The Young Turks - Hell or High Water

Episode Date: February 1, 2022

DMFI PAC, the political arm of Democratic Majority for Israel, announced on Monday that it is backing 15 House candidates in the upcoming primary elections as part of its first round of congressional endorsements. A new survey has found that most Americans don’t think President Joe Biden should commit to replacing Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer with an African American woman. Former President Donald Trump spent his weekend eliminating any remaining doubt that he wanted to steal the 2020 election. Susan Collins twisted herself in knots to avoid saying she won’t support Trump in 2024. Joe Rogan addressed the recent controversies surrounding his podcast in a nearly 10-minute video following news that Spotify will be adding a disclaimer before his podcast. A number of Republican Senate candidates running on anti-Big Tech platforms have stock holdings in the same companies they are vowing to hold accountable if elected to Congress. Hosts: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, welcome to the young Turks, Jake Huguenot and Kusperi back in the studio. What's up? All right, fun show ahead for you guys. Couple surprises. Two people that I normally yell at, I will not yell at.

Am I not merciful? Awesome. Is this show not full of surprises, twists and turns, nobody saw it coming? Have I turned in my book, the first draft? We'll talk about it in the bonus episode. That's for the members. You guys are the only ones who care anyway. Okay, the overly honest news show, young turks.

All right. Casper, you ready? I'm so ready. The rocked this thing? We gotta keep it tight. No, but we're keeping it tight, everybody. Got a lot of news to get to today. Now tight means we're going forward, no more chitter chatter.

Exactly, yep. All right. All right. The political arm for the Democratic majority for Israel has already thrown its support behind various Democratic lawmakers. But more importantly, it has also thrown support behind challengers to two Democratic incumbents. And they're very clear and transparent as to why they're supporting the candidates or the politicians they've chosen to support. It's because they want to ensure that the individuals who get elected, Democrats specifically, are committed to serving the best interests of Israel.

And I'll get to their specific quotes in a second, but they do not make any, you know, they're not unclear about what their intentions are here. And it's just really fascinating how important this issue is for them. So let me give you the details on who they're supporting, what's going on. DMFI, again, the Democratic majority for Israel, is supporting candidates whose opponents are backed by Justice Democrats, the left-wing political group that has helped unseat a number of Democratic incumbents in recent years while attempting to push the party leftward on a host of issues, including a foreign policy platform that includes conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel.

So progressive lawmakers and progressive candidates typically want to condition any type of foreign aid that's given to Israel to ensure that that money isn't used to carry out brutality against Palestinians. Well, DMFI is not in favor of that kind of ideology, and so they're trying to defeat anyone who has that kind of stance. Now, the list of 10 incumbents that DMFI has already thrown its weight behind includes four open seat primary candidates and one Democratic Challenger. So all of whom the advocacy group described as committed to strengthening the U.S. Israel relationship in their shared support for continued U.S. military assistance to Israel, as well as their rejection of the boycott, divestment and

sanctions movement, BDS, targeting the Jewish state. So a few specific examples in Jank, hold on. In Michigan and Illinois, for instance, representatives Haley Stevens and Sean Kasten are with support from DMFI, waging respective battles against progressives, representatives Andy Levin and Marie Newman. Again, these are the incumbents, Levin and Newman are. Apparently, they have frequently clashed with the pro-Israel establishment over their criticism of the Jewish state. Now, why are they so upset with Levin? I think it's important to keep in mind that he himself is Jewish, but I guess that doesn't really matter much. While Levin, a former synagogue president describes himself as a Zionist and opposes BDS,

the Michigan political Scion has frequently clashed with the pro-Israel establishment over his criticism of the Jewish state, including the recent introduction of legislation that would, among other things, condemn Israeli settlements while placing restrictions on USA to Israel. Jank. Yeah. So first, I'm glad that they're going after 11, too, because it shows a little bit of consistency on their part, too. So this has nothing do with religion. It has nothing new with Jewish Americans.

And 11 is, you know, not only Jewish, he's pressing up his own synagogue, right? So it doesn't, we're good on that count, right? And I wouldn't want anyone attacking anyone based on religious background or anything like that. That's crazy talk. And for progressives, it's an anathema. We wouldn't stand for that, right? So that makes the issue much more clear. They're saying this is to help a foreign government, period.

To help a foreign government. We are going to give millions of dollars to U.S. politicians to help. someone else, not us, not America, but Israel. They very clearly said to strengthen our ties with Israel. They didn't say anything for, hey, Jewish Americans or anything like that. In fact, they're spending money against Jewish Americans. They're saying, no, our objective is to buy American politicians for another country. Why is this allowed?

I don't care that it's Israel at all. I don't care about in neither direction. It could be Canada, it could be my original home country, Turkey, could be Saudi Arabia, I don't care. No country should be able to buy our politicians. And I don't care what anybody in mainstream media says either. Well, I mean, is it really buying when you give a couple of million dollars? Yes, yes, that's what buying is. That's what a bribe is.

This is an unequivocal, yes, the Supreme Court legalized it. But as far as a concept goes, this is an unequivocal bribe. And I don't care that it is supporters of Israel that did it. That's the shield they use. Nope, nope. If you say it's bribery, we're going to call it anti-Semitic. I don't care that you call it that. I don't care anything that you're saying other than the millions of dollars you're spending in bribery to buy our politicians.

And does it work? Well, of course it does. So almost everyone they gave money to says ahead of time and afterwards how much they will work for them. So Chantelle Brown, who they gave over $2 million to help her campaign, so the United States must stand firmly behind our close ally Israel. In other words, did the check clear? It did? I will do anything you would tell me to.

And you could take out, like I said, the word Israel, and you could put it in a different country, and it wouldn't matter at all. Now, you could also take out a country, and you could put in Pfizer or Exxon Mobil or Lockheed Martin, and it also wouldn't matter. It's a bribe. Any reporter that tells you that it's not a bribe, even though they're telling you, this is so you help a foreign country. Well, those reporters are just flat out lying to you on behalf of lobbyists who want to buy our politicians.

I mean, it goes a step further than that because this isn't an isolated case. We know that various lobbying groups, various political action committees that serve the interests of various foreign governments, do the lobbying work. I mean, this isn't unprecedented. But what makes this particularly nefarious is the fact that they're specifically targeting progressive lawmakers, right, to incumbents who say, look, yeah, we should support Israel, but if we're going to give foreign money, and remember, Israel's a top recipient of foreign aid from the United States, if we're going to provide military funding, there should be conditions.

We want to make sure that that money isn't used to carry out brutality against others, including Palestinians. That very ideology, that opinion is unacceptable according to this organization, DMFI. And that's why they're going after these specific lawmakers, Levin and Newman, and also ensuring that they continue to endorse democratic lawmakers who are seeking re-election as long as they're very clear in their support for four. toward Israel with absolutely no strings attached, right? Yeah. So to give you some more details, I mentioned Levin, the problem they have with him. What do they have? What's the issue with Marie Newman?

Well, Marie Newman happened to be one of just eight House Democrats who actually voted against the additional $1 billion in supplemental funding for Israel's Iron Dome defense system. We talked about that on the show at length in detail. the United States had already appropriated quite a bit of money to Israel for its military defense. And this was just a little extra out of nowhere. At a time, by the way, where there were ongoing debates in regard to passing Biden's social spending bill and all of that. We keep hearing that we don't have enough money to carry out these social programs for ordinary Americans. But all of a sudden, boom, we have an extra billion dollars to give Israel with no strings

attached. Again, that's the other part of this that is pretty frustrating. Now, DMFI is also throwing its weight behind representatives, John Larson, Carolyn Maloney, Kurt Schrader, Dina Titus, David Trone, and Chantelle Brown, as Jank mentioned earlier, the latter of whom defeated Nina Turner last summer in the special house election for Ohio's 11th congressional district. DMFI spent more than $2 million on Brown's behalf in that race. And I do want to just quickly go to two quotes from the president for the DMFI PAC. His name is Mark Melman, and he says this. We think all these people will be strong supporters of the US-Israel relationship.

We have serious doubts about whether their opponents will be. We have had some organized groups out there that have said they are attempting to execute, in their words, their words, a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party. A number of those groups have moved anti-Israelism from their peripheral part or from a peripheral part of their issue agenda to a central part of their issue agenda. Their strategy is to go into deep blue districts that the party doesn't care about because it's going to be a Democrat no matter who wins, this is a real challenge that we're facing. I mean, what world do you live in when you think that the establishment Democratic

Party doesn't care about preventing a progressive from winning in various districts across the country. That's insane. Yeah, and you guys are actually part of the folks that helped the establishment make sure that no progressives ever win. So there's so many things to break down there. First, is it a central part of just Democrats to be against Israel? No, first of all, just Democrats is not against Israel. They're in favor of a two-state solution. They're also happen to me in favor of Palestinians. I know some people are offended at that idea. They're like, Palestinians, to treat them the same as Israelis, they find that to be an outrageous thought. Well, we don't. We believe in humanity and that all human beings are equal.

I know some people find that to be outrageous. By the way, I don't want any anti-Semitic nonsense either, okay? Some of the top progressives in the country are Jewish-American leaders, including Bernie Sanders. So they're wonderful. They believe in exactly what America believes in justice, equality, and truth. Now, they say here, well, you know, this idea of the aid being conditional is unacceptable. Well, what kind of insanity is that? Well, of course, every aid is conditional.

So Turkey is the second largest NATO military in NATO. And I use it because I'm from Turkey. So it's, you know, hopefully we can remove the bias issue, right? But it should our aid to Turkey be conditional. Of course it should. Doesn't it depend on what Turkey is doing? Doesn't it depend on what if the leader of Turkey's left wing, right wing agrees with America, doesn't agree with America?

Well, it was largely unconditional until Erdogan came in and Erdogan doesn't agree with America on a lot of things, and then it became conditional. Isn't that how it should be? Isn't that how we should deal with every foreign government? What kind of insanity is it to say, no, they could do anything they want. Do you spit in our face? They could be against our interests. They could ignore human rights.

It's non-conditional. No, that's just, why would it be non-conditional? That's because you gave $2 million. That's why it's non-conditional. And after she got the money, Chantel Brown said, oh, my bond with Israel is unbreakable. Well, what do you mean unbreakable? Like, what if they did something horrific? Like, I don't know, occupy millions of people for decades on end and say they're never going to get any state or any rights or they can't control themselves.

They'll have no freedom at all. Wouldn't it be conditional then? No, that's the state we're in now. What if they killed like 100 to 1 ratio in conflicts? No, I don't care. I got the money. Shantel says, I got the money. Now, for reporters who are insane, let me just clarify,

Democratic majority for Israel doesn't give $2 million for the general good. They don't do it as charity. They don't do it for your health. They do it for their stated reason, which they're very clear about. She must, must help Israel and never question it. And Chantel says, yes, sir, show me a map of Cleveland where I can see Israel. Israel is not within Cleveland. It just isn't.

It's a bribe. It's a bribe. It's a bribe. Yes, it's been legalized by the Supreme Court, but stop lying to people. It's an obvious bribe to do as you are told. And people like Chantelle Brown come in and go, well, of course I'm going to do is I'm told I got $2 million. Wouldn't you do as you're told if you got $2 million? That's what won her the seat. That's what won her the seat. In fact, later they clarify from Democratic majority for Israel.

Oh, yeah, we don't go into races where we don't need to, where they're already our lap dogs. We don't go into races we can't win. We go into races to affect races. So our person who promised to never question a foreign government will win. That way our bribes will work. Now that second part is obviously a paraphrase, but that is exactly what is happening here. And so, no, being even being for Palestinian rights ending the occupation, I wish that was a central plank of just Democrats, but it isn't. We can't even get $15 minute wage passed. Our central planks are all about

domestic policy and economic policy. Not, hey, what does somebody think about Hungary and what does somebody think about Botswana? No, but you are saying, well, that's not good enough. They're daring to defy this lobby. And yes, reporters, it is a lobby. That's exactly what it is. If you want to say calling lobbyists is anti-Semitic, you're a weirdo. There's something wrong with you. Most of the lobbyists are Christian. Why in God's green earth would you talk about that? So can any lobbyists, it's a real question for reporters and for the Democratic Party, can lobbyists for foreign governments who say, I'm giving this so that you give whatever goddamn money I want for my country and not your country? Can they buy any Democratic politician?

And is that normal? Is that okay? Does everybody think, oh yeah, rock and roll, that's normal. So next time, Saudi Arabia, go, you know, I don't like Israel. They do now, but maybe they won't in the next election cycle. You gave $2 million. I got a lot of money. I'm going to give $20 million. It's an auction. So that's who Chantel Brown is.

And that's why, by the way, how all of those 15 candidates are, they're the ones that said, and for sale sign, I'll do anything you want. That's why they gave them the bribes because it works. All right, we're going to take a brief break when we come back. We'll talk a little bit about Biden's like. Lee Supreme Court nominee and more. Don't miss it. News. As soon as news hit that Justice Stephen Breyer would be retiring, news of course came out that Biden would be fulfilling his campaign promise of nominating an African-American woman as a

Supreme Court pick. But a new poll finds that the majority of Americans actually want Biden to consider a broader group of potential nominees. In fact, according to an ABC Ipsos poll, 76% of respondents said Biden should consider all possible nominees while only 23% believe he should consider exclusively black women for the nomination. The poll also found that participants think that the Supreme Court justices mainly rule based on their political leanings rather than the basis of law. So 43% said that justices make their rulings based upon their political leanings. view, only 38% said it was on the basis of the law, and 18% said that they were unsure. Now, while some right-wingers argue that choosing an African-American judge as a Supreme Court nominee is another form of affirmative action, Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump reporter

and a right-wing senator, argues, no, that is not the case. In fact, he has glowing things to say about Biden's favorite and very likely to be the pick. Judge J. Michelle Childs. That makes me worry a little bit, but let's hear what Senator Lindsey Graham has to say. Put me in the camp of making sure the court and other institutions look like America. You know, we make a real effort as Republicans to recruit women and people of color to make the party look more like America. Affirmative action is picking somebody not as well qualified for past wrongs. Michelle Childs is incredibly qualified. There's no affirmative action.

component if you pick her. She is highly qualified. And President Reagan said running for office that he wanted to put the first female on the court. Whether you like it or not, Joe Biden said, I'm going to pick an African-American woman to serve on the Supreme Court. I believe there are plenty of qualified African-American women, conservative and liberal, that could go onto the court. So I don't concede that, I don't see Michelle Charles as an act of affirmative action. Now later, and I want to go to Graphic 4 here, Graham again reiterated that Childs, who received her master's degree and Jewish doctorate from the University of South Carolina, had a wealth of expertise in labor and employment law and would be well suited for the court. I have to be honest, an endorsement

from the likes of Senator Lindsey Graham makes me worry. In the coming days, we're going to be doing a deep dive into Childs because she does appear to be a favorite for Biden, Jim Clyburn, specifically has been pushing for her over the last 13 months behind the scenes. And so we'll see how it all plays out. But again, I'm a little concerned about that. And for me, and I think for most people who work at this network, it's not simply about the person's gender or race or sexual orientation. It's about what they represent, who they want to represent, and who they want to fight for. If she has a background in cases pertaining to labor, I want to know more about her rulings in those cases. And to be quite frank, there has been zero coverage of that in the corporate press.

Zero. And there never will be. So let's be clear here. It's a massive problem that Lindsay Graham is so excited about her. And so and also Clyburn. So Clyburn is as corporate Democrat as you will get. So if Clyburn likes someone, that means they will probably do whatever corporations want. And Lindsay Graham, oh my God, double that.

So that is massive Chamber of Commerce, pro-lobbyist, pro-corporate endorsements for this candidate. That's a giant blinking red sign. Watch out, okay. And so furthermore, I looked into it, and she, her expertise is labor. employment law. Uh-oh. Okay. Now, do you think that if she was gung-ho for labor, that these corporatists, both on the

Democratic and Republican Party would be salivating over her? Like, oh, my gosh, she stood up for labor and fought for higher wages and make sure that they were protected at work. No, she'd have no chance at all. Lindsay Graham would be like, oh, it's an affirmative action. Pick, we don't need. This is outrageous. I can't believe they're just picking based on race and gender.

But when race and gender helps them, all of a sudden, identity politics. All of a sudden, Lizzie Graham's like, oh, I don't mind it all. I've always been for African American women. Oh, have you, Lindsay? Have you? I've never seen you be for that in your entire career. So look, don't we're careful not to prejudge, right? We'll actually look at a record.

And if it turns out stunningly, her record is great on these issues, we will definitely let you know. But I'm worried about it. But the most important part, guys, is, yes, Biden promised it in the campaign. So he's not just saying it out of nowhere, right? I get why it's coming up. But overall, we have to be careful in making sure that opportunities are available to everyone. But we can't let them characterize affirmative action as the way that Lindsey Graham did. Oh, she's not an affirmative action pick.

She's actually qualified. No, affirmative action picks are qualified. It's not part of affirmative action that you just pick a ram. off the street. Now, you say among the qualified candidates, we're saying, hey, this person had a harder time getting to the range of qualified candidates than the other person did. And so, and it could be based on socioeconomic background. You were born poor and a holler in West Virginia, but you rose up and did this. Well, that's interesting. You had a harder time getting into the range of candidates to someone who was born rich and basically had it handed to them, right? So,

But when Biden says, I'm going to pick an African American woman, what a lot of people hear, and that's why you're getting the poll results that you're getting is, oh, I guess they won't even consider me. And so I don't like this affirmative action thing, because it eliminates me from contention. And that's not how it's supposed to work. And all of the messaging and all of the media coverage has just focused on gender and race, rather than the substance of the various candidates who are being considered. Now, when I say substance, I'm not just talking about like which courts have they, you know,

served on and which schools did they go to. Sure, that's interesting by, you know, biographical information. But more importantly, how do they tend to rule? Like, how do they pass down decisions? What do they represent substantively? I think that it's incredibly like insulting to women or to African Americans or to, in some cases, members of the LGBTQ community when they're almost like tokenized by members of, you know, the political elite in order to give this illusion of change, right?

And to be sure representation, diversity in these important positions is important. But they always stop short of actually nominating. or endorsing or backing someone or people who actually want to carry out the best interests of ordinary Americans. They never talk about that. They never cover that. And they never make a robust case for that. That's why, I mean, look, one example that comes to mind is defense secretary Lloyd Austin, who's black. Great. I'm glad he's black. But what does he represent? Is he doing anything different from his white counterparts? And no, he's not. It's more of the same pro-war, pro-private defense contractor garbage. Yeah. So whether it's a white guy doing it, whether it's a woman doing it, whether it's a

black guy doing it, it does not mesh well with what our political views are, right? So why does Biden care and do we care about it being an African American woman? Biden loves the idea why it's going to appease his base without actually passing any laws, right? And so he gets to say, hey, I stuck up for African-American women, my most loyal voting base by putting one on the Supreme Court. But not only does he not have to actually pass any laws, which would actually change your lives, but on top of that, he could pick the most pro-corporate person in the world. And as long as he checks off the boxes on identity, the press will give him credit. And they will do marketing for him, and they'll scream from the rooftops. Joe Biden delivered for women.

Joe Biden delivered for black people when he might be doing the exact opposite. Now, why do we care that there's somebody that has a different perspective on the court? Because it's important. Sotomayor probably represents me better than any Supreme Court justice in my life because she actually comes at it from the same perspective that I do, even though she's of a different race background, et cetera. But she grew up poor as an immigrant and brings that perspective, not just the identity, but the perspective.

And a perfect example in politics is, well, Jim Clyburn is black, and so is Cory Bush. They're both in the Congressional Black Caucus. Cory Bush has our perspective, which is fighting for the average person, get wages up, provide health care. Clyburn has a totally pro-business perspective. Business can't do anything wrong. And who gives a damn what the voters think? The donors will get what they want. Well, Clyburn doesn't help the African American community.

He's not, he doesn't have our perspective. He doesn't have African American perspective. He just has the corporate perspective. He not only doesn't help, he's counterproductive. They hide their pro-corporate agendas that oppress all of us in a wrapping that the press gets to market to you all, as if there's a change when in reality they're doubling down on the status quo. Exactly. And so far, what we do know about her is the fact that she did grow up.

up, you know, in a blue collar community. Her father died at a young age. She was living in Detroit with her mother at the time because of an increase in violence in the area. They later moved out of the state. And she did work her way up. But it's not just about her background either. It's also about, you know, her performance as a judge. You know, Barack Obama nominated her for federal court back in 2010. And I want to know more about her rulings. And so that's something that we're going to be talking about in coming days. Since there's virtually no reporting on that, we actually have to go back and look at legal documents and see the decisions that she's handed down. But again, I think that it's a disservice to the American people to

just boil it down to, oh, she's a woman, she's black, and that's good enough. No, people are not interchangeable. People have substance to them. Let's talk about that substance. Yeah, so last two things. Tomorrow on the conversation, David Sorota is going to break down the court's business record because it's not just liberal or Democrat or or a conservative. More important for the justices is how do they rule in business cases? Are they pro the workers or are they pro business? And unfortunately, a lot of the Democratic nominees, not just the Republican nominees, rule in favor of business more than they rule in favor of us.

So that's the one thing as usual that unites corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans, which is that they will do anything their business interests ask for. Last thing on the race that's so obvious, guys, Dr. Oz is Turkish, I'm Turkish. Dr. Oz is now a Trump supporting maniac, if you ask me, okay? If they said, hey, Jake, don't worry, we're going to send Dr. Oz to the Senate, now you're represented. No, I'm not represented. I don't care that from the same background. And he has a nice, great story about how he rose up as well.

that doesn't make supporting Trump and wanting to end democracy right. It doesn't make quackery right. It can't just be the identity. It has to be the policies. And if you don't hear them talking about the policies, that means they're coming to screw you. All right. Well, let's move on to Trump's rally over the weekend, because those are definitely increasing. So if it wasn't already clear that Donald Trump plans on running for president in 2024,

Or he reiterated that point during a rally in Conroe, Texas over the weekend. He also decided to dangle the possibility of pardons for January 6th Capitol rioters. Let's watch. If I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6th fairly. We will treat them fairly. And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly. Now we've talked at length in regard to the treatment of these individuals, including the

ability to plea down the charges. Very few of them are facing serious sedition charges, and there's an abundance of evidence to back up those charges for the few individuals who have been charged with sedition. But for the most part, many of them were able to serve, you know, while their case is unfolding, they're able to spend time. at home. A lot of them are getting preferential treatments, certainly compared to how other people in the justice system, particularly people of color are treated. So it's just amazing how these are people who storm the Capitol. These are people who use violence against Capitol police officers. And the narrative, the dominant narrative from Trump and his supporters is that

they're victims. They did nothing wrong, they're total victims. And of course, they were incited by Donald Trump himself. There's more to this, including his recent statement in regard to Mike Pence. He's still attacking Pence for not doing something that Pence doesn't have the ability to do. But before we get to that, Jank. Yeah, so that's the main thing I want to talk about because, look, there's two aspects of the story that is really concerning. One is him encouraging the kind of thing that we saw in January 6th. He's saying, don't worry if you do something like that, I'm going to pardon you.

And then later in the speech, as we're going to tell you, he went on to say, now you know who you should really protest vigorously are the people trying to prosecute me in Atlanta, New York and D.C. In other words, hey, those guys that I just told you about that committed the violence, I like them a lot. And if it was up to me, they would face no repercussions for their violence. So that is an enormous problem. And then the second issue is the real coup, which wasn't. the breaking in into the Capitol, it was this plot with, to get Pence to pretend that, hey, maybe Biden didn't win the election. I want to talk more about that in a second, but let's give you more to you. Exactly. Now before we get to that, here's a specific statement in regard to Pence. He released it through his Save America pack. He said, quote, if vice president Mike Pence had absolutely no right to change the presidential

election results in the Senate, despite fraud, there was no fraud, and many other, you were irregularities, how come the Democrats and Republicans, rhino Republicans, like wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the vice president to change the results of the election. Actually, what they're saying is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Okay, so I got to break down what Susan Collins and 14 other senators, including Democratic senators are trying to do, part of what they're trying to do through this proposed legislation is just clarify that the vice president only engages in this ceremony of opening the envelope. He doesn't actually have

the power to change the results of the election. He doesn't have that power. And so this legislation is just meant to clarify it for people who have a difficult time understanding what the current laws are and what the current electoral process is. But there's another part of that, which I'll get to in just a second. So let's go to graphic three here. A bipartisan group of senators met last week, this is what Trump is talking about, to discuss potential changes to the Electoral College Act, a decades-old statute that outlines how the electoral college results are counted. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the possibility of making changes to the Electoral College Act is, quote, worth discussing, end quote, and how minority

leader Kevin McCarthy has kept the door open to reforming the statute. Now, what would they be reforming? Basically, they want to change the number of senators or a number of lawmakers that are necessary in order to spark the kind of conflict that we saw in the 2020 election. The senators are eyeing changes to the Electoral Count Act, including clarifying that the vice president's role is ceremonial and increasing the number of lawmakers that must sign onto an objection, challenge the state's electoral college slate before the House and Senate are forced to vote on that challenge. So currently, only one member of the House and only one member of the Senate must sign onto an objection to a state's electoral college slate to force a vote on the challenge in both chambers. Multiple members of the Senate group have said that that threshold should be much higher.

And so there are some suggestions that the threshold should be increased to one third of both chambers. And I think that makes a lot of sense, especially considering what we're dealing with right now with all these GOP enablers who know that Trump lost fair and square, but want to pander to his supporters. So they're enabling him with all this nonsense. So we'll see what happens. I think that Congress is useless and they're unlikely to do anything. But I could be wrong. Yeah. So look, as I've explained before, Mike Pence's role, any vice president's role is like throwing out the first pitch in a baseball game. It's ceremonial. It doesn't mean anything. It's not actually part of the game. He's not actually pitching. Now, the reason why it became a real issue is because they wanted to use that as a matter of optics. It was called the Green Bay Suite. Peter Navarro was written a book about it. Steve Bannon talked about it on air before they did it. The idea is they were going to take that ceremonial role and they were going to cause confusion with it. where Pence was supposed to say, no, I'm not certifying the election, and then people are

confused. Wait, I guess the election is not certified. Then they were going to go back to the states and they had fake electors ready. It's amazing. They've admitted all of this publicly. Fake electors who signed documents that were not true about who they were and what they were representing, and they were going to bring in the fake electors and say that Trump won. That was the coup attempt. None of that is legal. That is why they should all be arrested. of course, Democrats would rather, you know, insult their own base than actually hold anyone in power accountable because they're in power. And so they don't want to affect anything in the club. And every once in a Republican come out and go, oh, yeah, if you do it, like Newt Gingrich

did the other day, we'll arrest all of you when we're in charge. And that scares the crap out of Republicans. So they go, no, you violate the law any way you like. We'll just do marketing. We'll do a January 6th committee and we'll hope to win elections that way. But we're never going to hold you accountable. But there was a real actual coup attempt. And this leads to the uncomfortable fact that you have to give Mike Pence credit. Even though he did the bare minimum, which is go out and throw that first pitch, he at least didn't participate in their attempt to literally destroy our democracy. And that's why they're furious at him to this day. And that's why Trump goes and gives a speech this weekend where he just admits it. And guys, there is no,

like we shouldn't be surprised that he's admitting it. This has been the plan from day one. They executed the plan. And in a sense, I'm frustrated with Democrats, media, and prosecutors because they are focusing their energies on the guys with no power. Those Jan 6 rioters, they should go to jail. They broke clear laws. I get it, prosecute them.

But if you just leave it at that, they're not the organizers of the coup. They're a bunch of knuckleheads who got all riled up by brainwashing. was like, oh, let's smash windows and hope we can make a difference. And maybe murder someone, by the way. That's why they were chanting hang, Mike Pence. But the real organizers are Navarro, Bannon, and Trump, and they're saying it publicly every day. And if they get back in charge, he's telling you he's going to do it again. Yep.

So we can't have it, but yet here we are. That's why Collins and others are trying to pass the law, clarifying what is already in the law, Which is this job has no actual legal power in certifying. And last thing is, I can prove it to you guys. If you're a Republican, you say that's not true, the vice president has ultimate authority and can decide who the winner is. Great, Kamala Harris is the vice president. Yeah.

You sure you want that? Why do you think some Republicans are trying to pass this law clarifying it? Because otherwise, Kamala Harris could come in and go under Trump's theory, Biden didn't lose. He won. Now we're going to keep power. You want that? I don't want that. I'm a Democrat. And I definitely, definitely don't want that. That destroys our democracy. Right. I mean, you don't want that because you want to see a political party win based on merit. You want to you want to uphold the democratic process, knowing full well that it's likely that many times your preferred party's going to lose. Like, you have to take your own personal biases out of it to see what's best for.

for the greater good, right? Like what's best for the country? But I mean, Republican voters, unfortunately, those who have been brainwashed by Trump, impressionable people who went out there and put themselves in harm's way, who decided to break the law themselves, who did the dirty work for Trump.

Don't get it. They don't get it at all. Anyway, let's move on to the other part of this story, which is, you know, what would a Trump rally be without intimidating individuals or threatening individuals he doesn't like? So during Trump's rally, in Conroe, Texas, he decided to specifically go after the prosecutors who are investigating

his potential financial crimes and also prosecutors who are looking into his nonstop lies about the 2020 election and the incitements of violence that came along with that. Remember, he tried to get officials in Georgia to change the votes of the 2020 election to ensure that he won. He's being investigated for that. And so during his rally speech, he decided to make all sorts of accusations and claims about the prosecutors. Let's watch. If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had in Washington, D.C., in

New York, in Atlanta, and elsewhere, because our country and our elections are corrupt. They're corrupt. So a lot of interesting parts of that statement. Okay, first off, how ridiculous is it, is it that he's referring to these investigations as racist? Now, the prosecutors are black and he's white, so I'm guessing he thinks that racism is the motivation behind these investigations, which is ridiculous. The prosecutors in the places he mentioned, New York Attorney General Tish James, you have D.C. Attorney General Carl Racine, Fulton County District of Attorney Fannie Willis and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg are all black. Willis actually wrote a letter to the FBI on Sunday asking for assistance in securing government buildings in Atlanta after Trump's comments.

But the other thing that I found striking about his statement there was the very end, where he talks about corruption. Because corruption certainly does ring true. And it reminded me a little of what you'll see from, let's say, Alex Jones, when he's spewing whatever insane conspiracy theory. There's typically like a tiny little kernel of truth, and that lends credibility to an otherwise insane conspiracy theory or argument. And that's what I think Trump was trying to do there.

Yeah, he knows that people hate corruption. That's why he ran on Drain the Swamp in 2016 and won. He didn't run on it in 2020 because he was so corrupt. I don't know if even he was worried about hypocrisy and that that issue would then hurt him rather than help him. But now he's back to, oh, now that I'm not in charge anymore, corruption over there. Now, in this case, there is no corruption whatsoever. Look, there's no one who's more obsessed with corruption than I am.

But prosecutors just going after them based on tax fraud and other issues have nothing to do with corruption. If they were targeting a political enemy, even if it was a Republican, I would hate it. I would hate it. And oftentimes, the establishment targets people outside the mainstream. thought, and we talk about it all the time, whether it's on the left or the right. This is not one of those cases. He has broken the law both in his personal business and in these political ramifications very clearly, and of course they should hold them to account as they would any American

citizen. But most importantly, like I said, in that speech, he said that you should go and protest against those prosecutors. Normal protests, nothing wrong with it at all. But when he mentions it in the context of like they did on January 6th, in that portion of the speech, that makes you concerned that he's trying to promote violence against them. Exactly. Yeah. He knows what he's doing. And he's careful with his language because he wants to, you know, provide plausible deniability. Right. I said protest. Protest is, you know, protected under our constitution unless you're a left-wing protester. In that case, right-wing lawmakers want to justify things. through legislation, people running you over if you happen to be protesting in the streets. That's the kind of protest that they don't like.

But anyway, so there you have it. Trump is ramping up his rhetoric, of course, these rallies, because he does plan on running in 2024. And should he win, there are some serious consequences for that, not just politically or legislatively, but when it comes to our democratic process, whatever's left of it. Yeah, let's just last thought here, because it's so clear. Remember the guy who's the left wing shooter and he shot some Republicans in a softball game? Imagine if a Democratic president said, now that guy, that poor, poor guy, if I ever get in charge, I'm going to pardon him. And I would like more protests like his.

Well, then everybody would know you're telling everybody to go shoot Republicans. That would be outraged. This is the same thing. He's like, remember those guys who went and were chanting, hang Mike Pence, hang my Pence, murder my own vice president and that broke stuff and that broke in and trespassed and looked for the politicians to murder, I would pardon all of them and I want you to do protests like them. The guy is dangerous. And sometimes the right wingers ask, hey, Jank, why do you call him a fascist? That's why I call him a fascist. That's exactly what fascists do. They threaten

violence against their political opponents. They do a takeover and end democracy. It's Trump 101. When we come back from the break, we'll discuss the latest and the ongoing going Joe Rogan Saga. This time he's responding to Spotify, taking some action against his podcast. We'll give you those details and more. Come right back. All right, back on CYT, Jenkins Anna, with you guys. More news. Let's do it. Neil Young has removed his music from the platform of Spotify and Joni Mitchell and apparently some other people want to as well. I'm very sorry that they feel that way. I most certainly don't want that. I'm a Neil Young fan.

Joe Rogan has officially responded to protest from several musical artists who have asked to have their music pulled from Spotify in protest of Rogan's podcast and what they believe is misinformation about COVID that's typically part of his podcast episodes. Now before we get to more of Rogan's statements, and I think he actually had some good things to say. Let me give you some more context into this. He mentioned Neil Young, but following Neil Young's announcement that he wanted his music pulled, other artists including Joni Mitchell and Nils Lofgren, who is a Springsteen guitarist, also said that they wanted their music pulled. Now, in response, Spotify actually did end up pulling Young's music and then agreed to issue

a disclaimer on Rogan's content, particularly content that has anything to do with coronavirus. Spotify's CEO, Daniel Eck, released a public statement defending the platform's need to balance the creative freedom of their content creators with user safety. Eck announced the release of Spotify's publishing rules on their website, noting that, quote, we are working to add a content advisory to any podcast episode that includes a discussion about COVID-19. This advisory will direct listeners to our dedicated COVID-19 hub, a resource that provides easy access to data-driven facts, up-to-date information as shared by scientists, physicians, academics, and public health authorities around the world, as well as links to trusted sources. The new effort to combat misinformation will roll out to countries around the world in the coming days. To our knowledge, this content advisory is the first of its kind by a major podcast platform.

That last part I don't think is true. I mean, various platforms have various disclaimers when it comes to coronavirus related material and other material as well. But he didn't make any mention of Rogan's podcast specifically, but clearly this was in response to the whole Rogan controversy. And guess what? Rogan says that he completely agrees with Spotify's decision to add a disclaimer and made clear that he was a huge fan of Neil Young's music, had no ill will. towards him or Joni Mitchell whose music he said he loves. We've got more videos of Rogan in just a moment, but Jank, you want to jump in? Yeah, so I was actually pleasantly surprised by Rogan's video.

So there's still some misinformation in there, which I'll get to. But for those of you who still don't get it, let me just clarify why Spotify had to do this. Now from a business perspective, the real reason they did it is because they don't want to lose more Neil Young's and Johnny Mitchells and they're really worried about that. And that's part of the reason why Rogan's making his video. But it doesn't mean that they're wrong. They're also in this case happen to be correct. And look, Rogan's saying, hey, I'm bringing on rando scientists and doctors, but they're

legit and very experienced doctors. And they have a different point of view. Okay, but Joe, how about the 99% of other doctors who say that they're completely wrong and endangering your lives? And what Spotify is saying is, we have a duty to at least let people know that. It's like bringing on a scientist for ExxonMobil and not clarifying that he works for ExxonMobil and that 99% of the world scientists disagree with him on climate change and just letting him spew propaganda. So you could say you're doing a different point of view, but then you have to give the context.

Otherwise, it makes it seem as if that is the legitimate point of view. So I think Spotify made the right decision. Overall, Rogan made the right decision in supporting it and doing this video, but there's nuance in the video. Right. So let's get to that nuance. And I agree with you. I think that the way he handled it was pretty good. So let's start off with an excerpt from the video where he defends his decision to have Dr. McCullough and also Dr. Malone on his podcast. Those are the two doctors in particular who have been the most controversial in the messaging that they have. out there in regard to COVID. Let's watch. The problem I have with the term misinformation, especially today, is that many of the

things that we thought of as misinformation just a short while ago are now accepted as fact. Like, for instance, eight months ago, if you said, if you get vaccinated, you can still catch COVID and you can still spread COVID, you would be removed from social media. They would ban you from certain platforms. Now, that's accepted as fact. If you said, I don't think cloth masks work. You would be banned from social media. Now that's openly and repeatedly stated on CNN. If you said, I think it's possible that COVID-19 came from a lab. You'd be banned from many social media platforms. Now that's on the cover of Newsweek. All of those theories that at one point in time were banned were openly discussed by those two men that I had on my

podcast that have been accused of dangerous misinformation. I do not know if they're right. I don't know because I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist. I'm just a person who sits down and talks to people and has conversations with them. Okay, so I actually agree with him there. And it's not, look, there's two things happening. So number one, and it's the worst part about all of this, is that our institutions have failed us. Like we have bungled COVID and the response to COVID from the very beginning. We have various government agencies that are not communicating with one another and don't,

have, they don't have a united front in terms of their messaging in response to COVID. Look, and let me be clear, I have disagreed with a lot of what's been said on Joe Rogan's podcast when it comes to Ivermectin, when it comes to the vaccine. I don't agree with him on that, right? However, what allows for podcasts like that to thrive, what allows for misinformation to thrive is when you start the pandemic with Anthony Fauci saying, don't wear a mask, you don't have to worry about a mask because there's a mask shortage. And rather than being honest with Americans about how there's a mask shortage and they should reserve the masks for nurses and frontline healthcare workers, he decides to lie. And then he gets caught in that

lie and people lose trust in him. The messaging has been bungled. And that is a problem. And it is a little difficult for people who don't have the time. Like we sit here, we read the reports, we're trying to understand the fluidity of this pandemic and get the up-to-date information on it. But most people don't have that luxury. So when they're getting, getting conflicting messaging, they lose their trust or their faith in these institutions. Yeah, there's tons of nuance here. So look, when it comes to things like Fauci's comment about the mess, that's totally wrong. And so you can say, hey, Fauci is correct on the science on 95% of the issues that he's discussed. You don't have to pretend he was right about things he wasn't

right about. So the Wuhan lab is this best example because there that was a little verboten to discuss whether it was from the lab. We did it anyway. We talked about, I don't know that it's definitely natural. A lot of scientists say that, okay, but man, there's a Wuhan lab that deals in this kind of virus. Gain a function. Right. And research. Yeah. And so that is a very legitimate issue that should be discussed, but note, we were not banned, because that actually is a legitimate thing to discuss, right? Now, the other two examples he gave were terrible. That's not like, oh, cloth masks, everybody told you that they work. That's not true. I remember from day one, I was like, these cloth masks don't really work. I know scientists, doctors,

etc. that have said they don't really work. I just didn't want to be rude to everybody and be like, take off your cloth mask and put on a mask I've approved of, right? But it's not true that you would be banned for saying cloth masks don't work. A lot of people were saying that. And he says, oh, you can't get COVID if you were vaccinated. And you would have been banned if you said that. That's not ever been true. We all get the flu shot. A lot of us still get the flu anyway. We know that it helps, you know, certain percentage of cases, and it makes the diseases weaker when you get the vaccine. Nobody ever said you can never get it. So you're just making some stuff up, okay, to make your case better. Now overall, I like the tenor of the message, but he can't,

he doesn't know anything in that regard, which he's honest about. And so he just says things that are wrong again. Now look, I, I, the larger point is more important. Should there be an outlet for dissenting voices? And the answer is yes, but remember the ExxonMobil scientist is also dissenting voice. So a lot of times propaganda is wrapped up in dissenting voices and it does a lot of damage. So I think the correct answer is actually what Spotify is doing. Here is a dissenting voice. We are not taking it off. But the context of it is that all other rational people don't agree. Right. So look at this information. Look at what this rando is saying and then make up your own mind. Yes. And I want to get to

the final video because I think this was his strongest moment in the video. And I just want you guys to juxtapose how he's handling this compared to his, you know, he really dug his heels when it came to Ivermectin. And that was really frustrating because there was a lack of humility, an unwillingness to hear people out. In this case, he seems to have a little more humility. And I think that's important. Let's watch. One of the things that Spotify wants to do that I agree with is that at the beginning of these controversial podcasts, like specifically once about COVID, is to put a disclaimer and say that you should speak with your physician and that these people and the opinions that they express are contrary to the opinions of the consensus of experts, which I think is very important.

Sure, have that on there. I'm very happy with that. Also, I think if there's anything that I've done that I could do better is have more experts with differing opinions, right after I have the controversial ones. That last part is so critical and I'm happy to hear him say that because when I used to listen to his podcast regularly, of course he's always had people on his podcast that I disagreed with. I still listen to those episodes. But lately it's just been a parade of right wingers, conspiracy theorists, like there hasn't been much in terms of a countering narrative or a countering perspective, there was one example that we gave recently. The name of the individual he had on

Escapes Me, but it was someone who was kind of fighting back against some of the misinformation in regard to COVID. But that was an exception, which is why it got some news attention. Other than that, it's mostly been, you know, naysayers in regard to the vaccine, promotion of ivermectin, which has not been proven to treat coronavirus or serve as a prophylactic. Yeah. So look, I've been pretty harsh against Rogan recently, and I was right. He had gone into a right-wing echo chamber, and he's only repeating the nut jobs, right? Well, that's not an interesting show. And so, but at the same time, when someone has humility and says, hey, you know what, I made some mistakes. And one of the things I learned is I should go, I'll give him credit to say go back to presenting both sides or different. sides, good. Take the win and say, we appreciate it. So, and guys, I know everybody's cloud chasing in the world. And so I don't, I get people skepticism. He could ban me from here to eternity. I couldn't care less. I'm banned by several networks. But for God's sake, have real

progressives on, have real doctors on, have real scientists on, right? And don't, the Tulsi Gabbers and the Jimmy Doors and Glenn Greenwoods are not real progressives. You could tell they come on and they agree with every right wing talking point. That's not diversity of opinion. That's the same opinion in more clever packaging. So that's propaganda. If he keeps going with the meathead propaganda, and only that, it's dull, it's uninteresting. And I'll go back to saying it's awful, right? But if he actually switches it up and goes, all right, here's a right wing idiot, here's a progressive, here's someone who doesn't agree with either position, well, then it can go back to being an interesting show that that could be worthwhile.

But he's got to get out of that echo chamber he's stuck in. Yep. Because it's filled with complete misinformation, lunacy, and it's boring. All right, that does it for our first hour. When we come back, our good friend Leon Cooperman, the billionaire who loves to cry on national television, is back. We've got that and more when we return. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks.

work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple podcasts at apple.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.