The Young Turks - Government Gaslighters - September 16, 2025

Episode Date: September 17, 2025

Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/TYT and use code TYT and get $50 in lineups when you play your first $5 lineup! Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, a U.N. inquiry concludes. Law enforcement reveals messages sent from Tyler Robinson to his roommate about the Charlie Kirk assassination. The Trump administration cracks down on Charlie Kirk speech. Kash Patel claims he has no evidence Epstein trafficked girls to other men. Hosts: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur 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. During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, lease a 2026 X-E-90 plug-in hybrid from five. $599 bi-weekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event. Conditions apply, visit your local Volvo retailer or go to explorevolvo.com.

Grab a coffee and discover Vegas-level excitement with BetMGM Casino. Now introducing our hottest exclusive, Friends, the one with Multi-Drop. Your favorite classic television show is being reimagined into your favorite casino game, featuring iconic images from the show. Spin our new exclusive because we're not on a break. Play Friends, the one with Multi-Drop, exclusively at BetMGM Casino. Want even more options? Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games from Blackjack to poker.

Or head over to the arcade for nostalgic casino thrills. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

All right, welcome the Young Turks, everybody, Jank U Granix, sparing with you guys, the online news show. So we've got a great number of things happening today, so I need you to buckle up and brace for impact. So we're gonna do the two hour show today on that show, of course, we're gonna have the latest, what's happening in Gaza has officially been labeled a genocide. We're going to get to that in a little bit. We have a possible motive for the shooter. We have some of the evidence that has come out about that. We'll have that for you in a little bit. And so much more, including I hope, the Democrat on Democrat crime a little bit later in the program. So tonight I'll also be on News Nation with Chris Cuomo debating the Israel issue. Is it a genocide or not? That's at 8 o'clock

on News Nation. I'm also going to do a special live show with Tucker Carlson tonight, and that's going to, he's going to start at 8 o'clock. I'll join him. This is Eastern, probably around 845 or so. But check it out when you get a chance right after the bonus episode, go over there and you can check it out. Tucker Carlson Network, it's going to be him doing a monologue, then Megan Kelly, then me, then Scott Adams, and then a friar, an actual friar. Like a French friar? No. Oh, the other kind of fry. Okay, got it.

Okay. That's hilarious. Okay, so definitely do not miss the bonus episode because it's going to be lit. Plus, if you do want to check out what Jank is up to, he's not going to be on until after the bonus episode. That's right. Exactly right. And so we're moving Operation Joy to Wednesday, so don't worry. We're going to do that for you guys tonight.

And after all of that is done, the real deal, the most important thing today, on old school, Michael and I will have an epic Americana show. What is the most American thing in the world? And maybe we'll do brackets, but we're going to need your participation. So if you're a member, check out Old School tonight. And that's, of course, at 9.30 tonight. So lots of young turks programming and otherwise. Check out Anna on Pierce Morgan on t.com slash press.

All of our appearances are on there as well. So let's get started. All right. We got a lot to get to, a lot of huge stories today, but I wanted to begin with this. Through the night, Israel's air assault on Gaza City intensified still further as its ground forces ready to move in. By Israel's own estimates, as many as 650,000 Palestinians remain in the city. This morning, rescue efforts underway to recover survivors from new ruins. This block, home to dozens of people, hit at 1 a.m. rescue workers.

just find Mara al-Hadad trapped over 10 long hours, they work to free her leg. Well, luckily they did free her leg, but she lost two of her friends as a result of that Israeli airstrike. And as Israel carries out its deadly ground offensive in Gaza City, forcing thousands of Palestinians to flee, the UN Commission investigating Israel's conduct in Gaza has declared that they are in fact committing a genocide against the Palestinian people. So there was the organization of genocide scholars who previously came out and declared that Israel was carrying out genocide. Now we have the UN Commission doing the same. And here's why, according to reporting from Channel 4 News in the UK.

Genocide as defined in the convention of 1948 is the crime committed with a specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The commission says Israel has committed four such genocidal acts, killing members of the group through targeting civilians and the deliberate infliction of conditions of life that caused their deaths, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, through direct attacks against civilians, mistreatment of detainees, forced displacement, and environmental destruction, deliberately inflicting on the group,

conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, including blocking essential aid, food, water, electricity and fuel, and finding that starvation had been used as a weapon. And imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group through the attack on Gaza's largest fertility clinic, reportedly destroying around 4,000 embryos. So not only are pregnant women getting killed, not only are hospitals being destroyed, where it's nearly impossible for a woman, or actually is at this point impossible for a Palestinian woman to safely deliver a baby, the fertility clinic was targeted and destroyed by Israel as well.

Now this commission had actually put out a report earlier that found Israel had committed war crimes against humanity. In fact, in March, for example, it accused Israel of targeting hospitals and other health facilities in genocidal acts intended to prevent births. But they didn't go as far as to accuse Israel of actually carrying out a full-blown genocide. Obviously, things have changed, and the latest report the commission put out says that Israel's actions in Gaza constituted genocide under the 1948 genocide convention, writing that Israeli authorities were aware of the high probability that their military operations, they're in position of a total siege, including the blocking of humanitarian aid into Gaza and the destruction of housing and of health systems and facilities would lead to the physical destruction of Palestinians in whole or in part. in Gaza, Schenk. Yeah, so they concluded that the actions of Israel were both expansive,

nor is significant damage done here, obviously to say least, and deliberate. And that is important for a genocide. It was done intentionally. So among the overwhelming evidence that they had were targeting children. They were shocked at the number of head and chest shots for kids. for kids in Gaza so that's snipers hitting them on purpose and and killing children, young children. So number two was the utter destruction of almost all the facilities in Gaza. Almost all the hospitals have been destroyed. All the universities have been destroyed.

Even when they're absolutely empty IDF is complete control over them. They say well maybe Hamas might come back later at an undisclosed time. So here they're concluding no, they're doing it to absolutely destroy and annihilate all of Gaza. as their leaders have said on the record. There's several cabinet ministers said we are going for total annihilation. And then not only do you see them saying that, but then you see them doing it, right? All the universities and educational things have been wiped down, fertility clinics wiped out, everything wiped out, right?

So the only thing left now is the Israeli side. And so that's where it gets interesting. So the uninteresting part is Israel's claim is, oh, everybody's biased against us. Yeah, this is fake. This is an anti-Semitic attack. Of course, but we all knew that, right? And at this point, I'm not even bothered by it anymore. Now they seem like a joke, right? Like a very sick, tragic joke, right? So, oh, the facts are anti-Semitic. If you weren't anti-Semitic, you would let us kill more Palestinian children with sniper shots and destroy life as we know it in Gaza. That is what they're communicating.

Let's be clear about that. Yeah, and it's absurd. There's no point in debating it anymore. We're two years into a genocide, everyone on planet Earth knows it's a genocide. The UN took forever to get there because of enormous political power that Israel has. You better not call it a genocide. You better not call it a genocide. Well, they did anyway, right? So now the question is, can Israel pull off completing a genocide with the whole world watching. Yeah, it appears that is the case. Yeah.

That is the case because here in America, our government will aid and abet anything and everything the Israeli government wants to carry out, including genocide. And at the same time, we also unfortunately have, you know, American citizens in this country who identify as, you know, pro-Israeli Zionists, who will viciously go after anyone who has a conscience and speaks out against the unmitigated slaughter taking place in Gaza right now. They will intimidate them. They will go after their employers. They will essentially make it appear as though anyone who sees what's happening for what it is, okay, brutality, the butchering of children, the butchering of innocent people, those people get labeled as the bad guys.

They get labeled as a bad guys. People get fired from their jobs as a result of this. Yeah, so there's three entities basically left against the entire planet, right? So the planet sees the genocide, Israel can do any kind of propaganda that they want, and they often talk about, and in fact, they later on the show we're gonna have a story of the former head of the IDF saying the lawyers we have never stop us from doing anything. The only thing that they ask for is that we follow some guidelines so they could do better marketing for what Israel is doing in Gaza, right? So there's not even an attempt at being legal

here. It's all marketing, right? So that's why the rest of the planet, we all have eyes and ears and see what they've done. Now, the only three groups left on Israel's side is Israel's hard right wing, some of the Israeli citizens are dead set against this, and tons of Israelis, authors, composers, actors, and the list goes on and on, are now speaking on going, no, no, no, no, no, no, we have to end this genocide. This is sick, this is not what Israel should stand for. Okay, so you've got the hard right wing government of Israel, you've got the hard right wing bullies inside America and Western countries whose job is to betray these, the countries

they're in and bully the citizens of those countries on behalf of a foreign government, Israel, right? So that's an obvious group. Then the second group is Western leaders, and the third group is Western media. So those are the only people left on Israel's side. The rest of the world agrees, this is one of the worst genocides we've ever seen. It's not because Israel's doing it, that's the problem. It's a problem whether Israel is doing it or another country is doing it. So can in in modern world, can a country just with controlling Western leaders and media be able to pull off a genocide and totally get away with it? Is the entire world population irrelevant? So that is a hell of a question. That's the question that Israel's asking

now. Can we get the entire world to shut up and follow our orders and be good little boys and girls and allow us to do this genocide, move the Palestinians out, slaughter them and move them, and then take Gaza and take West Bank, and do it right in front of your eyes in the modern world. And I don't know the answer to that. This episode is brought to you by prize picks. You and I make decisions every day, but on prize picks, being right can get you paid. Don't miss any of the excitement this season on prize picks where it's good to be right.

All right, look, the football season is getting underway, and I love it, and I'm locked in on prize picks. For me, it's the perfect way to test your football knowledge against the projections, and I love to test my knowledge in politics and in sports. So I was looking at the app this morning, and it was fun, it was simple. You're not dealing with complicated spreads. You're just picking if a player will go more or less on their projected stat. So if you're looking at Sequin Barclay, and they're saying more or less than one, rushing touchdown. Well, I like Seiquan a lot. Of course, it depends on who's playing, but I got that at more. You're looking at Joe Burrow more or less than two and a half passing touchdowns?

Oh, I love that one. I'm going to go more on that too. But your call, and you see how super easy this is. And if you get it right, you win money, which I also love. So look, I love this app. It's so simple. You just pick two to six player projections. If you get your picks right, you can cash in. It's the best way to get action on sports in more than 40 states, including In California, Texas, and Georgia, prize picks puts their users first so all withdrawals are fast, safe, and secure. Price picks offers Venmo, Apple Pay, MasterCard, and more for quick and easy deposits into your accounts this football season. Price Picks also offers injury reboots if one of your players leaves the game in the first half and doesn't return. Price Pigs won't count it as a loss.

So download the app today and use code TYT to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code TYT to get $50. in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. Prize picks. It's good to be right. Grocery shopping. Cha-ching. Ordering food? Cha-ching. Filling up on gas? Cha-ching. Commuting?

Cha-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch. Using streaming services. With your RBC I-Ion Plus visa, earn three times the Avion points on groceries, gas, dining, and more. Cha-ching. Then, redeem your points on gift cards from over 200 brands. Your idea of rewarding, happens here. Conditions apply. Visit rbc.com slash iron cards.

But don't hate Israelis though, meaning the Israeli government, don't hate the Israeli government, don't hate the IDF for doing that in front of everybody, right? It's a live-streamed genocide, but don't speak out about it. That would be wrong. But yeah, I'm, you know, I'm past it today. Maybe I'll get back to it being angry about it tomorrow, right? But guys, at this point, the people defending Israel are only damaging themselves. This, like, this is going in history books. They're loathsome people.

Yeah, and they're going to go into be featured in a museum. By the way, the good guys are also going to be featured in museums. So I saw an Israeli composer today. It took a lot of heat, and he just stopped and said, no, what we're doing is atrocious. And we cannot keep doing this. And we've shown you Holocaust survivors, former Israeli prime ministers, et cetera. People going, no, no, no, this isn't what Israel was supposed to be. So the folks who are now supporting the genocide are not even just on the Israeli side.

They're literally on the side of being pro-genocide. Yeah. And so that's not a winning position and never will be. And they'll carry that moral stain with them for the rest of their lives. So the only question is, can we accumulate enough power to stop them? That's the only question. Well, let's move on to some other news today because Cash Patel, our FBI director, was testifying before the Senate. And I want to tell you what they were discussing.

You've seen most of the files. Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women too besides himself? Himself, there is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. and the information we have, again, is limited. So the answer is no one? For the information that we have.

In the files. In the case file. That was our FBI director, Cash Patel, treating us all as if we're idiots, totally stupid, and unaware of the fact that Epstein absolutely did traffic young girls to other powerful individuals. We know that through testimony. We know that because, I mean, the victim, speaking about, about it. So we'll get to all those details, including this huge spat that Patel had with Senator Adam Schiff, a Democrat. But before we get to that, let me give you some more details

about this exchange and what's going on. So today, during a four and a half hour hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Cash Patel alleged that there's no evidence, no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked his victim to victims to other men. Now, after the exchange you just watched, Senator John Kennedy urged Patel to release as much information as he possibly could, because as he put it, this issue is not going to go away. Patel agreed, but then blamed someone else for the lack of documentation that we've received. He blamed U.S. attorney Alex Acosta's original investigation into and agreement with Epstein for the limited amount of information in the current Epstein files. Let's take a look at him making that argument.

What exists in the Epstein case files was a direct result of the limited search warrants from 2006 and 7 which hamstrung future investigations because of the non-prosecution agreement and multiple administrations had the opportunity to look at the entirety of that case file and recommend prosecutions against anyone that was trafficked under Mr. Epstein and anyone that participate in that trafficking. And the only person to bring charges was the prior administration against Mr. Epstein. Now, I am not saying that others were not traffic and others were not involved. What I am telling you is that based on the information we have, we have released all credible information and the information that the Department of Justice and the FBI never releases is information on investigations that are not credible. And I know that's not going to satisfy many, many, many people. But if they wanted it done right, then the investigation from,

its origination should have been done right and he should not have been given a get out of jail free card to do jail on the weekends for 12 hours a day. And he should have been investigated fully for the entirety of his crime and criminal enterprise, not just from 1997 to 2001. But again, as Senator Kennedy mentioned, we do absolutely have the testimony of multiple Epstein victims who claim that they were in fact traffic to other men. So, and by the way, Let me just pause for a second. Wasn't the result of Alex Acosta's prosecution into Jeffrey Epstein? The one charge that Jeffrey Epstein was found guilty of was trafficking women?

It was a prostitution charge, right? Yeah, so it was soliciting prostitution. So you could argue that that's not necessarily trafficking. Got it, okay. Okay, and they of course they weren't prostitute. They were underage girls. Yes. But yeah.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not calling them, you know, sex workers or anything like that. Obviously, if you're underage, you cannot consent to that. That's rape. Now, in one court filing an accuser identified as Jane Doe, number three, alleges that she was trafficked by Epstein for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders. Now, it is believed that Jane Doe number three is Virginia Gufrey, who died earlier this year. Now, she said in a deposition that at different times, she was directed to have sex with Britain's Prince Andrew, another prince, the unnamed owner of a large hotel chain, and Glenn Dubin, a billionaire hedge fund manager, according to a transcript.

And in addition to that, in a separate sworn deposition or depositions, alleged victim Sarah Ransom, said Epstein was transparent about trafficking girls to visitors who came to his home in New York City and his private. Island in the Virgin Islands. So she said, and I'm going to quote her, there were various buildings around the island, like little shelter things, where him and his guests used to have sex with the girls, like bed set up for instant sexual entertainment. At his townhouse in New York, I was also lent out by him to his friends and associates to have sex. So we'll get back to the hearing and more of what Cash Patel has to say, but I'm curious what

you think about the arguments that Patel made to Senator Kennedy? They sound Israeli. And here's what I mean by that. Not that Epstein is related to Israel, that's a separate question, right? I mean, they sound so absurd in their denial that it sounds like the Israeli government. No, no one has been heard in Gaza. What? We see the whole thing, right? So no, no one has been trafficked. What do you mean? There's over a thousand girls who've been trafficked. So he doesn't say that exactly, right? Like I want to be fair. I'm getting to that. Okay, go ahead.

So in the beginning, he says, we have no credible evidence of anyone who's been trafficked. I'm like, what? What are you saying? That's so demonstrably false, right? So then if you notice, he changes it to I'm not saying others were not trafficked. Well, I thought that is what you said in the earlier clip. Okay, now you're clarifying, yeah, they were trafficked, but they were trafficked by ghosts, by no one. So he says, no, no, no, no, it's just that we don't have good enough evidence anymore

that we could charge anyone because of how badly it was bungled before. Okay, so, and he was giving such a light sentence and it was an outrage, et cetera. Okay, so did you investigate that? Why was he given such a light sentence? Because it's absurd, right? Why was the guy who gave him the light sentence? Why did he say that he was told to do that by intelligence agencies? Why was he then appointed labor secretary under Donald Trump after doing one of the most egregious

acts of non-prosecution in American history? Why was he rewarded for that act seemingly by President Trump, who you work for now? So if his bottom line is we're definitely not going to prosecute anyone. He almost referred to the perpetrators as the victims. He was like, well, you know, there are people who we don't want to put out on fair charges. How about you put out fair charges? And guys, who are we kidding? There was video cameras in every room.

So every denial is 100% absurd, not 99%. They're on tape. If you wanted to prosecute them, you could prosecute them. You're choosing not to, they're on tape. But, Jake, the previous administrations didn't prosecute them. Okay, so, and so, but think about that. I know that's free, free to go. Yeah, so that's exactly the other thing I wrote down.

and my notes, which is so wait, you're telling me all of the administrations are in cahoots on making sure that Epstein's clients are not prosecuted, and that's a defense? How is that a defense? You're saying, oh yeah, I'm being just like all the other administrations, just like our beloved Biden, our beloved Obama, and Trump won, and we all are crooks and are choosing not to prosecute, presumably hundreds of guys who raped American girls. Well, then you're going to have to explain to us why you're choosing to do that. That's right.

And he's not, all he's doing is what about is him? What about Biden? What about Acosta? What about this? Well, yeah, we're not going to prosecute anyone. Okay, that's what I saw. You're guilty. You're totally.

Cash Patel is guilty. He is totally part of the cover up now. There is no and zips or butts. I don't care where his eyes are pointing. He is there pointing to the fact that he is not prosecuting the guilty, period. And he will never recover from that. So let's get back to the hearing because soon after that exchange with Senator Kennedy, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff weighs in and quoted what Patel told Kennedy back to him and hammered him about exactly what he meant. Let's take a look. Is it your testimony today that in all the Epstein files that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked no one to anyone but himself?

Is that your testimony? I never said Jeffrey Epstein didn't traffic anyone else. Did he traffic any young woman to someone other than himself? That was Mr. Kennedy's question. And I said the information that three administrations have had access to have made determinations that there are no investigative leads that were credible to prosecute and investigate any others. There are victims like Virginia Gwifer who have testified otherwise, who have said otherwise, and you're telling the American people today that the Epstein list is a single name and it's

Jeffrey Epstein. That's what we're to believe. That's not what I'm saying. That's what you're saying. Okay, so after that, Schiff asked Patel about the mysterious transfer of Epstein's co-conspirator Galane Maxwell to a minimum security prison camp after, you know, she had her interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Patel claimed that the decision was entitled to, made by the Bureau of Prisons. And that's when things really started to go haywire. Take a look. The Bureau of Prisons decided on their own, without any consultation with Blanche or anyone

else, that they were going to suddenly, after this interview, completely unrelated to this interview, completely unrelated to anything she said, move her to a prison not suitable for a sex offender. You want the American people to believe that? Do you think they're stupid? No, I think the American people believe the truth, that I'm not in the weeds on the everyday movements of inmates. What I am doing is protecting this country, providing historic reform, and combating the

weaponization of intelligence by the likes of you, and we have countlessly proven you to be a lawyer in Russia, Gate, in January 6th, you are the biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate, you're disgraced to this institution, and an utterance. coward. I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised that you continue to lie from your perch and put on a show so you can go raise money for your charade. You are a political buffoon at best. Good boy, Cash, good boy. Trump is very proud of you. Okay, maybe, maybe he'll keep you as FBI director, you know, there's whispers, rumors about how you might be pushed out because of how poorly you handled the investigation as Charlie Kirk's murderer. But

But that was amazing. That was incredible. I mean, the way that he is totally downplaying the lack of justice, considering the reality that there were other co-conspirators, other men involved, is amazing when you compare what he's saying right there to what he was saying prior to entering the administration. Because prior to entering the administration, if you guys can remember, Cash Patel was a big hero for the American people. He was going to fight like hell to get the Epstein files released. But something happened following Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States, his meeting with Donald Trump.

Donald Trump changed entirely, especially when it comes to his stance on carrying out anything and everything Israel wants to do. He would push back a little bit before. Now he doesn't push back at all. And any notion of the Epstein files getting released, I mean, you can't even have a conversation about that with members of the Trump administration. He doesn't even care about those supporters. He doesn't want, he doesn't want their support.

Yeah. What is Trump hiding? Yeah, well, he's definitely adding something. And I genuinely don't know if he was a client or not. But what are they hiding is the most important question. Right. Because it's not a question whether they're hiding something. Exactly.

I mean, this is all like 1984 level propaganda. I mean, George Orwell was genius of geniuses. So we're supposed to ignore our lying eyes. They have it on video. There were over a thousand girls who were raped and sexually molested. There's potentially hundreds of guys. They're super powerful. Princes and giant Wall Street bankers, some politicians, the former Prime Minister of Israel,

the list goes on and on. And they're telling us, nope, because of previous administrations, our eyes don't work. come on okay previous administration's bungled this and you know and that's and that's why when I watch the video and it's super clear who's on it and it's super clear who did the raping of my eye instantly my ears stopped working due because of Biden and because of Adam Schiff okay so I'm not a big fan of Adam Schiff but what's with the bag of squirrels right so why did you move Galane Maxwell a you're a buffoon I'm not going to let you talk okay so this is now turned into a Pierce Morgan show and Gash Patel just talking over Adam Schiff because it got uncomfortable.

Yeah. So wait, did you catch it though right before he started screaming? He said, I can't be in the weeds on all these decisions. I'm moving Galane Maxwell. That's in the weeds. There's a disgusting pedophile groomer that's now in a low security prison that's much more luxurious so she can be much more comfortable. And that happened immediately after she cleared the president's name as, you know, not being a client, not being in the Epstein files at all. Fascinating, really interesting. She's probably the most notorious child sex trafficker in American history, along with Epstein. She's certainly the biggest groomer in American history. And you moved her to the lowest security prison, one that's considered a country club, that's what they call it.

And by the way, moving anyone convicted of child sex trafficking to a minimum security prison requires overrides. It's not a thing you could do without asking your superiors, it's not a thing, oh, oh, Sally filled out the wrong paperwork, oh, we took the biggest groomer in American history and accidentally moved her to a country club. And no one above us knows, no, brother, it's, all of this is patently absurd. And the good news guys, and I'm elated to say this, look, it's not uniformity. It's not 100%, but the country's starting to get united on this issue, Epstein files.

Maybe we can build off of it, maybe we can't build off of it. But the right wing is absolutely vicious to Cash Patel now. And he was one of them, he liked it. So do I see some MAGA guys still going, oh, no, I bet there are no clients at all. I believe everything Donald Trump and Cash Patel say. Yeah, but honestly, not that many. So the right wing's at least as mad as the left wing is at Cash Patel and these obvious, obvious lies.

And mainly what he's doing in terms of politics now is he's saying to the world, I think MAGA is super stupid. And I could tell him anything. Oh, I just couldn't find any clients. Oh, it was all Biden's fault, even though I'm in charge. Oh, Galayton Maxwell got moved. I didn't even know that's so in the weeds. And he thinks Maga's gonna go, oh, Cash said it.

So it must be true, we are now dogs of Cash Patel. Good luck with that strategy. It's not working and I don't think it's ever going to work. So no question Cash Patel is guilty. And of course, the guy ordering it is Donald Trump. Well, when we come back, we'll talk a little bit about the latest developments in regard to the individual who shot and killed Charlie Kirk. He did have his first appearance in court today. We'll show you video from that and more. Don't miss it.

All right, back on TYT, Janganana with you guys, but also for Hana Saraj, Nat Lord Nelson, Ghaniyah Islam, and Mark Muniz. So love it, they all hit the join button below on YouTube and became part of the Young Turks. I love how smart and caring our audience is. And I love that it's from all across the world and every race, religion there is, starting to unify people into common sense and honesty. Yes, love it. Yeah, we love it. You could also join through t.com slash join.

We love that. All right, Anna. Well, it was a big day for Tyler Robinson, the man who allegedly shot and killed Charlie Kirk. Let's get into the details. Just for the court's information, we did file just recently within the last few minutes a notice of intent to seek the death penalty that was filed by Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray. The defendant, Tyler James Robinson, intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Charlie Kirk under the following circumstances. The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than Charlie Kirk and the defendant. Notice conviction of this offense may carry the death penalty.

Well, Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk had his first court appearance today. And as you just heard, he is facing the death penalty. And I want to get into the very specific charges he's facing. But before we do that, I think it's worth talking a little bit about what we heard from the Utah County attorney, Jeff Gray, who has officially revealed some of the political motives of Charlie Kirk's alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, while giving some more insight into his motive. Take a look at this. Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political

and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented. Now, keep in mind that his family was conservative. His father is very conservative, apparently a Trump supporter, and this change in his political views apparently led to some tension between Robinson and his father. And I want you to hear a little more of what Gray had to say, according to Robinson's mother. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, a biological male who was transient, conditioning genders. This resulted in several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and his father, who have very different political views. In one conversation before the shooting, Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk would be holding an event at UVU,

which Robinson said was a stupid venue for the event. Robinson accused Kirk of spreading hate. Now, after the shooting, Robinson suggested to his parents that not only did he not want to turn himself into the police, but that he would take extreme measures if he was pressured to do so. Here's some more detail on that. His father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used matched a rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle. Robinson did not respond. However, Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson.

Robinson implied that he planned to take his own life. Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. As they discussed the situation, Robinson implied that he was the shooter and stated that he couldn't go to jail and just wanted to end it. When asked why he did it, Robinson explained there is too much evil and the guy referring to Charlie Kirk spreads too much hate. They talked about Robinson turning himself in and convinced Robinson Robinson to speak with a family friend who is a retired deputy sheriff. Now what you heard in that press conference is corroborated by messages that Robinson sent his roommate immediately after the shooting took place. So I'm going to get to those messages and that exchange in just a moment. But just to give you the charges that he's facing per gray, Robinson has official.

been charged with multiple felonies and a capital offense, including aggravated murder, which is the capital offense for intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Charlie Kirk, under circumstances that created a great risk of death to others, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, two counts of felony obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering and commission of a violent offense in the presence of a child. And Gray has said, that he will be filing a notice of intent to seek the death penalty as well. And in relation to that, he says, I do not take this decision lightly. And it is a decision I have made independently, Jake. Yeah, well, that begins to answer some of the questions, right? So there's

a long message about the rifle. There was a series of questions that people were asking online. So they were wondering why Cash Patel said yesterday, for example, there was a note that said that Robinson committed the murder, he was gonna kill Charlie Kirk, but the note is destroyed, but we already know what was in the note. And then everybody was like, wait, what? Yeah, he said that there was forensic evidence of the note. And there could be an explanation for that. Yeah, there could be. So for instance, there's a note, maybe through other text messages or other communications, he, you know, two people communicated about the existence of that note, but it was destroyed. You get what I'm saying? So there could be a possible

explanation. But the problem is there isn't much faith in the competence of Kash Patel. And he says things that lead to even more questions. Yeah, others were asking, why is the rifle disassembled and then reassembled back in the woods, but then left, right? And so in the text message is you see a long explanation of that. Well, I really wanted to get the rifle back, but I couldn't get the rifle back, but I really wanted to. It's grandpas, et cetera, et cetera, right? And so the thing that would be, for all the doubters out there, and every once in all this case looks super weird, and I start to ask questions. But a lot of the questions were answered today, right? So for example, his parents, why would they turn him in if he didn't

do it? And why are their answers so detailed, right? So they say they They also have the DNA on the rifle, the towel, et cetera, you know. And allegedly that the reason why his mother recognized him right away, well, of course you're gonna recognize your own child, number one, but there was the rifle itself, which is apparently somewhat unique. And so that's why the father was asking him to send a photo of the rifle. Because at that point, the authorities already had the rifle in their possession. He's like, all right, well, you know, you have the rifle, send me a picture and he wasn't responding to his father.

Yeah, so I don't know that they answered every question, where is the bullet that was fired? Why did he engrave the bullets, etc. But you see in all the correspondence with his roommate, and he goes into the place where he's playing games online, and everywhere he goes, he says, it was me, it was me, it was me. Now, I'm sure there's going to be a next layer to that, which is people are going to say, yeah, you could type that out from a computer. but I don't know that it was him typing it out from a computer, et cetera. But so far, if these things are to be believed, and remember, there's a ton of cops involved, federal state, et cetera. So faking anything now would be very difficult, right?

Presumably. So if these things are to be believed, which I generally do believe, then it looks like they got the right guy, and it looks like he's going to face justice. And we all want him to face justice. We don't want anything to happen to him, because then that'll go back to fishy and weird, right? Make sure the cameras are working outside the jail cell, et cetera.

But so far, it looks like they got them. Right. So the other, I guess, corroborating evidence that we've seen so far that this is the right guy are the messages that Tyler Robinson was sending to his roommate, who is just based on how these conversations went, seems to be his partner. Okay. So Robinson wrote to the roommate, I am still okay, my love, but am stuck in Orum. That's where the shooting took place for a little while longer yet.

Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I got to grab my rifle still. Who talks like that? Anyway, rifle still. To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you. The roommate responds, you weren't the one who did it right. Robinson responds, I am. I'm sorry.

The roommate says, I thought they caught the person. So remember, there were two other individuals who were briefly detained following the And so that's what they're about to discuss in this next exchange, where Robinson says, no, they grab some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. It's quiet, almost enough to get out, but there's one vehicle lingering. Roommate responds with why, Robinson says, why did I do it?

Roommate says, yeah. At that point, Robinson says, I had enough of his hatred, some hate can't be negotiated out. Let me just pause for a second. I couldn't stand his hatred, so I shot and killed him in front of his children. Yeah, that's the thing about psychos, they don't make any sense. Oh, he's so filled with hate, so I murdered him, which is 10,000 times more hateful. Yeah, 100%.

But let me continue with the rest of what he had to say. If I'm able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence, going for you. attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it. Roommate responds, how long have you been planning this? Robinson says, a bit over a week, I believe. I can get close to it, but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don't want to chance it. Next, Robinson says, delete this exchange. This guy seems like a genius. And he says, my dad wants photos of the rifle. He says, grandpa wants to know who has what. The feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique.

He's calling me right now, not answering. And then he says, since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty diehard MAGA. Then he says, at this point, the roommate, you know, in that exchange, the roommate didn't respond at all. But the last time the roommate responded is in this next exchange. I'm going to turn myself in willingly. One of the neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff. You are all I worry about love. Roommate says. I'm much more worried about you. Robinson says, don't talk to the media, please. Don't take any interviews or make any comments.

If any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer, and stay silent. So there was some theories out there that the roommate knew and that there was a group of trans folks online who knew ahead of time, et cetera. But it seems clear that the roommate definitely did not know and seems shocked by it, right? So if this was a thing that was planned out on behalf of a a certain community, et cetera, and they all knew about it and they were all celebrating it, etc. That's not what it says at all. And that goes for the entirety of the left guys, right? So when you hear a commentary from

the right about how they killed Charlie Kirk, you can hate the commentary on the left, and I've seen some pretty reprehensible, disgusting celebrations following Charlie Kirk's murder. But what does they mean? One individual took it upon himself to carry out this gruesome disgusting act of violence. He robbed someone of their life. And as we all know, there are gradations and variations of beliefs on the left. We live in a two-party system that doesn't really make much sense. You've got to pick one or the other. And honestly, for someone like me, for instance, neither side really represents what my principles and values are. So be careful with that type of generalizing language, because I think it's going to further

deteriorate the conditions of this country and the way that we relate to one another as Americans. Okay, yes. So when there's two layers to that, right? First, when a shooter comes out, everybody goes, okay, what is he? Why did he do it? In the old days, it used to be, is he Muslim or not Muslim, right? That hasn't happened in a while. So now they get into, you know, is it a white male who's white supremacist, et cetera? Is it a trans person? The right wing ass, even though there's It's only been two of those, I think, in the history of America. And so in terms of shooters, and then we get into that kind of debate. And then who do they represent?

In this case, it was kind of complicated because there was a theory out there that doesn't look like it's correct, that it was Groyper's. Those are the Nick Fuentes, followers, et cetera, right? So one of the things that I asked before we found out what his motive was, is if it's the groipers, should we hate all of them, and should we attack them? and generalize about them, if it turns out it's the opposite, it's the left, should we hate them and attack them? And then when you ask that question, you begin to realize how absurd it is because it's one person. And if it turns out to be in this direction or that direction, how does it implicate millions of people in either side, right?

So that's why they're like, well, okay, so this one turns out to be a white male and he's not Muslim, he's not black, he's not trans, he's not gay, or whatever, right? Oh, we found a roommate and the roommate might be trans. And then there was a wild conspiracy theory that I alluded to earlier about a cabal of trans people lagging him on, et cetera. Now the police are saying no, no such thing exists. The roommate didn't even know, right? So then when you realize, oh, it's not some sort of organized effort, right? Then it's just a random, like here, here's another example, make it easy, Paul Pelosi's attacker, right? So if we said they are coming to get you.

And by the way, sometimes in the past, we have said that, okay? Or at least I'll speak for myself, I have. I was very frustrated by one attack after another that targeted race, Dylan Roof, the guy who shot Latinos in Texas, on and on and on, right? But no, they are not all of the right wing. This guy is not all of the left wing. And that's kind of obvious once you think it through, right? So if I said to you, if you're on the right, and I said to you, you are on the right, you

are Paul Pelosi's attacker. If you see a Democrat, I think you're gonna grab a hammer and start smashing their head in even if they, you know, under any circumstances, even if they're a frail old man in their eighties. You say, wait a minute, that's crazy assumption. Why would I do that? No, that's just some random guy that I got nothing to do with. Yeah, exactly.

All right, well, we've got so much more to get to. When we come back from the break, we'll talk about how pushback from the left and the right against what Attorney General Pam Bondi had to say about our speech right. made her back off potentially censorious action against the American public. So we're going to get to that story and more when we come back. Don't miss it. Jank, Anna, Kevin, and Valencia S.L. They're the beautiful Americans who hit the join button below and became part of the young Turks. We appreciate you guys. Without the members, we literally can't do this show.

Now you won't have an honest show that tries to bring you all the news in an unbiased way. Okay, the other folks who help us do that as our sponsors. So in this case, we spent a lot of time picking these sponsors so they actually provide a service for you that's valuable. It's chapter. They help you with your Medicare plans. So whether it's you or your parents, you have got to do this. You gotta do with somebody, and these are the guys that after we did the research we trust. So they save on average $1,100 a year. That is a giant number because you don't know if you're on the right plan.

By the way, if you are on the right plan, they'll just tell you, right? But if you're on the wrong plan, they could save you a lot of money. So the number is 707, TYT help, takes about 20 minutes is free, 707 TYT help, okay? And other members have started to write in saying how much they've saved from it, which I love. And it only takes 20 minutes. So there's no reason not to do it. 707, TYT help. All right, Anna.

All right, well, we should talk a little bit about what our Constitution actually protects when it comes to our First Amendment rights. So let's get into it and maybe educate Pam Bondi a little bit. There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people? So we show them that some action is better than no action. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that's across the aisle.

I remember when that type of rhetoric was used by the left around 2020 when it came to hate speech and how it should be banned. But it's not banned, it's actually protected by the United States Constitution. The only speech, and it's very, very narrow, that can be banned and is banned, is any speech that specifically incites violence that could actually lead to harm against specific individuals. Now, in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's murder, Attorney General Pam Bondi is vowing to target anyone who spreads what she considers to be hate speech. Luckily, she faced so much backlash from members of both sides of the political aisle that she appears to have backed off those comments. But let me give you some more of the context. So before we hear more from her appearance on the Katie Miller podcast where she doubled down by conflating obvious cases of political violence, Let me just note that whether you're on the left or the right, people in America, because of our First Amendment rights, have the protection to engage in the most loathsome, hateful speech.

The speech of literal clan members is protected as long as they're not inciting violence through their speech or directing violence toward specific people. Now, with that in mind, let's go to the video of Pam Bondi doubling down, like, you know, basically doubling down in regard to how hate speech should be banned. The anti-Semitism, what's been happening at college campuses around this country is disgusting, it's despicable, and we've been fighting that, we've been fighting these universities left and right, and we're not going to stop. Look what happened, think about Josh Shapiro. They firebombed his house.

That's what's happened in this world and we are going to fight every step of the way to show that you will face the most severe consequences if you come after someone and you target someone for their political views or for any for any reason at all. Do you think Charlie was assassinated because our country can't handle free speech or because one type of speech is seen as obscene by another political party? Well in this case it was clearly obscene by a political party of an opposing view. Sure, but it doesn't matter. You can't have that hate speech in the world in which we live. We should be really concerned that the Attorney General of the United States literally just conflated the violent act of trying to burn down Governor Josh Shapiro's home. That was a violent act. She conflated that with hate speech.

Yeah. So look, there's two parts of the story. One is this effort to stifle dissent and call it hate speech. The other is the reaction to it. So I hate the first love the second, okay. So but I want to look, it's easy for me to say I'm against a right wing of administration, Trump administration saying that they're going to clamp down on speech because they consider it hate speech because they're going to consider anything on the left hate speech, right?

And Trump actually kind of confirmed that today and we got that for you and stuff. So but but guys I want to challenge our side too. And we did this not just now, but back then. So you heard us having conversations, debates about hate crimes. Should we even have a thing called a hate crime? Is it if you killed someone because they're fill in the blank, black, white woman, man, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, et cetera, should there be an extra penalty? And I've always been against that because murder is murder.

You give them a life sentence. You don't, or whatever is the maximum that you can charge, charge the maximum. We don't need to add anything on top of that. I don't really quite care why they did it. I care that it's that it got done. And if you care, if you say that I care about what they said while they were doing an act of violence, what you're doing is punishing speech, right? So, but the main point I'm making is it's easy when you're in power,

to say that the other side has hate and we should punish it, right? Oh, so they're being racist or they're being Islamophobic, or they're being this or they're being that and I want to punish them. Put aside the hate crime even on normal speech, right? We they shouldn't be allowed to say that, they shouldn't be platformed, they shouldn't this, they shouldn't that. Now we're out of power and all of a sudden Pam Bondi and Trump says, you know what, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to say some things that offend us.

Right. And all of a sudden we don't like that. That's why you have to be principled. and say that you're against any restrictions on the First Amendment. And we're not talking about reeling fire in a crowded theater or specifically threatening violence against someone that is not covered by the First Amendment. But actual political opinion, no matter how deeply offensive it is, of course it's covered by the First Amendment. And let people err their disgusting hateful thoughts and rhetoric. Because while it is true that the Constitution protects that individual from retaliation,

by the government, we all know that if people are sharing vile, racist, hateful opinions, there are consequences through other means, either through their employer or whatever. So, and you get to actually know what that person believes, and you get to fight that hateful rhetoric and ideology with more discourse. Can I just give one quick example there? Yeah. Randy finds the congressman from Florida, he's a disgusting pig, he talks about starving the entire population of Gaza. He's rooted for the annihilation of Gaza. So he's a genocidal freak,

right? Do I want him imprisoned for hate speech? It doesn't get any more hateful than let's kill a couple of million people, right? No, I got this. So we'll battle Randy fine. We'll meet him in the battlefield of ideas. And I hope to God that he's never elected again by the good people of Florida. And that's how we handle things in America. Even when you say the most disgusting genocidal things like Representative Randy Fine. government will in fact target hate speech, something that Charlie Kirk, by the way, himself explicitly condemned just last year. So I want to remind you all of this post that he made on X, writing that hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech, there's gross

speech, there's evil speech, and all of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free. And I think he genuinely did believe that to his credit. Now, among the conservatives who called out Bondi was Eric Erickson, who I think has actually been a pretty reasonable member on the right. I'm sure I disagree with him on a whole host of things, but he seems to have some actual moral values, seems to care about this country. He writes that our attorney general is apparently a moron. There's free speech, and then there is hate speech, no ma'am, that is not the law, and he's right about that. GOP operative Matt Wolking called the comments sickening, and the National Reviews Charles C.W. Cook wrote this in a scathing column about Bondi.

Get a load of this. Under every relevant Supreme Court precedent, speech is speech is speech. There are other categories of speech, libel, incitement, threats, and so on. But speech that is supposedly hateful, including about Charlie Kirk's murder, is undoubtedly protected by the Constitution. Kirk himself was clear about this. And by the way, just to add to that, let's say, it is determined that hate speech is not protected by our constitution. It is, but just for argument's sake, let's pretend like it isn't. Well, then who would the arbiter of hate speech be? Who gets to decide what is and is not considered hate speech? So that's something to consider if you are arguing in favor of banning hate speech, which I think would be a really

bad idea. Now, there are liberals, of course, who spoke out against what Bondi was saying, including liberal Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor. She appeared to take a swipe at Bondi today while speaking at a panel at New York law school, saying every time I listen to a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way, I think to myself, that school failed. But one person who seemed to enthusiastically support what Pam Bondi was saying there was none other than the president of the United States, Donald Trump. This morning ABC's, Jonathan Carl, asked Trump about Bondi's comments, and here's how that went down.

What do you make Pam Bondi saying she's going to go after hate speech? Is that, I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech. We probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they'll come after your ABC. Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech. So maybe they'll have to go after you. Look, we want everything to be fair. It hasn't been fair. And the radical left has done tremendous damage to the country, but we're fixing it. So when President Trump makes comments like that, it communicates to me that he doesn't care about our constitution. He doesn't care about what makes this country great.

The freedom of speech, the freedom of press, that is so incredibly important. I think it's the cornerstone of a democracy. You can't have a democratic process unless Americans are able to freely express themselves, freely assemble, and to debate their political views without fear of retaliation from the government. And Trump appears to be against that, especially when the speech is critical of what he's up to in the Oval Office. Now finally, after facing a wave of backlash for her comments, Pam Bondi put out a tweet, Trying to make it seem as though she was always talking about violent threats, not hate speech. She says hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment.

Yes, we know that. I don't think you did earlier. But nonetheless, she says, it's a crime. For far too long, we've watched the radical left normalized threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over. You cannot call for someone's murder, she says. you cannot swat a member of Congress, you cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as free speech. These acts are punishable crimes and every single threat will be met with the full force of the law. Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent, but it does not and never will protect violence. Right, but again, that is not what she initially said. She's kind of trying to, you know, walk back without apologizing for her previous comments

where she clearly just made it obvious that she either doesn't know what the Constitution protects, Jank, or doesn't care what the Constitution protects. Yeah, so if she gets her way, then first of all, then this is a different country. A lot of things will be banned. And you won't be able to say your real opinions because then hate is an eye of the beholder, which is why we've always been against classifying hate speech as a crime. and also because we read the Constitution. But if she gets her way, every administration is going to change it.

So when you've got a Republican in charge, it's going to be hate against right-wing individuals, et cetera, what Pam Bondi laid out. When Democrats get in charge, nope, that's not hate anymore. Now hate is racism, sexism, et cetera. Republican gets back in charge, we flip it again. No racism, sexism is okay. Now, come on, guys, this is absurd, utterly absurd. And then the most absurd and ironic thing is whether you believed him or not on Charlie Kirk's defense of freedom of speech, he certainly made it a cornerstone of his career and his legacy.

And so the post that Anna read you from Charlie is crystal clear, right? 100% in favor of freedom of speech and against classifying hate speech as a crime. So it would be deeply ironic to say, because Charlie Kirk believed in freedom of speech and he was killed, now we're going to take away freedom of speech. Well, how does that honor him? That does the exact opposite. So it's kind of disgusting, actually. All right, so then that leads to how did the right wing react? Now, I had buckled up because I saw the reaction to the shooting.

And I understand it, and there was rage, right? And I know where that rage comes from, and they have every right to be super frustrated. But then it got, you know, went in a direction you would expect, which is was rage against the entire left and revenge and let's go get him and no more, et cetera. So in that environment, when someone says maybe we should lock people up for their opinions, it's ripe for the right wing and people who voted for Trump that might not even be in the right to go, yeah, lock them up, right? But they didn't, largely, not all, but the majority appear to be saying on the right, no. We said we were against hate speech being classified as a crime. We're still against it even when we were in charge. And I got to tell you, you got to give them credit for that.

When you stay principled, even when you're in charge, I mean, we were so worried that they were not going to stick to principles. They were just going to go for raw power, right? And is that, does that strain exist? Well, obviously, look at Pam Bondi. She literally tried it this morning, right? And look at Stephen Miller. And he's talking about all, we're going to call people domestic terrorists and take away their rights, et cetera. But a lot of the right is pushing back against their own administration and saying, no, no, even as angry as they are, and they are angry, right?

For them to say no to Pam Bondi, no to Trump on this, that's pretty great guys. Yeah. So I'm pretty psyched about that as a country for what it means for our country. Now other bad things that might be down the pike, but this is a huge one because it affects all of our freedoms. Now let me be clear about one thing that has been very consistent with us here at the Young Turks, certainly the main show, there's no question. Because I've worked with you for over 18 years.

We do not support political violence of any kind. And we believe in free speech, even when the speech is being uttered by those we disagree with. And when we come back from the break, we're going to show you how Dave Rubin, a former employee of TYT, unfairly attacked Jank Uger, took him out of context, think he got, thought he got jank in a big gotcha, but we've got the receipts. So stick around. We'll be right back with all the details.