The Young Turks - Hello Somebody

Episode Date: June 18, 2021

Stacey Abrams said she supports Manchin’s latest list he does endorse regarding voting rights reform. Nina Turner kicks off ‘$27 donation challenge’ after Hilary Clinton endorses an establishment candidate in Ohio. In a secret recording, a Florida Republican threatens to send Russian-Ukrainian ‘hit-squad' after a rival. Capitol cop that suffered a mild heart attack and PTSD after the insurrection was shunned by GOP Rep. Andrew Clyde, who famously called the attack a tourist visit. Lawmakers rebuff Facebook’s proposed internet rules. 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. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too.

When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. hormone harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves.

A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Jane Cougar, Anna Kasparan with you guys. Look at me rep in the Dragon Squad right here. Damage report, not a big deal. Actually, kind of a big deal. All right, so fun for everybody.

We're going to hit Democrats. We're going to hit Republicans. You know why? Because that's where the facts lead us. So I'm going to go right to it. Without further ado, let's tell you the good, the bad, and the ugly about the Democratic Party. So let's begin with Joe Manchin, who of course is in the political news scene for many reasons, but this one is a doozy.

So Senator Joe Manchin, who just got caught colluding with billionaire donors during a so-called no-label Zoom call, is now circulating a list of provisions that he is okay with including in an election reform bill. Now he's already been clear about the fact that he's against the For the People Act, a far more robust version of an election reform bill. It includes campaign finance reform. His version contains less, and it definitely cuts campaign finance reform out of the equation. It does call for some more transparency in regard to money in politics, but he says that he's

willing to accept things like making election day a public holiday, expanding early voting early voting to at least 15 consecutive days, banning partisan gerrymanders, which by the way, I think that's actually great. But obviously I'm not in favor of his bill as a substitute for the For the People Act, require voter ID with allowable alternatives to prove identity to vote. And he wants to restore preclearance requirements from the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It would be a little different, but it would essentially restore the provision of the Voting Rights Act that would require states to check with a governing body before making any changes to their statewide election rules. Now, I give you all of that context. It's important

to understand all of that context to go to the next video because Stacey Abrams, who of course has championed expanding voters' rights, decided to chime in on these suggestions by Mansion. And so does she support it? Does she not? Let's watch. Is that a compromise you could support? Absolutely. What Senator Mansion is putting forward are some basic building blocks that we need to ensure

that democracy is accessible no matter your geography. And those provisions that he is setting forth are strong ones that will create a level playing field, will create standards that do not vary from state to state. And I think will ensure that every American has improved access to the right to vote. despite the onslaught of state legislation seeking to restrict access to the right to vote. So she explained the reasons why she's in favor of Manson's suggestions here. Obviously, again, there's a big difference between what Mansion is proposing and what the For the People Act would include, for the People Act would have actual public financing of elections and reforming campaign finance laws.

Yeah. So this is not an easy issue because, look, on the one, On one hand, we told you that they were going to take the corruption parts out. Actually, that's quite literal. So I want to make that clear to all of you first, and then we'll talk about the nuance of this bill, okay? What was kept in, as Anna pointed out, the most important part that's left out, and what are the ramifications of that. But first, I want to show you a clip that we had on March of this show. I'm going to pull a Biden here and then lean in and go, guys, guys, guys, this is serious. But like, really, seriously, this isn't about bragging about getting a prediction right.

Anybody who's watched The Young Turks knows, I know how to do that, right? I'm not shy about doing that. This isn't that. This is so that you can understand how predictable politics is. All you have to do is follow the money. So listen to what we said back in March about what they were going to do to HR1, which is for the People Act. And it's, well, as you'll see, it's identical to what happened, let's watch.

All right, now the prediction. Here's what they're going to do. They're going to use the Republicans and if they need to, Manchester, cinema, etc., as an excuse to take out all of the great anti-corruption measures in HR1. What they'll do is they'll strip out every part of the anti-corruption measures. And then all that will be left is to have that Pelosi and Biden and the rest of the Democrats really love. That's the part where we increase voting. I love it too. And it's not because I'm voting Democrat these days. It's because I want more people to vote. That is clearly the correct policy initiative. I like HR1 completely. But the reason Democrats are going to keep that is because they want to win elections. And that if more people vote, Democrats have a better

chance of winning. That's why every Republican is opposed to it. That's why half of this bill is a near must pass for Democrats. So my prediction is they'll strip out the anti-corruption part, they'll keep the other half. And after they're done eviscerating the best parts of the bill, then they'll find a way to pass it. And here we are, a little over three months later, and that's exactly what's happened. So with Stacey Abrams saying that she's okay with Manchin's compromise, she speaks for the Democratic Party on voting rights issues. That means it's over. That's what they're going to do. Okay. So now there's, you know, it'll be very hard. to mount a progressive challenge to this.

We can push for it, we will push for it. In fact, I'll tell you how we're gonna push forward in a second. But at the end of the day, this is now pretty much set in stone. And why did we know ahead of time that they were gonna take out the anti-corruption parts? Because we followed the money. Democratic leadership and most of the Democratic Party get their power from how much money they can raise in campaign contributions. They do not want that power curtailed. That is why they never meant it when they put those provisions in this bill.

So what's the most important provision they took out? Matching funds. So wait a minute, that doesn't curtail whether it's Charles Koch or George Soros or the mercies or anybody from putting money in. They can still do that because of Supreme Court decisions. All it said was we're going to empower the grassroots with matching funds to also be able to put put in money to even the playing field a little bit. And corrupt corporate Democrats like Joe Manchin don't want the playing field even. They're like, and that's why they said what they he said to the donors.

I want even more money from you guys. So I have a giant unfair advantage. And guys, it's not just Joe Manchin. It's the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party. Joe Biden's totally in favor of this. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were never going to pass those matching funds. So now, on the other hand, because we do nuance and because we care about facts and getting things right, man, ending gerrymandering is hugely important. Expanding voting days and

automatic registration are hugely important. By the way, the Disclose Act is still in there. Like, that's the one on transparency. I'm surprised that somebody hasn't tried to take it out yet, but it is still in there. The fact that the Disclose Act is still in there probably tilts the balance for me into a yes vote, but I care what you guys think, and I'm curious what you guys think. And so we got a poll up on it on t-y-t.com slash polls. So should they vote yet? Should progressives in Congress vote yes or no on this compromise version? But here's my, just real quick. My Anna, last thing is that, so make sure check that out. And you can see it's under voting rights compromise.

So it's not to say, oh, okay, you vote yes and then you're done with it. No, here's a simple ask of progressives. Okay, whatever is stripped out, our condition for voting yes is that we vote on this in the House and the Senate. Why? Is it gonna matching funds going to pass and public, some degree of public financing are going to pass? No, but I want to see who the corrupt Democrats are, period, period, don't let them hide.

say, oh, we already did it. It was already a compromise. We're not going to vote on the rest. They always go like vague promise. Oh, yeah, I mean, you could bring up the rest later. Really? Okay, great. Give me a solid promise to Schumer and Pelosi are going to introduce the standalone bills, and we're going to vote within the month. I know we're not going to win. I just want to see who your corrupt colleagues are. That's why they'll never do it. They'll never let you see who the corrupt guys are. I just, I want to be clear in that this conversation is, I guess, fun to have, I get like a, you know, like an exercise in what we would prefer to do, right? So that's fine. But it's a moot

conversation. Like they're not going to pass anything. They're not going to pass a slim-down version of the For the People Act. They're also not going to pass the For the People Act. They're not going to pass anything. Well, no, I don't know about that. So here's where- How are they gonna do it? Through reconciliation? They can't do that.

No, no, I know. Here's where the rubber hits the road, right? So Anna's very right to point out, of course it's gonna get phil buster by the Republicans. It's not like you're gonna find 10 Republicans to agree to this. There's, they're like, more people voting. Including black people? No way. We're way out, right?

And you're gonna end our advantage, unfair advantage in gerrymandering. There's no way that you're gonna get any Republicans to agree to that. And 10 is an absolute. absolute impossibility, right? So, and it's not a budget bill, so you can't do reconciliation. The parliamentarian, the most powerful force on earth will say no, right? It's not even close. Okay, so what are we going to do? No, no, this means Mansion is now thinking of ending the filibuster. Okay, if he says, all right, this is my compromise, let's do it. Oh, golly, gee, we couldn't get 10 Republicans? Well, I'm still against a filibuster, so we vote. No, that means Joe Manchin is a massive liar.

And honestly, the rest of the Democratic Party are suckers in playing along with their game. If that happens, we'll call it out instantly. But to me, Manchin's not going down this far if he's not going to consider ending the filibuster. But that doesn't mean it's over either, by the way. Cinema can still say, nope, oh, I'm for the For the People Act, but I'm against killing the filibuster. And that's when we're going to find out if Manchin or Cinema are going to change parties. So that conclusion is coming soon because of this. Well, let me make a prediction.

They will not throw out the filibuster, they will keep it. I think that Mansion is full. I mean, Mansion had that Zoom meeting with this group of billionaires. They're part of this group called No Labels, because the whole point was to try to get them to entice Roy Blunt with a job after his term is up. So, but that's the thing. He does not want to get rid of the filibuster, so he's like, look, I need to. point to something that senators accomplished in a bipartisan way. And so the conversation was about a January 6th commission. And he's like, if you could just entice Roy Blunt to vote

in favor of that commission. And if we pass that commission, then I can point to bipartisanship. Then we can maintain the Senate filibuster. He's not in any way serious about ending the filibuster. I don't think he's serious about, you know, doing something about voting rights. I think he's full of it. And I also think the Democratic Party is pathetically weak in not using more pressure tactics in order to make people like Mansion and cinema heal. They know how to use the pressure tactics. We've seen them use the pressure tactics. They use it against progressives all the time.

But I can't forget that leaked audio that we listened to, thanks to the intercept yesterday. Mansion is very clear about what his tactics are, and he wants to keep the filibuster in place. They're not gonna pass any reform regarding the elections. So look, Manchin now has some heat on him because of that leak call. And you can see there he's kind of toying around with the donors saying, hey, I'm gonna be in a really tough spot with the filibuster if you can't move any of your Republicans. And think about that, he's not talking to the Republican about ideas or debates or policy. He's telling the donors to move the Republican because that's the only

way that you can move a senator is by talking to the donors. So the real conversation about what policy is going to pass is happening in secret calls with the wealthiest donors in the country. That's just a fact. Everything else you see on cable news is just kabuki theater. No, 100%, 100%. In fact, the CBS news article about this particular story was so infuriating because they implied that Mansion was gonna take out the campaign.

campaign finance reform stuff, but you know did include some portions of it. And then they moved on to something completely different in the next paragraph. It's like, okay, this is a lengthy article about this story. Can you please give me the detail specifically about what he wants to keep in the bill and what he wants to take out? And you know, I think it's also important to go to the leaked audio that was obtained by the intercept because it gives you a sense of Manson's thinking. He's very much in favor of keeping the system the way it is. Listen. Right now what I'm asking for, I need to go back. I need to find three more Republican senators that'll vote for the commission

so that at least we can tampen down the where people said Republicans won't even do the simple with common sense of basically voting to do a commission that was truly bipartisan. You know, so once that people, and it really, it just really emboldens the far left saying, I show you, you know, how's that my person working for you now, Joe? Those are the hard things. That's where I need help, man. That's where I need help, man. And by the way, it's not just the far left that's been critical of how Mansion has engaged

in these negotiations. I see all sorts of establishment Democrats furious with him. And now we know exactly what his thinking is. He's not really doing things with this notion that bipartisanship can. can be accomplished. He knows it. He knows it so well that he takes this meeting with billionaires and tries to convince them to entice a Republican lawmaker to vote yes on a commission to investigate what

happened in the Capitol. And by the way, part of the point that he's making there is, guys, this doesn't cost you any money. This one is a freebie, the January 6th commission, right? So do the January 6th commission so we can preserve the filibuster, which actually saves you tons and tons of money. That way they, the progressives can't do $15 minimum wage. They can't do any of the healthcare expansion, the Green New Deal.

They can't do any of that. So don't be knuckleheads, bribed the Republicans in the right way. He tells them openly, brazenly, obviously not publicly. But after that, how do you take as a journalist? How do you take anything Joe Manchin says seriously, as if he's doing it based on his ideas and principles? Here he is talking to his bosses, right? And those are the people that run the country.

That's just the fact, and I'm tired of the mainstream media lying to you guys. But look, those, by the way, all those groups, no labels. Yeah, there's no labels because you don't care if they're Republicans or Democrats. You buy them either way. Third way, the third way is money. All these groups are garbage. They're all led by incredibly wealthy donors that want a very specific policy proposals, tax cuts for the rich, et cetera. So look, last thing on this is, if Democrats can't even pass voting rights, which directly affects their power, forget policy.

Please put aside naivete. Like if you said, oh, this is something that Democrats actually morally care about. No. Please, please, I'm begging you. Don't, please, that's ridiculous, okay? But this affects their power. They might lose their power if they don't have further voting rights, right? And so if they can't pass this, at least we have one, and once they strip out the anti-corruption parts, we have one part of the answer, which is it's not just corruption for the Democratic Party.

it is that they are actually incompetent. The answer is both, right? But this would be the height of incompetence if they can't at least pass half of For the People Act. Yeah, and that's definitely scary considering everything that's going on in the country. All right, well, we got to take our first break. When we come back, though, Hillary Clinton decided that she's so bitter about Nina Turner that she would rather make herself look like an even bigger loser than endorse Nina Turner. I'll give you the details of that story and more when we come back.

All right, back on TYT, Jane Canana with you guys, more news. Hillary Clinton, I guess unsurprisingly, decided to endorse Nina's opponent in a congressional race in Ohio. Now, I say unsurprisingly because of the fact that Nina Turner, of course, is closely tied to Senator Bernie Sanders, is incredibly progressive, and I'm sure that Hillary Clinton is not a fan of Nina Turters. But what's interesting is, rather than maybe sit this one out, Hillary Clinton decided, I'm going to go and endorse the person who's polling at 15%. Okay, Nina Turner is polling well. I'll give you her poll numbers in just a minute, but let me give you the details. Hillary Clinton publicly threw her support behind Chantelle Brown, the leader of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party and Turner's biggest competitor in the race to fill the vacant U.S. House seat in the Buckeye State's 11th District.

So it might be, or she might be Nina Turner's biggest challenger, but again, she's polling at about 15%. So earlier this month, a survey paid for by the Turner campaign and conducted by the outside polling firm, an outside polling firm found that Turner has the support of about 50% of likely Democratic voters in Ohio's 11th district. Also, Brown pulled a distant second garnering the support of just 15%. So it gives you a sense of just how far Hillary Clinton is willing to go, even as far as embarrassing herself, just to continue being bitter about Nina Turner. It's amazing. I love this story. Yeah. I love the smell of establishment

panic in the morning. And so remember how Hillary Clinton used to talk about, oh, I carry hot sauce in my bag? Apparently she's still carrying feelings from 2016. A hundred percent. So why would you get involved in this random 11th district race? Now, I don't think it's random. I think it's very important. I've told you that from day one. The minute Nina Turner announced, we said nina turner.com slash hello, that this is going to be the most important race in the country. But for the establishment, they claim that Nina Turner is no big deal. I've now said about a dozen times on different shows, when people ask me, oh, yeah, who do you think can win for president that's progressive now that Bernie Sanders is likely not going to run again?

And I say Nina Turner every time. And they go, Nina Turner, well, then what are you so panicked about? But I love that they blew it. They came in too late. I was worried that they were going to come in with millions and millions against Nina right from the get-go. but they underestimated her. They did.

And so the reason that you know the poll is real. Look, I asked reporters that I know, and they said, oh, no, that's a very good polling organization, because I asked them because it's Nina's campaign that commissioned the polls, so you'll have to be, even if you agree with her 100%, you have to be clear-eyed about the facts and we have to present facts to you guys no matter what, right? And they said, no, that's a very real polling organization. That's a very real poll. She's up over three to one.

So in their infinite arrogance, the establishment Democrats thought, we don't take Nina Turner seriously. There's no way she's going to win. And then they're like 50 to 15, holy cow! And then that's why she panicked. I endorse another one. I forget there's 14 others. I don't know. They're all establishment people.

Pick them one. Smith, Brown, whatever, right? So sure. Okay. but we knew earlier than you knew, and a lot of you, by the way, that went did Nina Turner.com slash a lot. A lot of you that actually became volunteers for Nina Turner, all of being, you could still do that and still super important to do that. You guys made such a difference. Now the establishment Democrats are startled and they're hurt dog. Don't ask him if they're all right.

Yeah, I mean, look, I think that Hillary Clinton also did Nina Turner a massive favor. I mean, to be quite honest with you, if I were running for anything, I would not want Hillary Clinton's endorsement. Are you kidding me? Hillary Clinton is not a popular figure. She might be a popular figure among a group of corporate Democrats, well-to-do Democratic voters. But overall, when you think about where the country is policy-wise, what they need done policy-wise, Hillary Clinton, A, is not likable or popular. But aside from that, didn't really represent what people needed, even when she was running in 2016. I mean, she lost to Donald Trump. I don't know if it's actually a win to be endorsed by Hillary Clinton. So I'd actually be curious to see how that endorsement has any impact on polling.

Yeah. Well, look, I know why they're doing it. And then I'll tell you the upsides and downsides. So the reason they're doing it is because they realize if we don't do something, Nina's definitely going to win. Right? So when Hillary goes in, a couple of things happen. Number one, that's a signal to the donors. Everybody gets your independent expenditures to the tune of millions of dollars and spend it against Nina Turner. That's what she's saying publicly by endorsing Rando number three, okay? And the second thing she's saying is I know that the rest of them are in our back pockets. And so, and I know you're confused because they're all random and, you know, all the same, right?

So this is the one that I want you to donate to all the millionaire and billionaire and corporate donors of the Democratic Party out of this lot of 14. That's why Hillary Clinton's doing it. But I think it's going to be too little too late. But guys, do not take it for granted. If you're a progressive who loves Nina Turner and thinks it's super important for her to win, Nina Turner. Nina turner.com slash hello, because Hillary's not just bringing hot sauce. She's bringing millions of dollars and corrupt corporate money with her. And so now, of course, the upside is Nina's going to raise so much money off of this, right?

Yeah, I mean, so she is responding to it first with a little bit of a jab at Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton was taking a ton of corporate cash during the 2016 election, while Bernie Sanders would call that out and also note that he was taking small dollar donations. Now, in a reference to that, Nina Turner tweeted this, proud to be running a campaign that is 100% focused on working people. I'm not taking any corporate PAC or lobbyist money while the establishment is doing everything they can to stop our movement. We will continue elevating the issues. And of course, she included a link so people can chip in. and I highly encourage you guys to do so as well.

And she is, she's doing this $27 challenge, donation challenge, because, you know, the small dollar donors happen to be something that she's very proud of. Turner has some 47,000 donors with an average contribution of $27. Look, Nina Turner is probably the last thing that unites everyone on the left, right? All progressives. because she's a fighter, she's smart, she cares, she has courage, and so that's exactly why progressives are excited and why the establishment Democrats are nervous. And there's one other part of this.

Hillary Clinton beat up Bernie Sanders in 2016 by insinuating that he was not appealing to African Americans enough. She coasted off the Clinton name to win with African Americans in South Carolina and other things. So now she's trying to signal this, that's the third part of this. Remember to African American voters in Cleveland, Akron, and in the rest of the district. Remember the Clintons, because there's are on the side of the other one, the other one, okay? Not Nina Turner. But that ain't going to work in this case because Nina Turner has tremendous endorsements that are local.

that are from every community, et cetera. And when you try that nonsense stuff within a Turner and the voters go, wait a minute, she's an incredibly strong black woman. You're telling me that I should vote for someone else instead of her because of the Clinton name? That's not going to fly. All right, let's move on to our next story. And this could only happen in a place like Florida where there's a congressional race that has gotten violent. There's a possible Russian mafia hit squad involved in a congressional race in Florida.

This story is insane. And we have leaked audio to prove it. So during this 30 minute call with a conservative activist that was recorded before he became a candidate, William Braddock repeatedly warned the activist to not support GOP candidate, Paulina Luna in the Republican primary for a Tampa Bay Area Congressional seat because he had access to assassins. Now for those of you who are wondering what's going on with this race, well, this is a, this is in regard to the seat that's being vacated by Representative Charlie Christ.

And so now we're learning more and more about the candidates, including William Braddock, who just very clearly on multiple occasions during this call noted that he is going to to use a hit squad to take out Luna in this race. So let's go to the first video. I'm not kidding, this is what he had to say. Luna's gonna go down, and I hope it's by yourself. Is that why, like, I mean, I don't, that's, do, like, is that what, like, the Russians are for?

I just, that's like. If we do it, so my, my polling, my polling people are gonna charge me $20,000 in a poll right before the primary. And if the poll says, Lou is going to win, she's going to be gone. She's going to disappear. Dang. And you cannot tell anybody that.

I would never tell anybody. Nor the good of our country, we have to sacrifice the few. Sacrifice the what? The few. For the better of the good. of the majority of the people we've got a sacrifice to keep. So this man, Braddock, has this weird savior complex. He goes on to say, listen, they're both conservatives, these two candidates.

So I'm sure I disagree with them politically on everything. But his language in talking about Luna was just the most disgusting language I've heard, especially in the context of a political story. I mean, he refers to her as just all sorts of words that are pretty extreme. And then you might be saying, well, you know, he's not being specific there, right? He's saying he's going to, she's going to disappear. But what hit squad? Is there really any discussion here about assassins?

Yes, one more video, Jank, and then I want to hear what you think. How do we make her go? I call up my Russian and Ukraine hit squad. And within 24 hours, they're sending pictures of her disappearing. Oh, dang. No, I'm not joking. like this is beyond my control at this point so it's really bad like she's really really bad what's not bad for us she looks like such a good person that's what just it just

she's a piece of i'm telling you money in a problem for me i'm self-funded i got access to billions i'm talking with a fee not millions billions of dollars now can i funnel that in my campaign of legitimate of course not so i'm still trying to get donations and other people support me and all that but I'm self-funded. I got cryptocurrency up. I don't need anybody's help. So we have one more clip, but I wanted you to jump in, Jane, because this is insane. Yeah, look, there's political differences, and then there's insanity.

So Anna Paulina Luna, the person he's talking about there, is a Republican. As Anna said, I'm sure we disagree with her on probably every policy. They're looking to replace Charlie Chris. The person recording is Aaron Osevsky, I'm sure we disagree with her. She's a very diehard Republican, right, and a huge Trump supporter, et cetera. And so politically there are no good guys here. But you have to give Osevsky a lot of credit for recording this because apparently, I mean, look, Braddock is clearly unhinged and dangerous. And super dangerous because, look, is there an actual Russian in Ukraine?

Hit Squad? That sounds insane, right? But even if there isn't, is he going to take action into his own hands and say, oh, it was a Ukrainian hit squad? There was nothing I could do. Except I called on them to do it, allegedly. And so she had to turn him in, and so she did a good, thank you for turning him in, right? Yeah. But guys, this is part of a larger trend. 28% of Republicans say it's time to resort to violence. We've got Lara Trump, Matt Gates, now we've got another congressman today, all calling for taking Second Amendment actions, calling for saying grab your guns and take matters

into your own hands. So as we, Republicans encourage more and more violence, it is not at all surprising. I mean, the level of this and the insanity of this is still a little surprising. But as a concept, a Republican threatening to kill a fellow Republican in a primary, I'm not at all surprised by that right now. I would have been surprised a couple of years ago. Now, no, it's part of a pattern. I mean, they call for violence out in the open, and you provided some of those examples

just now. But believe it or not, this story actually gets even more unhinged. We do have one more audio clip to share with you because, you know, if you know, if you're But he's asked to elaborate on exactly what he means. Who are these people? So one more clip, and then I'll tell you how this story takes even more of a strange twist. I've got Freemason brothers off from Russian hit squads. I got, listen, I'm in deep.

Okay, I am in deep. I will admit that. And if I lose, I'm going to have to move out of the country. But if I win, I'm going to help make a difference for everyone in the country. Are they other, like, is this, like, squad that you're talking about? Are they like snipers or how, like, or, but I mean, I do. Mafia. So whatever.

They're bad dudes. Close battle, combat, tech knives, mac, tens, scyons, kind of thing. No snipers. Up close and personal so they know the person. They know that the target is gone. Damn. You do have connections. Don't be on the wrong side of supporting Luna.

Yeah. Because if you're near her when time comes, I just don't want that to happen to you when you've got kids. So don't be associated with Luna under any circumstances, please. Okay. And do not repeat this to say anybody because both of us will be in jeopardy to do. Yeah. No. I'm not just blowing smoke here.

I'm being dead serious. So he's threatening her as well. And mind you, they're having a conversation, but she hadn't committed to. supporting him or his run. So that's a relevant part of the story as well. Now, how does it get even stranger? Well, obviously Braddock had no idea that she was recording the conversation. And so immediately afterwards, she went to the cops and let them know about it. She claims that even though it is illegal to film or record someone in the state of Florida without their knowledge, that the cops gave her the green light to do it and that it wouldn't be held against

Braddick is going on the offense and he's like, I am going to sue her for what she did to me. Poor guy. Poor guy. I mean, look, all he was looking to do was murder her was a Russian or Ukrainian hit squad and now she's going to out him. Well, look, his feelings have been hurt. I mean, that is an emotional distress if I've ever heard it. No, it's insane. Okay, so by the way, so the, so Politico got in touch with him because, because they wanted him to comment on this. Was this you? Can you confirm it? Here's what he said. As repeatedly via text, if he mentioned Russian, Ukrainian hit squads, Braddock wouldn't give a yes or no answer,

saying he had not heard the recording and that it's allegedly me. There's no proof of that. He also suggested the recording, quote, may even be altered and edited. And then he says, this is a dirty political tactic that has caused a lot of people, a lot of stress, and is completely unnecessary. Because he's the victim, Jank. He's the victim. And so he has decided to file a lawsuit, a civil lawsuit because of the fact he was recorded.

And he says this to Politico, the folks in possession, he threatens Politico too, the folks in possession of whatever recording they think they have of myself or someone else, which may even be altered and edited, will be facing civil damage suits, civil damages suits when the paperwork is filed with the county and felony charges after I file with the police, the local. local police department. So now look... The new BMO, V.I. Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks, more points, more flights, more of all the things you want in a travel rewards card, and then some.

Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter MasterCard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit BMO.com slash V.I. reporter to learn more. You can sue to say, hey, that wasn't me and you're defaming me. But when he files the criminal charges and says you illegally recorded me, oops, you just admitted it was you. I know.

Okay, you can't ask for criminal charges for illegally recording someone else. That's what would be their business, not your business. Okay, so thank you for being an idiot. Now look, very, very likely there is no Russian or Ukrainian history. Russian or Ukrainian hit squad and this guy's a lunatic. God knows what he would do on his own though, okay? But if I'm the authorities, I'd ask around. Oh my gosh, I mean, absolutely, you have to investigate that. I don't know if he's bluffing. I don't know if he was just doing that to somehow persuade this conservative organizer to support him

instead, right? I don't know if this was a tactic that he was using, but it should be investigated. I mean, this is a serious thing to say. Yeah, it They should do a very serious investigation who, like, look, you threaten to murder people. You're going to prison for a long, long time if there's any laws left in this country. So you want to tell us who the Russian mafia is? It figures that you're talking about or not. And again, likely it's just nonsense, right? But it's not that the Russian mafia doesn't exist.

It definitely exists. So if you think you got a connection to it, well, that should be investigated. Absolutely. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll tell you how Republican lawmakers continue to insult Capitol police officers who tried to ward off rioters on January 6th. on the show, we love you guys. I do declare, wrote in the Hillary endorsement has already paid off for Nina. She had one of her largest days of donations. Hello somebody.

Nice. That's why her sites Nina Turner.com slash hello. So we go check that out. All right, Anna. Well, as we all know, the Republican Party pretends to care so much about police officers because of how risky their jobs are. But when it comes to Capitol Hill,

police officers who had to deal with those rioters, not so much. In fact, Republican Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia refused to shake the hand of a capital police officer by the name of Michael Fanon when he had approached the lawmaker to have a discussion about the importance of a January 6th commission to investigate what happened on that day. In fact, why don't we go to Fanon to explain how this whole interaction went down? I, you know, greeted Congressman Clyde, I was very cordial, I extended my hand to shake his hand. He just stared at me. I asked him if he was going to shake my hand, and he told me that he didn't know who I was.

So I introduced myself. I said that I was officer Michael Fanon, that I was a D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer who fought on January 6th to defend the Capitol. And as a result, I suffered a traumatic brain injury as well as a heart attack after having been tased numerous times at the base of my skull, as well as being severely beaten. At that point, the congressman turned away from me, pulled out his cell phone. It looked like he was attempting to pull up like an audio recording app on his phone. And again, like never acknowledged me at any point.

As soon as the elevator doors open, he ran as quickly as he could, like a coward. That's right, like a coward. Now, of course, Andrew Clyde is one of the GOP lawmakers who, is against a January 6th commission to investigate what happened in the Capitol that day. And if you know anything about Representative Clyde, you'd know why. He tried to downplay what happened that day recently. If you can remember, he just referred to it as something totally harmless. Watch. Let me be clear, there was no insurrection, and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a bold-faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the

Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures. You know, if you didn't know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit. There was no insurrection, and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a bold-faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the capital and walked through statuary hall, showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and robes taking videos and pictures. You know, if you didn't know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.

Absolutely disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. And so, look, if you were Michael Fanon and you suffered all of those very serious injuries as a result of those riots, you would want an investigation. And so you can understand his point of view. The fact that Andrew Clyde can make those statements, obviously what he's in a middle of a hearing or whatever, but does it have the courage to talk to or deal with a Capitol police officer who confronts him about the situation, gives you a sense of just how big of a coward he really is. Okay, yep. So I was given to understand that Republicans thought blue lives matter.

Not if you're opposing Donald Trump, then they don't matter at all. He won't even shake a cop's hand. Okay, so now let's review. Of course, Andrew Clyde is the congressman who's also caught in a picture where he's hiding behind barricades and afraid for his life. Then he turns around because his master, Donald Trump, ordered him to and says they were just like tourists, no big deal. I mean, these guys are cheerleading for people who had set up gallows potentially for them. Right. I mean, there is no bigger evidence of being a coward than, oh my God, somebody threatened

to kill me and I was scared for my life, okay, I will do whatever he tells me to do. What an incredible weakling. And that's the entire Republican Party now. They're all like dogs licking Donald Trump's boots. After all that Trump did to them, I mean, they were chanting hang Mike Pence as they came in. All right, so now, look, dozens of Republicans voted against honor. the police on January 6th. So all the guys are like,

oh, cops, cops are great! When they killed black people, honor them black people, they're great, right? But when they were trying to protect your life from Trump's riot, oh, I don't know, I don't think we should honor them. So you gotta be wondering why, right?

Because there's a new talking point on the right that, no, the cops were guilty. It's insane. And they shouldn't have shot one of the rioters. Ashley Babbitt. Right, and you know the insane talking of Tucker Carlson is that the FBI did it. So that if not this shooting, that he's saying the FBI orchestrated the capital attack,

which, wait, I don't get it, I thought they were tourists. Okay, and that since they orchestrated the capital attack, etc. It was, and then they killed this Trump supporter who was trying to break in. You see, you should hate the police and the FBI if they ever dare oppose Donald Trump. The right wing just throws anything they can at a wall to see what sticks. because first it was, as John mentioned on the show recently, first it was, no, no, no, it wasn't conservatives. It was actually Antifa. Okay, so it wasn't Antifa, apparently. But now it's the FBI. And also, I just remember, I can recall the video footage that outlets like

Fox News love to go to during the BLM protests last summer. You know, businesses that had been broken into, oh, would you just look at the property damage as a result of with these violent, dangerous people. Of course, the looters are not part of this movement, not part of BLM, the protests were legitimate, but that was all they would focus on. Look at the property damage, look at the property damage,

the businesses are damaged. But these people broke into the nation's capital. I mean, just complete, complete destruction. Obviously quite a bit of violence. We've seen endless videos of it, and they love to minimize it. And the reason why they minimize it, Jank, is because first off, the Republican Party,

and the right wing media colludes. They work together, they work together really, really well. And that's a powerful thing. And secondly, they know that the midterm elections are coming. They don't want the riots to be in any way attached to what they did, in aiding and abetting it, in perpetuating false narratives regarding the election being stolen. All of that stuff, they engaged it. But they don't want to be held accountable for that in the midterm elections.

Maybe we should do a poll. Was Capitol riots, Antifa, Tourists, or the FBI? And I'd love to see how MAGA answered. Yeah. Like all of the above? Wait, and then they were, well, some of them with Ashley Babett was killed, right? And you guys were all furious about that. Wait, I don't get it.

I thought she was Antifa or a tourist or the FBI. So why are you guys mad? None of it makes any sense, but they're right-winger's. It doesn't have to make sense. Exactly. Okay, last thing. Back to what a coward Clyde is, because as he's hiding behind the barricades, Fanon is fighting to try to make sure that people don't come into the building and kill them.

When he gets knocked down and he's getting stunned, somebody says, I got one. And another person says, let's use his gun against them. Do you have any idea how scared you'd be in that moment? So while Fanon is risking his life to protect Clyde's life, Clyde, when he meets him, he him, instead of saying, hey, thank you, I don't know what his policy difference would be for so voting no on recognizing their valor. But if you had a policy difference, you could have told him, but he didn't even shake his hand. Yeah. No, no, no. These Republican politicians are disgusting. All right, one more story for you before we end our first hour. So there's a

a lot of discussion about how social media can be reformed, maybe some regulations to ensure that some of the more toxic disinformation doesn't get spread so rapidly. Well, Mark Zuckerberg claims that he has a solution for that. The good news is, even though most lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans seem to be pretty incompetent in anything regarding the internet, they've pushed back against what he is proposing here. So let's get to the detail. Zuckerberg proposed that Congress require online platforms to have a system to identify and take down certain illegal content and revoke key liability protections if they don't. The decades old legal shield, known as Section 230, protects digital platforms from lawsuits over how they police

user content and what material they host on their services. So, I mean, look, this is like a pharmaceutical company that was slanging opioids suggesting how we can regulate pharmaceutical drugs. I mean, come on, come on. So I like that lawmakers overall pushed back against this because what Mark Zuckerberg is essentially calling for is putting a system in place that allows him to monopolize this space even more than he already has. Because if you're a startup, you're not going to have the resources to police the content on your platform. The way that Facebook can. So let's start with the response from Senator Ron Wyden, who actually played a role in writing the legislation in question here, Section 230. He says Mark Zuckerberg knows that rolling

back Section 230 will cement Facebook's position as the dominant social media company and make it vastly harder for new startups to challenge his cash cow. Even Trump loyalist, Marsha Blackburn, is against this. And remember, Trump was very much in favor of repealing Section 230. Marsha Blackburn says this. Section 230 reform will hit Facebook regardless of what these self-interested Silicon Valley CEOs want. Big Tech only wants reform when it bolsters their power at the expense of competitors. But to be honest with you, the best point was made by Representative Tom Malankowski, who seems to understand what the heart of the issue really is here. He says, that is a classic example of Facebook hoping that we miss the point. They want

us to focus on putting out fires and not on the fact that their product is flammable. So you might argue that that statement is a little vague, but I think what he's referring to is how bad behavior gets rewarded on these platforms. They want people to be engaged on these platforms as long as possible and they reward that engagement by, you know, featuring the content and in other ways, right? So what they do is they allow inflammatory content, content that intentionally purposefully picks fights with other people, leads to conflict. That's what they do, fake news. The way these algorithms are set up, I think, is the real issue here. Yeah. Well, look, I think this is another complicated issue. Some parts of it are clear, some parts of it are not. So number one, on Section 230, we have to keep it. If they get rid of Section 230, it's a disaster for everyone who's in the grassroots populace across the entire spectrum. Because it allows the giant corporations that have the resources to do some of that regulation. First of all, he wants to craft a law, so it's perfectly advantageous for Facebook.

Right. That's why both Republican and Democratic senators are calling him out on it. But even beyond that, if they get rid of Section 230 as the idiot Donald Trump wanted, well, nobody could afford to do what Facebook does. So it would wipe out Breitbart and alternate, and you name it, everything on the left and the right that isn't like basically a billion dollar company would get wiped out. So that is a disaster. And even if you're a Trump fan, you want your own websites to get wiped out?

And you can't read any of them, you can't watch any of them, it doesn't make any sense. So that's part of it. In terms of what they actually should do, instead of spending a lot of money on these issues, they should spend a lot of money to investigate fraud on their own platforms, right? So Twitter is filled to the room with bots. Trolls are different. Trolls are, you know, they want to have fun, they don't care, they're this, they're that, they're hateful.

skin, like real people. Yeah, if you're a real person and you're a troll, okay, I mean, Donald Trump's a troll, right? Now there's Matt Gates is a troll, there's tons of trolls, right? They're apologists. But the bots are fake, right? And Twitter's filled with bots, let alone the troll farms, which are inorganic, not real people. It's folks who are hired to pretend to be enraged by things. is Twitter going to regulate that.

It is totally out of control on their platform. Right. Not at all, right? Now, Facebook, Judd Leggham did a terrific story about how Ben Shapiro's network on Facebook is clearly breaking the rules. And what's Facebook doing about it? No, they still, by breaking the rules, they continue to have the top content every day. It's brazen. It's brazen.

It's insane. And Facebook goes, rules for progressives and Democrats and independents. But no rules for our brothers that are right wing. Almost the whole board is Republican. Look, I don't know it's, and by the way, their policy group is for Facebook is definitely Republican. So I don't know if it's because they are Republican, so they like Republican talking points about not taxing the rich, not taxing corporations, deregulation, et cetera.

Or if they're scared of the Republicans, they're both, right? But the fact that they're letting Republicans manipulate the platform is indisputable. I mean, look, one final point for me, because it's relevant to the story, not too long ago, I think it was last week, we covered a story regarding a right-wing marketing firm that was putting out advertisements that made it appear as though this was a socialist organization, and it was encouraging Democratic voters, specifically those who are further to the left, to vote for a third party. It was a right-wing marketing firm encouraging Democratic voters to vote for. for a third party. This is before the 2018 midterm elections happened. So what happened? I mean, Facebook couldn't even handle that. In fact, what was happening in that particular case broke FEC laws.

That was illegal material, right? Because there are certain campaign or election laws, I should say, that need to be followed. But they seem to know that there was an issue there and they didn't do anything about it for a while. Yeah. And one last thing for me as to why it's complicated is that don't fall. into any of these camps where you're like, okay, now all big tech is terrible and we should shut it down. Big tech is wonderful and heavenly and they should get whatever they want. No, you've got to

use your judgment to make a decision. So the one great upside of those tech companies is they open the gates. And so now that, yes, that led in some very bad actors, but it also led in a lot of good actors, right? And both principled progressives, which had no outlet before big tech and mainstream media despises progressives. Also, they don't, like they, the right wing think that mainstream media doesn't like the right wing, and I understand why they think that, but they air right wing points all the time. Progressives get nothing, total wall of silence embargo, right? But either way, there are real right wingers and real left wingers that got to voice their opinions

because of these platforms that they wouldn't have otherwise done. And they got to set up blog posts and websites and video channels, et cetera. I'm living proof of it. Mainstream media does not want anything but corporate messages. And when I didn't do that, we had issues at MSNBC. And I don't want to go back to the old bad old days where multi-billion dollar corporations with an iron fist decide what goes on air and what doesn't as the mainstream media does. Big tech is shouldn't, we shouldn't say, okay, I'll burn down their house to get rid of them, et cetera, because then we're going to go back to the days that were even worse, right? But we do have to do reasonable regulation to make sure that they're not allowing rampant fraud.

It isn't about ideology. I would never want them to take down just right-wing ideology no matter how much I hate it, okay? But if you're doing threats of violence or you're doing fraud, these are actually actionable things. Not I disagree with you, but hey, you're a danger to that specific person or you're obviously cheating and violating all of our rules. So, but remember, too, guys, as you get mad at Big Tech, we don't matter where are you on the spectrum, they, once the gatekeepers are gone, progressives were allowed in for the first time ever. So that's why it is a complicated and interesting issue that we need to use our judgment on. That does it for our first hour. Our second hour will be lit. I am super excited to share a story involving Joe Biden's meeting with Putin. That actually then spy, into all sorts of conflicts about whether Biden should even have a conversation with Putin. Don't miss that story and more when we return.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.