The Young Turks - Gaetz Ethics Exposé

Episode Date: December 24, 2024

Matt Gaetz report finds “substantial evidence” of statutory rape. IDF attacks one of the last functioning hospitals in Northern Gaza. Elon Musk gets slammed for endorsing a far-right German party. Donald Trump says the U.S. should retake control of the Panama Canal... and also buy Greenland. Show notes: HOSTS: Yasmin Khan (@YazzieK), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com 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. All right, well, all right, well, are the young Turks, Jake Huguer Yasmin Khan, with you guys today. I'm live from the Polymarker studio. She's live from Texas. Yes. All right, we got a hell of a show for you guys today.

The Matt Gates report is out. Biden has commuted some sentences on death row. There's so much stuff that's going on in the news. We've got to weigh in on it. I'm apparently part of the news. We're going to talk about that and probably in the bonus episode. So fun for everybody. Yes, let's do it.

Let's get started. It is fun for everyone. and the top story of the hour, the House Ethics Committee report about former Representative Matt Gates has been published, and the findings are, as you might expect, damning. They found that Gates committed a slew of transgressions, most importantly, statutory rape. The 37-page report concluded, the committee determined there is substantial evidence that Representative Gates violated House rules and other standards of conduct, prohibiting prostitutes. statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of Congress. So let's start with the worst of those findings. The committee said it received testimony from numerous witnesses who said that at a 2017 party, Gates had sex twice with Victim A, who was 17 years old at the time and had just completed her junior year in high

school. Victim A recalled receiving $400 in cash from Representative Gates that evening, which she understood to be payment for sex. Victim A said that she did not inform Representative Gates that she was under 18 at the time, nor did he ask her age. Critically under Florida law, it is a felony for a person 24 years of age or older to engage in sexual activity with a 16 or 17 year old, and Gates was at the time around 35 years old. And, and Gates was at the time around 35 years old. And the person charged with statutory rape cannot claim ignorance or misrepresentation of the minor's age as a defense. So whether or not he knew that she was only 17, it doesn't really matter.

The report also found significant evidence that he paid tons of other of age women for sex. They cite testimony from witnesses who told the committee that they were paid to have sex with gates and text messages discussing the transactions and Venmo and PayPal receipts. This is reporting from CBS News. It says from 2017 to 2020, Representative Gates made tens of thousands of dollars in payments to women that the committee determined were likely in connection with sexual activity and or drug use. Noted the report, which lists payments totaling more than $90,000 to 12 different women.

All in the women who testified said the sexual encounters with Gates were consensual. However, one woman told the committee the use of drug. at the parties and events that they attended may have impaired their ability to really know what was going on or to fully consent. Another woman told the committee, when I look back on certain moments, I feel violated. The House Ethics Committee argues in its report that Representative Gates took advantage of the economic vulnerability of young women to lure them into sexual activity for which they received an average of a few hundred dollars after each encounter.

Such behavior is not generosity to ex-girlfriends, and it does not reflect credibility to creditably upon the house. There is more, but Jenk, this report seems to confirm a lot of what people already suspected about Matt Gates and his extracurricular activities, we'll say, to put it very, very lightly. I am skeptical that anything will come from this, especially now that Gates is basically out of our government. But what have you seen so far regarding the response from the right to all of this? Or what are you maybe expecting to see? Yeah. So I'm curious what your take is going to be on some of this stuff. First, let me say my conclusions, and then I'll ask you what you think about some of the specifics.

So number one, did Matt Gates pay for sex and drugs? He says, no, having looked at the evidence, the answer appears to be an overwhelming. Yes, he did. So he says, no, no, I sometimes give women I date gifts of cash? That seems really weird. Okay, so anyway, I don't believe him. Nobody believes him. He very, very likely paid for sex and drugs.

B, I don't care. I've never cared. I've told you guys that hundreds of times throughout all the 22 years. Same thing for Elliot Smither, governor of New York, who's a sheriff of Wall Street, going after the bankers. and then watch client number nine on Netflix, and then they targeted him, and they always look for sex. When the establishment looks to get rid of you, they always look for sex.

Same thing Madison Cawthorne on the right, Spitzer, now Gates, et cetera. Okay, conclusion number three, I believe that 80% of the males in Congress have done similar things. But since they didn't piss off anybody in power, that's in their secret file and won't be released unless they say something wrong. Okay, and remember, they had all this information on Cawthorne and Gates. well before they released it. They release it after they say things that pisses off people in their own party and leadership,

etc. Point number four. Am I worried about the 17 year old that he seems to have slept with? Yes, of course, of course. Look, guys, the part that really bothers me about that on top of the fact that it apparently is statutory rape in Florida law, right? That's a pretty big issue, right? And just to be clear on that, the woman did.

I read into the details, she said the girl at the time said that she never revealed her age and Gates never asked, okay? But under Florida law, you have strict scrutiny of underage sex if the girl is 16 or 17 and the guy is above 24. That means the government doesn't care. The state doesn't care if you asked or didn't ask, if she told you or didn't tell you, if you do that thing, you're going to be guilty of it. Now, of course, he hasn't been charged, let alone convicted of that, but there seems to be

excellent evidence in that direction. So, and then it's especially rich coming from a party that accused everyone else of being groomers, especially people in the LGBTQ community when in reality they have their own groomer right there in Congress. Okay, so, lastly, look, the establishment almost always uses sex to go after their opponents. So I hate that they're kind of halfway, like, I like that they're exposing something that Matt Gates did wrong. I would expose what they all did wrong. I hate how selective they are in revealing the things that people did wrong.

And I know for a fact that no matter whether you're on the left or the right, if you're an outsider or you challenge the system, they will dig and dig and dig until they find something that is inappropriate, especially of sexual nature. And in this case, Matt Gates made it stunningly easy for them because they didn't have to dig much. They just scratched the surface and oh my God, all this stuff rushes out. So the things I'm curious, like here's two more things that are part of what Yasmin just explained to you guys and part of what I want to ask her about. But this, I just, these are tangential, but they bother me when people throw this out there. Like, the woman who said, well, when I look back at it, I feel violated. But when you took the $400, you didn't.

So now you're saying, in retrospect, okay, maybe that's her true feelings, but that's an impossible standard. That's an impossible. So whether you're a woman or a man out there and you had some sort of relationship with somebody at some point and everything was totally consensual. And by the way, everybody points out every single one of these instances was consensual. And then somebody says 20 years later or four years later or four months later, yeah, it was perfectly consensual, but now I feel violated. I don't know what to do with that, right? And then finally, there was that line about how he took advantage of the poverty stricken or whatever.

No, he went to a website that's basically for prostitution. So that means the guys going there are looking for prostitutes, but the women that are partaking in that are not unclear that they're going to get paid for sex. Right? So it's not like they were all like I don't want to I think prostitution should be legal and I principled about that and I don't change whether it's a Republican or Democrat or what the situation might be. But if you say the prostitution should be legalized when someone does it, you don't get to say like, oh my God, we should arrest the people who gave them money anyway because they were poverty stricken and they were. And so they shouldn't have been allowed. Well, should it be allowed or shouldn't it be allowed? obviously people that are doing it are not, are usually not spectacularly wealthy. They're making an economic decision. But I think as grownups, they get to make that economic decision and we don't have to infantilize them afterwards. So that's all my opinions on that. Yasmin, what do you think about that?

Yeah, you know, like you, I don't really care that he paid for sex just as a matter of prostitution, as a matter of principle. Like that's your own prerogative. And yeah, I suspect that many other people in Congress have engaged in similar activity, as long as it doesn't interfere with their work, then I don't really care. I don't love the statutory rate, though. You know, it's wrong. It's damaging. It's all those things. But there's, you know, also the idea that there's a wealthy man who's throwing around his money and his position to potentially, again, you know, depending on the circumstances, take advantage of people who needed the money. You know, if they were presenting themselves as willing to take money for sex and that's one thing.

But I think overall, what is confusing about this story is exactly what you were confused about, right? And as women, I don't think that we've done a very good job of explaining this phenomenon to men, let alone to ourselves. I don't know if we even really understand it. It comes from like, like, it's just a feeling. It's a thing about shame, right? It's also about being confused and, you know, maybe being misled. And then you maybe made a few bad decisions. You feel bad about it.

but then you're not allowed to say, I felt bad, I shouldn't have done this, or, you know, I let this happen to me because, like, you're the one who's going to get blamed for it, even though most of the time you're the one being taken advantage of. In a court of law, I don't know how to prove something like that. I don't know how to convince people that, you know, yeah, I like said it was fine, but I felt weird about it. At the time, I thought it was okay, but looking back, it really was a violation. I shouldn't have done that.

A lot of growth happens with people, not just women, but a lot of growth happens. especially in those early teenage years, you think something's okay. And then you look back and you're like, that really was not okay, what happened to me, you know? And I think that's a relatable thing that a lot of women have experienced in some way, shape, or form in their own lives. But I don't know how you litigate something like that. And that's why so many of these cases kind of, you know, get started and they get all this support, especially from women, because there is some sort of empathy there. We all kind of get it.

But then how do you explain that to a man? How do you explain that in certain finite terms that the law can recognize, that a jury can convict apart from like a feeling that you have? Sorry, yes, yeah, look, I want to be clear about that. You're totally right. Like so people can have regrets later or can feel like, hey, you know what? Maybe I was taking advantage of it, maybe this and that, et cetera, and be confused or be clear later, right? I'm not invalidating anybody's feelings or experiences. I'm just saying when we get to litigating things, we cannot say they change their mind later, even though they consented at the time.

That is not illegal. It'll never be illegal. It never should be illegal. So there's a difference. And now, in this case, that's going to come back to some weird irony of the Biden Department of just not prosecuting him here. So, but in the court of public opinion, that's where it gets, that's where it's a gray zone, right? So let's say it's a senator I hate, Senator Rick Scott, right?

And somebody says, you know what? when I dated him when he was 28, we did this and this, and now I feel violated and he took advantage of me. Is that fair? It's fair for her to think it if she really believes it, of course, right? Is it fair to announce that to the world when we can't go back and adjudicated and he can't really defend himself on that? I'm not sure about that. But to the point here with Matt Gates, we don't need any of that. There's great evidence on the 17-year-old. And so that's illegal. No one disputes that it's terrible thing to do, so you just don't need to go to tougher and tougher things to prove, but which then gets to the ultimate frustration here.

So I think they're selective in their enforcement, but okay, both things can be true at the same time, they can be selective and he might have done it, and it looks like, yeah, both things are true in this case, in my opinion, right? So why didn't the Department of Justice prosecute them? So why are we now in this gray zone where they chose not to bring criminal? charges against them, but they decided to put it out in public anyway. And so now there's only one tiny thing that Gates says in his own defense, that makes sense.

He's talking about, oh, this is not prostitution, brother, you're not gonna win that fight, okay? So, but he does say, look, at least if it was in a court of law, I'd get to defend myself and I'd get to call witnesses and et cetera. And that part is true. I don't know if he's asking to get prosecuted, okay? I mean, be careful what you wish for, but why did the Biden Department of Justice choose to put his co-conspirator, according to them, Joel Greenberg, in prison for 11 years for the same things, and then choose not to prosecute Matt Gates.

And I have a theory. My theory is that the Biden Department of Justice, like almost all other administrations, loves the powerful and the elites. So if that was a Joel Greenberg who doesn't have enough power, he's going to prison, right? But Matt Gates in Congress, whoa, whoa, whoa, back up, that's the elites. Even if we hate them, it's the elites. And then of course, they changed their mind about a year. and a half before the election when they realized that Trump was going to run again. But anyway,

that's why I take it on that too, yes. Yeah. And it is distressing because it just goes to show that like none of these laws, the way that they're put in place or the way that they're enforced, I guess more realistically, it's not there to protect women. It's not there to protect the youth, despite what all these politicians who in this case are the ones committing these crimes say that their party platform is this platform that they all support. Because it really, it's, it's It's not about us. It's not that they want justice for the women who are involved or for the underage people who are involved in all these things.

They choose what to enforce it. And it's so inconsistent that it's all just politics. It has nothing to do with us. They're just using us as a pawn and all of that. And it's misogyny. It's really nothing less than misogyny in this case. And it is obviously hypocrisy, but it's so obvious that I almost don't even need to make that point.

But on that note, let's move on. in addition to the statutory rape and the paying for the sex, the investigation found substantial evidence that Gates frequently used illicit drugs, also drugs that the Republican Party is against. The committee said that it obtained text messages that he sent, where he referred to drugs as party favors, rolls, or vitamins. It also said he created a fake email from his Capitol Hill office for the purpose of purchasing marijuana.

The report noted that Gates had denied using illicit drugs, drugs in his written answers to the committee. They also found that Gates had abused his position as a U.S. representative, surprise. In 2018, Representative Gates arranged for his chief of staff to assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent. He also allegedly accepted a luxury trip to the Bahamas against House rules, And finally, the committee said that Gates was not cooperative with their investigation and

refused to sit for sworn testimony. He did submit written answers to some of the committee's questions. The only sliver of good news for Matt Gates coming out of this report is that the committee did not find sufficient evidence that Gates violated the federal sex trafficking statute. He was previously investigated by the Department of Justice over these claims, but he declined to bring charges. He allegedly transported women across state lines for the purpose of sex, but those women were all 18 or older at the time. Gates, of course, has denied all of the accusations and is furious that the report

has been released as all, as you mentioned, Jank. And on Monday, he filed a lawsuit in federal court to block the release of the report. And in a statement, Gates released on X last week, he had this to say. He said, in my single days, I often sent funds to. to women I dated. Even some, I never dated, but who asked. I dated several of these women for years. It's embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized, drank, and smoked more than I should have earlier in life. I live a different life now. He's a much better person today than he was back then, I guess. And today he's been on a rampage on X continuing

to deny all the accusations and accusing the committee of targeting him. So, of course, we have checks and balances in our government. But these days, we so rarely see people get their comeuppance, even when investigations are done, or when evidence is found, or when witnesses testify, whatever. But, Jenk, you know, that aside, Matt Gates is about to become a right-wing talking head. So one could argue that this investigation and its findings matter even less than they might have just a month or two ago. So what was it all for? Yeah, it was to make sure that he didn't get any government jobs because the people that are in power, including the top Republicans, hate them. And by the way, if you're wondering, like, why give any grace to Matt Grace,

Gates, not grace at all? We're not. We're just being honest with you guys. These are our actual opinions. And whether they're Republican or Democrat, you should be principled and have the same opinions. And second of all, like I keep saying, two things can be true at the same time. And part of the reason, and along with being honest, what a, he was a jerk in so many ways. He's terrible on the cultural wars. He was a jerk in terms of over the top in civility in Congress. You know me. I don't care about civility.

I don't even like civility. But he burst into people's rooms without permission, et cetera, all that stuff. But really, if we're being honest, there was another factor, which is that he actually did try to prevent Trump from bombing Iran in their first term. That is real. so you can say, oh, I hate him on the other stuff, but hence I hate him on trying to stop a war. No, don't do that. Be principled. That was a good thing.

He did actually propose a couple of bills that were anti-corruption that were genuine AOC signed on, Rokana signed on about both money in politics and insider trading. So it sucks that the person who did a sliver of good things on the right also did. these terrible things. Both of those things are true at the same time. And lastly, on some of the minor things, like they're like, oh, he used a pseudonym from this congressional office to buy marijuana. Ooh, heaven forfend. I mean, here, join button below wrote in, already a hilarious name. He used marijuana. We must alert the church elders, right? So I don't care about that stuff. And by the way, be part of the show, hit the join button below in honor of the person with that

name. All right, and on obstruction that, oh, he tried to prevent this investigation. Of course he did. I don't believe that he did illegal obstruction. I think there's just whining about their investigation. And then the last one is there's just saying that he paid for some of the parts of a trip to the Bahamas, but that others paid for other parts. And so that's a, you know, receiving a gift that he shouldn't have received. The devil's in the details there. You know, If they were being honest about what all the Congress people did along those lines, I would love it. I would love that kind of accountability.

In this case, a lot of the other guys flew in on a private plane. He flew it on a public plane, but then he flew on a private plane out, right? So it's like it's gray zone around the edges. They're throwing that in there to try to show that he's corrupt when he was actually calling out their corruption. So I know that it's challenging to do an honest news show because then you make people angry on the right or the left or both. But that's the reality as we see it, both for the better and definitely for the worst for Matt Gates. All right. Yeah, I think overall, the fallout from all of this is going to be less political.

And we're really going to see it play out in the media space. There's already a lot of people coming out defending Matt Gates or just not even talking about it the way that, you know, you might expect people who care so much about these groomers to come out. but you know the hypocrisy it's there in government the corruption it's there in government we know that we know that they a lot of our politicians engage in a lot of the behaviors that they don't let the rest of us engage in right it's not for us but it is for them right they can get away with it we know that so i think that's where we're going to see a lot of the frustration with all of this but again matt gates is out of our government now whether or not he i mean he can and should still get prosecuted for statutory rape but i am doubtful that we'll see that happen

Yep. All right. We're going to take a quick break here. We'll come back. We're so much more news. A lot happening right before the Christmas break here. Come right back. and Yasman Khan with you guys. Yaz, of course, is on Rebel headquarters, so make sure you're checking that out as well. All right, Yaz, what's next? All right, let's roll the tape on this one. At Kamal-Udwan, northern Gaza lost functioning health care center,

patients with the chronic conditions lie in the passages trapped. The hospital is surrounded by Israeli tanks, and each hour brings a new uncertainty. The department came under a wave of shelling, direct gunfire. Both the gynecology and maternity departments were directly impacted. As we speak, shelling on the hospital has not stopped. Loud explosions persist and shrapnel is flying around, causing panic among our patients. Israeli forces have allegedly launched an attack on the last functioning hospital in northern Gaza, putting 400 civilians, medical

workers and patients at risk. The maternity ward and neonatal wing of of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Biolahia were reportedly targeted. It's not clear if there have been any fatalities, though multiple people were allegedly wounded. Hospital director Hussam Abu Safia said on Saturday night that the facility was being hit by shelling, sniper fire, and drones. Here's some more from him.

Of course, today from 2020-12, 2014, we're from the most of the kism of inaynaia which came to have been sethap of ams by the, of course, by, and, of the talcats of it, it was an end of course, the system of the women's and the world of the, of course, the Mustachev, Kama, Adewan, from this, the last of the Kassif, not yet, it never, it's nother,

but now, it began, from the same from the morning, In the state of the hospital and by the end of the hospital, the kossiff didn't stop at this moment. Of course, the kossk, mouhiot the hospital, I mean shodagh, that's nother, on the burshya, and it's notherst, a lot of jidding, in the doctor, Kamal, Idwan. He says that the hospital is still treating 80 injured patients

despite having minimal resources on Sunday an Israeli drone strike on the hospital's fuel tanks and power generator, allegedly shut off its electricity, and the IDF has reportedly demanded that the entire hospital be evacuated a nearly impossible request, as hospital staff say that there aren't enough ambulances to evacuate safely. On top of that, people afraid to are afraid to leave because of all of the nonstop firing. Abu Safia says that we currently have nearly 400 civilians inside the hospital, including babies in the neonatal unit, whose lives depend on oxygen

and incubators. We cannot evacuate these patients safely without assistance, equipment, and time. Dr. James Smith, a U.K. emergency physician who has worked on medical missions to Gaza, confirms that calls for evacuation are not just impossible. They're also a breach of humanitarian law. Take a look. The head of the hospital is saying that the military had ordered patients and staff to be evacuated to another hospital.

Is that even possible at the state? point? No, it's absolutely not possible. There are about 90 to 100 patients still in the hospital, including babies in incubators. There are about 400 civilians and 150 healthcare workers in the hospital. The surrounding area is incredibly dangerous. In the last 24 hours, continued bombardment, sniper fire into the hospital itself, into the maternity ward. There are patients currently sheltering in the corridors, it's impossible for the patients to move. It's also a breach of international law to try and press those patients to move. Hospitals are protected spaces, so are civilians, patients, and healthcare workers.

So the IDF seems to be denying that they've attacked the hospital in response to a question about the reports, a spokesperson for the IDF said early on Sunday that no strikes are known to have occurred in Kamal-Adwan tonight. In a separate update, the IDF said that it was operating in Beulahia. An IDF spokesperson also said that Israeli forces had not given any evacuation warnings to the hospital this weekend. If the reports are accurate, this would be an absolute disaster for the people in the northern part of the strip.

Abu Safia said that if Kamal-Adwan Hospital is decommissioned, there will be no way of preserving conditions of life to the remaining 75,000 plus civilians in North Gaza. Those civilians were already barely hanging on, by the way. On Friday, a UNICEF spokesperson said children in northern Gaza have been largely unable to receive humanitarian assistance for over 10 weeks. And unfortunately, the IDF is hitting much more than just Kamal-Adwan Hospital. Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip overnight killed at least 20 people, Palestinian medics said on Monday.

One of the strikes killed eight people, including two kids in a tent camp in the Muwasi area, which Israel designated a humanitarian safe zone, but has repeatedly targeted. The IDF said late Sunday that it was targeting a Hamas militant in the humanitarian zone. Jank, during the election, neither Trump nor Harris instilled confidence that they would stop funding or arming Israel, even that they would, like, even take the very small step of denouncing the actions of the Israeli government. We know that Trump likes to be perceived as an anti-war president who can end very complicated and decade-long conflicts overnight. Do you think that that might be a little bit hopeful? Because this is such a hopeless situation just overall.

We keep reporting on all these things that are happening. This was all deemed to be an actual genocide. And even though that's just a title. maybe it's semantics. It is important that that happened. Do you think that, you know, Trump might take some steps in the direction of ending this conflict, if only for the sake of his own ego? And if so, what would that actually mean for the people of Gaza? Because we know that Trump loves his beachfront property. He doesn't really see anything wrong with Israel's occupation of Palestine. Yeah. No, in the short term, I don't think there's any hope at all under Biden or

Trump. You know, we can get to the long term. And there is one scenario where Trump could, uh, on Israel and that's that that that would be very hopeful we'll get to that in a second just first on this stuff why are they bombing hospitals and remember that early on in the war there was a bomb that we thought was Israel's but it was probably an errant bomb from another terrorist group inside Gaza and then all the Israelis went wild like all the supporters of Israel oh my God it's all wrong it's all wrong well what difference did it make you then bombed dozens of other hospitals and you've now destroyed almost all the

hospitals and all the universities and all the schools and nearly all the buildings in northern Gaza. You know why they're doing that? It's not because they're concerned about terrorists. All the leaders of Hamas are dead. No, this is ethnic cleansing 101. There's absolutely no question about it. They're slaughtering civilians in mass.

They're doing it on purpose. It's the definition of terrorism as well. Netanyahu is one of the worst terrorists of my lifetime. Guys, look, we've gotten used to it. Don't get used to it. You see the craters of those bombs and you see the ambulance destruction. That picture is all of northern Gaza, let alone southern Gaza also devastated, but mainly they're trying to destroy literally everything in northern Gaza so they can say, oh, well,

there's nothing left, and they're trying to either murder whoever remains in Gaza or kill enough of them that they drive them into southern Gaza or maybe into another Arab country so they can say, oh look, we're a people without a land, and here's a land without people because we killed them all. ha ha ha ha okay so this is disgusting terrorism i can't stand it i can't stand it and we're all funding it every single bomb you see there is funded by the united states of america we helped murder those people so now i would just want you to imagine one bomb one bomb like that falling in a hospital in cleveland or little rock or st paul or a suburb outside of new york what would america do

We'd lose our minds. We'd go attack the living crap out of that country. We'd do untold damage. We'd probably attack a country that didn't even attack us. That was nearby, right? And when Israel gets hit, their right to be outraged. I hate terrorism of all sorts. I hate violence of all sorts.

Then they say, we have a right to kill everybody in Gaza while we're looking for a terrorist, right? Okay, well, do the Palestinians have the same right? Because they didn't suffer one of those bombs. Israel has now dropped literally hundreds of thousands of bombs. So that the Palestinians then have the right to go back and kill all the Israelis? Because that's Israeli logic. Israeli logic is, I don't care. I thought there might have been a militant there.

So I murdered everyone in the area by dropping a bomb on them. By murdering everyone that bomb hits. You don't have that right. That's not a right that exists. That is disgusting ethnic cleansing genocide and terrorism. And that is exactly what the Israeli government is doing. And they're making all of us pay for it because of the corruption in America. All those sell out both Republicans and Democrats that took all that A-PAC money, stuffed it in their pockets, and said, go ahead, murder Palestinians at will.

In fact, when you're murdering terrorist leader comes here, we'll give him a standing ovation because that's how deeply corrupt the United States government is. I'm never going to lose my outrage over it. Never. Okay. So now, how about the pro-life people? Right wingers, y'all, pro-life, pro-life. Over 15,000 children murdered in Gaza. And oh, hey, no, they didn't kill them with their hands. They didn't knife them or shoot them, although they literally shot a lot of them. In fact, American, over 100 American doctors came back and said there was a stunning number of headshots of children under the age of five. snipers shooting children from hundreds of yards away with a head shot or a chest shot to murder them on purpose. No, I know when Israel does it, it's not on purpose. Oh, look at the sniper hit another 200 kids in the head. Oh, what a wild coincidence. They were looking for a militants who were four years old.

No. So pro-lifers in America, all of them, liars. They never meant, oh, we want to protect babies. Because when it's Palestinian babies, they're like, oh, send them more money, send them money to kill more Palestinian babies. Come on pro-life, where are you? Pro-Me wrong. I've seen one pro-life person, let alone leader, say, oh my God, will you please stop the literal slaughter of these poor children? Nope, nope, nope, nope, no, beloved Israel can do anything. Now with Trump, look, why did I fight so hard against Trump before the election? Because the guy's a liar,

okay? And he'll do anything for money. So Miriam Edelson gave him $137 million. Her late husband and gave him $200 million in the last two campaigns. So what did he do? He put Marco Rubio in charge of state, Stephanic, the UN ambassador, how could be the Israeli ambassador, Mike Walsh, national security administration. Those are all team Israel, team Miriam.

They're all neocons, which I thought the right wing was against neocons. What happened to right wing? They're all establishment. They're all in favor of Israel. And they're all in favor of giving all of our money to Israel to murder more people. So what happened to anti-war? BS, total utter BS when it comes to that. So is there any hope at all?

First of all, with Biden and Kamala Harris and the Democrat establishment, zero hope, zero. They're 100% corrupt. They would never, ever defy their donors. That idiot, senile fool, Joe Biden saying, oh, one of my hopes is before I leave, maybe we can get to a ceasefire. Shut up. You've been saying the same thing for over a year now. You know how you get to a ceasefire? You withdraw their funding.

Easiest thing in the world. Any child knows that. Are you so senile? You don't know that? No, you do know. That's the one thing you do know. You're like, yes, but Jill, did the money come in? The money, the money.

He serves as donors like a bitch. I hate that guy. Oh, no, no, Joe Biden's so sweet and special. He has so much empathy. Unless you're a Palestinian child, then he goes, oh wait, did the check clear? Murder him. Who cares? Didn't do anything.

and would never do anything if Israel killed every Palestinian in Gaza, Joe Biden would still say, I'm still looking for a ceasefire, but I send another $30 billion just in case there was any humans left. So screw Democratic leadership. They're infinitely corrupt. When it comes to Trump, I just told you how corrupt. He's, and it's worse. Miriam's ordered him, hey, hey, hey, Trump, come here, dog, come here. I'm Miriam Adelson, and I own you. Put Rubio and Stefanik and all these people in, and now I want Israel to annex the West Bank. That's what Israeli papers are reporting, and they're definitely going to try to take all of northern Gaza, and that's why we do this story.

And what's Trump gonna do? I say finish it, I wouldn't happen, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. What are you gonna do, Trump? I, okay, and if you're a right winger, I'm predicting it right now, and you'll see I'm 100% right. He will send your money to them like a dog, because his donors ordered him to. What happened? I thought you were anti-corruption. Look, over the next four years, we're going to find out if the right-wing base is actually

anti-corruption or not. Because Trump has talked a big game. I called them a fake populist. I believe those voters are anti-corruption. And a lot of people on the left go, oh, no, Jake, you're totally wrong. They're all lying. I don't think they're lying. But when their daddy says, no, I'm sending your money to Israel.

And whatever war they start, you're going to pay for it. And I'm, and if I'll help them start those wars, then what are you going to do? Are you going to say Trump was full of crap and are you going to hold them accountable? Or are you going to say, no, no, no, daddy told me that mommy Miriam wants the West Bank and Gaza Strip. So if Daddy Trump says it, then I'm pro corruption and pro war, this is your litmus test, right wing. If you still say, no, we serve Israel. And hey, look, America's second, not so bad. Then we'll get to find out who you are.

Yeah. I know we have to go to a break soon, but I just want to point out, I love that you pointed out how devastating it would be for just one of these bombs to fall on a building here in the United States. We are so insulated and protected and spoiled over here that all these things are happening overseas in our name with our tax dollars. And we're just so removed from it all. I mean, the idea that a bomb would fall on a school, let alone a hospital, anything like that. It's something that we can't even really conceive of over here. And we all know what did happen when a couple of skyscrapers were targeted in New York City. And I'm not talking about what the W. Bush administration did in response. That was also, you know, that's a whole other topic. I'm talking about how bloodthirsty, we all were at that time. We all were hurt. We all felt violated.

We were all confused. And we all wanted revenge, right? The American government had to respond because there was no way that we could even conceive of a reality where the American government just said, you bombed our buildings, you ran a point. plane into our buildings and we're not going to retaliate in any kind of way. And that was for one incident. That was for something that happened on one day. A few thousand people died. How many of those people have died in Gaza so far? And, you know, after that, we all voted W. Bush back into office that time with the popular vote, which he didn't have the first time. So it's a very human thing

to want to get back at the people who did something wrong to you, who hurt you. And the people of Gaza, they have zero defenses right now. It's very sad. Yeah, and look, last thing, what I can't stand is after Israel has slaughtered and slaughtered and slaughtered, we're past 46,000 now, we're past 26,000 women and children slaughtered. The Palestinians are the terrorists. The Muslims are the violent ones. Oh, the Israelis, they're so moral. They're so deeply moral as they slaughter fields of children because they didn't mean to, but the Muslims meant to. They're throwing rocks at us. Get the hell out of here with your giant military, Goliath.

Goliath is crushing David with our money. It's one of the sickest things I've ever seen. It's a slow motion genocide. And we're all just sitting here, both Democrats or Republicans going, oh, well, our politicians are bought. So that's totally okay. Well, if Israel bought him, I guess there's nothing we can do. No, you should challenge your own politicians. You see how I challenged Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Democratic Party, right wing, where are you?

Are you mad enough to challenge Trump? Or are you going to sit there and take and go, oh, Daddy Trump, take more money, give it to Israel, let him kill him, and start more wars, yay. So you haven't done it yet, you haven't done it yet. I'm the only one who's actually thinking that maybe they will hold Trump accountable. No one on the left thinks that. But we're going to find out if there are actually right-wing populists on those hills. If they don't object to this endless slaughter and our money financing in, then they were never populace and they were never anti-war.

They just were, then the left was right about them, and they were just a cult who wanted to follow Daddy Trump. We'll find out, we all got eyes and we all got ears, and we're going to report it honestly right here on the Young Turks. All right, let's take a break. We'll be right back. All right on TYT, Jank and Yaz with you guys. Yes, what's next?

Something good. Let's roll the tape. On his platform X last night, Elon Musk endorsed the far right German political party alternative for Germany, AFD, for short, saying, quote, only the AFD can save Germany. Now, this is a group that has been labeled as extremist by Germany's own government. One of its founders has been charged in the past with promoting Nazi slogans. I saw that you notice this on X. Can you talk about your reaction to this?

Yeah, I mean, this is not normal. That was the Democratic senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, reminding the American people that we now live seemingly permanently in a world of unprecedented. I referred to, you know, people refer to Elon Musk as the de facto president-elect. And, you know, I'm not the first one to have done that. But I don't need to tell any of you that Musk endorsing a far-right German party is very concerning. You all know that. Here's some more from Senator Chris Murphy. So AFD is essentially the neo-Nazi party in Germany.

They exist to try to rehabilitate the image of the Nazi party, and they have all sorts of very dangerous ideas about ridding Germany of anyone who is not naturally born in that country. They are an extremist group, and it is just extraordinary that maybe the most important advice to the president of the United States, somebody that has been, you know, parading around the halls of Congress as a key advisor to the president is endorsing a neo-Nazi party inside Germany. I mean, I don't know what it tells me. What we know is that what Elon Musk thinks tends to eventually be what the president of the United States thinks. In response to Murphy's segment on CNN, Musk responded on X, calling Murphy a huge. A huge liar. He then went on to claim the AFD policies are identical to those of the U.S. Democratic Party when Obama took office. I don't think there is a single difference. So Elon Musk and his supporters who took that claim and ran with it have been getting torched on social media because of it. For one, it would appear that people really actually believe that just because the Nazis called themselves socialist that they were actually promoting and fighting for the ideals of socialism. So a lot of Musk fanboys are on X. agreeing with his assessment, but Mark Cuban, Trump and Elon Musk's billionaire foe,

responded to all of this using none other than GROC, the XAI bot to disprove Elon's claim. So this is according to GROC, which apparently is woke now, the alternative for Germany, AFD, most closely resembles the Republican Party in the United States, particularly in its current more right-wing to far-right incarnation. So parallels between the AFD and the modern-day Republican Party include strong nationalism and patriotic rhetoric, i.e. America first, a strong anti-immigration stance and emphasis on border security, anti-globalist sentiments, and viewing international cooperation as a threat to national sovereignty, conservative values, and opposition to progressive social change, for example, rights pertaining to the LGBTQ community, and conservative economic policies, such as lowering taxes and lessening government intervention. As for Elon's claim, however, that the AFD is the same as the 2008 Democratic Party. Let's see about that.

The AFD, for one, is considered to be far right and nationalist, whereas the 2008 Dems were liberal Democrats ranked to be more liberal than 77% of the U.S. Senate at that time. The AFD is anti-immigrant, anti-refugee and Islamophobic. They support mass deportations and the expulsion of migrants and their descendants. The 2008 Dems supported a path to legalization for illegal immigrants. The AFD promotes traditional family values and culture and the opposed gay marriage. The 2008 Dems did the opposite. They made strides for the LGBT community, including repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

And the AFD denies man-made climate change. The 2008 Dems invested in clean energy and they were critical of foreign governments who were not doing more to combat it. And finally, the AFD has strong ties to Russia and China. And they also were questioning whether or not Germany should even be a part of NATO anymore. And the Obama Dems, they maintain their close ties to NATO and their allies. So, Jen, the thing I don't understand is that if Elon is so pro-AFD and if Elon is saying that the AFD is basically just Obama 2008, then is Elon and his supporters now saying in the most roundabout weirdo way, that he actually likes the Obama Democratic 2008 platform.

It's a very confusing hot take. Yeah. So it's interesting because it was so unnecessary, and he went out of his way to support this far right party in Germany to make what point? Why Germany, why that particular party? Yasme's a great and hilarious point that, wait, are you saying, well, I really wanted to support Barack Obama when he, you know,

as he first came out. So I found a far right party in Germany that I thought was similar to Obama? Really? Really? You're trying to celebrate Obama right now? And that's why you picked the far right party in Germany? Okay, that doesn't make any sense, of course. And so, yeah, did Obama break the record on deportations? He did. So if you want to say, oh, I see one similarity there. Did Obama take forever to get to legalizing same-sex marriage? Yeah, but he got there, right? But other words, there's no comparison here that's absurd. And so, and I'm not going as far as calling them neo-Nazis or whatever, because I don't have enough information on that.

And I don't trust Dana Bash or any Democratic senator, but their policies are already disastrous enough. But there's a second irony here, which is, wait, you love that anti-immigrant party. Awkward, you're an immigrant. Elon, you came here from South Africa. Just because you're white doesn't mean you're not an immigrant. I don't, under what logic are you not an immigrant? But no, no, no, let's get kicked a gay immigrants out.

Immigrants suck, oh, yeah. I mean, unless they're rich, unless they're white, right? Unless they're, you know, from running away from the fact that there's no more apartheid in South Africa. I don't know, I don't know. But the idea that you're anti-immigrant is absurd. It's absurd. It's ridiculous. But yet, you seem to be in that camp.

Look, it's another, I get it, guys. There's a difference between undocumented immigrants and immigrants. immigrants that came in the legal way like I did and Elon must did. But for him to say, oh, I'll take a far right party in a random other country, of all of them, Germany, and I love that they're massively anti-immigrant. And by the way, again, I don't know all the details of this particular party, but in a lot of European far-right parties, they're not just against undocumented immigrants, they're against all immigrants. So nothing but hypocrisy as far as I can see here. Yeah. And I mean, that is kind of what it means that he is white, so he's not really

an immigrant, at least not functionally, right? If nobody sees him that way, then nobody is treating him as an immigrant. So a lot of the problems and a lot of the struggles that immigrant communities face, he is completely separate from that, right? He doesn't get the stigma that so many others are subjected to for being immigrants. He's a billionaire. He has ties with governments all around the world. He has so much money that he can go live in a yacht in the middle of the ocean. He can go live in outer space. It doesn't matter. He doesn't have a country. Or at least that is how people see him and that is how a supporter see him. And the fact that they even are so derogatory towards immigrants is funny to me because, yeah, like especially because he

came over illegally, didn't he? Like, he's not better than most people, apart from the fact that he just has all this money now. And he came from money. And a lot of the people who are moving because they don't have a choice. They're doing it because they don't have a choice because something is going on in their country, probably something that we caused. And, you know, they're, they have to leave their homes. You know, they're not here in the United States

or wherever they are by choice. That wasn't their first choice to leave their homes and just come over here. So. All right, so Trump is coming in hot as we get closer and closer to his inauguration. And now he wants control of the Panama Canal. The problem is, as the name would imply, control of the canal currently belongs to Panama. So Trump floated the idea at the Turning Point USA Conference in Arizona.

Here's what he asked his attendees. Has anyone ever heard of the Panama? because we're being ripped off at the Panama Canal like we're being ripped off everywhere else. A secure, he's just a ticket back. That's a good idea. Okay, so Trump is upset that the U.S. is being charged what he considers to be exorbitant fees to use the canal.

He believes that the U.S. should not have to pay for them. And here's why. The United States is the number one user of the Panama Canal with over 72. percent of all transits heading to or from U.S. courts. Think of that. So we built it. We're the ones that use it. They gave it away. So when he says they gave it away, he's talking about the Democrats, specifically the Carter administration. In 1977, a series of treaties were signed between the U.S. and Panama that gave Panama full control of the canal starting in 1999. So now 25 years later, Trump would like to reverse the accomplishment of those treaties.

The Panamanian president did respond to Trump's suggestion that the Panama Canal should instead be the United States Canal in a video he posted on X. The president spoke Spanish during the address, and he did not mention Trump's name, but per translation, this is what he had to say about the fees that Trump is mad about. He said that the fees are established publicly and in an open hearing, considering market conditions, international competition, operating costs, and the maintenance and modernization needs of the interoceanic route. This is how we achieve the expansion of the canal in 2016, which today represents greater economic and commercial growth, generating more wealth and opportunities throughout the world and its commerce. The canal has no direct or indirect control, neither from China nor from the European community, nor from the United States, or from any other power.

Okay, so let's pivot a little bit. This isn't the first time that Trump has tried to expand the U.S. holdings abroad. If you'll remember from his first administration, Trump wanted to buy Greenland from Denmark. Take a look. Greenland, I don't know, it got released somehow. It's just something we talked about. Denmark essentially owns it. We're very good allies with Denmark.

We protect Denmark like we protect large portions of the world. So the concept came up and I said certainly I'd be strategically it's interesting and we'd be interested. But we'll talk to them a little bit. Yeah, so the problem was then and still is now that Greenland is not for sale, which is bad news for Trump because apparently as he's coming back into the White House, he still wants to buy Greenland. But back when this first came up, Trump said that this was basically just a real estate deal. Now the stakes, it would seem, are much higher. So in a post on X, Trump announced Ken Howery as his pick for the U.S. ambassador to the kingdom of Denmark. In the post, he said, for purposes of national security and freedom throughout the world,

the United States of America feels that ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity. Whatever that even means, I don't know. But who is Ken Howery, the ambassador? Well, he was Trump's former ambassador to Sweden, so he does have some experience dealing with the Scandinavian nations. But perhaps more importantly, he is one of the co-founders of PayPal. Two other notable co-founders of PayPal are billionaires, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. Elon Musk, as I said, is our de facto president-elect right now. And he has plenty of reason to want the U.S. to acquire Greenland.

Hidden within Greenland's immense sheet of ice is coal and copper and zinc. And copper, that's the one. It has lots of copper. And these tech guides, like they need the copper. They want it so badly. Elon Musk specifically needs copper to mass manufacture batteries for his electric vehicles. To that end, last year he actually met with a prime minister of Mongolia to discuss an investment in the country. Mongolia also has a ton of copper.

And additionally, AI will nearly double the global demand for copper in the coming years. And copper is already in short supply. So whoever controls the resources controls the market. Trump also isn't the first U.S. president. who has expressed interest in Greenland, which is basically a giant sheet of ice. Back in the 1940s, President Truman tried to buy it for $100 million. And if he had succeeded, it would have been the largest territorial expansion in U.S. history, bigger than Alaska and bigger than the Louisiana purchase.

Jank, the minute Trump says anything, like, oh, let's call it the United States Canal or let's buy Greenland. His supporters immediately jump on that. They hate the Panama Canal now. They think they're being ripped off. they hate Panama for controlling the canal that literally bisects their nation and they hate China for trying to control it. So we have to control it before China does. It's all these things that are just coming up all of a sudden right now. And it's always a little bizarre to me how quickly his supporters just immediately fall in line with whatever comes out of his mouth, even if they

don't really understand it. So what do you make of all this? Okay. So let's say a handle it one at a time on Panama. Has anybody ever heard of the Panama Canal? Yes, brother. We've heard of the Panama Canal, okay? He always says what like, like he's this the first time he's ever heard of it. I'm not saying that that's the case. He was president for four years, okay, but it was funny. So he's like, they're charging his fees. You know why they're charging us fees?

Because it's their canal. And that's kind of how it works. And so why did we give it back? Because we had a treaty. Or would you have preferred we go to war with Panama? Because I heard you were anti-war, right? So how are you going to get the canal back from them? Are you going to invade Panama for no reason, Mr. Anti-War?

So look, you want to negotiate new fees and you want to use leverage that America has and we have tons of leverage, right? That's a different issue, no problem, okay, you do whatever you think is right, I hope you don't break too many eggs while making that omelet, et cetera, but like this kind of needless talk of like, maybe you should take it back. Like what's the point? What's the point? Look, on the other hand, it's, I think it's relatively.

harmless. Why? Because is he actually going to invade Panama? No, he's not going to do that. That's ridiculous, right? Is he going to go and invade Denmark to conquer Greenland? I hope not. I don't think so, right? So this is just like games they like to play. Like this is rhetorical stuff like, oh, we're going to come for Greenland and Panama. And remember, we're anti-war. Okay, look, if you want to try to buy Greenland like Truman did, no problem. Make him an offer, right? We'll see. Is it worth it for the American people or not. Of course, the problem with that kind of stuff, usually guys, though, and that happened with Alaska, too. Alaska was called Seward's Folly after the Secretary of State that decided to purchase

Alaska. And it turned out to be the greatest purchase, well, along with the Louisiana purchase that we've ever made. And it was a terrific deal. I'm super happy about it. And then we got all that oil for the American. Oh, no, we got a Franksaw Mobile and Chevron. When we never actually got the oil, they did. Huh. So if we get green, Is it for the American people and we get the conference? My guess is just like the oil, no, the incredibly wealthy corporations will take, strip the place clean and then will we get any of it? We'll get almost none of it.

And why did we do all those coups and stuff like that in Latin America? And you know, you, I'll pull of Trump, you ever heard of the thing called Bidana Republic? Nobody had ever heard of it until I said it, okay? Anyway, they were called banana republics because we did a coup against them. because they wouldn't sell bananas at the right price to us. The right price being lower, lower, right? And so when you, and when we did that, did the American people get the bananas? No, the banana company got it.

So we have been invading countries and bullying countries and causing all sorts of wars and global conflicts and getting hatred back towards America, not on behalf of the people. people of the United States of America, but on behalf of the corporations that own the government of America. So this is more of the same. If he wants to huff and puff to renegotiate fees, no big deal. If it goes any further than this silliness, then it's just a total waste of our time at a minimum and like a weirdo tangent otherwise. But like if right wingers online want to, you know, be like, yeah, we're going to get Greenland. Okay, have that at Haas, but we're not going to get Greenland. And it's silly. Yeah, I'm glad that you brought up that point about the

Banana Republics and everything that has already been done in Central America by the U.S. government, whether that was overtly or covertly. And that was one of the first things I thought of whenever he started talking about the Panama Canal and how he wants better control over it. You know, they get to charge us fees to use it, right? They charge fees to everybody who uses that canal. That thing has revolutionized the way goods are shipped around the world. So we need it, right? There's a reason why it was built. But the idea that the United States wants something and we have this giant military behind us, it is kind of scary.

You know, just to that was my first thought. It's like, you know, if you wanted to do some kind of military action and say, oh, like their government collapsed, how did that happen? I don't know. Wow. So, oops, my mic went out. Yeah. Okay, there it is. Yeah, you know, it's so unstable.

and so that gives the government a chance to be like, oh, you know, we have to help them because they're not responsible enough to manage this giant thing that all these countries depend on. So it is kind of concerning in that sense. I don't think he's going to try to pull the same thing in Denmark. I think that would be very difficult for the United States to pull off for reasons that I'm sure you can all understand. But it's, that is concerning for me. Yeah, I mean, look, it's Trump logic. This is insane. Well, we help parents. at one point and we had the canal and we had control over it, then we gave back because of a treaty, I don't like it, right? Well, under that logic, we also had control of France

after World War II when we liberated it from the Germans. Uh-oh, I don't want to give me any ideas. Should we go back and say, well, we had it at some point? That said, give us France back. Why don't I have to pay money to go to France? Why don't I just take it? What are we doing here? What is this? Did Trump get elected to invade panic? I don't remember that being a large campaign issue. Well, before we go, there was one part of the story that I forgot to mention. Back during his first term as president, he did float the idea of maybe just like selling Puerto Rico and using and like trading Puerto Rico for Greenland because he didn't like Puerto Rico. And all this was happening while he was in Puerto Rico trying to help them recover from a hurricane.

He was like, just get rid of it. Let's just get Greenland instead. That's what we're dealing with here. luck with that. Okay, all right, we got to go. Yes, thanks so much. Everybody check out Yasman Khan on rebel headquarters. You guys are going to love it. Jordan's also on there and he's also on here. So when we come back, Biden commutes the sentences of a lot of people on death row, good idea or bad idea. And remember how we told you there was a senile member of the Democratic Party in the house? Well, we found one that's a Republican as well. But get a load of where we found

her when we come back. I'm going to be. I'm going to be. I don't know.