The Young Turks - Flip Floppers

Episode Date: December 30, 2023

Maine strips Trump from the ballot and inflames legal war over his candidacy. Eighteen individuals died in one of Russia's biggest missile strikes of war, Kyiv says. Fourth grader brutally tells Nikki Haley she’s the "new John Kerry’ for flip-flopping on Trump. "Dictator" Trump plans to deploy a massive number of troops on U.S. soil. HOSTS: Maz Jabroni (@MazJobrani), John Iadarola (@johniadarola) and Rayyvana (@RayyvanaTTV) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Free Locketee! Three Blacks! Three Blacks! Bexie! Drop it like Nicky!

Haley! Town Hall question. Welcome back one and all to another edition of the TYT power panel on Fridays with me, John Darolla and Ray Vana joining us once again, Rebel HQ contributor, glad to have you here as always. Thanks for having me, happy to join everybody last Friday of the year. Last Friday of the year, we're going to fit in the rest of the news, and then I think maybe take 2024 off. We've been working hard in the past few years. I think we're going to coast for a bit.

But before that, we're also going to give you a little bit of Maas Jobrani. How's it going, Maas? Hey, I'm happy to be here also last Friday of the year. And, you know, do paychecks come out today? I don't get a paycheck. I do stand up, so I don't know. You're going to message HR. Yeah, message HR, let them know to pay you.

Yeah, exactly. Friday night. Ma's very glad to have you here because as I alluded to in the intro, we will be talking about Nikki Haley and I look forward to you mercilessly mocking her. So glad to have you here for that. What did she do wrong? What did she do wrong? Anything?

I didn't. No, she just tried to inject some nuance and political theory into questions. Anyway, we'll get to that a little bit later on the show. Don't worry about that. But we have a lot of other news to get to, too, including the continued war over ballot access in the GOP primary. We're going to focus in on what Donald Trump is apparently planning to roll out in the area of immigration policy.

That's a doozy. And renewed Russian assaults inside of Ukraine. We're going to be breaking that down as well, as well as a lot more. And that's just in the first hour. We got an awesome second hour coming up for you as well. So hit that like button, share the stream. And we're going to jump right in the news, starting with this. First you have to look at what main state law says.

The secretary of state has to determine whether the individual means. meets the qualifications or not before they can be on the ballot. And in this particular case, thank you, Shena, thank you, Secretary of State. You made the decision that Donald Trump does not meet those qualifications because according to the 14th Amendment, Section 3, he was involved in the signing an insurrection against this country and egged those people on to do what they wanted to do to the Capitol. And therefore, she's made the decision that he is not qualified to be on our ballot. So as we discussed on the program, yesterday, did become this week the second state to bar Donald Trump from the GOP primary ballot.

And since the story broke right before we went live, there are more details that we can now discuss, including the fact that it was for, as with Colorado, engaging in insurrection or rebellion. And the difference really is that unlike in Colorado, where the Colorado Supreme Court was the body that ruled on this, in this case, it does come from one individual office holder who is in this case affiliated with the Democratic Party, but I'm sure the republics aren't going to focus on that. So basically this is Shennebello's main secretary of state. And look, we gave you the quotes yesterday. She says effectively that under section three of the 14th amendment, he engaged in insurrection and the text is pretty clear. So we've been continuing

to debate this on the program. We'll probably do so right now. But before we launch into that conversation. I do want to remind you of the exact wording of Section 3 because the vast majority of people, especially on cable news, particularly right-wing cable news, commenting on the story, would really like to pretend that nobody knows exactly what it says. It's all ambiguous. But what it says is no person shall hold any office civil or military under the United States who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution of the United States shall have engaged in insurrectional rebellion against the same or

or give an aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Now, I do think that there are a couple of different areas where things are not necessarily as clear as they might be. And thus the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in clearly. And bear in mind by the way that although this was an individual office holder rather than a state Supreme Court, like in Colorado, Shenabello's has already paused her order. But we do want to give you a little bit of her argument in support of it. She said, I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. Trump's occasional requests that rioters be peaceful and support law enforcement do not immunize his actions, I would add particularly because he waited hours and hours to do that. But Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a Democratic election and then chose to light a match. And so we are of course going to have to wait until the Supreme Court weighs in. They haven't even assured us that they're going to do that, but we expect that they're basically going to be forced to. You've got two states now that have said he's going to be knocked off. Some like California since Colorado have said that he will still be allowed on.

There's ambiguity, this is the place for the Supreme Court. So I'm going to start with you, Rayvana. What do you make of this and the fact that it is an individual Democratic-affiliated office holder? Yeah, it's definitely interesting. like the statement she put out because these are unprecedented decisions, but we're also living in unprecedented times. And I agree that the more states make these decisions, the more likely it is. And I'm certain the Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue. And for everyone who's

celebrating Trump being taken off the ballots, I would urge you to pump the brakes and put zero faith in the Supreme Court, lest you be severely disappointed down the road. Because I don't foresee any universe in which they don't reverse these decisions. As you mentioned, John, and as I sort of laid out last week when we were discussing the Colorado decision on your show, there is a legal argument to make on both sides that isn't just coming from a very biased conservative point of view. You can listen to the conversation we had there, anyone who's interested in hearing that I don't think it necessarily bears repeating now. But as far as, seen some think pieces being written up about this, whether or not people should be cautious

about the fact that this is one individual making this decision, one Secretary of State. I think we all need to keep in mind that the laws in Maine differ greatly from a majority of the other states in which the Secretary of State in Maine is put in a quasi-judicial role, where the impetus to make this decision really does come down to the Secretary of state. And it's a completely reasonable position to come to that Donald Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment by inciting an insurrection. And it doesn't need to, and Republicans are going to argue this, but it doesn't need to be, it doesn't need to be a criminal proceeding to determine that he engaged in an insurrection to fulfill the requirements of this

section of the Constitution. Absolutely not. And so, you know, I don't think that this decision is going to stand. And maybe we can get into later some of the reasons why I think the DNC might not want it to stand politically from their perspectives. But we're going to be getting a lot of propaganda coming out from the Republican Party as a result of this. It's already begun. Moss? Yeah, it's, I mean, it blows my mind that we're even having this discussion that this guy's not behind bars. And, you know, the Secretary of State in Maine has decided that he's not eligible to run for president. The only thing that this guy should be eligible for is parole in 10 to 15 years.

He should not be out right now. The fact that there's people supporting this guy, this guy has said he's going to run this country into the ground and get rid of democracy and make it an autocracy. He, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he's a big criminal. We all know, you know, you know, whether it's financial. There's an argument to be made that the insurrection that he led was the cause of the people that died that day, whether it's Ashley Babbitt or any other, uh, law enforcement official or anyone else. And so the fact, I get the idea that, um, you know, as Ravanna is saying, it's true that obviously, if I had to bet on it, you know, we would bet that is not going to stand this of this ruling, nor the Colorado. one. By the way, the Colorado one, if I'm not mistaken, was brought by some Republicans. Am I, right? And so there's a lot of people that are of sane mind that know this guy shouldn't be running. And then there's a lot of people that continue to support this guy that once they're out of office or nothing else is on the line for their careers, then they come out of sane mind and they say this guy shouldn't be running for office. And then there's a lot of

people that are living in fear of this guy that just support this guy and have this guy holding us hostage. There's a small percentage of the population that, you know, out and out supports this guy. And here we are. And it just blows my mind. It blows my mind that this is even a question. Yeah, it is like we're going to get into debate about exactly what should the trigger be for whether you're involved in insurrection. But yeah, it is crazy that it's been a couple of years and he theoretically could suffer no consequences whatsoever. Like, he shot his shot on January 6th. I think it says in the Constitution, if you come for the king, you best not miss,

and the dude missed, and he's still out there, and so far nothing has happened. I want to get into a few of the reactions to this because I have reactions to their reactions. So with the main decision coming out that Trump theoretically could be barred from their ballot, not everyone who you might expect that would be in favor of this is in favor of this. And I want to break down some of their responses, starting with Representative Jared Golden, a Democrat of Maine, who noted in a statement following this decision that he voted voted to impeach Trump over January 6th and opposes his reelection, but said, quote, we are a nation of laws, therefore, until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed

on the ballot. Which I think, I just, there are so many different arguments that you could use to say that we should pump the brakes on this. And I just think that that's one of the weaker ones, because again, that is not, that's you critiquing like the wording of Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Like you'd prefer that it says something different, that rather than say you participated in insurrection, you'd like it to say that you were convicted of participation. And honestly, I think that's probably a fair amendment to make. But if you want that, then you need to amend the Constitution because that's not actually what it says. Or at least that it's never been adjudicated in that way. Perhaps the Supreme Court will do that. We also have a statement from

Susan Collins, and I'm going to push past I think the natural inclination I have to not give a damn what she says about anything ever again, considering what she did when it came to Brett Cavanaugh. But in this topic, she says Maine voters should decide who wins the election, not a secretary of state chosen by the legislature. Bellow's decision would deny thousands of Mainers the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choices and it should be overturned, which is a perfectly fine thing for a random person on Twitter to say. But I would expect more of a senator. Again, like, would it deny them the chance to elect him? Yes. But It's in the Constitution, like again, if you want to change it, if you don't think that

Section 3 should exist, if you think that it's outdated or archaic, that it was only meant to apply to the Civil War, then get rid of it, pass an amendment. But until then, it is there. And I understand, like, that's a legal document. It's not just like a high coup that we think is catchy or something, like that is a legal document that is supposed to inform both laws and the decisions of the Supreme Court. And so to so casually just be like, yeah, but, but I don't like it. Wouldn't it be better if we voted him out?

Like, I agree. I would prefer that he lose the election. But I didn't write the Constitution and neither did you. And if you want to change it, you can do that. You're a senator. So I don't know, I find these to be weak arguments. Rayvana, I'll go to you. We've discussed both, I think, on this program and on the damage report, I think, stronger arguments.

They really seem to be focusing on areas that I don't find to be particularly persuasive. But what do you think about this? No, I think you're exactly right because the stronger arguments get more into the weeds and they know that that's not going to be receptive, their audience is not going to be receptive to that, right? Because it's not the same arguments that are being made in courts where this is being played out. The arguments being made there is that this section does not apply to the office of the presidency as opposed to the arguments that this is anti-democratic. But they're not going to make that argument because they've already prime. their base to be excited at the prospect that it's actually Democrats who are trying to overthrow democracy as we know it in this country, despite the fact that at the heart of this issue is that Donald Trump attempted to do exactly that. But we've seen Trump using this playbook for years and years now, but really ramping up the rhetoric in the past year or so. We saw him at his civil trial in New York where he did not have to be present.

whatsoever. But every day he would leave the courthouse, he would talk to reporters, and he would say that this trial is interfering with democracy because he's not able to be on the campaign trail, despite the fact that one day he just effed off from this trial and went golfing in the middle of it, clearly showing that he didn't need to be there. But we saw him already laying the groundwork for the big lie 2.0 saying without any evidence, and before a single vote has been cast that there's going to be fraud in the Iowa caucuses, they need to paint their opponents as attempting to overturn democracy because they know that that's what they're guilty of. They know that's what Trump is guilty of. But again, the base has already been

primed to be very receptive to actually saying, no, you, to the Democrats. Yeah, and I will say a couple of things. First of all, Susan Collins, not only her comment, what she did with Kavanaugh, but also as an Iranian American, when January 6th happened, Susan Collins was interviewed and she said when she heard that the Capitol was being attacked, she thought it was the Iranians. And I read that, I go, she can't be, this can't be real, and it is real. That's how out of touch this lady is with reality. Everyone that says, oh, we should let the voters decide.

The voters decided and the guy chose not to accept the results. There's a lot of people that defend him and go, well, in 2024, the voters which you should decide. Will he accept the results this time if the voters don't choose him? That's a great point. It's just, yeah, it's totally crazy. And then this other guy who's a Democrat who says, well, wait until he's proven guilty. Again, I feel like we are all seeing someone who's in an abusive relationship and we've all seen the abuse. We can all see with our eyes. And there's somebody over there going, well, now wait a minute, let's make sure. Well, we did make sure because the Colorado court actually looked at what happened and decided, yes, he's guilty of

insurrection. This secretary of state, she didn't just wake up one day and go, oh, I saw one video from one angle. She actually looked at it. And in her decision, he's guilty of insurrection. So in a way, he hasn't been tried by a jury yet, by the, but the judges in these two cases, whether it's the Colorado judges or the main secretary of state have decided he was guilty of insurrection. So for that main congressman to say, wait till the, you know, we find if he's guilty or not, he's been found guilty. So he should be off the ballot until, as Ravanna was saying,

this right-leaning Supreme Court is going to come and say, well, you know, we're just going to just do this for now and let him continue to be abusive. And by the way, he also supposedly put it on his truth. Social put the contact information for the Secretary of State in Maine. I just heard this just a few minutes ago that he put her contact information out, again, doing more of what he's done, which is to dock somebody, knowing that his cuckoo supporters are going to go and either threaten violence or do violence. And so this guy's dangerous.

I just, I can't scream enough. Like, I'm a comedian. I'm supposed to be funny. I'm not funny because he's driving me nuts. I don't know. Just to add on also quickly, Maz, to what you are saying, the main secretary of state held comprehensive hearings on. both whether or not she had the authority to do this and the substance of what she was deciding.

So Republicans, and you're exactly right, are sort of trying to point that, oh, she just saw a video on Facebook, right? And she, on a whim, decided or she's being very partisan. But she went through the process she was supposed to go through to come to the determination that she did. Well, that that's very helpful context. And also you pointing out the difference in the role of Secretary of State in Maine compared to other states. It's very easy to forget that, like, it's not 50 states and they're just like stamps. Like each one can be very, very different even if the roles sound the same, the names of the roles. And I get why they, well, first of all, they don't care how she came to the conclusion because they don't like the result.

But I can also see why they would assume that she would just decide it because it seemed to be to her political benefits, because that's how they would operate. Like, that's why they keep talking about a slippery slope, like that we should be terrified that if Donald Trump, after engaging insurrection is taken off, well then any president who tries to overturn the results of the election could be barred. Like that's a scary, slippery slope. And to be clear, although I'm breaking down what I see to be weak arguments, that doesn't mean that I think it's clear and he should be barred. I think there's a case that could be made.

I think there's a case against it, that it could be clear. And I don't think that the Supreme Court is going to uphold him being barred, although we won't know for sure to what, like, what amount of their decision is an actual reading of the Constitution, the law, and what is the fact that you have Clarence Thomas on there, for instance? So I am concerned about that. But really fast, I just want to end with one more, we're going to go to one person who actually is in favor of this and is a Republican. This is former Maine Republican Senator Thomas Saviallo talking about the decision.

You made the decision that Donald Trump does not meet those qualifications because according to the 14th Amendment, Section 3. He was involved in the signing an insurrection against this country and egged those people on to do what they wanted to do to the Capitol. And therefore, she's made the decision that he is not qualified to be on our ballot. That's the difference. And she made that in a very thoughtful manner. She ran a wonderful hearing whether we won a law. She really listened to what everybody had to say and made that ultimate decision yesterday. Do you have any concerns? And this is the criticism that we've heard, frankly, from people on both sides of the aisle, that it takes away the ability of main voters to have their

voices heard. When you hear that- If somebody's not qualified- Go ahead. Yeah, I was just going to say, if somebody's not qualified, they shouldn't be on the ballot. The second thing, if they want to write his name and at the end of the day, go ahead. But a fact is the man incited a riot on January 6th, that's what brought me to the table. And when I wrote the Colorado decision that basically said he did create that insurrection, And Senator Secretary of State Bellow said the same thing, that needs to be stopped. And again, I understand like it makes an interesting conversation to focus on, are they being

denied the voter, whatever, rather than focusing on the law? I get that. But both specific to Trump and just in general, it doesn't seem like that's an actual conversation that we want to have at anything other than the most shallow of levels. As Maz pointed out, Trump wanted to deny like over 70 million people their vote by overturn the results of the election. He was perfectly happy to tell them to go F themselves and their vote wouldn't count for anything. When he tried to overturn the results of the Iowa caucus in 2016, because Ted Cruz beat him, he didn't care about Iowa caucus goers, when he tried to have Barack Obama blocked from running for the presidency because he said that he wasn't born in the United States.

Did he care about the chance that people would have to vote for him? And by the way, that brings up a more general point, like they're mad that this being in the Constitution might bar him for being a choice for the voters, but there are other things that bar Maine voters from supporting someone. Are they filling the airwaves every day arguing that, hey, why do you have to be 35 years old? If Maine people want to elect a 21 year old, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Why do you have to be a natural born citizen? What's like, again, to what extent do they actually care about people's ability to have their voice be heard? If they cared so much about that, why do Republicans spend so much of their time trying to roll back voting rights in states around

the country. Like, it is in very specific instances they care about the will of the people being heard and not much beyond that. You make a great point. Like, what if I like the policies of El Chapo? I want to vote for El Chapo, but he's not an American citizen. And he's a criminal. You're taking away my right to vote. So Donald Trump at least is half of El Chapo. He's a criminal and he should be off the ballot because he tried to overthrow this country. Thank you, Maas. That's going to be the slogan for his run, Donald Trump 2024, half of El Chapo, right? Any thoughts, right?

Yeah, I'll just end by saying that the Republicans are going to tell you that this is the Democrats' secret nefarious plan to get Trump off the ballot so that they can steal the election. But I think, Maas, you raised a great point earlier, which was that the Colorado challenge was brought by a group of Republicans. And I want to remind everybody that the polling as of late has shown that any Republican that's not Trump in a head to head with Joe Biden beats him. So the idea that the DNC is trying to orchestrate a plan where Joe Biden has a bigger uphill challenge than he already does in the 2024 election is complete and utter nonsense. 100%. It like they may not like that polling result, but it is just ridiculous that they have to

to pretend not to see it so that they can imply that Trump is strong and the Democrats are being unfair. Trump being on the ballot is the only chance that Joe Biden appears to have, at least as of right now. So it's a great point. We are going to end this segment. When we come back, more to discuss. So don't go anywhere. Welcome back to the power panel, everyone. If you're just joining us now, hit that like button. We got big news to talk about. We're getting more details about Donald Trump's plans when it comes to the southern border.

And they're extreme, I think to put it mildly. He apparently plans to deploy an absolutely massive number of soldiers to the border. Like on this scale, like beyond even the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They're talking about potentially sending up to 300,000 soldiers to the southern border to both apprehend migrants and also set up an industrial scale network of camps and detainment centers. This is according, by the way, to three different sources with knowledge of the matter who have talked with either Trump, Stephen Miller, others in his ghoulish circle of immigration policy advisors talking with Rolling Stone. And we're gonna give you a few more details. They basically said they're gonna do this surge of federal troops to totally seal the border. And he plans to give himself sweeping powers on day one.

Remember, that's the one day where he gets to be a dictator, we found out recently, potentially sending hundreds of thousands of troops. And one of the people talking of Rolling Stone said, I've heard anywhere between 100,000 to 300,000 from President Trump, Stephen Miller, and others on what may be required. to get the job done right. There are differences of opinion on how many you would actually need, and everyone has their own ideas, nothing is set in stone. So again, this is to effectively wall off the border and set up camps, huge numbers of camps. And I have to think that when people, regular people from across America decided to enlist with the US military, what they hoped to do was set up concentration camps across the entirety

of our southern border. I think that was the dream for many of them. And finally, it might come true if Donald Trump gets his way. Maz, I'm gonna start with you. What do you think about this reporting? Well, we are the leading country when it comes to imprisonment. So why not keep it going at the border, right? Maybe that's the idea is we get those prisons to help set up concentration camps on the border and will make the prison industrial complex even more rich and more oppressive towards people that are fleeing a horrible situation. Why not fix the actual immigration policy that we have? Why not look at that? Why not say rather, that's the problem is that it's very easy to get people, Americans to be anti-immigrant. I'm an immigrant. And we're

When people go, immigrants are causing this problem and that problem and this problem. Immigrants statistically have committed less crimes in America than Americans. The biggest threat to Americans are Americans. And yet we want to put a, we want to put 100,000 troops, 300,000 troops of the border. How about putting hundreds of thousands of troops around the white supremacists and Donald Trump? And how about putting some troops in front of the capital when, when you know they're going to be attacking it? How about that? How about some of these?

It's such a moral dehumanization. It's so easy to dehumanize people. And I hope that we continue to talk about this. And I hope we continue to talk about the cruelty. I'm not saying there's not a problem with immigration. We should fix it. We should care to fix it. But it's so easy to demonize somebody else and say,

there why you are making less money or your insurance prices are up or whatever the hell they want to make you know you have your governor abbott sending migrants to all these democratic cities and you know there's a lot of people going like that's right keep doing it it's such a cruel and dehumanization of people actually fleeing bad problems which by the way a lot of the people fleeing their situations are situations caused by our greed going into their countries, taking their resources, and now they got to escape. So let's not forget that either. So, you know, again, it blows my mind that we're putting these poor people into, he wants to put those people, poor people into concentration camps, and he's out

free. I mean, I don't even know what I'm going to do if he wins. I'm sick of it. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Like, and there are, we do have issues with immigration, right? And our issues are that if you live in a country like Mexico and you have a family member here and you want to immigrate, you know, quote unquote, the right way. You can be waiting 21 years, 21 years to be able to do it the supposed right way. And that's something that the Republicans will never tell you when they screech on and on about how people need to come here the right way. They also will never tell you that the same, you know, migrant caravans that they fearmonger about are people who are coming here the supposed right way. They are asylum seekers utilizing international law

to come to the United States to declare asylum. And when I was working in immigration law, my clients were all asylum seekers. And hearing the heartbreaking circumstances that they were escaping from, you know, it's the reason why immigration law has such a high turnover rate because it's so depressing. You have judges that don't let three-year-olds going through immigration processes in court have an adult with them because they believe they can explain the circumstances to, a three year old in a meaningful way. Our system is broken. And one of the ways that the Trump administration really severely damaged the way that we process asylum cases is that there is no

rhyme or reason to who gets called up from the waiting list. Because once you've declared asylum, you have to go through an interview and you could be waiting. I had a client who was waiting five years before I started working with her. And then once Trump came into office, he completely messed up that system and it was just a long game. I don't know if she ever has had her interview yet. And it's just, you know, some insidious, and they weren't highly publicized, but these insidious ways that he manipulated the Department of Homeland Security to make the system more broken than it already was and hearing what he plans to do. And the very, the means through which he plans to do it by utilizing the insurrection act, ironically, considering he's Donald Trump,

is how he wants to achieve his goal of creating these concentration camps at the border by using the United States military, and that he might be able to do it because the insurrection act is written in ways such that it doesn't provide the legal safeguards that it should to prevent a dictatorial president like Donald Trump from utilizing it in that manner. Yeah, no, you made great points there. Unfortunately, no Republicans listened to you after you said international law. They pretty much tuned out after that. Yeah, look, it feels like I'm already starting to feel that like pit in my stomach that thankfully went away once Donald Trump, thankfully was not successful in getting reelected of that you were going to wake up every morning to, oh, maybe hundreds of thousands of soldiers are going to the border again. Like that utterly insane. news on a daily basis. And it could, it could welcome. I mean, it's going to be back to, you know, finding out that there's Oval Office conversations about putting spikes on top of the wall, and maybe we could have a moat with alligators, and maybe we should shoot them in the

leg, like this utterly insane cartoon approach to policy. And that is potentially coming back in. And honestly, for some of it, you might not even have to wait until Donald Trump gets elected. We'll end with this. I will remind you that right now, Joe Biden, who wants to get more aid to send a Ukraine, which we'll be talking about later on the show, is running up against Republican demands that he give in in a number, massive number of different ways on the topic of immigration to get that aid. And so that could include restrictions on asylum, new legal authorities for mass numbers of migrants to be deported with far less or no due process.

And honestly, with Joe Biden being the person engaging in these conversations, He's like, we know what immigration policy and Joe Biden has been like during his first term. It's not exactly the same as Donald Trump, but there was far more continuity than most people, either Biden supporters or Trump supporters, want to admit to. And so like when I see CBS News say he now finds himself entertaining drastic and permanent restrictions, I have to wonder, like, to what extent is he backed into the corner? Like, I don't think that he's, he's not Stephen Miller or anything, but I don't know, Has he been like a champion on this topic for migrant rights and the decency of asylum?

You know, people requesting asylum throughout his career. I just, I feel like there is more equivalence in approach to this policy than is being admitted by the national media. And when the stakes are as high as they are, I find that to be very worrisome. Rivana, I want to go to you first, fast final comment before we move on. Yeah, I'll just end by saying you're exactly right. I worked in immigration law under the end of the Trump administration, the beginning of the Biden administration, at a time in my life where I was much less jaded and had a lot more optimism about the changes that were going to come. And I didn't see them. And we haven't seen them, not in a strong, meaningful capacity. Some of the changes we have seen were changes that came through courts telling Joe Biden that he had to reverse Trump era policies and not the Biden administration actually doing and delivering on the promises that they made on the campaign trip. We had Kamala Harris telling migrants do not come without taking any meaningful measures to reverse.

As Maas pointed out, the United States policies that cause the crises that caused the influx of immigration in the first place. So many, something I heard a lot, and I'll just end with this, working in asylum law, was that these asylum seekers, they didn't want to come here. They were forced to come here. They would much rather live in their countries of origin where their families are, where they, you know, know the language that's primarily spoken, but they were forced by mostly things that the United States created in their country. Economic circumstances, large scale corruption, forced them to leave their homes and come to the United States just to be met with racism, hostility, and horrific, horrific xenophobic immigration policy. Yeah, I would always say that there's no, no people are sitting around going like, wow, my family's here. I got a job. I have everything. I speak the language. Let me go somewhere where I don't speak the language and they're going to hate me. Exactly where Ravanna just said, that these people aren't dying to come over here either. And the, the unfortunate thing is how easy it is to manipulate the general population to be against immigrants. And I think, I don't know. know if I sat down one-on-one with Joe Biden where his mind would be, if he'd be sympathetic and empathetic to their cause. But the fact that he has to have these policies that for the,

you know, if he doesn't, I think part of it is that he'll get the pushback from the Republicans saying like, oh, look at how weak you are. They already say it regardless. As you said, John, it hasn't, his policies haven't changed that much from the Trump policies. And yet they're still attacking him. And I, it's just, it's heartbreaking. And like Americans, we're supposed to be sympathetic and, and, you know, accept people. It's just so hypocritical because a lot of these people are also like hardcore Christians. They're like, I'm Christian, but don't come and shoot them at the border. You're like, where'd your Christianity go?

So, I don't know. Yeah, it's absolutely frustrating. I'm glad that you brought that up. I wish we had more time because I always have a lot to say on that, considering the nature of Jesus and everything. But we do have to take our final break of the hour because when we come back, We have a big story. Nikki Haley continuing to flounder when asked incredibly simple questions.

We'll have that more after this. coffee and delivery. Lots of more to talk about. Let's jump into it. Thank you, Nikki. I wanted to ask you, so Chris Christie thinks that you're a flip slopper on the Donald Trump issue. And honestly, I agree with him. Basically the new John Kerry on that. You remember John Kerry from 2004. So my question is, how can you be, how can you change your opinion like that in just eight years?

And will you pardon Donald Trump? Nikki Haley may just want to stop doing these town halls because they're not going great for her. Amazing sweaters, but the interaction with the voters is not working out the way that she wants. That was Adam, a fourth grader, drawing an equivalence between her and John Kerry, who, as Edwin noted, Adam was not alive when John Kerry was running for president, but still, I appreciate the call back there. So it's a tough question. Are you being a flip-flopper on the topic of Donald Trump? And here's her attempt to answer that question. So the first thing I'll tell you is politics is about distraction, right? And so people like my friends, Chris Christie, are going to say, she's a flip-flopper.

But let's look at it. What's he saying I'm flip-flopping on? He's basically saying that I'm not hitting Trump hard enough, right? The interesting part of this whole situation is anti-Trumpers think I don't hate him enough. And pro-Trumpers think I don't love him enough. And at the end of the day, the fact is, I'm just telling you the truth like I see it. It's not personal for me. It's never been personal for me.

I told you I think he was the right president at the right time. I told you that I agree with a lot of his policies. But do I think he's the right president to go forward? No, we can't handle the chaos anymore. That's a lot of fun there. I love starting up an answer by saying politics is about distraction. and then largely distracting from the very real concerns that Adam was bringing up there. I don't care if you think that it's personal or not.

Donald Trump is not just a joke, he's not just a side show. It's a very serious thing. There are serious risks if he becomes president again. And you saying, you know, he was a good president then, but now you're running against him, so he's obviously not the right president. Like you so think he's not the right president for us that you are willing to go up against him. And yet we all know that if he offers you the VP position, you're going to end up taking it. So Adam is a hundred percent right.

That is about the most substantive flip-flopping that one can imagine. Supporting a guy who is promising terrible, devastating things, seeing four years of his presidency, including his utterly botched response to COVID, and then going up against him, but obviously holding in your back pocket the possibility that you could serve in his administration again is utterly ridiculous. But to be fair, I think that that's what's drawing headlines, that response, but I think this is even worse. I would pardon Trump. And the reason is, first of all, we don't know what they're going to find innocent guilty any of that.

And we want everybody to be innocent until proven guilty. But the second thing is, if he is found guilty, a leader needs to think about what's in the best interest of the country. What's in the best interest of the country is not to have an 80 year old man sitting in jail that continues to divide our country. What's in the best interest of the country would be to pardon him so that we can move on as a country and no longer talk about him. Okay, I think we're gonna be talking about him either way. And the idea that he's not gonna continue to divide the country, if only we let him out of

prison, that's certainly a theory. Rivana, what do you think about it? Well, first I want to say to the nine-year-old Adam, unlearn who John Kerry is, okay? Look, I take a tip from me. I am jaded, I am sad, I am angry every day because politics is my life. You don't have to live like this. Hop on Roblox. There's still time, you can be saved. That aside, in response to what she said, well, first my question would be, Nikki Haley, do you want to pardon all 80-year-old men who are sitting behind bars? What about 80-year-old men who are behind bars for, you know, petty theft or for, you know, drug charges?

Should we pardon them? No, just Donald Trump. Okay. All right, Nikki Haley. So it seems like that wasn't a major consideration in it. But, I mean, at the end of the day, he's right about her flip-flop. And she's been pathetic the past couple days on the campaign trail, you know, to her detriment. after she had really been picking up some steam within these, within the polls lately.

But she, it's, it seems like she's not capable of answering a question correctly, even the ones that have been super softball questions. And, and to say she would pardon Donald Trump to heal the country is absurd, as though, you know, him being convicted would not be enough to outrage his supporters or the idea that, you know, People like us who are saying and can acknowledge that he committed crimes for which he should be going to jail for would not be outraged if he was pardoned and allowed to, you know, live out the rest of his days with some level of peace and not behind bars where he belongs. It's just an absurd claim to make, especially as justification for it for what would be a crazy decision. But what we need to keep in mind is that she's saying this because she knows she's not going to win and she's vying for a position in a potential Trump administration. 100%.

Most of all, I think if someone has not, they should take that clip of Nikki Haley listening to the kid talk and put her thoughts because she keeps smiling. But you know, she's like, you little twerp. What do you, where you, you look at the smile. She's like, you little piece of whose kid is, who let this kid in? You could see her seething with her distaste at this kid. She's really pissed off at this kid, and she tries to turn around, well, look, what a, what a great question you asked right there, young man.

So that's one thing that I thought would be fun to do. The other thing is, you couldn't write, like, Nikki Haley's answers in these town halls feels like, like, I forget that what that movie was. There was a movie, I think, it was Chris Rock or Bernie Mac was running for president, and they were totally unqualified. It feels like a comedian is running for president. And this is where the speech writers are like in their ear giving the answer and he's mishearing it or she's mishearing it. She's giving these, you know, what was the civil war about? Well, the civil war was about being civil.

You want to be civil or uncivil? Is it a war? Is it a war? I mean, it's just, she's so uncharismatic. We know, we know politicians lie. We know they flip-flop. If I were Nikki Haley, I would have been like, listen, kid, everyone's flip-flopped on Donald Trump. Because for a day, we all thought he was done. So we all stood up. Even Lindsey Graham stood up and said,

I'm done with him. Then he flip flopped. And Kevin McCarthy flip flop. The only person that hasn't flip flop is Chris Christie, who is adamant about his dislike of Trump. And so, hey kid, why don't you go ask Chris Christie? Why he's not a flip flopper? The rest of us are. And the fact is, look at his following. The base, there's 30% of Republicans are his base. I need those numbers. So I'm flip-flopping kit until the guy is convicted. And if he's convicted, I hope somebody else is president so that I don't have to pardon him because they'll probably have to pardon him. They'll probably pardon him. I don't want to really pardon him, but I will. I'll say I'll pardon him because that's the thing to say.

100%. And by the way, like you just said, like pardoning that guy and letting him out is going to bring the country together because, I mean, you don't have to, you got to lock this dude up in a hole with no technology. If this guy doesn't serve a little bit of time in jail, I'm giving up on everything. I'm done. I mean, I've been waiting years, even if he did, even if they get him on a parking violation, and he's got to spend one night in jail in Maine. Yeah. That's all I ask.

We're going to work on it, okay? We're going to make some calls. But anyway, yeah, it's just, she's been doing terrible. And look, I don't want people to think that we're focusing too much on her and her terrible responses. stuff like the Civil War question. Heads up to the media, ask Ron DeSantis and Ramoswamy what the cause of the Civil War was. And see them dance around acknowledging the truth. Russia has recently launched one of its biggest air attacks in the war against Ukraine thus far,

killing 31 civilians, wounding more than 160 and hitting a number of different cities, as well as civilian infrastructure across a wide swath of the country. According to the Ukrainian foreign minister, today millions of Americans, millions of Ukrainians, I should say, awoke to the loud sound of explosions. I wish those sounds of explosions in Ukraine could be heard all around the world. And I understand the concern because obviously the, you know, the eyes of the world are less focused on Ukraine considering other conflicts. But Vladimir Zelensky also tried to draw attention to this on Twitter posting about the wide range of different civilian facilities that were hit, including maternity wards, schools, shopping malls, residential buildings, storage parking lots across a number of different cities. And the Ukrainian Air Force says that they downed 87 cruise missiles and 27 suicide drones.

And yet many were successful and a number of people lost their lives. And because I don't know that we've we've talked about these numbers recently, I also just want to let everyone know how significant the violence has been through this year and a half long conflict. US intelligence believes that Russia has sustained 315,000 casualties in this in this conflict that they needlessly began. That's both deaths and injuries. The Ukrainian death toll, according to anonymous US sources, is estimated around 70,000,

including about 10,000 civilians, including 560 children, which is a monumental amount. It's devastating and it's not abating. Larger attacks than we've seen for a number of months. Ravanna, I want to start with you. What do you make of this? I mean, it's, it's despicable. And it does feel like Russia capitalized, and you know, this is the also speculate, you know, my speculation, but speculation that was made by Ukrainian officials as well. They're capitalizing on a moment where they think the eyes of the world are no longer on them to launch this devastating attack that took the lives of so many civilians, especially at a time where there are in this country, Republicans who are refusing to allow any aid to Ukraine.

as an attachment to any sort of bill, that they're fighting, aid going to Ukraine, even aid, just to their civilians, military aid as well. I think that it is absolutely reasonable to believe that that is one of the reasons why Russia launched this attack at this moment. And it's important to note that there's devastating civilian death, but also destruction of infrastructure and displacement going on in Ukraine as well. I know we've focused a lot on the horrific circumstances, the genocide in Gaza. But there is a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.

And I'm glad we're getting an opportunity to cover this story so that more people can be aware that this is not over. It has been ongoing. It's been going on for quite some time now. And the people of Ukraine are desperate for Western attention and Western aid. mass yeah i uh you know i i i'm very much opposed to war but when you have a situation like this i think it's pretty obvious that we have to continue to support the ukrainians because they need it otherwise they're gone and then and then who knows where else vladimir putt goes after i mean it's really just heartbreaking to hear these things hear these numbers

again the same thing with the war going on uh with israel and gaza and uh And I really wish there were a diplomatic solution to this. I really wish we could push through something. But in the meantime, I think the best bet they have is the United States stepping up. But you have these, you know, again, Republican members of Congress who are really trying to sell this idea that why are we spending money there when we have problems here. Again, where there's actual money set aside for things like that versus money set aside for things in America. By the way, if you were to say to those same Republican Congresspeople, well, okay, fine, you know what, let's take that money and help our people here. They probably not vote for it.

They probably say, no, we don't want that money going to helping anybody who needs actual help in America. We want that money to go towards corporation, corporate tax breaks and whatever. So, you know, there's a lot of hypocrisy. There's a lot of, you know, covering people's eyes with their, with their, you know, this is idea of isolationism. Ukraine doesn't need us, but the truth is that we all know that they do, and this is a reminder. So, you know, sad. I understand. Maz, always a pleasure to have you here.

Thank you. Everyone check out Maz Jabrani, Rivana as well, thank you, appreciate your contributions. Everyone stick around. There's another hour coming up right after this.