The Young Turks - Fumbles And Bumbles

Episode Date: February 7, 2024

You’re vital to our work. Support as a member: https://go.tyt.com/signup. Biden confuses the French president with a guy who’s been dead since 1996 in a rambling anecdote. A federal appeals court rejected Donald Trump's broad claim. Trump claims that he is immune from prosecution for his alleged criminal acts committed as president. This includes trying to overturn the 2020 election in a chain of events that led to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Senate Republicans threaten to block the border security bill they negotiated." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) 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 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. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have a lot of news to get to today. I'm here by myself for the first segment, which means that I'm going to cover a Biden election-related story, some foibles among the Biden camp. You have Corrine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, really struggling to provide cover for some of those foibles. So we're going to get to that at the very top of the show. Later on, though, we have a lot of other incredibly important stories to get to, including the fact that a verdict has been announced in the involuntary manslaughter case involving Ethan Crumbly's mother. So we'll give you the details on how the jury has handed down their verdict in that case. We're going to talk about other stories, including, well, an appeal that Donald Trump has lost in regard to the election interference case. So a lot to get to in the first hour. In the second hour, though, we will be lightening things up quite a bit. One of my favorite stories of the day has to do with Nancy Mace's staff. and, well, I should say former staff and how they feel about her leadership. I can't believe it, but there's been complete turnover in her office since November of last year.

And these individuals are now spilling the tea, although they're doing it anonymously while speaking to the press. I have some conspiracy theories on that, which you should take with a grain of salt. But the heart of the story will have lots of facts that I will be sharing with you. So stick around for the entirety of the show, including the bonus episode, if you're one of our members. If you're not one of our members, you can become a member by going to t.wit.com slash join or just hit that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. Members get the entirety of the show included as part of their membership. They get exclusive members-only content. And one of my favorite perks that comes along with membership is the fact that you can access our archives

and watch the show whenever you please. You don't need to watch it live, although we love it when you do watch it live. So share your comments, share your thoughts. We love hearing from you. And without further ado, Let's get to our first story. President Joe Biden has turned down a televised interview with CBS's News Division during the Super Bowl, meaning that he has declined. Okay, he has declined the chance to speak to Americans during television's most watch hours during an election year, which I think is insane. Now, in a statement, White House Communications Director Ben LaBolt said the fall.

following. We hope viewers enjoy watching what they tuned in for, the game. Nice deflection there. But obviously, people are tuning in to watch the game. CBS was giving Joe Biden, who is running for reelection, an opportunity to speak to the American people during the most watched time in television throughout the entire year. And the fact that he turned that down, of course has led to a lot of speculation as to why. I'm going to speculate as to why. And not only is this a missed opportunity that could be beneficial to Biden's campaign, it's also apparently something that breaks with tradition. So in a tradition dating back to 2009, presidents have recorded an interview with the network that broadcast the Super Bowl,

although there have been exceptions. For instance, Donald Trump did not appear on NBC in 2018, mostly because of some weird grudge that he had against NBC and some of their negative reporting on his presidency. And then last year, Biden declined to appear on Fox, home of cable hosts like Sean Hannity, who are sharply hostile toward him. So deciding that he doesn't want to do that interview with Fox during last year's Super Bowl, totally fine. That makes sense. It's not an election year. Fox is not particularly friendly to Joe Biden. So why would he go out of his way to have this interview take place on Fox? But CBS is a different question. CBS has been friendly to Joe Biden.

This is a missed opportunity, again, to reach a much larger audience than he typically would. And it's not like the White House hasn't been receptive towards CBS in the past. For instance, Joe Biden was interviewed by the CBS Evening News anchor Nora O'Donnell ahead of the 2021 Super Bowl. So he has actually taken advantage of this opportunity in the past. And he participated in two lengthy 60 Minutes pieces, both in 2022 and 2023 with Scott Pelley. Now, in 2021, Biden's pregame interview with Nora O'Donnell was seen live by about 10.2 million viewers, which gives you a sense of how much of a missed opportunity this is.

Millions more viewed clips that aired on other CBS programs in the days surrounding the game. Now, as you can imagine, Biden's presidential election opponent, Donald Trump, use this as an opportunity to attack Biden while also challenging him to something Biden should absolutely do. So let's watch. When he doesn't do the Super Bowl, which would be a great opportunity, actually, this would be a good time. You don't always have to do them, but this would be a good time not to, to, you know, to stay, to stay right in somebody's face, especially when you have those kind of numbers. But he can't do it because he can't talk. He can't do anything. He's ruining

our country. And I don't think he's going to run. I don't know if it's donors or otherwise. It might be his family. It might be something. I don't think he's going to run. But I'd like to go for immediately debates. I'd like to debate him now because we should debate. We should debate for the good of the country. Okay, number one, Biden's running. I was also in the camp of thinking, no, no, no, this can't be the case. There's no, I mean, he's incredibly vulnerable. He's going to drop out.

I mean, he looks at his approval rating. He sees how vulnerable he is, even up against Donald Trump. Poll after poll shows how vulnerable Joe Biden is. There's no way he's going to run. Make no mistake. We're already in the primary season. We've already had primaries take place. the DNC scrapping the ability of his Democratic opponents from appearing on the election ballots

in primary elections. He's running. So let's get that out of the way. But to Donald Trump's point, Biden absolutely should debate him. Like, what are we talking about here? Like, is there really any question about whether there should be a presidential debate during the general election? there absolutely should be a debate during the general election, not having that debate, I think would be ludicrous. And that's not because I think, oh, maybe Biden or Trump is going to share something I don't already know about their politics. But I do think it's important for the American people overall, people who don't do what I do for work, to hear these two candidates make their case. And honestly, I haven't heard anything about scheduling a debate. The

primaries aren't over yet. So let's be fair. Let's wait and see what happens. But I think Donald Trump is correct in wanting to have a debate. And it would be insane if Joe Biden and his campaign refused to do so. Now again, let's be fair. That issue hasn't come up yet. But in response to what Trump said on Dan Bongino's show, Biden allegedly trolled him. That's the way it's being reported in the press. I don't really see it as much of a troll. But I do think the way, he's speaking in response to what Trump is challenging him to, kind of proves a little bit of what Trump said during that interview. So let's watch Biden's response, and then I'll tell you what I mean.

Mr. President, Donald Johnson, I'm going to debate you right now. Do you accept? I'm going to get on radio. Thank you very much immediately. Immediately. Yes. Will you debate him? My name. I want to debate me, too. You got nothing else to do. Okay, so we had to use subtitles because it's hard to hear what he's even saying. So it kind of goes to Trump's point about how much difficulty has speaking, but that wasn't

really an own. Okay, if you're responding from a place of strength, you say, oh, no, it's on, we're going to be debating. He doesn't need to worry about that, right? Oh, I would want to debate me too. What does that mean? Like what it's almost feeding into his argument, right? That Trump is coming from a place of strength and Trump would want to debate Biden because it's going to make Trump look good.

No, don't respond in that way. That's not trolling Trump. You come back at Trump by saying, oh, no, it's on. We are going to debate. Are you kidding me? It's unimaginable that we wouldn't have a one-on-one debate during the general election. I'm going to crush him. But no, I mean, I just didn't feel like that. response came from a place of strength. And look, in reality, I really do feel that the Biden camp probably does want to minimize the president's public appearances. And guys, listen, this is not me showing support for Trump at all. I'm actually pretty furious that the Democratic Party decided to continue propping up someone who's incredibly vulnerable in the general election against Donald Trump.

Everyone who doesn't want Trump to be the next president should be furious with the DNC and what they've been up to. And in reality, the president keeps making some pretty embarrassing mistakes during his speeches. In fact, there was one just yesterday. Just yesterday, he actually ended up confusing the French president for someone who's actually been dead since 1996. Let's watch.

Right, right after I was elected, I went to what they called a G7 meeting, all the NATO leaders. And I was in South Carolina people. And I sat down and I said, America's back. The Nigeron from Germany, I mean, from France looked at me and said,

you know, why, I'll hollo on your back from. And I looked at it. And the Chancellor of Germany said, What would you just say, Mr. President, if you picked up the paper tomorrow in London Times, the London Times said a thousand people break through the House of Commons, break down the doors, two boppies are killed, and never even stop with the election of the Prime Minister.

What would you say? I never thought about you. What would we say if that happened in another democracy in the world? The current leader of France, of course, is Emmanuel Macron, and the individual that Biden referenced in that weird rambling statement was the person who's been to see since 1996, Francois Mitterrand. So, look, some might say, well, maybe he misspoke. But these are the kinds of gaffes that we see from Biden over and over again. Another thing that he keeps doing or saying, it's been a repeated error, a repeated mistake. He keeps saying that his son, Bo, died while deployed in Iraq. He did that recently. So he did, in my opinion, a very decent thing. He called the parents of one of the soldiers who died in a drone strike in Jordan.

He wanted to call them, comfort them, just a wonderful, decent thing to do. But as he was trying to comfort them, he told the same story about his son, Bo again. His son Bo did not die while deployed in Iraq. He died of a brain tumor, tragically. But this is a repeated mistake he keeps making. And what's amazing to me is that you have the White House press secretary, Corrine Jean-Pierre, asked about this. And the dismissiveness in the way that members of the Biden administration and the Biden

can't handle these questions also really bothers me. prepared to respond to the question he's going to ask. So let's watch. How is President Biden ever going to convince the three quarters of voters who are worried about his physical and mental health, that he is okay, even though in Las Vegas, he told a story about recently talking to a French president who died in 1996. I'm not even going to go down that rabbit hole with you, sir. We're going to go ahead. Go ahead. You saw the president in Vegas, in California. You've seen the president in South Carolina. You saw him in Michigan, I'll just leave it there. Go ahead.

So that was Steve Ducey's son, Peter Ducey. My apologies, I mix up their names all the time, and I should get that right. But what kind of answer was that? Oh, you've seen him in this state and that state, okay, what is your point about that? That doesn't really answer the question about the constant gaffes and memory lapses that we keep seeing from President Joe Biden. And if the Biden camp thinks that they can just brush this off, And if they ignore it, it'll go away. They are sadly mistaken.

This is a political, like it is a political battle between Donald Trump and Joe Biden for the general election. All eyes are on Biden. Everyone's paying close attention. And the polls say exactly what the Biden camp is hoping they wouldn't say that the majority of American voters, likely American voters, actually do see Trump as more mentally mentally fit than Joe Biden. They need to find a solution for that. They need to turn that around. The thing is, I don't know if they can. And simply brushing off questions like the one you heard from Peter Ducey

isn't going to make this problem go away. Now, they do have one tactic, one strategy, and it's to ensure that their media allies continue to provide cover for Joe Biden. So Joe Scarborough happens to be one of them and get a load of how he reacted to a recent NBC news poll that shows that the majority of likely American voters see Donald Trump as more mentally fit than Joe Biden. Let's watch. We ask this question. Is the candidate competent and effective to be president? And look, this was Biden's big advantage in 2020. He led Trump on this question by nine points in our poll in 2020. Trump now leads Biden in our poll by 16 points on this number. The simple, competent and effective as president that hurt Trump four years ago and probably cost him the election.

It's helping him now in our poll. Well, you know, Steve, there are a lot of numbers in here that are shocking to a lot of our viewers. I'll just say it right here, a lot of them shocking to me. I mean, outrageous if you look at people saying that what Donald Trump has necessary mental and physical health. And who is the greatest, you know, who's best for America across the globe. And even who's best of protecting democracy, that's a draw. I mean, everything cutting again, which again, for me is so preposterous. It's laughable.

So let me just address the democracy question. Because to Joe Scarborough's point, how could anyone see Joe Biden as a threat to democracy the same way that Donald Trump has been a threat to democracy. Well, I think the answer is very simple. If the Democratic Party does not allow for Democratic challengers to Joe Biden during the primary process, that is undemocratic. When certain states, like Florida, the Democratic Party in Florida state, when they scrap the primary election in their state altogether, that is anti-democratic.

That makes a lot of voters really upset Democratic voters. So you can't engage in anti-democratic behavior and then be shocked that some percentage of Democratic voters see Biden as anti-democratic. They want their voices to be heard too. They might end up supporting Biden in the primary elections anyway. But the point is they weren't even given an opportunity. They weren't even given a choice. There were no options because the Democratic National Committee made that decision on their behalf. And regardless of how much someone may or may not support Joe Biden, I would venture to say that for people who actually do value our democratic process, not being given the opportunity to engage in the primary elections is something that would enrage people and certainly enraged me. So I wanted to just address that real quick. But the other thing I wanted to address is the optics of Joe Biden versus Donald Trump when it comes to physical and mental capability, right?

When it comes to Biden's mental fitness, I get where people are coming from when they attack segments like the one I'm doing by saying, oh, well, you know, Donald Trump is really old too. You know, Donald Trump has his own gaffs. I totally agree with that. Donald Trump does, does have his own gaffes. But can you really say to me with a straight face that when you watch a Donald Trump speech, the optics are the same, the energy is the same as a speech by President Joe Biden.

A lot of Americans vote based on optics and based on vibes. I hate to say it, but most Americans are super busy trying to make ends meet. And so when they see a speech with the current president squinting into the camera and engaging in very weird statements that make it abundantly clear that he's confused, that he's having these serious memory lapses, that is not going to look good. Now Donald Trump, again, he has his own gaps, totally get it. But can you deny that he appears to be more energetic? Can you deny that he at least seems a little sharper, mentally speaking? It doesn't mean that I agree with Donald Trump or his policies. I'm just talking about how they carry themselves. Guys, you have to put your politics aside for a second and live in reality.

The reality is that Biden is the most vulnerable person to run against Donald Trump in the general election. But it was forced upon us. And if Joe Scarborough is going to have temper tantrums because Democratic voters and likely voters aren't just going to hold their noses and support Joe Biden regardless of how he appears or how he sounds on the campaign trail, he's going to have a lot of temper tantrums. What can I say? But it is amazing to me that the top morning show on MSNBC morning after morning makes it abundantly clear to their audience that they live in La La Land. They just don't live in reality. The polls say what they say because most Americans do live in reality. They see what I'm seeing. They see

what you're seeing. And they're making their opinions known. And it is egregious to say the least that the Democratic Party has no intention to change course whatsoever. All right, we got to take a break. Jank Uger will join me for the second segment where we will give you an update on one of the many indictments that Donald Trump is facing. He just lost an appeal. We'll tell you which appeal that is when we come back. All right. All right, welcome back to the Young Turks.

Jane Cue Granite is sparing with you guys. Also unknown, thank you for helping out on t-y-t.com slash join. You know, it's a great time to get a gift. If you give 50 bucks or more, or if you become an annual member at t.y.t.com slash join. Now here's the wonderful folks who helped on YouTube, Corker 47, Jay Bomb Dragon, and O Beach Babe 21-0, all gifted five young tourist memberships and Nassmae Tempest just gifted one. You guys are awesome. You make this show possible and thank you for bringing us the honest news coverage that we all do together. All right, Casper, what's next? Well, we have some updates on Donald Trump's legal woes and today was just another addition, okay, to his legal woes because he lost an appeals case.

Let's talk about it. This morning, former President Donald Trump was denied by a Washington, D.C. federal appeals court, which unanimously ruled against the former president's claim that he cannot be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election due to presidential immunity. Yes, this case has been dragging on, it's been dragged out. But as a reminder, as of August of last year, Trump is facing several criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. You guys remember that, right? That happened on January 6th, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct

an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. Now, this case is the first of its kind because no other president before Donald Trump ever attempted to overturn the results of our democratic process. And the judges, two of whom were appointed by Joe Biden and one who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, wrote that for the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution. So I want to stop right here, Jank, and kind of suss this out a little more. Because what they're arguing here is, listen, what you

engaged in was not something that you did as part of your official duties as president of the United States. This was you as a candidate not liking the results of the election and engaging in unlawful means to overturn the results of the democratic process. Am I understanding their decision here correctly or at least that portion of their explanation? Yeah, that portion for sure. They ruled against them in 18 different ways, and they said this is crystal clear. And one of the interesting things about it is that they also said, well, we have to rule against you by your own logic. So you said that if you are impeached, for example, then you could be convicted in a criminal case as president. Well, your main logic for why you should not be tried was, well, there will be a chilling effect on all presidents if they know they can be convicted later.

But you yourself admit that you can be convicted, even in your own argument if you're impeached. So it would be the same chilling effect. So your argument is basically moot, useless. So he had no, as always guys, whenever he goes to court, he melts because he never has any good arguments, never has any evidence. And this court was crystal clear and very forceful and saying, no, of course the president cannot be immune from all laws. And I don't know if you're about to get to it, but the one case example that they used that was so stunning was the judges had asked Trump's team, could the president assassinate a political opponent with seal team six? And as long as his own party cleared him in the Senate hearings after impeachment, in other words, the Senate didn't convict, would he not be able to be charged? And they said, yeah, he wouldn't be charged. As long as his own party clears him, he could murder. or any political opponent he likes. And the court was like, uh, no, it's not right. So I remember listening to the audio of that exchange with Donald Trump's legal representation.

And I thought it was kind of hilarious because the lawyer hesitated. And it was because he knew that he had to say yes, but it was such an insane argument to make that there was hesitation in his agreement that he does believe that. I don't think he genuinely believes that, but of course he's defending Donald Trump. Trump in this case. But I want to give you some more excerpts of their decision. They write that we cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power, the recognition and implementation of election results. We cannot accept that the office of the

presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time there. after. So again, another reference to the fact that what Trump had engaged in, again, was not part of official presidential duty. So look, there are instances of presidents engaging in criminality. And what I mean by that is look at the Bush administration and the war crimes that the Bush administration engaged in. Now, theoretically, if the Obama administration wanted to pursue charges against the Bush administration for those war crimes or the illegal wiretapping of Americans. He could have pursued that, but that would have been a difficult hill to climb. But mostly because those actions were taken as part of official U.S. duties or official

presidential actions. Again, what Trump had engaged in was not part of his presidential responsibilities. It was part of him as a candidate not liking the results of the election and attempting to unlawfully overturn the results of that election. Go ahead, Jank. Yeah, so to that point, Anna, he said not only are official acts immune, but things that are on the quote unquote outer perimeter of official acts are also immune. So he said, you know, he's arguing that he had won the election as a candidate, while technically still being president, was on the outer perimeter of his duties as president of the United States. The court said, well, that's irrelevant because outer perimeter or inner perimeter, no president is immune from the law, even if it's an official act. So if the official act is, Navy SEAL Team 6, take out Joe Biden, that is not, or Donald Trump, by the way, no matter

who the president is, that might be an official act, but it is not immune from a criminal prosecution. Now, Anna, you know, you were going somewhere with that, and Trump is going somewhere with that. That is an interesting question, which is, so for example, when Barack Obama ordered the execution of Honor Al-L Lockheed, he did it without getting a court order. And he was a U.S. citizen who- Yeah, it was a U.S. citizen. By the way, his children were later murdered into other bombings. They were also U.S. citizens. Those are claims. to be accidents, but the U.S. said, no, Alaki himself, we meant to kill, and we don't care. We did it extrajudicially, which is totally unconstitutional, and I would argue totally illegal.

So could Obama be prosecuted for that? Well, that would send chills down Washington's spine and all Democrats spine. Wait a minute, but that's a Muslim we're murdering. That's totally okay, isn't it? And that's abroad. No, it's not okay. And so if you could do it abroad, you could do it he could do it internally. Yes. So the presidents, whether it's Obama or George W. Bush for torture, warrantless wiretapping, et cetera, would still be liable for those crimes. Well, I know Washington hates that, but I don't hate it at all. I think that Bush shouldn't have done the torture. It was illegal or the warrantless firetapping. And Obama shouldn't have done an extra judicial killing. And I don't care that he's the beloved angelic Barack Obama,

according to the Democratic establishment. Yeah, look, I obviously agree with you on that. Like you were frustrated by Obama wanting to look forward and not pursue any investigation into what the Bush administration had done during their two terms. I was also frustrated. But there's also, in my opinion, a decent argument about the chilling effect that would have on a presidency. You could respond with, well, just don't break any laws. And I would agree with that argument. But my whole point in bringing all of this up is pursuing. Criminal charges against a sitting president as he's engaging in official duty as president is just much more difficult, right? There's a lot more protection for the president versus someone who's running for reelection as a candidate and then engages in criminality as a candidate as opposed to a president. And that's what Donald Trump did here. And can I just say, I think the distinction there is not one that's legal, but one that's practical. So if you went to go either impeach or criminally prosecute a president for a drone bomb that went awry or that you had issues with, boy, it would be incredibly hard to convict

on either impeachment or in a criminal case. So that's your check for, yeah, it was official duties. And that's why they're never going to get a conviction and would probably never bring the case, whether it's a Democrat or Republican. But yes, you can't just say, hey, official act, what if I'll lock you was inside the United States? Could they have just gone and shot him in the head, assassinated him in the street and dragged him out and go, okay, yeah, so what? I didn't have a trial. I just murdered him. So what? No, you can't do that. So there needs to be a check on official action as well. Yeah, I agree. So finally, I just want to note that, The judges believe that there is a public interest for this case to move forward.

They write that we conclude that the interest in criminal accountability held by both the public and the executive branch outweighs the potential risks of chilling presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation. Moreover, past presidents have understood themselves to be subject to impeachment and criminal liability. So the possibility of chilling executive action is already in effect. And that's been Trump's main argument against this prosecution. He has repeatedly insisted that if presidents are not entitled to complete immunity, then as soon as their term is up, they will face legal attacks from the opposition party. So he kind of lost his mind about this decision by the appeals court. and does, he does plan on appealing the decision that was made by this appeals court.

So we'll see how that plays out. But it's not looking good for Trump. I do think that this case is going to move forward. The question is, what's the timing? Certain things keep getting delayed. And if Democrats are hoping that these cases will sink Donald Trump's candidacy, so they're preferred incredibly vulnerable Joe Biden. Leiden wins a second term.

I think that they're really risking a lot by hoping that. But we'll see. We'll see how it all plays out. Yeah, so two things to look out for on the timing. Number one, is the Supreme Court going to take the case on how quickly are they going to judge it? So they could immediately say, we're not taking the case. And what that means is that the D.C. Circuit Court ruling stands. And he is not immune, and that is the law of the land, okay?

That is the decision they should make by according to every lawyer in the country because otherwise the president is above the law. It was always a preposterous argument to make. But if the Supreme Court wants to kind of rig it in favor of Donald Trump, what they would do is they would take the case and sit on it. And they would wait for a couple of months, thereby making sure that they cannot get a conviction before their election. And remember in this case, if Trump becomes president, he doesn't even have to pardon

himself if the case is not over, he just immediately drops the case as the head of the federal government. So, because this is a federal case. So we'll see if the Supreme Court's going to be play this fair and honest, or if they're going to try to help Trump by delaying the ruling, it would be shocking if they agreed with Trump. That's almost not even possible. So the timing is what makes the difference. And of course, we wouldn't have been in any of this mess if the The world's worst Attorney General Merrick Garland hadn't sat on this case for two and a half years for no reason at all. All right. Well, when we come back from the break, I wanted to give you all an update on the ongoing spat in regard to border security policy. Now there are some details about senators who help to negotiate that bill turning their backs on it.

It's just such an incredible story. We've got that and more when we return. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size? Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca.

All right back on TYT, Jank Uyghur and Experian, Rolando Topate. Rolando just joined by hitting the join button below on YouTube and Rick Bungle gifted a membership and so did FBI Special Agent Paul David Stewart, which is a hilarious handle on YouTube. Wait, wait, wait. Did you say Paul Bungle? Rick Bungle. Bungle is an amazing last name. That is such a good last name. I wish I had that last name. Anyway. Well, I think every Democratic leader has that last name. Oh my God, Biden Bungle. Yeah, indeed. The Bunglers. But Rick, thank you brother. We appreciate you.

Yes. All right. All right. I wanted to give you all an update on what's happening with this ongoing battle for for the border security bill coming out of the Senate. So let's get right to it. Did Donald Trump kill this for you? He said Republicans who even consider voting for this should be ashamed of themselves. What did you think of that? Obviously, he's got a campaign that he's running. He's focused in on trying to be elected to president.

Again, my focus is a national security focus. I'm the ranking member on border management for Homeland Security. That's my main focus is to get that. We have a wide open border and we've got to find a way. to be able to stop it because we have very real risks that are coming across our southern border. It is amazing how these conversations are just happening in plain sight, where you have conservatives, in this case, a Republican like Senator James Langford, acknowledging that the Republican Party is united in defeating one of the most right-wing conservative border security bills to come out

of the Senate, maybe in U.S. history, mostly because Donald Trump, doesn't want to fix the border, so he has something to campaign on and has increased chances of winning the general election against Joe Biden. It is amazing. Now, of course, they're going to continue complaining about what's currently transpiring in our southern border. But the big update to this story is that some of the very Senate Republicans who helped negotiate the border bill are now turning their backs on said border bill. It is absolutely incredible. So NBC News is now reporting that GOP senators left a special closed door meeting in the evening last night, predicting that their party would not provide enough votes to move

forward with the package Wednesday, saying they agreed they need more time to discuss changes to the bill in the form of amendments. Now let me just keep it real. Even if Democrats stood back and said, we will vote in favor of anything you guys want. Do whatever you want with the bill. Do whatever you want the legislation, there isn't a chance in hell that the Republican Party is going to pass a border security bill before the general election happens. Because their daddy told them not to. We cannot upset Papa. Papa told us what to do. And we take orders from someone who's not even sitting as the United States president at the moment. We got to help him by giving him something to campaign on. It is amazing to me. So remember, many of the Republican

like MAGA lapdogs were actually against the bill before it was even released before they even knew what was in the bill to begin with. So the following that closed door meeting last night, James Langford told the press quote, I would anticipate Wednesday the cloture vote in the Senate does not pass. People are saying, hey, I need a lot more time to be able to go through this, meaning a lot more time to actually read the legislation itself. Now the amazing part about this story is how we see a 180 from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who previously advised Republicans to support the bill, mostly because he wants to send military aid to Ukraine. It's all packaged together as one giant bill. There's also provisions in there that provides

military funding to Israel. The 370 page bill was crafted with the input of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who advocated for it on the Senate floor on Monday. Of crises at the southern border and internationally, it's now time for Congress to take action on supplemental national security legislation that finally meets those challenges head on, he says. But just hours later, when Senate Republicans met behind closed doors and opposition continued to grow, McConnell gave his members the green light to oppose Wednesday's procedural vote. McConnell told Republicans that if they have reasons to vote against the bill, they could. So I'm going to stop for comment, Jank, because as we know, the House has already made it clear. A House Speaker, Mike Johnson, has made it clear even before reading the bill that he wouldn't even allow for it to be taken up for a vote. And now you have senators who literally to help negotiate that bill saying, you know what, you don't want to vote in favor of it.

That's okay. Let's just defeat the bill. Okay. Yeah. Here's the reason why I love this story, because it exposes how ridiculous both, why, Washington is overall, but in this case, more specifically, the Republican Party. What a joke they are, what a silly, silly joke. So first off, the reason why I don't just say the Republicans is because Democrats like Chris Murphy, who led the negotiation on Democratic side, Kirsten Cinema, for whatever it's worth it, independent now, I have quotes all over the papers going that they're shocked. I think one of the Republicans said that he was gobsmacked that this had happened.

Really, after all this time, you guys are shocked that Republicans are liars? Okay, I mean, like if I thought Chris Murphy was doing it like as a wink, wink, can you believe it, right? No, I think he's genuinely shocked. I mean, remember Pelosi and Biden and Obama all said like, oh, no, no, the Republicans are going to snap out of it. They're going to go back to being a reasonable party. First of all, when was that? But like, no, even did people inside Washington, even Democrats and there, and even the Republicans, they don't even understand what colossal liars the Republican leadership is and Republican politicians

are. So I'm going to go to the guy who led all this Lankford, the Republican from Oklahoma. He said, quite frankly, I was surprised that some folks that said, it'll take me a few days in weeks to be able to read through the bill, yet within a few minutes, they tweeted out their opposition. Really? Were you really surprised? Lankford, were you really surprised? Really? You were surprised by that? And the thing is, I think he was. I think he's like all the times that they lie together, they convince themselves that they're not lying, I guess, right? And so when they lie against them, he's like, what the hell? What's going on? I thought you said you didn't

time to read the bill, but then right away, you said no. Yeah, of course. Of course they're lying, you idiot. That's what your entire party does. So I want to, I want to just quickly make a point about how this is all about accumulating power for personal reasons, right? It's all about self-enrichment. In this case, it's self-enrichment for Donald Trump. He doesn't really care about the border being out of control, if he can use the border being out of control to give himself an advantage in the general election, you know, something to campaign on, something to be part of this platform. But on the other side, let's also just be honest about the motivations of President Joe Biden, who has pretty much ignored this crisis. And it is, at this point, it is a crisis. It is undeniable,

okay? Even the Democratic Party acknowledges it. You have, I mean, thousands of people crossing the border, literally every single day. And the only reason why, to be quite frank, Democrats have woken up to the fact that this is a crisis is because the migrants are showing up into their cities and their constituents are furious about it because they have limited resources. And so what I'm seeing from Biden is just a complete lack of concern about this issue until it became a political problem for him. But he doesn't want to deal with the ire of some of the more progressive types who think that we should have open borders. And yes, believe it or not, those people do exist. In fact, I've come across a few think pieces and progressive publications making the case for

open borders, which I disagree with. Okay. So he doesn't want to deal with hate from that part of his constituency, but he wants to do something about the border. So he wants them to pass that bill. And he wants to basically say, well, there was nothing I can do. You know, they passed this bill in Congress and there is a problem at the border. We got to do something about it. So it is what it is. I got to do what Congress wants me to do. I feel like that's where Biden's coming from. And again, in my opinion, it's a place of weakness. He's leading from a place of weakness rather than really taking charge of a serious problem and an actual crisis. But it is what it is, I guess. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it.

But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with the TD Small Business Account Manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs. Ready to press play? Get up to $2,700 when you open Select Small Business Banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. Visit TD.com slash small business match to learn more. Conditions apply. Anna, I don't know what you're talking about. Kamala Harris is on top of this.

Remember Biden. Don't come. Don't come. Oh, that'll do it. That'll do it. Good job. Good job. So remember Biden threw her under the bus by putting her in charge of the border,

which is totally impossible. will end. He planned to do nothing, nothing about the border. He just planned to needlessly, like, bury his own vice president politically, which was super weird. I guess they hate each other. And so you're right about the criticism of Biden, and he'd done nothing about this. And guys, we've been clear about this. Under Obama, Trump, and early part of Biden's administration, the numbers were relatively similar. So when the Republicans flipped out for all those years, when Obama was in charge, oh my God, crisis, beginning of Biden's term. And, you know, even when it was convened under Trump, the numbers were actually very similar.

And it was totally fake. But now the numbers are sky high. Yes, I got to add, just to buttress your point and reinforce what you're saying, Obama had a nickname and it was deporter in chief because of how many people he deported. So when he was like deporting more migrants than the previous Republican president, And then you hear Republicans complain about how they're open borders and everything is out of control. I mean, you can't help but roll your eyes at that. But it is undeniable that right now, because of how broken our immigration system is and how much our laws need to be reformed, there is, in fact, a crisis at the border and it's undeniable.

Now, in response to Republicans rejecting this Senate bill that pretty much gives them everything they want, Biden put out a speech today, something he does very rarely, but let's hear what he had to say, and then we'll discuss. Now, all indications are this bill won't even move forward to the Senate floor. Why? A simple reason. Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump thinks it's bad for him politically.

Therefore, he doesn't, even though it's helpful the country, he's not for it. He'd rather weaponize this issue than actually solve it. So, Jank, one of the criticisms we usually have in regard to the Democratic Party is how they don't go out there, use the bully pulpit to draw attention to the gross games that their political opponents engage in. In this case, you have Biden giving a speech and drawing attention to the fact that Republicans are fighting against their own bill coming out of the Senate. What did you think about his speech? Yeah, I mean, look, he had the usual mumbling, et cetera, but it was a good speech. I'm really glad that he went out and made this case. And right now there's a little bit of buzz in the media about, hey, it does look like,

and even in right wing media, it does look like the Republicans tanked it on purpose to help Trump's campaign. And I'm super curious whether that's going to get through to any Republican voters. And if they're going to be, I know this is going to sound hilarious, But bear with me, it's that Trump for blocking a bill that would have actually helped to control the border. Now, that is absolute reality. That is 100% what happened. But usually Republican voters hate reality. And they would let Trump sleep with their wife. No questions asked. So I don't know in a situation where it's the thing they care about most controlling the border versus Trump, Trump probably still with. But at least Biden has to make that case and say, guys, now Trump owns the border.

I would have made it clear in that way, but I'll take this. This is as good as a guess for Joe Biden. So to your point, Jank, I've been keeping an eye on what conservative media has been saying and what Trump's, you know, avid supporters have been saying. So Trump has spread this lie about how the legislation provides amnesty to undocumented immigrants, there is nothing in the bill about amnesty. You guys can fact check me if you want. There is, it is a very right wing bill, okay? But they just latch on to whatever characterization that Trump has of the bill. And they just continue to support whatever Trump wants them to

support. And in regard to Republicans who are playing along with Donald Trump's game, you have to keep in mind that anyone who dare cross Donald Trump and whatever he desires We'll have to deal with Trump's ire, as now Republican Senator James Langford is dealing with. In fact, during a recent interview on Dan Bongino show, Trump said something about Langford that I found amusing to say the least. So let's take a look at that and I'll explain why. Just to correct the record, I did not endorse Senator Langford. I didn't do it. He ran and I did not endorse him.

So I'm sure your person will be happy to hear that. But I think this is a very bad bill for his career, and especially in Oklahoma. The people in Oklahoma are, you know, these are serious mega. These are serious people. They are not going to be happy about this, Dan, when they see this. This is crazy. This is lunacy, this bill. And you know what it is?

It's a gift to the Democrats. Well, it turns out that Senator Lankford was one of the Republican candidates in 2022 that was endorsed by Donald Trump and happened to win. So Trump said in the September 27th, 2022 endorsement statement, quote, James was strongly committed to America first and everything it stood for and likewise strongly committed to me as president. Sometimes we didn't exactly agree on everything, but we do now. He's a very good man with a fabulous wife and family, loves the great state of Oklahoma, and is working very hard on trying to save our country from the disaster that it is in. By the way, in that statement, Trump proceeded to praise

Langford's stances on the border, the economy, crime, gun rights, and energy. I mean, it's just, it's, I'm just amused by it. I'm amused by it. Like, what else could you do at this point? Yeah, okay, knew it. I just looked up James Langford's wife. Yes, she's young and a There's no way he's mentioning the wife for no reason unless she's attractive. Okay. Hey, anyways, look, if you're Maga, I mean, do you know that Trump's a hilarious liar? Like you're okay with it because you're like, ah, he's trolling or whatever excuse you make? Or are you like, no, Trump's look, being honest when he contradicts himself 100%.

I don't know, it doesn't matter. Look, we're a fair show. Trump's a comical, like hilarious over the top liar, right? On the other hand, Anna made a great point earlier. So Biden's plan on immigration was sit on your ass, do nothing until the Republicans yell at you enough. Then you concede everything to the Republicans. The reason where everybody's gobsmacked by this is because the Republicans got everything they wanted. But you should, and then they rejected it. But you shouldn't be surprised that Joe Biden,

and gave the Republicans everything they wanted, that's all he ever does. That is a definition of his career. And then finally on Mayorkas, if we can get to that, they're trying to impeach him because they're saying he's so bad on the border. He hasn't been able to control the border, and if you can't control the border, that's a high crime and misdemeanor. Well, you guys just shot down a bill that would control the border. So should you all, all the Republicans be impeached today according to their own logic? Well, not only, that, I should give you the update to that story. The Majorca's impeachment is a good example of the illusion of governance that I talk about on the show so often, where rather than legislating,

rather than governing, you have lawmakers, and to be quite frank, from both parties, engaging in performative garbage, right? All political theater. Typically, it's in the form of hearings. In this case, it's in the form of a sham impeachment. And the big update on the attempt to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas is that there were enough Republicans in the House to shoot that down. Ken Buck, a Republican lawmaker in the House, basically said that this is delusional and said that the impeachment fails to identify, or the argument to impeach him, fails to identify any impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed. So I am amused that there are members of their own party that shut down this performative nonsense.

But I do think that in an attempt to make it appear as though Republicans are trying to do something about the border, even as they're shooting down legislation that would, you know, respond to the crisis. They're focusing on the performative stuff and attacking a specific individual, the head of the, you know, the Department of Homeland Security. Yeah. All right. Well, we're massively out of time. We got to take a break. And when we come back for the second hour of the show, we've got a lot more to get. get to, including Channel 4 News in the UK, looking into claims that the humanitarian organization providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza is allegedly tied to Hamas. These are allegations made by Israel. Is there any merit to those claims? Spoiler alert. No. So we'll give you what that investigation found when we come back.

All right, back on T.R.T. Jank, Anna, and Unknown, person with the handle Unknown, I just joined at t.t.com slash join. We appreciate you. We do the show together with you, the unknown soldier. I love it. All right, Castro, what's next? Well, there is an update on some pretty serious allegations that Israel had made against a humanitarian aid group that's been providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Let's talk a little bit about that. Israel has failed to provide evidence supporting their claims that 12 members of UNRWA, the humanitarian aid group that provides assistance to Palestinians in Gaza,

took part in terror attacks by Hamas on October 7th. And that's according to an investigation that was done by Channel 4 News in the UK, which obtained the confidential Israeli document laying out its claims. Now, this document was supposed to provide the evidence for why Israel believes that these individuals were engaged in the terror attack, or that UNRWA overall has a problem with individuals being tied to Hamas. So let's take a look at part of the investigation, and I'll fill in the blanks. The document repeats an allegation the Israel Defense Force has made many times that the Hamas terrorist organization, has been methodically and deliberately in placing its terrorist infrastructure in a wide range of UN facilities and assets,

but provides no evidence to support its explosive new claim that UNRWA staff were involved in the terror attacks on Israel, just stating, from intelligence information, documents and identity cards seized during the course of the fighting, it is now possible to flag around 190 Hamas and Palis, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist operatives who serve as UNRWA employees.

More than 10 UNRWA staffers took part in the events of the 7th of October. Israel gave the document to donors just after the International Court of Justice in the Hague made an interim ruling on a charge of genocide against Israel. Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.

So that confidential document, I believe is the same document that the United States had referenced as their reason for pulling aid away from UNRWA, that there was compelling evidence that persuaded the United States government to do this. But there is a reference to possible evidence, but that confidential document provided none of that evidence, none, zero. They just simply made the claim. And then you have more than a dozen countries, mostly Western countries, whole funding and aid away from UNRWA, which is so incredibly critical in providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians who are literally starving to death. It's just, listen, obviously we were open to the possibility, and I'm still open to the possibility that maybe some members, there is some evidence that some of those members engaged in terrorist attacks or linked to Hamas, but we have to see the evidence of that.

You can't just take what they're saying at face value, especially given how many lies the IDF and Israel has been caught in already. This is outrageous, man, but there's more from the investigation I want to get to. Before I do that, Chink, I wanted to hear your thoughts on this. Yeah, I think why Israel did this is very interesting. And I want to come back to it a little bit later. But first on the substance of it, so told you, never believed the Israeli government. And it's not because they're particularly odious, although certainly in the occupation and the bombing of Gaza, they are odious. It's because governments lie. They lie on

They lie on their own behalf to just take any government at face value is preposterous, especially one with a track record of the Israeli government. It is very well versed in propaganda. It does over the top propaganda every single time. And so for UN or the America or any of the Western countries to take it at face value, one is preposterous, but two shows you like you think they don't know that Israel is very likely lying. Oh, golly gee, that's the 200th time in a row. Oh, we're still surprised. Come on. In other words, they wanted to help Israel destroy this UN group that was helping the Palestinians.

And they just needed a fig leaf, an excuse to do it. And so an unsourced, unsubstantiated, totally made up claim was plenty good enough. And so when I talk about you, there's politics of the UN guys. Of course, it's a combination of all the nations. They all have different political interests and there's tons of politics. And one of the biggest political factors is the power of the United States, which is by far the largest, I mean, the most powerful country within the UN. And they put tremendous pressure on every organization to do whatever Israel says. So when UNRWA got this report, they panicked and immediately fired nine people. When it turns out there was no evidence at all. So, and you have to keep that in mind when you see

countries and the UN acting in the way that they do. Don't be, don't be from the old school where the established media would tell you, well, if the Western countries say it, it must be true. No, unfortunately these days, that's actually probably the opposite. Now, look, the UN fired all those people with no due process, but I understand why they did it. They did it with the hope that it would show how seriously the UN takes this, how seriously UNR, which is a UN-linked organization, Seriously, they take the allegations and they didn't want to risk losing funding to this critical organization. That's why they did it. But obviously, that wasn't good enough.

That wasn't good enough, right? Because immediately you have over a dozen countries pull funding when we all know that there's a block on humanitarian aid going into Gaza. Okay, we know that Palestinians are starving to death. They don't have access to clean drinking water. And this all happened immediately, immediately after the ICJ puts out. its preliminary ruling saying that it is possible, plausible that a genocide is taking place and ordered Israel to allow for the flow of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. So I want to real quick shank, I want to go to the other part of this investigation, which should infuriate

you, because here's something that we didn't know until this investigation was done. Every single person who works for UNRWA, and there are 13,000 of them working within Gaza, Okay, every single one of them has been vetted and has been approved by Israel. Let's watch. Apart from emergency aid, Unru runs schools, hospitals and other services for 5.9 million Palestinian refugees across the Middle East. It employs 13,000 gansans, all of whose names have been checked against a UN terrorism list, and as recently as last May, were vested.

and approved by Israel. UNRWA immediately fired the staff members named in the document and mounted an investigation. So they've been vetted and approved by Israel. And then as soon as the ICJ ruling comes out, Jank, oh, we think that UNRWA has ties to Hamas. Yeah. What a convenient thing to claim. So convenient. Look, you saw it with the deans of the top universities here in America. You see it in cancel culture all the time with professors and protesters,

Nancy Pelosi even saying that pro-Palestinian protesters are Russian agents and Chinese agents, etc. Anyone who dares oppose Israel will have their character assassinated. And sometimes their lives assassinated, like Abu Eccl, an American journalist in the occupied territories, let alone dozens of journalists that have been assassinated by the IDF during this latest conflict. character assassination was guaranteed for UNRWA because what does UNRWA do? It gives humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians and that leads you to your why. Not only were they mad at the UN for saying that they might be committing a genocide, how dare you try to accurately critique Israel,

that's not allowed. But on top of that, the main thing they want to do is make sure the Palestinians suffer 100% as much as you humanly possible. And if you cut off humanitarian assistance, more of them will starve, more of them will die, more of them will be humiliated and demeaned and degraded. And that is exactly what the right wing government of Israel wants. And they prove it with every action that they have. And still we have Israeli surrogates going around in ridiculous fashion claiming Israel is the only moral country. When they murder civilians, they do it in the most moral, spectacular way. They're trying so hard not to hurt the civilians. If you still believe that you're the world's largest

sucker. Look at what they just did to this humanitarian assistance group. That's because they don't want that assistant going to the Palestinians. That is just yesterday. We shared a story that was investigated by and reported on by Horat's. And what they found was that the IDF was in fact controlling a telegram channel that was basically putting out snuff films of the Palestinians that they were killing. Some of the captions made fun of mother's bones crunching. So I give you that example because when there is actual evidence of war crimes, when there is actual evidence of innocent civilians being brutalized and killed by the IDF, by the Israeli side. There's no conversation about pulling aid in support of Israel. There's no

conversation at all. So that double standard to me is very clear, right, where you can have a mountain of evidence, incriminating evidence on the Israeli side. And there's no conversation at all about pulling aid or supporting what they're doing. But all you need is Israel to make a claim and we're just supposed to take it at face value. And immediately, more than a dozen countries pull aid from the one humanitarian group providing the life saving assistance that these innocent civilians need. Yeah. It's sick. It's absolutely sick. And then America goes around the world stage and pretends like we're the moral ones. Oh, we're the shining city on a hill. We're the wonderful democracy. Look at what we're supporting right now with our money, with our rhetoric.

I have no ill will against Israel at all. I do have ill will against a government, though, that engages in war crimes and brutalizes innocent civilians. If the tables were turned and somehow the Palestinians had the power that Israel has and were conducting the war crimes that Israel is currently conducting, I would be here saying the exact same thing about the Palestinians. But that's not what's happening here. So Anna, to your point about morality, you know, if you say that Joe Biden is not a good person in Washington, they'll rip your head off. I don't care. Right. No, I don't care. He's not a good person. Anyone who supports everything and anything Benjamin Netanyahu and the current IDF is doing right now in Gaza,

not a good person. I'm sorry. You can say that Israel has a right to defend itself. I agree with you on that. If Israel was engaged in this war without breaking international laws, without committing war crimes, if they were doing targeted strikes that were taking out Hamas, And I'm not stupid. I know that war usually leads to some number of civilians tragically dying. I know that. But guys, look at the ratio. Please stop gaslighting. We see it. We see it clearly. So yes, I think Biden, with his unwavering support of what Israel is doing in Gaza right now, is a bad person. I think he is morally questionable to say the least, at best morally questionable. Yeah. But I'd go further than that.

Yeah, no, I said that just to point out, the hypocrisy, right? So, I mean, to your point, Israel's civilian kill ratio is significantly worse than Hamas's. And yet people like Joe Biden comically say that Hamas has bad intent, but Israel has good intent. That's nothing but a joke. So as he's seen Palestinian civilians get butchered, he has greenlit it, given it authority. And in fact, he wants to send $14 billion more to kill more Palestinian civilians. And we're supposed to pretend he's a good guy. And why is Joe Biden doing that for his own political benefit? He thinks that it helps his career if he supports Israel 100%. He doesn't even contemplate

ever, ever removing a single dollar from Israeli aid that we give them. Why? Because he's a bad person. He's immoral. If you're in Washington that broke your heart, I don't give it damn, Because you're so immoral, you don't care about 27,000 dead civilians. I'm sorry, a couple thousand could be Hamas. So what, 25,000 dead civilians, all innocent. But you care more about Joe Biden's feelings and his political career than you care about all those innocent human beings, babies, grandmother's, aunts, uncles, all of Washington is a moral cesspool. They don't care about other human beings at all. There's ghouls, goblins, and monsters there. Last thing, remember when Israel, we thought Israel might have bombed a hospital, but then there was a question

of whether it was Islamic jihad, missile that had gone awry. Well, what happened? Because people were convinced that it was not Israel, because Israel put out a giant blast, and it's still somewhat unclear to this day. But that was in the news for weeks, and every news organization was made to retract that story, right? Now here, every news organization said that Unra was guilty and that they were working with Hamas. Is there a tremendous pressure to all of them to retract a much worse story, a much more heinous story, and one that was done on purpose to lie about Unra. I haven't seen a goddamn thing. Is that incredible? It is, it is incredible if you believe in fairness, if you believe in finding truth and reporting truth. But it's not unbelievable

when you consider the longstanding double standard that we've seen in regard to Israel versus pretty much any other country on the planet. Let's keep it real. But the other thing I want to just quickly mention is that the head of the UN, Antonio Gutierrez, has announced the creation of an independent panel to investigate Israel's claims. And the result of that investigation will be shared with the world in late March. So my question is, what happens between now and the end of March as Palestinian civilians are starving to death. Time is of the essence. This is not a joke. And finally, UNRWA shared images of a food convoy that was attacked by Israeli artillery fire on Monday.

So there's one of the images that they shared. Juliet Tuma, who is the communications director for the UN Palestinian Refugee Agency, says that it was not the first time an UNRWA convoy with the U.S. United Nations was attacked. It's the third time a convoy belonging to UNRah had been exposed to an attack on its way to the north of Gaza or when it is coming back from the north. So intentionally targeting convoys attempting to provide food and sustenance to people who are starving to death in the Gaza Strip. Absolutely disgusting. If you think Israel is not intending to kill civilians and not intending to make Palestinians suffer in Gaza Strip, you're on a different planet.

Please, I mean, you're totally detached from reality. And at 98% of the world thinks you're detached from reality. We all have eyes and ears. We could see the murder, mayhem, torture, humiliation on a daily basis. 150 Palestinians die at a minimum every day from the bombing, every day. If 150 Israelis were being killed every day by Palestinians, we would have nuke them already. And we would have done everything in our power to stop it. But Western nations, America and Israel do not care about Palestinian lives at all.

Our leaders are deeply immoral, evil people. All right, when we come back from the break, we'll give you an update on the Ethan Crumbly case. His mother was basically prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter after her son shot up a school and killed four innocent people. The verdict is fascinating and the first of its kind. So we'll get to that and more when we come back. by hitting the join button below. We appreciate you, Mark.

And Samantha Toder gifted a membership on YouTube. Anna, what's next? We've got an update on the Jennifer Crumbly trial. Let's get to it. On count one of involuntary manslaughter as to Madison Baldwin, we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. On count two of involuntary manslaughter

in regards to Tate Muir, we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. On count three, as to involuntary manslaughter, As to involuntary manslaughter regarding Hannah, Hanna, St. Juliana, we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. And in count four of involuntary manslaughter against Jeff Kinshilling, we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. You just heard a first of its kind verdict having to do with Jennifer Crumbly,

the mother of a teenager who killed four students during a school shooting in Michigan back in 2021. She's been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter because of how she ignored the mental health concerns of her son, the shooter, Ethan Crumbly, and how she and her husband had supplied the very weapon he then used to carry out the massacre. Now, a jury unanimously convicted Jennifer Crumbly of all four counts against her, one for each of the four people her son, Ethan, killed at Oxford High School. Crumbly could face up to 60 years in prison with each count carrying a maximum sentence of 15 years. She remains held on bond and will be sentenced on April 9th. So obviously we don't know what her sentence will be and it is fascinating and this could be a way of holding or doing something about the gun violence and the mass shootings that have been plaguing this country. You know, oftentimes the gun utilized by young people who carry out these mass shootings is a gun that belongs to the parents, that they haven't secured in a safe place that their kids can't access, or like in this case, the gun was supplied by the parents themselves. Crumbly's case and conviction were unprecedented, marking the first time a parent has stood trial for their alleged role in a school shooting.

and her son Ethan had previously pleaded guilty to all charges against him, including murder and terrorism. And as a result, he is serving a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole. The guy you see next to me is actually Ethan Crumbly's father, who has not stood trial yet, but much like his wife, Jennifer Crumbly, he will stand trial and will give you a coverage of that as it unfolds. The prosecution's case against Jennifer Crumbley had focused on three main things. Her knowledge, of her son's mental health issues, how he got access to the firearm to begin with, and her actions at a pivotal school meeting on the morning of the shooting. So according to NBC News, this is what they noted during the trial last week. A day after Thanksgiving, prosecutors say James, that's the husband, and Jennifer Crumbly

bought their son, a 9-millimeter Sig Sarr. That Monday, that Monday, a teacher at Oxford high school said she saw Ethan searching online for ammunition. The following day, a teacher said she found a note on Ethan's desk with a drawing of a gun and a person who was shot and messages including, quote, the thoughts won't stop, help me, end quote. Now that discovery prompted the school to summon the parents for a meeting, but school officials testified that they declined to bring him home because they had to go back to work. And on the stand, Crumbly denied wanting to leave her son at school, saying her son got very stressed when doing school virtually. She said they all agreed it would be better for him to remain at school in person surrounded by students.

Well, it turns out that argument was not persuasive for the jury, which did find her guilty on all four counts. The prosecution in their closing arguments emphasized if they had just done any little thing differently, this could have all ended with those four kids still being alive. So if she hadn't bought him the gun at Christmas, you know, she claims the dad bought it. but it's irrelevant. They both knew about it, both sanctioned it, wrote about it on Facebook, about, you know, how happy they were. They knew that their child was having significant mental health issues. And they're still bragging about buying him a gun. If they had just taken him out of school, if they had checked for where the gun is, they would have found out

that it was in his backpack. If they had done a hundred different little things, it could have been avoided. But they chose not to do any of those things. Look, sometimes they'll introduce things in a trial where you think, like, are you just trying to bias the jury here against this person? And usually it'll have to do with sex. And in this case, there was something along those lines. But it turned out that it was actually very relevant. So she was sleeping with I think the head of the fire department. And then they would have these swinger parties at a hotel where half the fire department would show up or a number of people from the fire department would show up. So if you just said that like, ha ha, she's a bad person. I'd say, don't, don't bring

that into the trial that is not like. But it turns out she was doing that during work hours and would brag about, right? So when she says she had to go back to work and that's why she couldn't take him home, there's a good case. And there was some evidence about that day as well, not necessarily about yet another orgy, but that she was not going back to work. And she did not have to diligently get back to work. She just wanted to have more fun. And that's why she let him in there, it left him in the school knowing that he's a massive danger to himself and others. So that's why I think this conviction is absolutely right. Yeah, I agree with you. I think it's right as well. And, you know, because of this trial, you get an inside look into the shooter's

life. And look, what he carried out was awful and tragic. He robbed four people of their lives. And so he belongs behind bars. But at the same time, as you learn more about what his life was like and how his parents treated him and basically neglected his calls for help, you can't help but feel awful for him, considering how awful his parents were to him. Yeah. I mean, you know, he's calling out for help and his parents can't be bothered to provide the support that he needed. Again, I don't want anyone to think I'm justifying what he did. I think he belongs in prison. Again, he robbed four people of their lives. But it would be an injustice for him to serve the rest of his life behind bars and for his parents who neglected

him to just get away Scott Free, considering how neglectful they were toward their son. Yeah, I totally agree with the sentence against him as well. But I just want to double down on what you're saying because he's 15 years old and clearly has significant mental health health issues. So okay, but he took four people's lives, so there's consequences. But there should also be consequences for the parents who were so negligent that they just didn't care about their own kid at all, at all, let alone other people's kids. So I think, look, if you're going to prosecute parents for bad parenting, we'll be prosecuting everybody in the country. So I'm not in favor of this in a blanket way. But this is about as an egregious an example as I've ever seen. And in this

case, I think it was definitely warranted. Let's take our final break. When we come back, we'll, I guess, lighten things up a little bit. We'll talk about Rudy Giuliani's continuing financial woes. We got a shocking update on House Speaker Mike Johnson's standalone Israel bill seeking to send an additional $17 billion in military funding to Israel. A lot to get to. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. All right, back on TYT, Jank, Anna, I'm Bruce City Mike. Bruce City Mike just joined. You're awesome.

Angry Com wrote in on Twitch. I put it on Samsung TV for background noise while I work way better than CNN. I love that guys. I read that one because if you have Samsung TV, put Young Turks on in the background. You have no idea how much that'll help us. Appreciate you. All right, Casper. Well, let's lighten things up in the last segment of the show.

But if you're a member, you can look forward to a breaking news story that we're going to cover in the bonus episode for our members about that standalone, Israel military funding bill that Mike Johnson introduced on the House floor. For now, though, let's talk about Broke Rudy. Rudy Giuliani's checking account is in the red as he faces. over $152 million in debt. I can't even fathom being in debt to that extent. I mean, I would have panic attacks. But anyway, he's facing creditors left and right due to his defamation judgment. Now, Giuliani is disputing the millions of dollars he owes to creditors in at least 10 lawsuits against him. And there are several charges that he doesn't dispute. Among them has to do

with some overdraft charges in his checking account. He is not disputing that he owes city gold $9,530.21 cents for overdraft on checking account, the filing says. Now, he might be a fan of President Joe Biden, because I did a story a few weeks back about how Joe Biden is trying to rein in these banks and the overdraft charges that they charge toward their customers. So who knows, maybe Biden, is someone that Giuliani is going to vote in favor of considering his financial woes. I doubt it, but I'll give you some more details about why he owes so much money and how much trouble he's in in just a moment. Jank, what are your thoughts? Yeah, so this is interesting. What's happening as a general trend here is that since a lot of the prosecutors are Democrats, which means that they are very

slow and weak. People are now seeking justice in the civil court system. And so they bankrupted Alex Jones. Here they bankrupted Rudy Giuliani. And of course, E. Jean Carroll got that $83 million settlement against Trump, even though he claims to be a billionaire. That might bankrupt Donald Trump. So for guys that are lifelong criminals that we can't get any justice I think he's a wonderful development, but I am a little worried that they're going to expand this to others. But for now, Rudy richly deserved it. So let's get into those defamation suits or those civil suits. So documents filed in New York on Monday of this week in Giuliani's bankruptcy case show that he is challenging the millions of dollars he owes a law firm that

ended up defending him in the defamation case that was brought forth by two Georgia election workers, Shea Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman. So he had lied about them and how they helped to engage in voter fraud on behalf of Joe Biden. Obviously, there was no evidence of that. And as a result of that defamation, you know, their lives were destroyed. They were dealing with insane harassment from Trump supporters. And so he lost that defamation suit, as he should have. The problem is he ripped a page out of Donald Trump's book and decided that he didn't want to pay the lawyers who were representing him in the defamation suit. And so Giuliani is challenging almost $400,000 in outstanding legal fees to the firm, the law firm of Idala, Bertuna, and Kamins, which represented him in misconduct proceedings before the Washington, D.C. bar. That's another situation in which he was represented by lawyers that he didn't pay.

Creditors have said in court that they are not taking his financial statements filed in bankruptcy court at face value. And in fact, they plan to hire a forensic accounting firm to investigate the specifics. I think that's a smart idea. Oftentimes there are individuals who claim bankruptcy in order to skirt their financial liability as a result of civil rulings. But I do think that Giuliani probably is broke. If you can recall, he wanted to put his Manhattan apartment up for sale. He had a lot of difficulty selling it. And the reason why he was trying to sell it was to pay some of his bills.

And he begged Donald Trump to help him financially. Trump held a fundraiser for him, and I think they raised some money there, but clearly not enough. And in addition to the millions owed for his lawsuits, documents also show that Giuliani owes more than $700,000 in 10,000. taxes to the federal government and nearly $300,000 in taxes in New York. How do you screw your life up like this? Like, how do you go from a widely lauded mayor, New York City mayor, America's mayor, as he was once called, to someone who's drowning in debt, dealing with all sorts of lawsuits? Does he not have a family member who can put him in a headlock and lock him in a basement?

So he stops being a danger to himself. Like, it's just insane. Yeah. So I have two words for you on how you could ruin your life like this. One is alcohol and the other is Trump. If you've got a combination of an alcohol problem and a Trump problem, you're going to look like Rudy Giuliani. And that's the thing with these bad guys.

No, they're bad guys to everyone. So there isn't anyone in their family who helps them. In fact, his scummy son was trying to use his dad's fame to run for political office as his dad was falling apart of the seams. But he's pushing him in front of cameras into the spotlight so that he could take advantage of his dad. So that's that's the kind of family that Rudy has raised. And so no, they did not come to his defense. You're muted, Anna. Sorry about that.

But look, maybe there's an opportunity here for Rudy Giuliani to do to Trump, what Trump has done to him, because apparently Giuliani owes Trump some money. Giuliani is challenging a $35,000 debt to the Emerald Dunes Club in Palm Beach, Florida. But he does not appear to dispute that he owes nearly $650 in membership dues to the Trump International Golf Course in West Palm. beach. So $650 is not that big of a deal compared to how much Donald Trump allegedly owes Giuliani for his attorney services. I can't imagine those were top notch quality attorney services. But nonetheless, a lot of people owing a lot of people money. Yeah, and there's no honor among thieves. So Rudy is not paying Trump back. And Trump's got a much bigger bill to Rudy. And of course, Trump's not paying him. Trump never pays his bills. And, and, And he's just because he's a terrible person. And again, Maga loves. about Congresswoman Nancy Mace because I have some conspiratorial thoughts about this. I'll share those thoughts after I give you the detail about the story. So new reporting by the Daily Beast alleges that turnover among Congresswoman Nancy Mace's DC staff

is so high that literally the entirety of her office has changed since November 1st of 2023, completely new staffers. Now that's nine staffers in the span of three months with all but one of them leaving on their own accord. One of them was fired. That loan exception was let go. We don't know the details about why that individual was let go. But nonetheless, Capitol police were called on him by his successor when he tried to return his keys. Now, as for the other eight, their reason for leaving was due to a toxic workplace. And so they spoke to the Daily Beast on condition of anonymity, which I think is kind of a cowardly thing to do. If you're going to make some serious allegations about a toxic work environment. Don't do it anonymously.

Like, have the courage to speak your truth publicly while revealing your name. But anyway, the member was abusive, one former senior staffer said, specifically pointing to the frequency with which Mace would communicate with her staff, either over text, signal, or Monday.com, which sounds like a satanic app that everyone should avoid, an unauthorized software system, Mace uses in her office. Monday.com. Why does this exist? It's like let's think of the day of the week that everyone hates the most. Name our app that and then have it be like a workplace messaging thing that's going to drive people crazy.

Anyway, that's not important to the story. It's just it really triggered me, I guess. The former staff were also told the Daily Beast that Mace would constantly use the software to micromanage the office all day. And into the night slash early morning, whether Mace needed something from her staff, they had to reply within eight minutes, within eight minutes. That's what they're alleging. A staffer also clarified that this was an actual rule. One senior staffer also recalled how Mace called them close to midnight on Christmas Eve, demanding to know why she wasn't getting on television more during the holiday week. So there are more details about these allegations. I've pretty much read you the worst of it. Is this, is this a campaign by like the, I don't know, like the Kevin McCarthy wing of the Republican Party to try to destroy her political career? Because this is now like the second or third piece that's been written about how awful she was to her staff. And look, I would be annoyed by these rules.

Like if I had a boss who said you need to respond to me in eight minutes, even if. If I'm contacting you near midnight on Christmas Eve, I'd be annoyed by that, but is that really all they've got? And why do these stories keep coming out? There's something strange and fishy about these stories, I think. What do you think, Jank? Yeah, okay. So Anna, there you go. So I think you're totally right to be skeptical about these stories. And both things can be true at the same time, which is that the story can be true and it hatch a job to assassinate her character anyway. So, and I think that a lot of Republicans hold, or politics, who Democrats do it too, don't get me wrong. They hold stuff in their back pocket until they need it, right? And so they like sometimes,

the most common attack against someone, usually a male, is some sort of sexual impropriety if they want to do a character assassination. The second most common is a toxic workplace. And in fact, for women, it's the most common. Yes. If you want to, if you want to, attack a woman in politics, just throw a toxic workplace charge at her, right? And so I've now seen it at least half a dozen times the prominent women. They just did it to Mary Ann Williamson earlier in this cycle, et cetera, right? So, and you're right, she's one of the guy, one of the people who voted against McCarthy and did that whole drama, right? One of the eight. And who's one of the other eight Matt Gates? And all of a sudden, sexual impropriety charges resurfaced.

Yes, yes, Jake. Yes, thank you for reminding me of that. That's so true. Right. Now, it doesn't mean that they didn't do it, but you do have to, and I said this, and we are, look, man, we're the only people trying to do actual news here. We do it in a nonpartisan way. So I, you know, I thought that the treatment of the Harvard and Penn Dean and that congressional hearing about protesters, et cetera, was unfair. and it was largely a character assassination. I can't stand Nancy Mace or Matt Gates, but I think that these are also character assassinations, right? So now as to whether it's true or not, well, you need context, right? So just because Daily Beast writes about it,

I mean, Daily Beast is where you go to do character assassinations. So that means nothing that they wrote about it, right? And so, well, for example, when at one point they tried it against, me, but it was in terms of toxic workplace, but it was hilarious. There's one person out of hundreds and hundreds of people that work here, right? And people stay here 15, 20 years. So it's a really good example of a place that's a really great place to work, right? In the case of Nancy Mace, her entire staff cleared out in three months.

So was it toxic? Yeah, it was probably toxic, but some of the charges are absurd. Right. Okay. Can I jump in now, Jank? Because listen, who among us hasn't existed in a work environment where there's one overzealous person in management who's like breathing down your neck too much? Everyone's experienced that. So yes, I mean, you should stand up for yourself and you should say, listen, I have my boundaries and I'm not going to talk to you at like 9 p.m. on a Friday night, kick rocks. And I know that not everyone is comfortable doing that because there might be retaliation. But I just feel like the claims against her, it just seems like she wanted press, she wanted to appear on television, she wanted her team to put out press releases regularly. She wanted to stay in the news. And she was constantly contacting them and they were annoyed by that. I don't know if that really crosses the line into a toxic work environment. When I think of toxic work environment, I think of

an employer or a manager who's like throwing things at you or retaliates against you by refusing to give you a promotion for a dumb reason, right? Like that kind of stuff. In this case, it's like, all right, she's a little overzealous and she wants us to respond right away. I feel like that's common. And yeah, it's unacceptable. And you can maybe find ways around it. I don't know if this is like the worst offense. You get what I'm saying? A hundred percent. And so look, there's perfectly bad. So the eight mineral is stupid. The way she hounds her staff is not great.

The way she tried to get a former staffer arrested, not great. The turnover is record breaking. Okay, but on the other hand, some of the complaints are preposterous. So she wants to be on TV more. That means she's actually working. I mean, yeah, you could say that's for, you know, her own fame, et cetera, et cetera. But remember, most of the members of Congress hide in a cave. They never do anything, right?

And then when I read this second and the last paragraph in the Daily Peace article, Mace also held her staff to the standard of passing 10 bills on the House floor every year, which would be an incredible clip for a benchmark, a back bench member, and filing 25 new bills. Wait, why is that a bad thing? I know. So she wanted her staff to work hard to introduce bills. Now, I would probably disagree with all those bills because she's a right wing Republican, But wanting your staff to write bills is great.

That's like the best thing I've ever heard about United States Congressperson. I wish everybody would do that. And so that's somehow toxic. Nah, it is a hatchet job, definite hatchet job, okay? And I'm going to see read one last thing because it gives you a sense of it's how unfair it is because this applies to every single person in Congress. But it is a good insight from a congressional staffer as to how, these politicians actually are. The former staffer said, quote, she says nothing publicly without her consultants or senior staffers telling her to, but takes

credit for everything. She's a walking teleprompter. Okay, number one, she's a politician. Of course she takes credit for everything. Yes, exactly. Secondly, this is what I've been telling you guys for 20 years now. These Congress are all robots. They don't say anything unless a consultant feeds them talking points. They have no mind of their own. This is just the Republicans outing themselves just to be able to take out Nancy Mace on behalf of some Republican leadership. Yeah, all right, the bonus episode is going to be wild. We're going to talk about Mike Johnson's standalone Israel funding bill. The fate of that bill is just fascinating and unexpected, so we'll discuss that.

And then we've got some lighter stories that we may or may not get into. It depends on how long our conversation on the Mike Johnson bill lasts. You're just going to have to find out. TYT.com slash join to become a member, and we'll see you there. I'm going to be. Thank you. I'm B'n't know.

Buhn'u'n' B'n'u'n'