justice will rule based on the question they ask shows that the answers to the questions aren't all that important. Absolutely. And look, it's not the, it's not a perfect indicator of how justices will rule. But in this era of an ideologically conservative Supreme Court, I think that we can pretty much suss out how they're going to rule based on the framing of their questions.

That's certainly the case with the upcoming reversal of Roe v. Wade. So we'll see how it plays out, but it's not looking good. All right, well, let's move on to our next story because something happened over the Memorial Day weekend involving Pelosi's husband that I think is illuminating. Okay, so let's discuss. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is attempting to distance herself from her own husband, following the fact that he decided to get behind the wheel and drive under the influence at the ripe age of 82. This happened in Napa Valley, led to a car accident. Luckily,

no one was hurt. But remember, every time you get behind the wheel under the influence of drugs and alcohol, you're not only putting your life in danger, you're putting other people's lives in danger, which is already bad enough if you're a bonehead 20 year old who doesn't know what he or she's doing. It's even worse when you're an 82 year old who clearly thinks that you're above the law. don't have to worry about consequences. Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband crashed a new Porsche just five miles from their multi-million dollar California vineyard when he was busted for allegedly driving drunk, police documents revealed on Monday. Paul Pelosi, again, 82-year-old, was in a 2021 Porsche when he tried to get across state route 29 in Napa Valley.

from a country lane close to other vineyards just before 10.30 p.m. Saturday, his arrest report said. So he was in fact arrested. He actually ended up hitting a Jeep, someone driving a Jeep to be specific. Again, luckily no one was hurt. But a local ABC affiliate was able to get some footage of the damage in the area. And I just want to show you a screenshot of that damage because that was the, I guess, collateral damage from the DUI driving under the influence that Paul Pelosi did. Okay, so with that said, how is Nancy Pelosi distancing herself from him? Well, Drew Hamill, a spokesperson for Pelosi, told the AP on Sunday that the speaker will not be commenting on this private matter, which occurred while she was on the East Coast. So she was on the East Coast. She's

not involved. And it's a private matter. She's not going to be commenting. Yeah, well, you know, she and her husband are public figures. This had to do with a DUI that puts the public in danger. So no, this isn't a private matter. This is very much a public matter, and she should comment on it. But of course, she loves to skirt any kind of responsibility for either herself or in this case, members of her family. But what was telling to me about this story wasn't so much that an 82 year old man was

irresponsible and stupid enough to get behind the wheel while under the influence of alcohol. It was all the other little details that were buried in the story about this drunk driving incident. Mainly the fact that we're talking about a couple, the speaker of the house, specifically by the way, people who are so wealthy that they not only own an estate in Napa Valley, for vacationing purposes, of course, but they own a vineyard. So how are the, like, how is someone like Nancy Pelosi who has not one but two, $12,000 refrigerators and like decides to show them off in the beginning of a pandemic when literally tens of millions of Americans had been laid off of their jobs?

Like, how is she supposed to understand us and represent us? And so this is a headline from the Los Angeles Times, from several years. years ago, 2015 to be exact. So who knows how, where she ranks today. But Nancy Pelosi's vineyard makes her the fourth richest Californian in Congress. Homegirl owns a vineyard. And listen, for those who say, look, Anna, you're coming on, you sound like you're jealous of success. Is that what's going on? You're jealous of success? No. The point that I want to make is she didn't get rich on accident. Okay. She has been in Congress for a long time. And it's how she and others like her, use her position of power not to represent the American people,

more importantly, to enrich herself. Okay, we talk about corruption all the time. We talk about legalized bribery all the time, but we also need to talk about how easy it is for them to enrich themselves through the access or being able to access information that we're not privy to, information that they then trade stocks on. So if you don't know what I'm talking about, here's a quick explainer video to tell you. Pressure's been building after several academic studies revealed lawmakers play the markets better than anyone else. Members of Congress outperform the stock market by about 6 to 10% on a regular basis. Now, that may be due to the infinite wisdom that resides in these halls, or it could be something different. Luck, smart, savvy trading.

or the possibility that there was insider knowledge. Recent reports highlighted potential conflicts of interest. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, is alleged to have received beneficial treatment from credit card company visa to buy its shares as a controversial credit card bill was being discussed. Oh, I've got some more details on that in just a moment. But that is just one example, okay? So how is Nancy Pelosi going to make the right?

legislative decisions to represent the people who elected her in this position of power, when she's got her own financial motives to think about, right? There's a huge conflict of interest here. Let me give you more details on that. The week before the House Judiciary Committee voted on reigning in big tech, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, the drunk driver we were talking about earlier, exercised a bullish bet on Google Parent Alphabet in a timely transaction that netted him $5.3 million. Gee, I wonder where he got the info necessary, you know, the intel necessary to make that risky bet that ended up paying off handsomely for him.

I wonder, I wonder, might just be a coincidence, right? Might just be a coincidence that the stock portfolios of lawmakers like Nancy Pelosi consistently outperform the market. might just be a coincidence. I don't know, let's continue. Paul Pelosi, who bought 4,000 shares of Alphabet on June 18th, as revealed in a financial disclosure signed by Nancy Pelosi and filed on July 2nd, made an initial $4.8 million gain from Alphabet's rising share price and has since seen his gain grow to $5.3 million. Paul Pelosi also reported buying call options for Amazon, Apple, Navidia, but he did not report exercising them.

So some reporting issues there as well. And so when you think back at what Nancy Pelosi had to say about, you know, banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks, knowing all this context makes it easier to understand where she's coming from. Let me remind you. included a five-month investigation, finding that 49 members of Congress and 182 senior congressional staffers have violated the stock act, the inside of drain law. I'm wondering if you have any reactions to that. And secondly, should members of Congress have there's thousands be banned

from trading individual stocks while serving Congress? No, I don't know to the second one. Any, we have a responsibility to report in the stock on the stock, but I don't, I'm not familiar with that five-month review, but if people aren't reporting, they should be. Because this is a free market and people, we are a free market economy, they should be able to participate in that. Yeah, let me just unpack that for you real quick, translate it, which you really meant to say was, why would I be in Congress if I wouldn't have the opportunity to enrich myself and make myself richer than I already am?

Would it be to represent the American people? Not really interested in that. By the way, final note on that vineyard that the Pelosi's own in Napa Valley, it's the estate where a lot of the fundraising that Pelosi does goes on. In fact, Nancy Pelosi is known to appeal to all sorts of conservative and moderate financial interests in an effort to fundraise off of them. And a lot of that goes down in her Napa Valley vineyard and estate. So, so good, so good.

Gee, I wonder why Democrats can't get anything done on behalf of their constituents when they're in power. Could be because of their conflicts of interest and the fact that they just want to get rich. Anyway, we got to take a break. When we come back, we've got so much more to get to, including dunking on J.D. Vance and his obsession with Banning porn. And later, there is another doozy of a video featuring Joe Rogan, where he just makes a blanket statement based on one piece of anecdotal evidence about workers being lazy. Lots of fun. We've got that and more coming right up. 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.