The Young Turks - Fools Parade

Episode Date: December 7, 2022

Bernie Sanders will bring the Yemen War Powers resolution to the floor sometime next week. Meta may remove news from its platform if Congress passes a media bill. Mike Pence just played himself in the best way. John Bolton threatens that he will run for President in 2024 in an effort to try and stop Trump. Being dull might help you run entire nations. Host: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur 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. Woo! It's up! All right. I think you're out of Caspairn with you guys.

Oh, this is interesting. Yeah, we're in a double box for no reason. Okay, anyways, fun for everybody. At least you get to see Anna while you're seeing me, so that's good news for everybody. That's definitely good news. Okay, so we've got the Georgia runoff for you guys tonight. So we're gonna have the normal show obviously 6 o'clock to 8 o'clock and then 8 o'clock. We've got warlock.

I've done that now twice, calling them warlock. You know why? Because there's a story about witches in the show today. There is. Which is where warlocks are gonna come into play. But no, Warnock versus Walker, so it's understandable why I make that Freudian slip. Anyways, will we elect a literal lunatic into the Senate? I know there's a lot of metaphorical lunatics, lunatic adjacent, but Herschel Walker is the real deal.

And it's nipp and tuck. We'll find out tonight, you'll love that coverage. And man, today's show is got so many stories that tell you how politics and government actually works. So stay right here. I think you're going to love it. Yes. Well, we begin with a story that's really being represented as a big deal. But in my opinion, it's a nothing burger, especially when you compare it to how ordinary people would be treated if they committed tax fraud. So this afternoon, the Trump organization was found guilty of criminal tax fraud by a New York jury. Yes, a jury has weighed in. They have deliberated.

They have considered all the evidence presented. And it does turn out that the Trump organization did exactly what we all assumed it did. It committed tax fraud. Now, first, some background to understand this case and this trial. The Trump organization was indicted in June of 2021 for alleged tax fraud based on allegations that the company devised and operated a scheme to defund, or defraud, I should say, to defraud tax authorities by paying executives through gifts and other off the books compensation and then not paying taxes on it, particularly the CFO, the chief financial officer,

Alan Weisselberg, who was also indicted and already pleaded guilty before the trial. Now, this is really about receiving compensation that goes unreported, gifts of value that go unreported, you're supposed to pay taxes on things like that. And that is not what was going on within the Trump organization, including the compensation that was given to the CFO Weisselberg in this case. Weisselberg spent several days on the stand testifying about the tax schemes. He and two witnesses who received immunity during prior grand jury proceedings described a series of methods used by Trump organization executives to avoid taxes and payroll liability

on large bonuses and luxury gifts. One of the luxury gifts that stood out to me were the Mercedes-Benzes that were given to Weisselberg and his wife. And there were other high-end luxury gifts involved. Now, the Trump organization also argued that Weisselberg, you know, throwing him under the bus. They said that he acted alone in all of this, that they were unaware of it. But the prosecutors made the case that, no, the company as a whole, with other executives similarly involved, engaged in this tax fraud and were collecting basically untaxed compensation. Now, Jank, you have some stuff you want to say about this.

A lot of strong thoughts here. So strong thoughts. Yeah, exactly, our new show. So listen, guys, number one, this story is the exact opposite of what you think it is. So you'll see all over mainstream media, oh my God, they got Trump organization. Wow, heroic Democratic prosecutors holding Trump to account. No, why is it the exact opposite? Because the company is guilty, it's adjudicated now is guilty.

There's no question. Weisselberg is guilty. He's the chief financial officer, the guy who ran the books. In the trial, they clearly explained that Trump not only makes decisions with Weisselberg, but he's got handwritten notes where he says cut this guy's salary, et cetera, et cetera. So there's no question that Trump, who's the head of the organization, made these decisions. So how could Trump not be guilty? Well, there's only one way that Trump could not be guilty.

It's if the coward Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor in Manhattan, chose not to charge him. Now, why would you choose not to charge him if his organization, is guilty. His CFO is guilty. By the way, Michael Cohen, his top fixer is the one that exposed us and he's guilty. And he's already gone to prison. Everyone is guilty except Donald Trump. So this is not actually prosecuting Trump. It's the cover up for Trump. And done by Democrats. And now you'll see with your own eyes, because the story just broke, complicit with mainstream media, which will now pretend that there was accountability for Trump when the exact opposite happen. That's exactly right. This was not a Trump trial. This was a trial of the

organization and of Allen Weisselberg. And it's just fascinating because in one case after another, in one investigation after the next, what we keep seeing is that everyone surrounding Trump suffers the consequences of his actions, his behavior. Yes, they oftentimes take part in that activity as well, which gets them in trouble. I'm not trying to clear them of any wrongdoing. But the fish rots from the head down. And it's just amazing how everyone surrounding him seems to get caught up with legal liabilities. But Trump usually gets favorable treatment. While you're right, Jank, the media covers up for it and makes it appear as though Trump is suffering some real consequences here.

And you know who gets duped by the media the most on issues like this? Donald Trump, Donald Trump, who shouldn't be looking at this story and honestly giving himself a pat on the back for getting away with murder over and over. over again, but instead he thinks like prosecutors are raining terror on him. I want to read you his response to this outcome on truth social. He wrote, murder and violent crime is at an all time high in New York City. And the district attorney's office has spent almost all of its time and money fighting a political witch hunt for DC against Trump over fringe benefits. Something that in the history of our country has never been so tried in court before.

Two weeks at trial, yet no murder case has gone to trial in six years. I don't know if that's true, by the way. Not quite everything says the lie, ignore. But he's just completely losing it. You weren't the person who stood trial, even though you should have been the person who stood trial. Your CFO is the person you threw under the bus. He was the person who was prosecuted. He's the person who's suffering the ramifications of that.

I don't think that's exactly right. So let me just say one quick thing about the throwing under the bus that's related to all this. First of all, Trump, yet again, with an accidental great tactic, which is cry, cry, cry. And the more he cries, and he does it because he's a child and he can't help himself. And he's emotionally unwell, right? But it winds up being a great adventure because the Democrats are like, oh, no, somebody's crying. Oh, my God, but we have upset our opponent. We're so sorry, Donald.

Alvin Bragg is crawling around on the floor trying to find a way to appease this baby. You got away with it, you idiot. Let it go. But of course he won't. But the thing, part about him throwing Weisselberg on the bus, that one is just, that one he does mean, and it's just tactical. He's not actually throwing Weisselberg under the bus. That's why-

But telling prosecutors that Weisselberg acted alone? No, I know, but Weisselberg has agreed to that. Weisleberg did not turn on Trump. He never turned on Trump. What a good boy. What a good boy. And so this is where Weisselberg throws himself under the bus. Congratulations, good job.

And says, I'll take the head. That's why this is a terrible, disastrous story of complete, failure on the part of the criminal system, justice system. But there is one caveat. If Weisselberg gets a sentence that's much heavier than he expects, which I really, really doubt because those whole thing is meant to fluff Trump, right? But let's say he gets a 12-year sentence. Weisleberg at that point might go, hmm, well, remember that evidence I didn't tell you about against Trump, right?

And that might be an asterisk on this case, but it's very unlikely. But if that doesn't happen, this was nothing but an elaborate cover-up to help Donald Trump. The company got paid like a $1.26 million fine? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Let me, the fine was honestly negligible. It's comical. Yeah. So will this hurt the business much, right?

Like, is this really going to be, okay, exactly, there's that. But also, what are the, what will the outcomes be following the fine that, you know, the organization is ordered to pay? Well, the conviction on charges of tax fraud, a scheme to defraud conspiracy and falsifying business records is hardly a death sentence for the Trump organization. The maximum penalty it faces is 1.62 million, a rounding error for Trump, who typically notched hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue during his presidency, oftentimes by directing official presidential business to his property.

So a lot of that happened. Yeah, Alvin Bray is a total loser. So the guy commits hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud, and your maximum penalty is 1.62 million, and he doesn't get to, he doesn't go to jail, he doesn't face trial, he doesn't get any kind of ramification. I mean, he's a joke of a prosecutor. Watch everyone in mainstream media tell you the exact opposite. Oh, what a hero, Albert Braggis, he finally got the Trump organization. They don't, well, for how much, and what consequences is it out?

And they all pretend that he's building up to a bigger case when he finally gets Trump. I know, he's building up to this, this is it, that's it. He built up to a goddamn cover up. And remember, you know, Letitia James is also pursuing Donald Trump for civil, you know, in a civil suit, in a civil case against him. So, which of course doesn't go far enough when you consider the fraud that's taken place here. But the other thing I wanted to read to you, this is a line from Forbes. who reported on this story.

While prosecutors stopped short of indicting the former president, they invoked his name. Whoa. They invoked his name throughout the- They have said the magic name. These guys are so tough. Mainstream media, go fluff them. Oh my God, throughout the months-long trial, telling jurors that he personally paid for some of the perks and even approved a crucial aspect of the scheme.

Then why wasn't he indicted? Okay, you know why? Because you reach a certain level of elite, and it's hard to imagine someone like Trump being considered part of the elite. But once you're part of the elite, the elite will provide cover for your bad behavior. It doesn't matter if they disagree with you politically. It doesn't matter what kind of drama, partisan drama plays out publicly. When push comes to shove, the elite look out for each other. Because at the end of the day, They don't want to deal with anyone investigating their behavior? 200%.

Guys, there's last two things here that are really important about the system, not about Trump, okay? Number one, if you're tearing your hair out like everybody else, that's a real person as opposed to someone who lives in New York or D.C. Say, why won't they prosecute Trump, especially elected Democratic prosecutors, right? The reason is because their allegiance is not to the Democratic Party. Their allegiance is not to their voters. you are dead last in their priorities.

Their number one allegiance is to the club. That's what Anna just explained to you guys. So the Alvin Bragg, Joe Biden, all of them think, I mean, the very last thing we want any we want is for people in the elites to be held accountable. So if we hold Trump accountable, that opens a door. They care so much more about themselves and protecting their power than they do about prosecuting Trump or justice or their voters. That's another story that mainstream media will never tell.

you and as soon as I said it, you knew it was true, right? Everyone out there that is not in the elites knows for a fact that's obviously true. All right, last thing that's it also protects this ruling does corporate rule. Why? How does this trump on a small company that he owns? Why is this related? Because it allows prosecutors to do this fiction where they prosecute a company. But there's some, there's a human being running the company, but somehow the company is found guilty, which means absolutely nothing other than a minuscule, microscopic fine.

It means nothing, right? The company doesn't go to jail. The company is not shut down. There are no consequences, right? And what it does is it appears to be a prosecution, but it actually protects the people running the company from prosecution. And this is not the only case, it's just a pretty prominent case of it. Like Rick Scott is probably the biggest case of it. He's now a senator from Florida, governor twice.

He committed the largest Medicare fraud in American history. And it's not hyperbole. You could look it up, okay? His company did. And they said, no, the company is guilty, but Rick Scott is free to go. And then the company gave a $300 million exit package for a robbery well done. Yep. So Alvin Bragg is the guy who lets the robbers run around the back while going, oh, I got the guy, I got him, holding the fake guy.

And so he's 100% of the cover up. And so is the media that tells you this has any consequence. Well, let's move on to our next story, which also involves, well, Donald Trump's incitments that led to January 6th. Let's do it. The family members of fallen Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick refused to shake the hands of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and soon to be House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, both Republicans, of course, during a gold medal ceremony to honor police who responded. to the January 6th capital attacks. You can see it in this video while they very clearly think Chuck Schumer, they shake his hand.

They walk right past Mitch McConnell, even as he extends his hand for a handshake. They do the same to Kevin McCarthy, although he was smart enough to understand that they had no interest in shaking his hand, and he did not extend his hand. Now, this makes a lot of sense when you consider the rage that a lot of these family members have been feeling toward the way members of the Republican Party have minimized Donald Trump's role in inspiring those Capitol writers to storm the Capitol the way they did on January 6th. Police officers have criticized, by the way. Kevin McCarthy's response following the attack, including former D.C. officer Michael Fanon, who suffered a traumatic brain injury and a heart

attack in the riot and secretly recorded a meeting with the House Republican leader. Republicans have downplayed the seriousness of the attack, and Kevin McCarthy has personally minimized former President Donald Trump's role in stoking the mob. Now, not everyone who attended this gold medal ceremony was kind to the officers, including Michael Fanon. In fact, reporters like Ryan Riley are reporting that members of the Metropolitan Police Department Special Operations Division heckled former officer Michael Fanon at the conclusion. At the conclusion, congressional gold medal ceremony, they called me a piece of crap and mockingly called me a giant effing hero while clapping. Obviously, they're sarcastic about the hero part. And so there was that

part of it. But I do want to just quickly go back to the family members of the officer who unfortunately passed away soon after January 6th, and that was Officer Sicknick. Now, Brian Sicknick's brother, who's a lifelong Republican was asked by reporters why he decided to, you know, snub McCarthy and McConnell. And he explains why in this next video. Let's watch. They came out right away and condemned what happened on January 6th. And whatever told that Trump has on them, they've backstep, they've danced.

They won't admit to wrongdoing, not necessarily them themselves, but of Trump. of the riders, I mean, people like, people like Louis Gomer who presented an American flag that was sworn over the Capitol to a January 6th rioting and told them they were a patrick. It's disgusting. And now takes the way everything my brother's done. Takes away my brother, my heroism, my brother showed, you don't think, you don't think they deserved a handshake in this context? No.

So that was Ted, Brian Sicknick's brother. There were other family members who spoke to the press, including Gladys Sicknick, who told Daniela Diaz from CNN, why she didn't shake McCarthy and McConnell's hand. She said, they're just two-faced. I'm just tired of them standing there and saying how wonderful the Capitol Police is. And then they turn around and go to, go get down to Mar-a-Lago and kiss his ring, meaning Trump's ring, of course, and come back. It's just, it just hurts, she said.

Jane. Yeah, so it looked like the off camera, of course, they shake Nancy Pelosi's hand too. And McCarthy, as Anna pointed out, was wise enough to step back as soon as he saw they were not shaking McConnell's hand. McConnell looks super awkward out there like, please, please, I'm begging you, shake my hand. And this doesn't help the Republicans cause because as you saw towards the end of the last election cycle, they were emphasizing crime a lot and how much they love the cops. And here are the families of fallen police officers saying we hate Republicans so much,

we don't even want to shake their hands. So that's a double loss for McConnell and the Republicans. So but my main point here is I love that they didn't do this because, and look at the, I think the reporter means well, but even the framing of that question, like, and he's not speaking alone, this is the main question that any reporter in DC would have asked. Aren't they, aren't you snubbing them? Aren't they worthy of respect? Aren't they shouldn't, like, isn't it wrong of you not to honor them?

No, why? No, they're getting honored. They don't have to honor the prick that voted against them over and over and over again. The guy who didn't want to investigate the death of their family member, why would they want to honor and respect him? You get what you give. I'm sorry. So wait, so if someone who's considered elite disrespects me, I have to return, you know, instead of responding the way I should respond, I need to give them respect.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't care what anyone's status in life is. I don't care if they're a congressional lawmaker, congressional leadership. I don't care if it's the president of the United States. If family members of mine were harmed as a result of the aiding and abetting of other political figures who have incited violence toward my family members, there's no way in hell I would show respect to those individuals, ever, ever. I love that the family members stood their ground there. And look, it was a small thing, right?

Refusing to shake Mitch McConnell's hand, Kevin McCarthy's hand. That's not a massive protest, it's nothing crazy, but it speaks volumes and it lets these politicians know, listen, the real world doesn't care about what your elite status is. You show disrespect, you're gonna get disrespect in return. And that's what that was, in my opinion. Of course, but for people in Washington, they remember, they have a completely different reality. It's just like Trump world. It's hard to believe that they think these things, but they do.

Well, it's time to wake up, waky, wiki, okay? Every reporter in Washington, thinking that they're the brave, fourth estate, et cetera, assumes it's a mindset that the elite are so important. The powerful should be greatly respected. When in reality, they should be thinking of them as bums. Like they should be writing super critical stories, holding the government accountable, saying, look at the crooks, they take money from these guys, and then they do them favors. Look at they say that they're in favor of the cops, and then they vote against the cops, right? But instead, it's like if they ever do a criticism, it's couched in like flowers and rainbows and unicorns.

Like, well, I mean, Mitch McConnell did vote the wrong way, but I mean, my God, honor. respect, oh, Republican leader. No, no, no, no, no. He's a douche. Okay, he's a hateful prick who's ruined this country for saying that. Everybody in Washington will think we're radicals. What percentage of the audience agrees with us? I'm not talking about just our audience. I'm talking about America. I would guess that around at least 70% and that's what they're based on the polling. 70 to 80% of Americans agree with us. So are 80% of Americans radicals? No, you reporters and everyone in power inside Washington, New York, you're the radicals. That's exactly what McConnell and McCarthy should have got.

All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, there is some legislation that Amy Klobuchar is floating that is meant to, in her words, protect local media and independent news outlets. But the story is a lot more complicated than that. So we'll give you the details on the legislation, why it's actually a bad idea and more when we come back. All right, back during the social break, Anna's got the first comment. I just want to give a shout out to a wonderful viewer of ours, whose name is Stephen Nolan.

He is an author and obviously an excellent artist. And he sent me this beautiful painting of my dog. And when I opened it today, I just burst into tears because it was just like such an incredibly thoughtful gift, so talented. and he wrote me a really nice, positive note in the back. Just thank you so much for this. Yeah, I don't know. I just was not in a good mood today. Things have been kind of dark.

And I don't know how I would get through some of the stuff we have to talk about every day without you guys. So thank you so much to Stephen. Thank you for taking the time to do something so incredibly kind and thoughtful. I'm really appreciative of that. Why? And in the Ethernet in our member section also has kind words about Anna. Anna is drowning the slugs with salt. Slugs are cute though. It's a compliment of a different sort. Okay. Ojam writes and also worth noting the Democrats want to run against Trump because they think it's an easy win. Kind of like 2016, they've learned nothing. That's I not only is that 100% right. I now, as soon as I read your comment Ojam, I thought, uh-oh. Republicans are going to try to make sure Trump loses in the primary, and these idiot Democrats are going to try to make sure that he wins. They're going to play with fire again.

So anyway, OJM for making an excellent point, $100 gift card from Blue Apron, Food for Thought, and great job. So if you're a member, guys, every once in all for good comments to give away $100 on free food, t.com slash join to become a member. Democrats are idiots, shoe on the other foot, they think Republicans would not prosecute them. I'm not saying they shouldn't if similar fraud was found in companies of Democratic politicians, but Jesus they're stupid, hashtag Jenk was right. Okay, I'm tempted to give away $100 for hashtag Jenk was right, but I'm not going to do that. But anyway, yes, of course, Democrats never ever learned, they're never going to learn, and mainstream media is going to keep telling you they're geniuses when they're obviously,

as always acting like idiots. All right, Eva, women writes in, this is good news, should pave the way for other indictments. You hear you, unfortunately, it won't. But guys, that's the great thing. We put it out there for you guys to judge ahead of time. If it turns out we're wrong, okay, we'll come back and tell you, oh my God, I distract everything about Alvin Bragg, he's an American hero, he actually did indict, prosecuted Trump and put him in prison for fraud.

Okay, I would love to do that and I would love to say you're right. But the chance of that happening is about 2%. It is very, very, very unlikely. He's a normal, by all accounts, a normal Democrat. Democratic coward and he has no intention of actually going after Trump. Innocent Animal Dragon says mansion deal was put into the National Defense Authorization Fund. No, okay, another great example. I told you guys, they're not, you think the mansion side deal is done. It's not, everybody in Washington said, and I talked to actual Congress people,

et cetera. Oh no, Jake, it's done. Oh, they're not going to put it in the defense, of course they're going to put it in. You know who made sure that they're going to put it in? Reporting now, Joe Biden. Joe Biden's like, oh, I have to deliver from. for the guy who destroyed 85% of my agenda. Sure it was, Joe. You're all liars. All right, back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys. And KavZ247.

Thanks for becoming a member. We appreciate it. Hit the join button below on YouTube. You can become one as well. If you're not on YouTube, tyt.com slash join. Casper. All right. Well, this next story took a lot of digging to really understand what's going on here.

So buckle up, it's a wild ride. Meta, which of course is the parent company of Facebook, is threatening to block all news content from its platform should legislation that was introduced by Senator Amy Klobuchar passed through the so-called Defense Authorization Act. It's legislation that she's tacking onto what's referred to as a must-pass bill, which always passes with no problem in Congress. Now, the bill in question is known as the Journalism, Competition and Preservation Act, which sounds real good, okay, also known as the JCPA.

Now, what is the legislation and why are groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU against it? Let me give you the details first, and then I'll discuss. Now, the legislation introduced by Senator Klobuchar and backed by more than a dozen other lawmakers from both parties, would create a four-year exemption under U.S. anti-trust law, already that doesn't sound good, allowing news outlets to bargain collectively against social media platforms for a larger share of ad revenue in exchange for their news content. It is one of several tech-focused antitrust bills currently pending

on Capitol Hill. So understand what's happening here, okay? It is essentially a piece of legislation that makes an exemption for media companies seeking to join together to fight for for a larger share of revenue from these platforms, including Facebook. Now, on its face, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea, except it's literally saying, well, in this case, media monopoly is okay. Now, more on that in just a minute, but let me give you some more detail on the legislation on its face and how META has responded to it. Now, Andy Stone, who's a spokesperson for META, says,

if Congress passes an ill-considered journalism bill as part of national security legislation, we will be forced to consider removing news from our platform altogether, rather than submit to government-mandated negotiations that unfairly disregard any value we provide to news outlets through increased traffic and subscriptions. The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act fails to recognize the, the key fact. Publishers and broadcasters put their content on our platform themselves because it benefits their bottom line, not the other way around. That part I disagree with. They definitely benefit from it as well. I mean, we're talking about ad revenue. They take

a piece of that ad revenue, don't they? Facebook does? Certainly, yes. So they would want to drive up ad revenue as much as possible. How they share it with news outlets is a different question. Yes. Again, there's another story of strong opinions on, but keep going. So let me give you all the details though, because again, this is one of those stories. It's a piece of legislation that uses the right language, right, collective bargaining. That sounds real good. You want collective bargaining. It pretends to look out for the little guy, meaning independent media or local news outlets. But it completely ignores the fact, by the way, that much of the media today, especially local news, falls under giant corporate

conglomerates, okay? Totally ignores that. So in reality, what's happening behind, the scenes with this legislation is trying to give powerful news organizations and media conglomerates a leg up when it comes to advertising dollars on these platforms. More on this. So the strategy to get this passed was a pretty smart one. As I mentioned earlier, they're planning on tacking it onto a bill that usually passes with no problem whatsoever. Fight for the future, a digital rights organization told reporters that multiple sources had said a push to include the the JCPA in the annual defense bill was successful and that the National Defense Authorization Act included the JCPA's language.

Now let me understand this. If this is such a wonderful bipartisan piece of legislation that's really protecting journalism and free speech in America, freedom of the press in America, why do they need to attach it to the Defense National Defense Authorization Act? So that's a red flag in and of itself. 100%. Okay, but I got more, Jank. You've got to let me explain it in full because it's so easy to get tricked by this bill.

The bill has also attracted criticism for more than two dozen civil society groups that are often at odds with big tech on policy matters. In a letter Monday to congressional leaders, those groups said the JCPA could make miss and disinformation worse by allowing news websites to sue tech platforms for reducing a story's reach and intimidating them into not moderating offensive or misleading content. And by the way, those groups include the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Wikimedia Foundation, and also public knowledge. And in a letter, the letter also said the JCPA could end up disproportionately favoring

large media companies over the small, local, and independent outlets that have been hit by the hardest, or that have been hit the hardest by falling digital ad revenues. So I'm gonna give you some statements from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I think they did a great job explaining why they're against this piece of legislation. Before I do though, Jank, tell me why you have such strong opinions against it. Okay, so first of all, I'm gonna state our bias as a company. We've got bias on both ends. We actually will probably fall into the category of the news companies that could form a conglomeration.

But we also make a good amount of our revenue for Facebook. So that means that we don't want news to be taken off of. Facebook. We have bias in both directions. We're always open and transparent about how we report that. Okay, now, here's my real opinions. So number one, I just have a philosophical problem with this, and you could even call it a conservative position economically. The price fixing? Yeah, you can't, this is the government's supposed to protect you guys, okay? So if a government intervenes with a company and say, hey, you can do this and you cannot do this, you can't pollute, you can't price gouge, etc. that's one thing and and and what its main job is right when it gets between two companies

well all it's doing is political capture whichever set of companies gave more money to the politicians or have the advantage and in this case by the way the number one set of companies that helped determine who wins political office are local news companies those are the ones that run the not just the ads but the news stories that make the biggest difference in their election and re-election campaigns. So here they're saying, no, we're gonna let one set of companies set the price or help to set the price for another company completely. Why? Why are you guys getting involved?

If those companies don't want to do a deal with Facebook because Facebook didn't set the right rates, then they don't do a deal. That's called life in the big city. They go find a different platform, they form their own platform, they do whatever, but saying, hey, I don't like the price you're giving me, I'm gonna get the government to get me a higher price. It doesn't make any sense at all, right? And then when you, and then there was something weird about this where it was like the New York Times, Washington Post, et cetera. Yeah.

Weren't fully behind it, though. I could sense it. It was like, I'm like, why didn't they talk about this over and over again? Normally they love beating up on digital media. So buyer beware, whenever you see a story about digital media and it's horrors, sometimes it's absolutely true. But a lot of times it's bigger media, old traditional media going, oh, digital media. They're so dangerous, they're terrible, we're awesome, right? But in this case, the reason why New York Times and CNN aren't howling is it excludes bigger companies.

Well, yeah, so, okay, so that's an important point to touch on, okay? So the original language of the legislation, as Amy Klobuchar put it forward, did not have restrictions in regard to the size of the media company. So there was some backlash in that regard because you don't want this to turn in. into legislation that actually crushes smaller media outlets that don't have the kind of resources, giant legacy pro-court, like corporate-owned media tends to have. And so this is hilarious because Klobuchar is like, okay, don't worry, don't worry, we're going to add an amendment, okay? And the amendment is going to exempt companies that employ more than 1,500 people. I mean, Jake, so like, listen, that's a lot of employees, right? Local news doesn't even

employ like 300 people. Let's just keep it real. So like my point is that restriction isn't really much of a restriction in my opinion. And if you look at, I did some digging to see what are other big media conglomerates saying? And one of the big media conglomerates online actually is Vox Media. Vox Media owns all sorts of publications and stuff that you're probably reading, like SB Nation, New York Magazine, the Dodo, now this, it's all under Vox Media. Vox Media is like, I jump in it. They love it, right? Yeah, because they're in our camp. They're in the camp of companies that would get to use this as leverage against Facebook. Right. So whereas the New York Times is not in that camp,

so the New York Times is muted, whereas Vox is like, this is the most important bill. I mean, You see the editorial screaming through, whereas we're telling you, even though we would be positively affected, it appears, we're not in favor of the bill because it's not, I don't think it's a good bill. Well, there are other issues as well pertaining to copyright violations, right? So I'm going to get to those details in a minute. And actually, I think the Frontier Foundation, electronic Frontier Foundation, did a great job explaining what they meant here and why the copyright issues involved would be disastrous for media. So they write, competition doesn't flourish when a group, even one of smaller newsrooms, is allowed to form a cartel. It just means that both sides of this fight are now huge.

Proposed changes to the bill will limit the organizations that could get compensation under this scheme to publications with 1,500 employees or fewer. But as they write in their explanation for why they're against this, that won't preserve of competition because the loss of local and independent news has already happened. Many smaller publications are now owned or backed by large corporations and venture capital funds. Of course. The venture capital funds are the ones lobbying for this bill.

I guarantee it. 100%. I guarantee it. Okay, let me give you more though. And the industry is consolidating at a rapid rate. The large corporations and investment vehicles that dominate online journalism took advantage of the mess created by Facebook and Google's ad domination, and the JCPA would allow them to reap the rewards of buying up, laying off, and click baiting these newsrooms. And by the way,

the other thing is, if let's say you're a giant media organization and you've gone a little over that 1,500 employee threshold, I mean, this kind of gives you a little bit of an incentive to fire some folks, right? Or more likely what they'll do, especially. if they're a digital media company is they'll spin off one part of their company. They'll find a way. Yeah, of course, it's so easy to get around these things. And then finally, it's equally untenable, they write, to restrict who can link to publicly available pages on the web. So understand that based on the language of the legislation, if you're sharing news stories on your feed on Facebook, you could be slapped with copyright

for doing so, right? So there's that issue and it is a mess. The way that it's written, the way that this would be carried out if it passes is a mess. That has grave consequences for the entire internet, which depends on the ability to link to information, information sources from far and wide. Linking isn't copyright infringement, at least under current law. But the JCPA risks creating a new quasi-copyright law for linking or even leading the courts to to extend copyright law to cover some forms of linking.

Yeah, no, it's, if they apply it, it's going to be an absolute disaster. And then you won't get any news online because companies are not going to be like, oh, yeah, why don't you just set, why don't I let my customer set the price and then I have to pay it no matter what? And it's going to come with a thousand legal hassles that's going to cost me millions, if not hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. They're just not going to do it. And then you're not going to get the news at all. Now, if you're wondering, wait a minute, why is this bipartisan?

This has an excellent chance of passing, unfortunately. I'm not sure it's going to because there's a lot of economic forces on both sides, but it has a very good chance of passing. Why is it bipartisan? Why do Republicans and Democrats? Because the only thing that's bipartisan are things that help corporations. Yes. Okay, so number one, Vox is a giant corporation, and Voxes like companies are almost all backed up

by hedge funds, private equity, venture capital, etc. Okay, less so hedge funds, but mainly the other two, but giant economic forces are on that side. Also, the local news is usually owned by enormous conglomerates as Anna. Like Sinclair media. Exactly, what I was gonna get to is that most of those for the local news companies are very conservative companies. So the Republicans are looking to rig the system while pretending to be in favor of the little guy and pretending to be in favor of news, they're actually rigging it in favor of Sinclair. Yep. So, and that doesn't mean that Facebook isn't conservative.

Facebook has seems to be putting their thumb on the scale for conservatives overall to begin with. That's my rough sense of it, very rough, okay? But these guys are even more conservative and they're fighting economically with one another. Yes. Okay, and guys, must pass bills are a magnet for unpopular bills that corporations love, that politicians from both sides go, okay, this is the perfect time to rip off our voters. It's in a lame duck session when no one's paying attention. It'll look like it's part of a defense bill, which you can't vote against, right?

And this is when we get to sneak in something that is deeply unpopular and deeply damaging because our donors asked us to. That's how this game is played. But since the media companies are also involved in this politically and have an economic stake in these news, you're almost never going to hear an honest news story about this. You know how much digging I had to do today to really, first of all, to understand what this legislation really, is. I mean, I had to go pretty far to figure out, I mean, like CNN, even Reuters, like they would mention like, yeah, you know, there are some organizations like the ACLU that like happened to be against this, but they wouldn't explain why, right? Like, you got to go out of your way

and figure out what. Yeah, I had the same exact scenario. Yeah, how come you guys aren't explaining the antitrust issues here? How come you're not explaining the massive issue with media conglomerates involved? They would never explain. The investor class behind. behind this, right? Like the private equity, the hedge funds, all of that. None of that is explained, of course. And what really disgusts me is the use of rhetoric that pertains to workers and their struggle, things like collective bargaining, and basically repurposing it to provide cover for crappy

pro-corporate legislation. There is no such thing as collective bargaining for companies. That's not a thing. It's amazing. You just made it up to make it look. like corporate rule is actually populist and grassroots. Right. Oh, they're going for the little guy like Sinclair broadcasting? That's absurd. All right, finally, what should be the standard? Look, these platforms

don't owe us anything. So a lot of people love to cry. And so whether it's the right wing going, oh, I demand the right to be pro Nazi and be on this platform, right? Or now, giant mainstream media companies going, I demand a right to right to hire profits. Okay, so crazy. No, the only thing that is fair is to ask the platforms like Facebook to be fair. So if you're going to promote news, you're going to, or at least provide an outlet for, you're going to provide links, you're going to have an algorithm. The algorithm should be fair, and it should not judge whether you're a right winger or a left winger. It should just judge based on the content.

I'm not positive every platform does that. And right wingers are totally lying about this, as always, with everything. Every platform that I've seen, with the exception of TikTok, that puts a thumb on the scale, puts it a thumb on the scale in favor of conservatives, not against conservatives. So TikTok is much more stringent in what they ban, which then weeds out a lot of hateful right wingers. So that's why I say they're an exception. And I think YouTube is overall enormously fair. And that's an it, you never hear that from anyone.

And but I, but I think it's because they don't want to give credit to a giant company. But I think YouTube does it as fair as you can have it, right? And I've got a bias there too. We've been to partner with them for a long time. But if they weren't fair, I wouldn't tell you. Okay. So anyway, bottom line is the Facebooks of the world should be left alone by other corporations. with political meddling.

They want to have a fight between companies, have Ataheus. That's called a free market, okay? If they want to rig it with the government, that should not happen. All Facebook owes anybody is fairness. All right, we're going to take a brief break when we come back. Mike Pence got owned by the legislation that he enacted when he was governor of Indiana. How did that happen? We'll tell you when we come back.

Back on TYT. So first today is the Georgia runoff, you guys know that. So we're going to cover it as soon as Young Turks over at 8 o'clock Eastern. Me, Rashad Ritchie, John Idleau, Michael Schoor. Oh, by the way, Michael talked to Herscher Walker supporters. Oh my God, it's amazing. The clips are amazing. So wait until you get a load of that.

That starts at 8 o'clock. So make you see the silver hair dragon says in the member section, both the Republicans and Democrats are terrified of Trump. The Republicans created another Frankenstein monster, and they've totally lost control of them. Totally right. And hey, this country's in a very bad, very bad spot. It's don't get to, you know me, I'm Mr. Optimism, but don't get carried away by the 2022 midterms. The Democrats only lost by a little bit. Okay. No, they if, especially if the Republicans

are on anybody but Trump, I think they're going to annihilate Biden. They're on such a false hide, but we're going to talk about that in stories coming up. Shadows rights and you have folks who don't even understand the internet making and passing laws about the internet, WTF. Yeah, great point, absolutely. But guys, those guys have Klobuchar and said they have no idea, they have no earthly idea, they couldn't turn on a computer. But honestly, they don't care, who cares which side is right about the fricking internet? They're like, who brought in the larger checks? Yep.

That's okay, Sinclair did and Vox did? Great, now we're on their side. That's how corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans that are in favor of this make their decisions. If there was honest reporters in the country, you would all know that. All right, Twitch says, on Twitch, Z010 Juro, guys, help me out here with these names. All right, gifted five subs, though, and is an American hero, thank you, we appreciate it. Philonius writes it, gifted five subs, by the way, also an American hero. And wrote in, thanks for keeping me sane amongst the deep red here in Kansas. Remember, not as deep red as the media's pretending,

won the abortion vote by about 20 points. So go out and talk to your fellow citizens in Kansas. You might have a lot more in agreement than you realize. Scuffed, Mena says, two years on Twitch, four years TYT membership. My only regret is that I didn't get here sooner, sooner. Sooner, go get them. Thank you, and because of you, we can go get them. And you got here in plenty of time.

We love you for it. Mayhem Mendez says, Jesus Christmas, Trump's going to cry no matter what. Give him something to cry about it and indict them already. Of course, but Democrats are weaklings and would never do that. A water dragon 22 said, no handshakes means no cookies. That was exactly right. That was a perfect moment for no cookies for you. The digoster says you could say that McConnell looked shell shocked by them not shaking hands.

I didn't even get it the first time I read it. And then I was like, oh, a hundred dollar blue apron gift. Yes. Okay, nice shell shock joke there. You got to be a member though. Rewards at TYT.com. You had to be a member before the comments. I did something naughty today.

I had blue apron for lunch. Ooh. And I like the way you whisper for lunch. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I did the prep, the food prep last night after work. And then I had some delicious vegetarian tacos today. All right, amazing. Last comment from Super Chat Shrout says,

Trump is going to destroy the GOP, thank goodness. Biden was silly to say the border wasn't important. Look, I hope he destroyed. All right, back on TYT, Jank, Anna, Joshua Bailey, Shroud, Aaron Parker, and Dank Dragon, which is a fun title. All right, guys, you're all American heroes. We can't do the show without the members. You guys make it possible, so make our voice even stronger. I love you for it.

They hit the join button below. You can go to t.com slash join. Anna. I love this story. It's so good. It's so, so good. A second judge has now used a law that Mike Pence enacted in the state of Indiana to block anti-abortion legislation in the state.

How delicious is that? Now let me give you the details on what this is all about. Now, Indiana, much like other red states, is trying to effectively ban abortion. The state legislature there had passed an abortion ban past 10 weeks, with very few exceptions. If you were raped, you might be able to get an abortion past 10 weeks. However, the second judge who has weighed in on this issue has decided to block it based on religious liberty. A religious liberty law that was, again, enacted by Mike Pence when he was the governor of Indiana. Well, what does this all mean? Well, let me give you the details.

Judge Heather Welch ruled that the law, which prohibits abortion at 10 weeks of pregnancy with narrow exceptions, substantially burdens the religious exercise of five women as part of a lawsuit backed by the Indiana American Civil Liberties Union. So what is this law that Pence enacted back in 2015? Well, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the ban violates Indiana's religious freedom Restoration Act, a law penned signed in 2015, barring the government from infringing on one's religious beliefs or practices, a highly controversial law that was heavily criticized for initially allowing businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ plus people. But remember, religious

liberty goes both ways or always. I mean, the idea for a lot of Christian conservatives is that the law only applies to them. But it applies to all religious people in a country where the government shall not establish a religion, right? And so the lawsuit hinges on disputing that life begins at conception, arguing that this is not a belief held across all religions. For example, under Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a living person only at birth, the lawsuit reads. Jewish law recognizes that abortions may occur and should occur as a religious matter under circumstances not allowed by the near total abortion ban or existing Indiana law. And by the way, the five plaintiffs, the five women involved are of many different

religions. So one of them practices Judaism. One follows Islam, unitarian universalism, episcopalianism, and paganism. Now, Welch cited with the plaintiffs in this case, which makes it so great, saying in her decision that undisputed evidence demonstrates based on actual facts that the plaintiffs are suffering injury and altering their behavior at the current time solely because of the state's new abortion law. So she blocked it. Again, the second judge to do so, she blocked it. Now, the Indiana Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the first case that was brought up to block. this law. They're going to hear that case in January, but ultimately this is likely going to be

heard by the United States Supreme Court eventually. And that's where I worry, considering their right-wing stance on abortion to begin with. But right now, this is a good, maybe temporary victory. Yeah, look, I'm sure they'll find a way, but right now, I'm not sure how the Supreme Court avoids a loss on this one for the right wing, because on either side, they've got a problem. They're going to have to lose one of the two provisions if they're going to be at all logically consistent. So the Supreme Court might, at the end of the day, you just go, you know what, we're going Trump like, screw logic. We're just going to give the right wing wins on both of them, even though it doesn't make any sense. But that's why this is a genius case. So it's saying,

hey, if you want the religious freedom, well, I got religious freedom to have an abortion if I want. That's indisputable. That's what those religions actually believe. Look, sometimes like folks form a group like a satanic club, just a trolled right wing or the fundamentalist, et cetera. So there's some of that and maybe a little bit on the edges of this. But overall, it's not that at all.

It's Judaism is a massive religion in the world, in the world, obviously, right? Can't argue that it isn't. And they're saying, no, this is my actual religious principles that I'm allowed to have an abortion. And what do you have to say about it, right? So either that law stands and then abortion is legal or abortion is illegal and that law false. Now that is the more likely scenario.

So I think this is more, we'll do more to protect us from fundamentalist religion than it will to enshrine abortion rights. It's being framed as an abortion right story, but I don't think we're going to win on abortion. I think we're going to win on knocking down that Indiana law that says, oh, yeah, on religious grounds, I could just ignore anything, any law passed by the legislature. Again, as Anna pointed out, they thought it was going to be get out of jail, free card for Christian fundamentalists. Right, right. But now when other religions use it, you realize it's untenable.

So we'll see how it plays out. But for now, I just love the twist here for Mike Pence. right, that the law he enacted actually ended up hurting his cause in denying women their reproductive rights. So again, we'll keep an eye on the story. I think it's fascinating. All right, for now, though, why don't we move on to a gentleman with delusions of grandeur, okay? And that's, yeah, Mike Bolton. Is it Mike Bolton? You are essentially telling us that you would consider getting into the 2024 race. Absolutely.

If anyone's concerned that Donald Trump might end up being the Republican nominee for president in 2024, don't you worry. His former national security advisor and well-known Warhawk, John Bolton, will be there to save the day. He thinks he's the hero who can save us. Now, let's hear more from Bolton and what his plan is. Should it become more clear that Trump is, in fact, going to end up being the Republican nominee? Germany. Nearly 95% disagree that Donald Trump is more important than the Constitution. I'm afraid there are some who would stick with Trump on this. What does a candidate have to lose by appealing to 95% of the base of the Republican Party? I actually think most Republican elected officials

in Washington disagree with Trump on this, but they're intimidated. This is the time where there's strength in numbers. The more people who tell the truth, the easier it is for everybody So what do you have to see that would make you say now is the moment that I am going to declare my candidacy? I'd like to see Sherman-esque statements from all the potential candidates. If I don't see that, then I'm going to seriously consider getting in. Okay. Now look, I'm torn on this because on one hand, he's calling out the cowardice of the Republican Party, which is absolutely accurate, it would be nice if he had a moment of self-reflection and acknowledge the fact that he was also a Trump ass kisser until he realized that it wasn't really working out for him

anymore. Until he realized it got in his mustache. Oh, God, why? Why? But anyway, but the idea that he would be the one to save the country from a potential Trump someone else ticket, carry Lake ticket, I don't know, is laughable. I mean, it's just more of that unearned. confidence that he does deserve to get a little bit of mockery for. Yeah, so I'm totally torn on this as well for slightly different reasons. So number one, his percent of chance of winning is about negative 17 percent, beyond zero. Like there's no way, no one likes John Bolton. No one in the right wing likes John Bolton, no one in the left wing likes John Bolton.

Neocons love John Bolton and mainstream media generally likes John Bolton, but no actual human being likes him. And so he's now, he's, the neo-gons are the guys who want to start every possible war. And so why did he get particles in his mustache back in the days from Trump? Because he wanted to start a war with Iran and potentially other countries as well. So he kissed Donald Trump's ass to become his national security advisor. And it worked because there's still enough neocons within the Republican Party establishment. They're like, oh, you got to get Bolton in there. Oh, yeah, Bolton, oh, yeah. And then he came in there and he's like, war, war, war. And so everything Bolton has said about Trump is true and can be verifiable, almost everything, can be verified, right?

On the other hand, Trump is more correct than Bolton is on foreign policy. Now, don't get me wrong, Trump's not a peace nick as some ridiculous people say, increased drone strikes, et cetera. But Bolton's a bigger warmonger, which is not popular anymore on the right in the grassroots. It was never popular on the left, so that's why he can't get any voters. But the reason why I don't mind him running is because he's kind of a vicious guy. So at least there'd be one person in there who isn't afraid of Trump and who is constantly telling you what a prick he is and all the terrible things that he does. I don't know that that helps.

It depends on how he does it. If he goes to the Democratic way of doing it, oh, is any such a racist sex is big or whatever. It's not going to work. But Bolton's unlikely to do that. He's a savvy guy, whether you like him or not. Now I'm actually, like I think it's fascinating. I'm interested to see how he would carry this out, right? Because look, I mean, you're right.

Everyone in D.C. is self-interested and they are motivated by incentives and disincentives. Every single person. I don't care what anyone says, with the exception, maybe one guy, and that's Bernie Sanders. But overall, they're motivated by incentives, disincentives. Someone like John Bolton, who I haven't looked this up, but I would speculate that he's doing well for himself working for private defense contractors, maybe he's lobbying. He's going to be fine. He doesn't need a career in D.C. as a politician to succeed. So that means he's kind of untethered to loyalty to Trump or any Republican or any politician, really.

Yeah. Right? So he could, if he wanted to, go after Trump pretty aggressively in the Republican primaries. Would he do it? Maybe? I don't know. We'll see. John, to your point, Anna, John Bolton has a permanent seat ready for him at a think tank to pay him a ton of money. Why? Because he's in favor of every war. So defense contractors are going to fund think tanks to hire people like John Bolton. Right. And especially Bolton because he's the biggest proponent of war. So he's covered there. And he doesn't, so he doesn't have to worry about risks so much, right? And so there's a secret part of this new story, though, that we still haven't gotten to. Let me do it. That's Bolton saying Republicans in DC are worried

DeSantis isn't going to run. Ooh, twist. Because if DeSantis is going to, to run, Bolton, everybody else is going to coalesce around him. But Bolton is going on TV and saying, I might right. And man, Bolton knows he has no chance of winning. I don't think he's that delusional, okay? I think that what he would be doing here is basically a political version of a suicide bomber, where he goes in and says all these things that are true about Donald Trump, knowing that Republican voters are going to hate him, but at least he's getting you the

truth about the guy and maybe peels off enough of a percentage that it makes a difference, right? But he wouldn't do any of that if DeSantis is in the race. He wouldn't be necessary. This is him saying, I don't think he's coming in. And so all those big establishment Republicans who were talking after the midterms, oh, Trump's killing the party. We've got to get rid of Trump. Now it looks like they're going back into their shell. It looks like DeSantis is a coward and they don't have a champion of fight against Trump anymore. So they're left with the remnants like Bolton. Look at Jank identifying the nuggies that everyone else missed.

Thank you. All right, we got to take a break. That does it for our first hour. When we come back for the second hour of the show, we'll talk about the New York Times referring to Joe Biden as dull, but promoting it is a good thing. It's just propaganda 101. It's an amazing, amazing story. Amazing story.

We've got that and more. Coming right up, don't miss it. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.