The Young Turks - Heat's On Hegseth

Episode Date: January 15, 2025

Hegseth pressed on women serving in combat roles. Senator asks Pete Hegseth so explain what a "jagoff" is. Special Counsel report says Trump would have been convicted in the election case. 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. Live from the Polymarket Studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks. All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Jane Hugar, Anna Kasparan with you guys. And I guess we'll be back at the Ball and Margaret Studios next week, but then it might be too late by then. Anyways, so we've got a lot of, um, wait, what?

What do you mean it'll be too late by then? No, because the, I don't know, I'm supposed to say this later or something, but the Polymarket contract runs out next week. So by the time we're back in the studios, oh, okay. You're looking at the Polymarket Studios anymore. So we can go back to being left wing again, right? The thing is that people will take that seriously.

I know they will. I don't really know they will because that's, because they're crowns. But anyway. Cut the clip here. Don't include other explanations. All right. Anyways. Okay, so guys, a huge show for you guys today.

We've got Pek-Hexif confirmation hearings, lots of challenges there. Will he make it through? Super interesting. Later, Elon Musk apparently thing you're buying TikTok, crazy stuff. So let's get to it, Anna. What do we got on the confirmation hearings? Well, the biggest news story of the day, of course, is the confirmation hearing for Pete Heggzith, who Donald Trump has chosen to serve as defense secretary in his second term. Without further ado, let's get to the spicy content.

The Department of Defense under Donald Trump will achieve peace through strength. And in pursuing these America First national security goals will remain patriotically apolitical and stridently constitutional. Unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters, addressing the recruiting crisis, the retention crisis, and readiness crisis in our ranks. Members of the security force will remove members. Would you explain what a JAG off is? In all of these other circumstances, you've denigrated active duty service members.

We have hundreds, hundreds of women who are currently in the infantry. Lethal members of our military serving in the infantry, but you degrade them. Mr. Hegg said, I do not believe that you are qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job. Things got super spicy during the confirmation hearings for Pete Heggseth, who President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to serve as Defense Secretary. In fact, from the moment he was tapped for Defense Secretary, he's been embroiled in controversy, lots of allegations. of bad behavior have been essentially haunting him since the confirmation, well, well before the confirmation hearing even began. And so we're going to show you some highlights from the first day of the confirmation hearings. But look, we knew that it was going to play out this

way, considering the fact that there were so many stories coming out, you know, whistleblowers who had spoken out against him when he was in charge of a nonprofit, a military nonprofit, all sorts of stuff. So before we get into all of this, Jank, what are your thoughts? Yes, so there's a lot to look out for here. The sexual harassment charges, the alcohol problems. But most importantly, the two things to look out for is, is he going to use the U.S. military inside America, if Trump orders him to, my overwhelming sense, that we'll get to it later, but is that he will. And so that's why when he said in the beginning that

they're going to be stridently apolitical, really? Come on. And follow the Constitution, closely. Well, you can't use the military inside of America. So already you're going outside the Constitution and outside our laws. So tons of hypocrisy here. But the real question at hand is will this move any votes? Can they create enough issues for Hegsith that some Republicans vote no? And that is going to be very tough to do. And so let's show you some of the clips here and see if they were able to move the country enough to move a couple of Republican senators. So just to give you an idea, I mean, obviously we don't have the ability to show you every question and answer portion of the confirmation hearing. But I did watch the bulk of it. And it was very clear to me that the Republican senators were giving him layups, really no difficult questions.

They intend to vote in favor of confirming him. Most of the fire came from Democratic senators. And so we're going to get to some of that in just a minute. But while senators did grill him, others decided to protest him. You are a misogynist. Not only that, you are a Christian scientist. And support the war in Wamba by the times. I want to thank the authorities for the right. swift reaction. Meritocracy, war fighting, accountability, and readiness. Addressing the recruiting

crisis and readiness crisis in our readiness crisis in our ranks. Members of the security force will remove members. Protests make some people very thirsty, as you could see in the video, every single time he was protesting. He grabbed the glass of water and took a sip. But, you know, the protests were early on during the confirmation hearing. Things kind of died down when it came to protesters later on, which luckily paved the way for senators to ask substantive questions. Now, Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, was pretty blunt about his thoughts on Heggsett's qualifications for this role, for the possibility of him being Defense Secretary. Let's take a look. The secretary is expected to be a fair, nonpartisan, and responsible leader, as well as a trustworthy advocate for the men and women that he leads.

Mr. Hegg said, I do not believe that you are qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job. We must acknowledge the concerning public reports against you. A variety of sources, including your own writings, implicate you with disregarding the laws of war, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other troubling issues. I reviewed many of these allegations and find them extremely alarming. So there you have it. You have a Democratic senator telling him straight to his face.

I don't think you're qualified for this, especially considering some of the allegations that have come up against you. If you guys can recall, his own mother had written an email in regard to his abusive nature toward women. She later came out and said that she emailed him immediately afterwards and apologized to him. But that doesn't really matter. I mean, that email was leaked. She said what she said, and it seemed to have come from the heart. And so that's one of the main issues that kept coming up over and over again throughout the entirety of today's confirmation hearing.

I want to go to some of our members that made really good points at t.com. Turkish Service Rex said, no Republicans are going to cross daddy, Trump, get real. And if you watch the hearings, that certainly seems to be the case for now. And it would take something extraordinary in these partisan times for one of the Republicans to cross Trump and vote against Hegsiv. So I don't want anybody to think, oh, just because the Democrats are grilling him, that's going to work, right? Erica likes America, Erica like America says, I watched the entire confirmation hearing today. All I can think was, were these Republicans born with no gag reflexes or is it an acquired skill?

And I'm reading these because they're so true. And I love how smart our audiences hit the join button below to be a member or go to t.com. And so as you watch it really, and this happens in both cases, whenever the Democrats are defending someone, they'll do it. But the Republicans are really over the top, right? And they're fawning of Trump and fawning of any Republican that gets up there. They're like, so I don't, yeah, it must be an acquired skill.

Or maybe the profession attracts ass kissers like this. And their whole job is to kiss the ass of the donors. So just kissing some other Republican ass probably seems like a low level lift for them. So look, for example, Hegsith said right in the beginning there, peace through strength, right? Well, that's what the old school Republicans used to say. And then they would start war after war after war and go, well, I mean, we forgot the peace part. But we've got so called strength as we waste your money and waste the lives of our service members. So he doesn't really sound like he's a new era of Republican in any way.

He's a very old school militaristic guy. So I don't think we're gonna get any difference there. By the way, I don't know if you heard, but one of the protesters shouted out, he's a Christian Zionist. And that's also true. But I would be surprised if any Republican or Democrat asked him about that. Because then, you know, the minute you say Zionist in in Washington, then he'll get confirmed 100 to nothing, or 99 to nothing, Bernie will vote against him. So one thing that I will say that I thought was an interesting exchange in the context of

this confirmation hearing, it was between Hegseth and Senator Joni Ernst. They focused some of their time on cutting the military budget, which I found a little shocking. I don't know how sincere he is when he says he's in favor of, you know, doing deeper audits of the Pentagon and potentially cutting the defense budget. But he made a point to speak out against the amount of money that we allocate for the military. And so we'll see how that plays out if he gets confirmed. But I will say that it is unheard of, you know, in recent American history to hear that kind of exchange during a confirmation hearing having to do with a potential defense secretary. So what do you think about that, Jank? Yeah, I mean, look, I have to confess

that I'm super proud that I got this into the national conversation. And nobody was talking about cutting the Pentagon before. Now they're talking about it. Now, does that mean that he's going to go and get confirmed his top priorities you're going to be cutting waste out of the Pentagon? He's going to cut 100 billion or 400 billion. No, it doesn't mean that. It's still very unlikely. But at least it has begun as a national conversation in a way that, you know, that Republican senators are asking, they're introducing the question. And they're asking it of a Republican pick for secretary in defense. And he's saying, yes, I will cut the Pentagon. And so when, if they don't, which is still very likely, then we get to hold them accountable for that. And for whatever

that's worth it. But I think it is worth something in the next election, whether it's the midterms or the general election, where they said they were going to do it. And then they didn't do it. And that's so that's very standard politician stuff and not at all populists, et cetera. Or maybe they do it. And that's obviously less likely. But if they do, that would be spectacular. And I don't care at all who gets credit. And by the way, they could do that and that could be a wonderful thing.

And then they could turn around and do other terrible things. And you still give credit where credit is due and discredit where discredit is do. Yeah, I totally agree with you on that. And to your point about the protester yelling about Pete Hagseth being a Christian Zionist, Apparently, Senator Cotton also asked him about that during their exchange, and Hegsith absolutely confirmed that he is someone who identifies as a Christian Zionist. Okay, now putting that aside, I want to go to Senator Mark Kelly, since we're talking about the allegations against Hegsith, Mark Kelly wanted to grill him about that, and I thought this exchange was super fascinating, so take a look. On Memorial Day, 2014, at a CVA event in Virginia, you needed to be carried out of the event for being intoxicated. Senator Anonymous smears.

Just true or false? Very simple. Summer of 2014 in Cleveland, drunk in public with the CVA team. Anonymous smears. I'm just asking for true or false questions. True or false answers. An event in North Carolina, drunk in front of three young female staff members after you had instituted a no alcohol policy and then reversed it. True or false?

Anonymous smears. You say you've had personal issues in your past. Yet when asked about those very issues, you blame an anonymous smear campaign, even when many of these claims are not anonymous. Which is it? Have you overcome personal issues? or are you the target of a smear campaign? It can't be both. So he refused to answer yes or no.

He kept answering with anonymous smears. It was almost like someone pleading the fifth, refusing to answer any questions. I thought that was interesting. But there was one question where he said no. And it specifically had to do with the time that he was the head of a military nonprofit. And during that time, he was alleged to have taken those who were working, you know, for him or underneath him to a strip club.

He denied that entirely, which I thought was interesting, even though there are several people who have come out and said, not only did they go to that strip club, but he got blackout drunk and behaved inappropriately. So interesting that that was the one case where he was willing to say, no, absolutely not. Yeah, and you know, sometimes you can tell from what they say no, too, that the other stuff is all yes. And then you can debate the one that they said no to, but he was exercised enough about that to say no, whereas the rest, he was like anonymous smears. And Mark Kelly's doing a good job there because that means, yeah, he's not saying that they're false. He's just saying, I've been kind of smeared by anonymous sources, although that could still be true. So Guamal capsized dragon, it's another one of our members on t.com, made a really good point. Why do we even have confirmation hearings anymore? Every justice was asked that their confirmation

if they would overturn Roe v. Wade and they all said no. Right. It's pointless. So is Hanksith lying and will the rest of the confirmation hearings involve people who are lying? Definitely. And by the way, the Biden team lied through their teeth too. Oh, oh, we will represent America and we will be unbiased. And then the minute they got in office, they're like, yeah, we will serve Israel first than America 28th. So they all lie. But does is Hegs of lying more than the average bear? Yeah, because he has to hide so much more stuff, right? And when be asked directly about it, things that he's written in his book. So, and then there's the 11th hour conversion

to allowing women in combat roles. And same thing we saw with Tulsi Gabbard in a story we covered yesterday. And then, but Tom Cotton, it's a good point. I hadn't seen that. that Tom Cotton asked them that. I love that we clarified that. And then, but it gives you a sense that the reason Tom Cotton, a very friendly Republican Senator to Heggsiff, because he thinks a lot like Hegsiff, he's a neo-con warhawk. And so he jumps in to say, you're a Christian Zionist, right? And he's like, oh, yeah, absolutely, because he knows that's going to help him in Congress. It won't help him in the country necessarily. But in the Senate, they're all going to be like, Oh, I'm so sorry. We're so sorry, APEC. Yes, Hexeth, right away, right away, sir.

So others have written in are great members, super smart members we have here, and pointing out, yeah, he's looking forward to doing whatever, you know, war Israel is going to bring us into. And so don't be surprised. So obviously, almost everything he's saying is not true. Yeah, look, at this point, out of all of the various Trump nominees, Hegseth is the one that bothers me the most. because this isn't a small role. This isn't a small position. And for all of the anti-war rhetoric that we heard from Donald Trump, and to be clear, I like the anti-war rhetoric. I hope that he actually, well, I don't hope because I already know what he was like in his first term.

He was not a dove. Okay, he didn't start new wars, but he certainly expanded the drone war that we gave the Obama administration a lot of grief for. And even took it a step further by refusing to report on the number of innocent civilians. who were killed as a result of the expansion of that drone war. Obviously, he ripped up the Iran nuclear deal, paving the way for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and potentially inch closer to a hot war with Iran. I mean, he did all sorts of terrible things. But, you know, for all that we hear in regard to his anti-war rhetoric, it would have been

much better if he had chosen someone, number one, who's a lot more qualified for defense secretary. That's obviously incredibly important. But on top of that, someone who isn't a neocon, wouldn't it be a big? amazing if we don't have a neocon for once as, you know, the head of the defense department. But if he gets confirmed, Pete Hagezeth is more of the same. And on top of that, he's got all sorts of issues with all sorts of serious allegations against him. And even if you put that aside, you think he hasn't been convicted of anything. We don't know if it's actually true.

Okay, fine, put that aside. Is he experienced enough to take on this incredibly important role? And from what I've seen, no, I don't think he is. Just because he's served in the military doesn't mean that he's automatically qualified to be the head of the defense department. So those are my thoughts on this. There is a second half of this story that I want to get to. But why don't we take a break first? And then when we come back, we'll talk a little bit about the jagoff moment and more. All right, back on TYJank and Anna with you guys.

And also, that's the new member who just joined by hitting the join button below the video. I love all your handles. I love our audience. All right. Anna, what's next? Including the throat goat dragon? Okay. So I love that handle. It's hilarious. I hear you. It's funny, but don't make me say it all of them. All right. All right. Well, there's more to get to when it comes to, to Pete Heggzitt confirmation hearing took place today. He, of course, has been chosen by Donald Trump to serve as defense secretary in Trump's second term. There were some interesting moments.

Let's take a look. You've already disparaged in writing the Geneva Convention, the rules of law, all of these things. How will you be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principal elements is discipline, Respect for lawful authority. Do you have made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a JAG officer? Well, by the way, would you explain what a JAG off is? I don't think I need to, sir. Why not?

Because the men and women watching understand. Well, perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand. It would be a JAG officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the war fighters. their promotions, their medals in front of having the backs of those are making the tough calls on the front lines. Things have really developed in a great place here in America. When you have a Senate confirmation hearing with a potential defense secretary having to explain his usage of the word jagoff in referring to a JAG officer when he was in the military. So before I kind of elaborate on what spurred that comment from Pete Heggseth, Jank, what are your thoughts?

All right. Well, that was a hilarious exchange. Okay. My thought is that Pete, look, my number one concern is, is this guy going to say yes when Trump says use the military against U.S. citizen? He asked his former Defense Secretary, Mark, Esper, to do that. And Esper partly said yes when he cleared Lafayette Square, and that was already terrible. But when Trump suggested shooting U.S. citizens in the leg with the U.S. military, that's where Esper drew the line and said, no.

I get the overwhelming sense from Hexas' answers, and his entire record is he will do anything Trump tells him to do. But to me, the most clear part of these hearings, Anna, was Hexeth saying over and over again that he would basically, serve Trump rather than the Constitution or the laws. Yeah, I mean, he did pay lip service to the Constitution and the importance of following and protecting the Constitution and his opening statement. But I agree with you, you know, after watching almost the entirety of the hearing today, the sense I got is that he is deeply loyal to Donald Trump. And so if Donald Trump asks him to do something, which by the way would be unconstitutional, the U.S. military should not be used against the American people. I also worry about the possibility of Pete Hegesith following through and giving Trump what he wants. Now, that was a funny moment in the hearing, but there were plenty of unfunny moments.

Before we get to those, before we get to the actual substance, I just want to clarify what this whole controversy is with the Jagoff comment. So the New York Times reported on this, and they found that in his book, The War on Warriors, Hegseth did. detailed comments that he himself made to his military platoon. Hegesith made the comment during his Iraq deployment in 2005, after hearing a presentation by a JAG officer or a member of the U.S. Army judge advocate general's corps who defend army soldiers in legal matters, after he and his team were briefed by the JAG officer on the proper protocols for firing on an enemy with a rocket propelled grenade. Hegsith disparaged one of the rules of engagement saying it was going to get people killed, he recalled in his book.

So I guess since he didn't like what he was hearing from the JAG officer, he used the clever insult of calling him a JAG off. And so he was so proud of it that he wrote about it in his book, which is hilarious. And my main concern about that is he doesn't believe in the rules of war. Yeah. made that clear several times, including in that exchange there. So, but that one people voted for. They didn't vote for him. They didn't necessarily use the U.S. military inside the country. That's not the independent side who decided the election. They didn't vote in that direction. They didn't vote for him to be a Christian Zionist. But they did, you know, unfortunately

vote for Trump, who's clearly not a person concerned about war crimes. Yeah. So Hengs is basically saying, yeah, war crimes are, you know, open season now. So war crimes, not just for Israel anymore. Yeah, I mean, look, I think that what has happened in Gaza has pretty much deteriorated any semblance of international order, international law. The United States under the Biden administration has aided and abetted the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. We have provided the weaponry, the military funding for that. So I would love to do a comparative analysis and say, you know, there are examples of better options,

especially on the Democratic side, but that did not come to fruition during the Biden administration, unfortunately. Now, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, I think, did a good job drawing attention to one of the biggest concerns that people have about Pete Heggseth. And it is his remarks in regard to women in combat roles. He has spread a lot of disinformation about what kind of standards apply to women if they want to serve in combat roles. So I'm going to break that all down for you after we watch this clip. Take a look.

You answered your questionnaire. Do you believe that any American who wants to serve in their country in the military and can meet objective standards set by the military should be allowed to serve without limitation? You've said yes to that question. But then in all of these other circumstances, you've denigrated, duty service members. We have hundreds, hundreds of women who are currently in the infantry. Lethal members of our military serving in the infantry. But you degrade them. You say, we need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units. As secretary, would you take any action to re-institute the combat arms exclusion for female service members, knowing full well,

you have hundreds of women doing that job right now? So please explain these times. types of statements because they're brutal and they're mean and they disrespect men and women who are willing to die for this country. Before we get to Hegseth's answer to what Senator Gillibrand is asking there, I just want to give some clarification about how recently Hegsith made those types of comments. So as recently as November 7th of last year, 2024, Hegsitt said this while appearing on the Sean Ryan show. quote, the standards have been lowered, meaning the standards for women who want to serve in combat roles. I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. Now with that in

mind, here's how he answered the question. Take a look. I spent months talking to active duty service members, men and women, low ranks, high ranks, combat arms and not combat arms. And what each and every one of them told me and which personal instances have shown me is that in ways direct, indirect, overt and subtle, standards have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school, infantry battalions to ensure that commanders meet. Please give me an example. I get you're making these generalized statements. Commanders meet quotas to have a certain number of female infantry officers or infantry enlisted. And that disparages those women who are incredibly capable of meeting that standard. Commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry that does not exist. It does not exist.

And your statements are creating the impression that these exist because they do not. There are not quotas. We want the most lethal force. So, Jenk, before we go to you, I just want to say, I don't trust anyone. I don't care what party they're in. If it's a politician speaking, if it's a media figure speaking, I'm just going to assume they're lying and I want to confirm what they're saying, whether it's true or false. And so I didn't take what Kristen Gillibrand was saying there at face value. I wanted to look into it because you never know. Sometimes they say there aren't quotas and it turns out there are quotas. So I looked into this and based on what is clearly listed in the Defense Department's website, okay, they have seven guidelines.

I'm going to read guideline two and three because they're the most relevant to the conversation we're having right now. Number two, leaders must assign tasks and jobs throughout the force based on ability, not gender. Equal opportunity, this is guideline three, equal opportunity likely will not mean equal participation by men and women in all specialties. And there will be no quotas. There are far fewer women, far, far, far fewer women in combat roles in the military than men. And it's because they did not lower the standards when it comes to the physical test that they must pass

in order to qualify for said combat roles. And so Senator Gillibrand is telling the truth here. For the physical standards, let me give you a little more information. In 2022, the Army did lower general physical standards for men and older troops, female and male, but that only applies to the annual physical fitness exam, and that's for the general military,

general military, not for combat roles. Let's talk about combat rules. The army and all of the branches still require women to pass strict fitness tests if they want to take on the most physically challenging specialty jobs like an Army Ranger or Green Beret. So I looked into this. Senator Gillibrand is telling the truth. Hegzith, unfortunately, along with others, is spreading misinformation about this. And so, Jank, I don't know where that stems from. I mean, when you look at the military overall, only 18% of the military comprises of women. So the hyper focus on women in combat roles is just so ridiculous.

We have a real problem in the country with recruiting for the military, partly because we do have an obesity problem in America. So in general, Americans are not healthy enough to be recruited into the military. That is a broader problem than I think it's interesting that he doesn't focus on that. Yeah. I think that his answers were active duty. He said duty. Yeah.

So look, part of the point of these confirmation hearings is to get them to denounce their extreme statements of the past. Now whether they actually denounce them in the real world, like meaning when he gets the job after he gets past these fake confirmation hearings is another question. As our members have written in, you know, Supreme Court justices also said they wouldn't do things. And if you remember in every one of those hearings, whether they're Republican appointed or Democrat appointed, I'd always tell you, they're not telling you the truth at all.

The Democrats appointed ones are gonna do strictly liberal rulings pretty much, except some pro-corporate rulings. And the Republicans are gonna do strictly conservative decisions. And in this case, Hegesith is not going to be able to overturn a historic decision by the US military to have women in combat roles. And they're getting them, him to say over and over again, the He won't try to do that. So there's some value in that.

But does Hegseth believe nonsense stuff in his head about how they're creating quotas, et cetera when there aren't any? Yeah, he definitely believes that. And why has he said that throughout his career when there's no evidence of it? Because let's be honest, Republican voters love to hear things like that. And so sometimes with extreme versions of DEI, there's some merit to, There's like some on the left tried to live up to the caricature that Fox News created of a left winger, okay?

But outside of that, there's this like aggrievement industrial complex where they're like, oh my God, the reason our military is not strong is because they took it away from white men or just men in general, oh, we had this, we didn't want any of these other people involved. But wait a minute, look at that initial premise to begin with, why are we having this insane conversation. The U.S. military is not weak. The U.S. military is the strongest military in the history of the world and by a lot. So the whole conversation is utter nonsense. We've had women in the military for a long time and in combat roles. And we're still by far the strongest military the world has ever seen. Well, Jank, unfortunately, some remain unconvinced. We

earlier talked about some of the people who showed up to protest Pete Heggzeth. There were some at the hearing specifically to protest the notion of women in these roles and the competency of the military. And so I wanted to show you that fun protester. It's a still shot of his protest. Mainly I want you to take a look at his sign. Let's take a look. D-E-I military. And then he, yeah, fun. Competence is important. Competence is important. Yeah, Anna, but that goes towards, like, you know, in law school, they teach you a slippery slope, slides in both directions, right? And so in this case, DEI slides in both directions. A lot of Republicans run in red districts or red states, and they, like, all they have to do is breathe and speak English, kind of. And if they're a white male, they're gone, they're in, they're in, they're in, they're in, they're in, right? So like this idiot and everyone in his office who are all idiots and everyone else involved,

like we'll make fun of minorities will say the DEI has ruined the military. And they can't even spell military right. Why? Because they're a DEI hire. Because they just showed up and they're like, oh, duh, I'm a male and I'll do whatever Trump says, okay, dude, you're a D. So this D.E.I. charges, like I said, just a second ago, sometimes some on the left do extreme things. And if you point that out, I go, okay, you know what? I hear you on that. I really

do. But when you just use it in a blanket statement, you sound like you're a racist jackass. Yeah, no. That's that answer. I totally agree with you. I mean, I think a really good example of that is how people reacted to the fire chief in Los Angeles, who I want to be absolutely absolutely clear, has done an excellent job. Okay, the fire chief in Los Angeles, considering the budget cut she's dealt with, considering the fact that the department has been chronically underfunded. It's not just about a one-time budget cut. It's been chronically underfunded. They have done an excellent job in fighting these fires, putting their lives on the line to protect human beings, their homes, their businesses. So when you see a woman

who might be lesbian or transgender or whatever. Your automatic reaction to it is DEI higher without even doing any analysis into whether or not they have done a good job. Yeah, you come across as a bigot or racist or any of those words, right, depending on the identity of the person who's being attacked. But, you know, the one thing I will say, this is a really important point I want to make. Look, I really want people to stop saying dumb things

Because a member of the fire department did say this, and I don't think it helped, okay? And I see this happening across the board in different sectors of the economy, different departments. Stop saying things like, you know, people, like, when I'm saving someone from a burning home, they really want to see someone who looks like them. No, they don't. No, no, I don't. I don't. I want you to save my home, save me. I don't care about your race. I don't care about your gender.

I don't care about your identity at all. Stop saying stuff like that because I don't, I don't think most people think that way. Most people just want qualified, competent people to fill these roles. That's it. Yeah. So I saw that video you're talking about Anna. And it's really so super dumb. So if you find an example that is outlandish like that, great, no problem.

We'll say it's outlandish, right? So no, if I'm in a burning fire, which by the way, now is like somewhat lightly in L.A., I don't give a damn if it's a transgender person, a Muslim, a Christian, a dude, a woman. I don't care at all, just save my family, right? And unfortunately, the cultural wars are engaged by both sides. So they make that dumb video about, oh, you want to be rescued by someone of your own race? Why? Why? It's so dumb. Anyway. And then the right wing turns around and says, no, every woman is a DEI hire.

So there's no women who are qualified to be in the military, to be in the fire department, to have any job. And you don't think that that comes across as sexist. So I despise these cultural wars. Last thing on this is one of our members who take the wheel, I think accurately points out why they do this. He wrote in, it's a classic conservative misdirection. The military is corrupt and immoral, but conservatives blame all the issues. who's on woke lesbians or whatever.

Bingo. They don't want you to pay attention to the fact that they can't pass an audit. And every year, they're like, I don't know, we're $400 billion, is it in my pocket? And is it in the pocket of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin? Somebody's woke, somebody's woke, okay? Get mad into a lesbian. Come on, guys, both sides, cut the crap out about culture wars and actually try to protect this country, including our pocketbooks from the thieves at the Pentagon and the military.

industrial complex. Absolutely. I mean, the future of this country really depends on that. And so we're going to keep demanding it. But for now, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about what has become of special counsel, Jack Smith. And more importantly, what does his report on Donald Trump say? We'll be right back. Jenk, Anna, Young Turks, America forward. Let's do it. This morning, the special counsel who investigated Donald Trump's role on January 6th and efforts to interfere in the 2020 election has issued a blistering report,

sharply criticizing the president-elect's attacks on his investigation, and suggesting that Trump's actions warranted prosecution, saying that no, quote, man in this country. is so high that he is above the law. Well, there's big news today in regard to special counsel, Jack Smith, who has now officially released his report on the investigation he conducted into Donald Trump and his attempts in overturning the 2020 presidential election. Now, he argues that if he hadn't won the presidential election in 2024, he very likely

would be convicted for his role. in election interference. Now, this comes after Judge Eileen Cannon, who let's just keep it real, as she oversaw both the classified documents case in Florida and this federal case in regard to election interference really did help Trump every step of the way, did luckily decide to allow Jack Smith to release this report. Now, the report is based on the council's, the special Council's interviews with more than 250 people. It also includes grand jury testimony for more than 55 separate witnesses. Now, before we get to the details of the report, Jank, what are your thoughts so far? Yeah, so here's what I'm tired of. In the New York Times report about this,

they said this was, quote, an extraordinary rebuke. No, it's actually a very important. Yeah, it's actually a very ordinary rebuke, because this is the same story that has happened over and over again. It's amazing that a former president has been rebuked like this. It's not amazing anymore. He's been rebuked hundreds of times. I don't know when it's going to get through the New York Times head, no one cares. So look, in this case, I wish they cared. And that's going to get to the heart of the story about the timing here. And I thought Jack Smith said something interesting about the timing of the case and politics. So I want to get to that in a little bit, but the rebukes are the most irrelevant thing in

the world. He got reelected. So that didn't, all the rebuking in the world didn't work. Yeah, exactly. Now, let me just get to the bulk of the report. It is, to Jake's point, a lot of what we already know, right? But I think that Jack Smith's opinion about how this all played out and Trump kind of being above the law is really interesting. So he says, the thorough line of all of Mr. Trump's criminal efforts was deceit, knowingly false claims of election fraud, and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States' democratic process. Further, the report indicates that the department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and

prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial. So to your point, Jank, about how the media has been reporting about this, they're making a big deal about it because Jack Smith is saying in this report that he believes Donald Trump, without question, would have been convicted had he not won re-election or election to a second term and the prosecution could move forward, to which I say,

of course, of course he thinks that. Why would he pursue prosecution if he didn't think that? Isn't that what he's supposed to? I mean, like, why? Why is this a breaking news story? Like I don't, yeah, of course he thinks that. Of course he does. It would be weird if he was pursuing prosecution of someone that he thought was innocent. But anyway, go ahead. No, but Anna, you're hitting on the same thing that I was.

It's like these folks, they have some weird standard in their head where they think they're being objective by, you know, saying like, oh, this is extraordinary that a prosecutor would say this. And it's not extraordinary. By definition, if the prosecutor is trying to convict you, he thinks you didn't. It's not extraordinary. Stop saying stupid stuff. And Eli Honing the legal analyst on CNN, look, he's an interesting cat. And I like that he's unbiased. And sometimes he'll correct Democratic leading analyst on something that's legal but supports Trump. And I go,

yeah, that's a good point. That's an interesting point. But in this case, he was like, It seems like Jack Smith made this personal and was ranting. No, he was laying out his case, that's what a prosecutor does. And he didn't make it personal, Trump made it personal. Trump then responded to this report by going, deranged Jacksman, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? Like he always does. So like sometimes when they overdo it on this like, oh, well, we're just trying to be very, oh, well, this is, I don't know, it's just, I feel like,

with media, you never get a straight, normal, authentic answer, right? And so none of this was extraordinary. What Trump did was extraordinary, but unfortunately, we're never going to get a jury to rule on that because of Merrick Garland, which if you don't mind, Anna, then leads me to this quote that I found to be super interesting in his report. He said, given the, this is a direct quote from Jack Smith, given the timing and circumstances of the special counsel's appointment and the office's work, it was unavoidable that the regular processes of the criminal law and the judicial system would run parallel to the election campaign. Now, you could take that in a couple of directions. You could look at that and go, aha, if you're a Republican, go, see, oh, they claim,

oh, it was inevitable that it had to be at the same time as the election, right? It wasn't that inevitable. And here, Jack Smith, in a different interpretation, his interpretation is, Look, brother, I got this job and then I was supposed to get this done super quickly, but it wound up being in the middle of this election, and then Trump used every excuse related to the election to delay the proceedings. Yes, but you guys should have known that. Of course he was going to do that. Was he not going to defend himself? Like, and in fact, Jack Smith a couple of times, this is the part that I'll criticize him for, complain like, oh, because of the election, Trump got to use all these tactics to delay. No. Why didn't you

prosecute him two and a half years earlier, then he wouldn't have had those abilities. And that's why I said Jack Smith didn't appoint himself. Merrick Garland made that decision and he made it two and a half years too late. I don't know if he wanted it to be in the middle of the election cycle, but I think that's a potentially legitimate argument to make if you're on the right wing or if you're on any wing. And what I do know is we're never going to find out a definitive jury decision on Donald Trump, because Merrick Garland was absolutely negligent as he sat on his hands for two and a half years, not bringing this case. So the final thing that I'll bring up for this story is how hard Donald Trump and his legal team fought to prevent the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report.

And I don't know why he even wastes any of his energy or resources on that. because shockingly, Judge Eileen Cannon did allow for the release of this report, despite the protests coming from Trump and his legal team. And for the most part, it's a big nothing burger. Again, I do think that special counsel Jack Smith is correct in that Trump did interfere with the election, did attempt to go against the will of the American people and overturned the election. And I think that someone like Trump should face consequences for that. But because of how all this played out and because of the timing, he will not face consequences for it. But I just bring this all up because I don't think this is going to move the needle. The report is not going to move the

needle on anything or anyone as it pertains to the perception of Donald Trump, anyone who might support Donald Trump. They're not going to change their mind based on Jack Smith's report on election interference. Yeah. Look, it bothers me to know that he basically tried a coup against America and got away with it. But that being said, this thing's over guys. The American people had the final word and they said they didn't mind. I wish that they did mind and I know half of the country minded and I wish that that was determinative. But it wasn't. We had another election and the American people said put them back in the White House, not in prison. The end, whether you like it or not. Why don't we wrap up the first hour a little early? We'll take

We'll take our break. And when we come back, we'll talk about how Donald Trump's rhetoric has really changed in regard to the war in Ukraine. I'm real curious how the MAGA crowd feels about it. So when we come back, we'll do that story and more. Don't miss it.