The Young Turks - Holiday Grift

Episode Date: November 27, 2024

Biden announces a ceasefire deal between Hebollah and Israel. Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. Rep. Ro Khanna stated that Democrats are open to working with Elon Musk’s DOGE to reduce the defense budget. A Trump adviser has been accused of seeking payments from prospective Cabinet nominees." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Jake U Granite Kisparan with you guys, live from Polymarket Studio in L.A. And as usual, we have huge news for you guys, international domestic, Trump transition. We got it all for you. That's kind of the point of my news show, although a lot of people have forgotten that point. All right, Casper.

Have they? Have they forgotten that point? Yeah, I mean, what I see. What was that little whistle? I heard that little whistle. Random little whistle. Super random. Didn't even mean it.

So a lot of news shows don't have backwards whistles, but I do. No, I couldn't do it again. Okay, so, no, I mean, like you go online and there's a lot of people theoretically talking about the news, but never actually getting to the news. We get to the news, people. We get to the news. And then there's a lot of people on television that pretend to be doing news but are actually doing marketing.

So, having said, all that, let's do the actual news. I haven't slept well. Monday nights are apparently bad nights for me, when the insomnia kicks in. And I'm in a trolling mood. I think I'm going to troll you a little bit during the show. today. Oh, fascinating. You're like normally you tell me to get going Miss, Miss EP over here, right?

Okay, all right. You want to mess around? I'll mess around. Be careful what you wish for. All right, we'll see, we'll see. Well, we begin with serious news, possibly a good development, although Israel's involved. And with the current Israeli government, I would just hold and see how this plays out. But without further ado, let's get to the details.

Have some good news report from the Middle East. report from the Middle East. He just spoke with the Prime Minister of Israel and Lebanon. I'm pleased to announce that their governments have accepted the United States' proposal to end the devastating conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Let's be clear, Israel did not launch this war. The Lebanese people did not seek that war either, nor did the United States. Hezbollah retaliated against Israel over.

the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. That's what started the current war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Now Israel has allegedly accepted a ceasefire deal that has been brokered by the United States. This would be a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah. And according to Biden, both parties have accepted. In fact, not only did Biden make this announcement about the deal, minutes earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also announced that he and the minister, in Israel had also approved it. And the war has been devastating. There's no question about it. Much of the airstrikes by the IDF have been concentrated in the capital of Lebanon, Beirut. And more than 3,500 Lebanese individuals have been killed. 15,000 more have been injured.

Around 140 IDF soldiers have also been killed in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah specifically. Now, Biden says that the deal was intended or is intended. to definitively end the war between the two sides. So if this is, in fact, implemented at 4 a.m. Wednesday morning local time, well, it would not be a temporary ceasefire. Bibi says, though, that Israel will respond to any threat to its security. He says, quote, we will respond forcefully to any violation of the ceasefire by Hezbollah, according to Netanyahu. Now, just before the ceasefire was announced, the IDF actually ended up launching one of its more aggressive set of airstrikes in Beirut since this war began. So that is footage of the airstrikes

in question. As you can see, multiple buildings are, you know, up in smoke. And so we're expecting the war to continue going until the very minute that the ceasefire is supposed to be implemented. Now, as far as the terms of the ceasefire deal, it's actually pretty reasonable if you ask me. Israel says that it will gradually withdraw its forces from Lebanon over the next 60 days. In return, Hezbollah has agreed that they will not get near the border between Lebanon and Israel. That's what they had done previously. And that's how they were launching some strikes against Israel. So to be specific, Hezbollah must now move north of the Latvia. Tani River, which is an agreement that they had signed on to previously, so I don't think

that this is an unjust term to the ceasefire deal. Now, why is Israel deciding to do this now? Well, right now, Netanyahu says that they have accomplished their goals in Lebanon, having weakened Hezbollah and having also assassinated Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah. They say that they have severely weakened the militant group. What I'm concerned about, though, is Israel says now they can focus their energy on Gaza. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm worried about. So there's two huge caveats to this deal. But first, let me explain all the ways that it's a good deal and why I'm generally excited

about it, happy about it. So best part of it is that they're going to withdraw from southern Lebanon. So I was very worried that they wouldn't. They went and tried to occupy it several times. So there was a possibility that they were going to go and stay there forever and try to take more land. And so instead, they're probably going to try to take land in Gaza. We'll come back to that. But the fact that they were going to withdraw from Lebanon is terrific news. And so in terms of the Israeli demands, they wanted the Hezbo to move back up to the north of the Latani River.

That is, as Anna pointed out, the original deal. So that's fair. They want them to stop firing rockets into Israel, and they're going to. And that's fair. And they asked that, you know, that the U.S. and other forces be responsible for making sure that Hezbo does not move past down the Latano River again, right? So now how we're going to do that is a little bit complicated, but overall, I'm not overly worried about it. It doesn't look like there's any troops or anything involved from the U.S. So as far as ceasefires go, it appears to be a perfectly good ceasefire. Of course, what is Israel doing giving back in return? We'll stop slaughtering you and dropping bombs all over your capital and invading you and occupying you, et cetera.

And okay, so we can get into, hey, Hezbo, let's start a bombing on October 8th, but why are they doing, why did they do the bombing? Of course, Israeli and American side will say randomly, they just hate Jews so much and they just are so bloodthirsty, you know how they are, et cetera. Of course not, it's because of the occupation, which then, but overall, if you just look at Lebanon and Israel is a very good deal to stop the killings, stop the war, and get to a real ceasefire. Now the caveats. So now, number one caveat is, it's kind of a ceasefire. Netanyahu said right afterwards, I'm not really going to follow it. The minute I feel like I have to, for military reasons, I will go and bomb the living crap out of Lebanon again. So I don't really intend to honor this deal. And he says these things in public, so it's amazing. He didn't say, I don't intend to honor this deal, he just very clearly laid out that I reserve the right to bomb anywhere in Lebanon

I want. Then Biden had to come out and go, well, or the Biden administration, well, I mean, no, there's a reason why this is called a ceasefire. If you say you have the right to bomb anywhere in Lebanon, then this isn't a ceasefire. That's the U.S. side, saying that about Nanyahu, because then Yahoo is such a liar, such a cheat, such a warmonger. He's saying, I'll give you a ceasefire if it's not really a ceasefire. So the U.S. is clear. No, if Hezboa goes below the Latani River as an example, then they're in violation and you would have a right to respond to that violation. But if they're not in violation, no, you do not have the right to go bomb anywhere you want

in Lebanon. But it doesn't really matter because he will and the U.S. won't stop him, right? Right, I mean, that's the point that I was going to make, right? I mean, part of the asymmetrical nature of the ceasefire deal is the fact that there are very real consequences for Hezbollah, should they renege on what they have agreed to, Whereas with Israel, they could renege and what's the worst that could happen. It's not like the United States is going to pull support toward Israel. They're going to allow the Israeli government to do whatever they want.

No, we would just do further Israeli ass kissing. So unfortunately, and the reason why Hezbo is agreeing to this deal is because they have no leverage. And so, okay. Now, there's one other thing that Anna didn't mention in explaining what Nanyahu said. He said, well, we're strong because we, you know, we beat Hezbole. We could accomplish our objectives, et cetera. And that's fair, they did beat Hezbollah, largely speaking, and they did accomplish their objectives. And that's what I'm giving credit for.

He said, but also we're starting to run out of ammunition. Yes, he did say that. You're correct. Yeah, he's like, I'm taking a strategic pause here. I'm telling you after the deal that I'm a giant liar and we'll go in and do whatever the hell I want afterwards, after I reload, right? But now, despite all of that, by the way, like they've killed so many Arabs in the area that they're running out of ammunition. Okay, but 3,500 dead in Lebanon, 15,000 injured, 140 Israelis killed, and that's mainly the troops that went in there to go and occupy their lands. Anyways, but overall, I'm still happy with it. Why?

Because they're withdrawing. If they stayed, it would have been an epic disaster, okay? So, but the last caveat is maybe the most important one, which is now the Palestinians are left all alone. So nobody's coming to help them. And you could say, oh, I can't believe Hezbo was trying to help by firing rockets. on Israel, how dare they, they should know that the Palestinians are now forever the vassals of Israel and Israel can do anything they want to the Palestinians and the Lebanese should have known their role which is shut up and accept that Israel dominates the Palestinians

and can do anything they want to them. And that is what Israel is saying to the world now. There's no one coming to help the Palestinians and we've choked off everything around them. And so we'll do whatever we want to them. Now we have, we're gonna go focus on Gaza. What are you focusing on, although Hamas leaders are just as that as the Hezbole leaders. Well, let me, let me jump in on that because, you know, lately there's been more and more news about escalations in the war between Russia and Ukraine, you know, following Russia's invasion

of Ukraine. And, you know, in that reporting, you get a sense of how many innocent Ukrainian civilians have been killed as a result of Putin's war on Ukraine. And it's around 11,000 people, okay, in Gaza, as we all know, you know, the majority of those people who have been killed are women, children, and the elderly, they're not Hamas militants. And we also know that at least 44,000 people have been killed in Gaza, tiny, tiny strip of land. And I remember months into this war, there were members of Israeli media like Haretz, which,

which by the way, has been sanctioned by the Israeli government as an organization that is bad for Israel because they're actually reporting the truth. I remember Heretz talking about the high civilian death toll and how unlikely it is for Israel to actually defeat Hamas the way it was prosecuting this war. And so it's been over a year now and Hamas, according to Israel, continues to be an issue. They haven't defeated Hamas. Now, obviously, I don't trust the Israeli government. They have been lying to us on various occasions. But let's say we take what they're saying at face value. Okay, I mean, what more could you do?

I mean, they have destroyed all of the buildings in Gaza. No more functioning hospitals. They're not allowing humanitarian aid. And could it be that it's not really about rooting out Hamas. It could be about something else. Yeah. Look, guys, it's not complicated. And at this point, the U.S. does these comica lies on behalf of Israel.

And they say, well, look, this should free up Hamas and create more leverage against them so they can agree to a ceasefire. But brother, they've agreed to a ceasefire now a hundred times over. So this is nothing but a giant lie. What they actually are saying is they should agree to Israel's new terms, which they changed back in July of last year. And the new terms are we're going to reoccupy Gaza and we're going to take a whole bunch of your land. And Hamas will never agree to that. No Palestinians should ever agree to that. And so that basically US is saying, why don't you let Israel steal your land?

What's wrong with you, you stupid Palestinians? You don't know your role, you're inferior to the Israelis. Let them take your goddamn land. So at least President Biden should have the decency and the honesty to say that. Of course he won't because he's a very indecent and immoral person. So but bottom line is when you're looking at just the Lebanon conflict, It's terrific that Israel is going to withdraw and get the security guarantees that they should get. I don't want rockets going into Israel, and it was a violation of the original piece of course to go past the Latani River.

So it's a good day, but with the biggest asterisk in the world, this is just going to let them. It's almost like, oh, hey, we made a deal with Poland, so don't worry about Poland. And that's why we're going to now focus on the Jews inside of Germany. And so, hey, everybody, the worst of the world, shut up about it. Who cares? Who cares? I got a peace deal with Poland. I got a peace deal with Poland, right?

So I'm happy about the peace deal with Poland, but I'm not happy about what remains behind. I agree. So if you're bothered by that analogy, you should go and put all the pressure in the world on the sick Israeli government that has now killed over 44,000 people, absolutely destroyed Gaza. If you've ever seen one picture or video of Gaza and you think Israel should keep going, well, then you deserve that analogy times 10. tariffs. To me the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff and it's my favorite

word. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump used his favorite word to threaten a trade war. On his first day in office, Trump says he will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% tariff and all products coming into the United States and its ridiculous open borders. President-elect Donald Trump, who is notorious for engaging in these types of of threats and negotiations publicly, has sent economists and pundits on both sides of the political aisle into absolute panic mode after he announced plans to impose massive tariffs, blanket tariffs on products imported from China, Mexico, and Canada on day one. So he announced this on truth social, writing that thousands of people are pouring through

Mexico and Canada? Bringing crime and drugs at levels never seen before. On January 20th, as one of my many first executive orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada with a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States and its ridiculous open borders. Just a point of clarification, while it is in fact true that Biden was neglectful of the southern border, following the whole migrant crisis debacle, he did implement some executive orders that actually ended up controlling the situation at the border. So people are not flooding into the country from the southern border, that's not true. Now, at least not at this moment. Now, this tariff, he writes, will remain in effect until such time as drugs,

in particular fentanyl, and all illegal aliens stop this invasion of our country. Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power and until such time they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price. I have had many talks with China about the massive amounts of drugs, in particular fentanyl, being sent into the United States, but to no avail. Representatives of China told me that they would institute their maximum penalty, that of death, for any drug dealers caught doing this. unfortunately, they never followed through and drugs are pouring into our country, mostly

through Mexico at levels never seen before. And finally, he writes, until such time as they stop, we will be charging China an additional 10% tariff above any additional tariffs on all of their many products coming into the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Now I want to be clear, Donald Trump did implement tariffs in his first term. They were targeted tariffs against China. And at that time, what he kept citing was the trade deficit, the trade deficit.

And now he's basically using tariffs or possible tariffs as like a cudgel as a way of using leverage to get China to do something about the flow of fentanyl into the United States. But I do also want to note that much of the financial and political world is absolutely fearful that Trump is serious about implementing 25% tariffs on these three countries. I don't think he's actually going to do that. He tends to make these broad sweeping statements and then engages in more targeted policy, especially when it comes to tariffs. However, we do get a lot of our goods from these three countries, which I'm going to give you some details about in just a second. And this would effectively be a tax on consumers if it was carried out in this way

that he's threatening. We'll get to that in a minute, Jank. Yeah, so devil's in the details. because first, we've talked about how tariffs are a big depends. So it depends on the level of the tariffs, tariffs, depends on whether you're being proportional to the tariffs that the other country is giving you. Excuse me. Excuse me, guys. And when Jenks says that the tariffs are a big depends, he doesn't mean the diapers. He's specifically saying it depends on how the policy is implemented.

And I actually agree with you because the tariffs that Trump implemented against China in his first term actually were popular with the Biden administration, which is why he kept them in place and in fact expanded on them during Biden's term. And so it really does matter what we're talking about here. I don't think the blanket tariffs make sense. I just think that this is the way he begins the public negotiations on these types of issues. But what do you think, Jake? And that's the second thing that it depends on, which is the negotiation. So if Trump is using it to basically bully China into going after some of the fentanyl factories and we get some sort of tangible indication that they have, and he's using it to bully Mexico to remain in Mexico and some other things and Canada into stopping whatever it's going on there.

And by the way, undocumented crossings from Canada have gone up significantly. And apparently it's mainly folks that are South Asian. And so Indians have figured out it's easier to get through Canada than it is through Mexico. And so that's why that's gone up tenfold recently. Oh, interesting. I did not know that. Yeah. Yeah, that's just that happened over the last year or so.

And so I get it, I get it. But what I'm worried about, Anna, is that one day somebody's going to call his bluff. And I'm doubly worried that he just put Mexico and Canada, our closest trading partners and obviously our closest neighbors in a bucket with China. So I thought, what if- That's not a good idea? Yeah, what if Shyenbaum, this is what I would do if I was heard, the president of Mexico, I would call China the next day and go, hey, you guys want to respond together? Okay, and if they do that, uh-oh, Spaghetti-Os, so because these are not tenable rates,

right? If he actually delivers on this and it lasts like six months, oh, they come. economy is going to be hurt dog. Don't ask us if we're all right. And then he's going to be in a tailspin if that bluff gets called. So I'm calling his bluff. There's no way he's implementing a 25% tariff on these three countries or imports from these three countries because it would destroy the economy. It's just not you're not coming at the tariff's policy with a scalpel. You're just being incredibly irresponsible. And I just don't think he's actually going to implement that. But let me tell you why. Okay, because we rely on these countries. for a lot, okay? I'm talking about oil. I'm talking about cars, machinery, plastics, wood.

Now, would I love these manufacturing or these products being manufactured here in the United States with unionized American labor? Yes, I would love that. And so one of the arguments in favor of tariffs is, well, slapping on a high tariff on goods that are manufactured abroad, but imported to the United States, would essentially encourage or incentivize these companies to start manufacturing here in the United States. And oftentimes that does come to fruition. However, remember, there's a period of time in which these companies would have to get their plants going, their factories open and all of that.

That's going to take a few years. What are Americans supposed to do during that time? Because remember, the other thing that Trump says is that he's going to further slash the corporate tax rate of companies that are manufacturing goods and services here in the United States. But his argument is, well, the lost revenue for the federal government will be made up through the tariffs. But essentially, that's a redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. Because remember, that tax on the goods that American consumers are going to buy is going to crush them. It's more burdensome for them as opposed to wealthy Americans. And when we're talking about the tax cuts,

The wealthy get to take advantage of the tax cuts, you know, through the corporate tax cuts. And in order to make up that revenue, we're just going to further tax American consumers through these tariffs. That would be kind of disastrous for working class Americans. Look, if he, if all he's doing is a giant scam for the rich, where he redistributes basically the burden onto consumers in a super regressive tax in a sense by having you guys pay these tariffs and all of us pay the tariffs. and then he does giant corporate tax cuts.

Well, okay, and then we're going to find out if MAGA has any sense at all or not. If they are like, yes, I love paying more so that the richest people in the country could pay less, all right, then we're all doomed because he's going to be encouraged to keep going and going and going. But if at some point his right wing base goes, this isn't what I signed up for. And by the way, the moderates that voted for them. And you might hate that there were moderates or independent step voted for him. They did. And they didn't ask for much higher prices. They asked for lower prices. That's that's exactly right. So he's playing with fire here. Let's see what happens.

The inflation issue is the main issue that helped get Trump elected. There were other factors as well. But that's a good point you're making, Jank. I want to note, we import $1.3 trillion worth of goods from these three countries. The United States imported more than $418 billion of goods just from China alone in 2023 and exported 354 billion worth of goods. That's where the trade deficit comes in, right? So we're importing more than we're exporting, and that's what Trump tends to refer to when he says that there's a trade deficit. But let me continue.

So the top goods at the United States imports, that the United States imports from Canada are crude oil and related products. So America actually conducts more trade with Mexico than any. other country in the globe. The United States imported more than $400 billion worth of manufactured goods compared with about $20 billion of products from the Mexican agriculture, forestry, and livestock sectors. And about the same from the oil, gas, and mining sectors. Goods included cars and car parts, computers, and other electrical equipment, beverages, medical instruments and household appliances. And so these tariffs could potentially crush the U.S.

economy and the American consumer. And of course, it's also not going to elicit a positive response from the likes of the new Mexican president. That's Claudia Scheinbaum, who Jank had referenced earlier. And let's take a listen to what her warnings are. companies communes. Yes, commones. For example,

of the principal exportators of Mexico, the United are General Motors, Estelantis, and Ford Motor

Company, the which have gone to Mexico has 80 years. Why put an

impuest that put in risk? No is acceptable and cause a

United and to Mexico inflation and peridies of employment. The 70% of the arms illegals incautas

in delinquents in Mexico provienes of his country. The point that she makes about the guns that are used by gangs and cartels in Mexico is absolutely true. Those guns do get smuggled south

of the border from the United States into Mexico. And so what she's doing there is making a point about, all right, well, you're upset about fentanyl coming into your country. we're pretty upset about the guns flowing from the United States to Mexico, which the cartels and gang members are terrorizing, you know, Mexican civilians with. Yeah, I like her. She's strong. So that's how you meet a bluff, right? You say, okay, we both want to get hurt, fine. She's not saying we won't talk. She's like, oh, I'm super happy to talk. Let's talk right away, right? But if you're going to just threaten us and bully us, no, we're going to have a strong line against you. Okay, so I respect that. Now, to try. I have a slight disagreement with you.

You say he's not likely to do that. I don't know. He can go in any direction, right? And so now having said that, I'm going to say something that I don't know that some Democrats will be happy with. I think that in a situation like this, you should bluff and bully. I would do the same thing. So if there's something I want out of China or Mexico or Canada, the correct answer isn't, oh, don't ask them or ask them with a strongly worded letter.

No, you ask with a threat. Sorry, but that's how it works. So you got you got to have carrots and sticks. Now the problem with Trump sometimes is that he has too many sticks and nothing but sticks. And the problem with Biden was that he had nothing but carrots and never met a stick in his life. So I would do some sort of balance. I would have carrots and sticks and then use it judiciously. Let's hope that someone in the Trump White House is judicious.

But right now I don't mind starting with sticks as long as you don't just stick with sticks because that's going to be a very bad road if your bluff gets called. When we come back from the break, we'll talk a little bit about what the best way forward is for Democrats, now that Donald Trump is the incoming president and his administration will be calling the shots. I think this topic is super interesting. There's a fight over at the view. And then you have a Democratic lawmaker saying, I think there are areas in which we can work with Trump. We'll give you all the details and more when we come back. Frack, frack, frack, frack, like a duck. Frack, frack. All right, back on TYT, Jay Canana with you guys. More news.

Well, there's a lot of disagreement among those on the left, the broad left, in regard to what the best path forward is during the next four years, as Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch, and Republicans certainly take control of both the House and the Senate for at least two years. So there's a lot of fighting about this. Let's get to the details. The most common thing I heard this entire election cycle was I don't like his personality. I don't like the way he talks, but my life was better when he was in office.

And I'm in this position where I feel a bit unburdened by what has been. I'm going to wait and see. He's not been sworn in yet. I'm somebody who probably agrees with 75% of his policies. If he focuses on creating jobs, on bringing down the cost of living, securing the border in a responsible way and being tough on America's adversaries, I'm all for it. I spent weeks telling people that he was apocalyptic. I'm not going to change now. No, because it's not changing.

You're not treating every single thing like a fire. I think that's when we lose credibility. What is the best way to move forward if you find yourself either on the broad left or someone who just doesn't agree with the idea of Donald Trump leading this country again? Do you find ways to work with the incoming administration? Or do you try to fight the administration every step of the way? Well, the ladies at the view have differing opinions on this. You just heard from Alyssa Farah Griffin, who thinks that, well, there are some areas where I agree with Trump.

Maybe we can look to the positives here. Others disagree. Let's take a look. I'm going to wait and see. He's not been sworn in yet. I'm somebody who probably agrees with 75% of his policies. If he focuses on creating jobs, on bringing down the cost of living, securing the border in a responsible way, and being tough on America's adversarial. I'm all for it.

What doesn't mean we're not going to call balls and strikes when he does things that are beyond the pale, or he uses words that are offensive to people, then be ready to call that out. But I just think I'm kind of shying away from this sort of apocalyptic. It's all we need to be like losing sleep over it. The American system of government is strong. It's held. There are checks and balances, even if my party's in control of the House of the Senate and

the presidency. And I think we should root. I root for America. So I root for a smart, serious Donald Trump presidency. And I root for pushback when he doesn't do things that are smart. I think all those things are great to dream about. Well, Whoopi clearly does not think that Donald Trump will do the right thing in his second term. You know, for good reason.

I mean, you look at the way he led the country in his first term and he was divisive. He did create a lot of conflict in this country. But, you know, there's a possibility that, you know, with the diversity of thought in his upcoming administration, things could be a little different. and a Navarro, who was, by the way, lifelong Republican disagrees. What I'm saying is I have no false expectations that at 78, he's going to all of a sudden turn into a human movement. And I spent weeks telling people that he was apocalyptic, I'm not going to change now. It's not changing.

I'm not treating every single thing like a fire. I think that's when we lose credibility. Well, here's the thing, you lose credibility. in many different ways. If you don't know what you're talking about and you accuse him of something, then they're going to blow it back. That's why I say, we need to wait and see exactly what you're going to do. So there is one Democratic lawmaker in the House who intends to work alongside Trump

officials in order to accomplish some of the goals that progressives have. We're going to get to that in just a second. But before we do, Jank, what do you think about this conflict that's playing out? because I feel like this resonates with a lot. I think it resonates with us, right? Because, I mean, Trump won, Republicans have won both chambers of Congress. And so we have two options. You either fight every step of the way or try to find some silver linings.

Good news. I have the answers. Okay. Okay, so first, let me say what I agree and disagree with those guys on. Alyssa Farron Griffin says she agrees with 75% of Trump's agenda. I don't. So, but if you're coming at it from her perspective, I understand why she says, Look, let him cook on that 75% I agree with, right?

So now we're in a different camp and Whoopi and Navarro, et cetera, are in a different camp. But we're also not in their camp. In part of the clip we didn't show you, Whoopi Goldberg was talking about how he's a misogynist and racist and she doesn't really want to hear anything else. And that's her perspective. And you can't question her perspective, right? So I think that that's too much. I'll tell you what I think about that in a second. But at least I agreed with whoopee for the first time in a long time where she said, well, let's wait and see what he does so we could respond to reality rather than respond to our, you know, worst fears and expectations.

And so, all right, good, level headed there, in my opinion. Anna Navarro, look, I feel mixed about what she's saying too. She said, look, I thought it would be apocalyptic and I'm not going to change and say that it's not going to be apocalyptic. And that's a principled position that I could respect. Do I think it's going to be, do I agree with her that it's going to be apocalyptic? No, I'm in the, in that, within that range, at least I'm in the whoopee camp. Hold on, let's see. Why?

Okay, so now this is important. You have to separate out the past and the future, okay? In the past, has Donald Trump done and said things that were racist and sexist and misogynistic? Aps are freaking lootly, okay? So now you want to disagree about that? We can go back and have those old fights if you want. But that's not the question at hand. So it's part of the question, does he have those instincts?

I think he does have those instincts, right? But the real question is, is he going to act on those instincts? And so, well, what would prevent him from acting on those instincts if he was unpopular? Why? Because he likes being popular. So now, is that going to be enough? I don't know. I don't, and I don't know how anybody knows.

So the people who say no, he's going to destroy everything in his path, and he's purely racist and misogynistic and that's all he wants and that's all his followers want. That is definitely not true. Okay, the reason it's not true is because I know that his followers for a fact, that's not the only thing they want. I'm not naive and don't think, oh my God, there's not a single racist or sexist among his followers. That's absurd.

Of course they are, right? But are they the majority? Is that the majority of what they want? No, absolutely not. Why do I say that? Because I've seen every single poll. And so you might say, well, they didn't ask about, hey, are you a racist? And even if they did, they wouldn't answer yes.

even if they are. I understand all that. But they're super clear on what they want. They want to stop inflation, stop immigration. Those are number one and two by a landslide in what they want. And you've got to remember, the Trump supporters are not a monolith. So some portion of them are what Whoopi and Anna Navarro described, but a big chunk of them that were going to Kamala just six weeks before their election and then went to Trump or generally independents that are just looking for a better life and a better economy, et cetera. And he'll lose all those guys if he goes extreme. Right.

And so he'll lose another chunk in the middle if he goes extreme. So there's a reason why he might mitigate for his own advantage, for his own selfish purposes, he might mitigate some of his extreme impulses. But we don't know until he does it. And by the way, there's a second layer to it. Once he does something, how is his base going to react? And are they going to reel them back in or encourage them? I know every leftist and Democrat thinks they're just going to encourage him to get worse and worse.

I have a super controversial opinion. I don't think they are. I think some portions of them are, but I think a big portion are going to tap the brakes and say, no, no, no, we didn't tell you to go in that direction. We don't want you to go in that direction. We want you to go in this direction. Yeah, remember, I mean, look, I know that a lot of Democrats want to downplay the extent to which Trump won the popular vote. But let's keep it real.

It's very rare for Republicans to win the popular vote. And Trump did this time around. Last time it happened was in 2004. His coalition is much broader today versus what it was in 2016. Yes. And so it's important to keep that in mind. It's not the same base that we were dealing with in 2016. There certainly were, you know, the Yes men faction within the Republican base back then.

they still exist, I'm sure. But the broader base, I think, is really looking for change and looking for some relief, economically speaking, when it comes to public safety and immigration. That's what they're looking to as well, as Jank was mentioning earlier. So I think that it's what I was kind of getting at yesterday, Jank, when I said his base feels like the culture within his base feels different this time around. And I realized, oh yeah, it's because he's broadened his base and there's a bunch of people in there who actually voted for Biden in 2020. A lot of people who voted against Trump and voted for Hillary in 2016, these are people who kept making a bet on Democrats again and again, and they're not happy.

And so they decided to maybe take a bet on Trump this time around. I know that we oftentimes will say things early, Anna and I will, and it'll take a little while for people to acknowledge it, just to put it mildly. So we're doing it again, and I want to be clear about it. Yes, I think his new base is different than his old base. I think his new base is a lot more diverse. It has a lot more populace. And by the way, those populists will not necessarily rebel in the direction that we want, right? But are they more rebellious or are we wrong and they're the same cult they ever were

and when Trump orders something, they'll go against their own interests in a second, right? That, in my opinion, was the old base and I couldn't stand that, right? My assessment is that this new base is way more rebellious. So they'll rebel in direction against vaccines and COVID, et cetera, that we don't agree with. But they'll also, I think, will rebel on corruption and war and, and, and, and, and, and Israel and many other things that right now no one else expects. They don't believe us. They think we're wrong.

They think we're doing a right wing turn. They think all these conspiracy theories, et cetera, right? But the reality is we are sensing that that base is new and rebellious and feisty. And we think that on some of us worse abuses, they will reel them back in. And some of them they might go forward, depending on where they stand in the political spectrum. I think the other half of the equation though, Jank, is the fact that, and people are going to hate that I say this, but it's true, that he is realable. You get what I'm saying? I do. That's such a great point.

See, this is another thing that they are underestimating. So it's not that Trump doesn't have bad instincts. It's not that he didn't deserve every insult that I ever gave him, okay? It's that he also at the same time, two things can be true at the same time. He also wants to be popular. He wants to be loved. That's his number one thing, right? He just honestly he doesn't even know how to do it like if he knew he knows well enough to be able to be Democrats because because Democrats are apparently Democratic leadership

dumbest people on earth. They don't know how to be popular at all. They keep losing to Trump, right? But his first time around he did some things that were, you know, relatively popular apparently enough to get reelected. But he did a lot of things that were deeply unpopular and he left in when his polling was in the 30s and that's why he lost the 2020 election, right? Now, there are things that he could do to go in a populist direction. where he would be incredibly popular. Is he going to actually do that? There's no way of knowing, but he wants to be loved. And that's not such a bad thing for a leader in a democracy.

So let's see where we can find the things that we agree on. Let's see where we can push him in the right direction. Before we give up, right, I feel like a lot of the other parts of the left and the Democrats go, no, let's give up right away. Okay? Let's assume that there will be no rays of hope. And let's just go to our trenches and start firing at them before the, they fire at us. But what that's going to do is have them respond in a maximalist way,

have them dig into their trenches. And I don't know if you know this if you're a Democrat. They won. We lost. They have the White House, the House, the House and the Senate. You really want to push them to their maximum by punching first? Why don't you let him punch first and then we'll react. And the maximalist approach is not always the right approach. I know for the left, that's like mind blowing. No way. We have to be the most be the most extreme people on earth, otherwise we're not pure enough. No, that's a terrible strategy. Yes, I agree with you on that. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about a Democrat who is going in a direction that I'm actually happy to see because he's looking for silver linings. He's

looking for ways to score some wins for Democrats, even with the situation that we're coming into. So with that in mind, Representative Rokana has suggested during an interview that Democrats could actually work with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswami in the Department of Government Efficiency to essentially cut spending in areas that the left has been wanting to cut spending on. Let's take a look. I do want to ask you about, we were just talking about this a few moments ago, Doge, as it's called, this Department of Government Efficiency, led by Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk. Ultimately, they're going to provide recommendations. It's Congress that appropriates money. Let me provide an area where there could make, be bipartisan collaboration. I mean,

the defense budget, which is nearly a trillion dollars, is dominated by five primes. There has been tremendous reporting about the waste, fraud, and abuse in that budget. The Pentagon hasn't passed an audit and has failed the last six or seven audits. So if they go to say there needs to be more open competition, not the monopolization in defense contractors, and proposed recommendations, that's something that I think could be supported. If they find areas of truly wasteful spending across the government, they would get support. Now, of course, Elon Musk himself is a recipient of federal money as a result of being a private contractor. The Pentagon does provide some money to him as a result of the companies that he owns and how those companies, like Starlink, for instance, can assist the military for various reasons.

Now, with that in mind though, while Elon Musk is very unlikely to go after his own government grants, doesn't mean it would stop him from going after the government grants of other defense contractors, so we'll see how that plays out. But look, the point of what you're hearing from Representative Rokana is, look, if there are areas where we can work together, we're going to work together. And I think that's the right approach. It doesn't mean that you're needlessly and gratuitously committing to working on behalf of the Trump administration, but it does mean, hey, you know what, we've got some priorities,

and sometimes those priorities or sometimes those interests align with some of the interests of the more populist right. And so if we can find a way to work together on those issues, let's do it. And besides which, which it's not just about policy wins or cutting spending in areas where we think spending should be cut. It's also about what the American people want here. And in a recent poll by CBS News that asked, What should congressional Democrats do now? A whopping 86% say, try to find common ground with Trump. Only 14% say opposed Trump on all issues.

Oh, look at that. Both Anna and I said try to find common ground before you go into the fight. And everybody on the left said, oh, you're nuts, you're crazy. The American people don't want that. Oops, again, you were wrong. We were right. 86% of American say try to find common ground first. You're welcome.

them. So now in terms of Rokana, exactly right. And guys, they're gonna make cuts. What do you want to do first? The cuts we hate or the cuts we love? How is this a hard question? We've been wanting cut defense for as long as I've been a progressive, as long as I've been on the left, as long as I've been on the right. It's back when I was a Republican decades ago, right? And then nobody ever wants to cut the Pentagon because they're all corrupt, right? So now if we're We're having a conversation about the first cuts should be to the Pentagon. That's a beautiful conversation. Take the win, right?

And so I love what Rokana is doing by leading, going out in front and saying, oh, we're doing cuts, great, I got some proposals. It's one thing when I say, it's a whole different thing when a United States congressperson says it. And so when I say it maybe Elon and Donald Trump Jr. and people online in the online media take it seriously, but mainstream media, unfortunately, still. drives a lot of the narrative and mainstream media wouldn't quote an online host if their life depended on it, right? But when a US congressman says, they're like, oh wait, are

we doing cuts in the Pentagon? Okay, and now it's become a conversation. Great job, Rokana. Excellent news there and exactly the right direction. When we come back from the break, probably my favorite story of the day, it involves someone very close to Trump who apparently was shaking down possible cabinet appointees. It's just such an incredible story, incredible grift. He didn't get what he wanted, but it's still fun to talk about. So that and more coming up, don't miss it. Elon.

Elon. All right, back on TYT. I can't help but read one critical comment from Twitch here. Jank and Anna, obviously. Laman or Shaman says, Jank, you and Anna, should have had this attitude during Kamala's campaign till the end, your influence may have helped us win, could have used this positivity then. No, no, guys. I wish I was that influential.

No, no, yeah, I mean, that's true too. But, no, guys, if you watched us, we were super positive about Kamala Harris when she first came out. I'm on tape saying that her strategy in the beginning was brilliant, right? I can't be more supportive of that. But that's when she was going in the right direction. When she started going in the wrong direction, we tried to pull her back into the right direction. direction so she could win. If you think no, you should have encouraged her to keep going in the wrong direction and say how much she loved Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney and corporate CEOs, that doesn't

help. It's counterproductive. I'm going to have an interview with Adam Green from PCCC. They have the polling on it. And it proved us spectacularly right. So hold on for that interview later, as we'll put it up on YouTube. I also don't see it as my job to help the Democrats win or the Republicans. I don't see it as my job to be a political activist or a political operative. I know that I definitely went in that direction during Bernie. Bernie was worth it. Okay, Bernie was saying the right things to push the country in the right direction. But I'm done with that. I want to do the news. I want to give you my analysis. I'm not going to cheerlead for one side or the other. Super last thing on that is that at that point, we're analyzing what their

proposals are, what their policies are, right? We're not analyzing what they've done. I mean, we do when you go backwards, but Kamala Harris hadn't done anything. She was just the vice president. Super fair about that too, right? And we were against Donald Trump. Why? Because he had done a lot of terrible things, right? So, but we've got to be honest about that.

If you say, yeah, okay, that's all fair. But I want you to, when you analyze it, to just say, okay, Kamala's great. That's not going to have analysis. That's just cheerleading. And it wasn't, it was true in the beginning and not true at the end. And that's our job. All right, let's keep going. Well, let's talk about the griff that just keeps on given over in the Trump transition.

Let's talk about this report on Boris Epstein. They heard allegations from Scott Besant and others that Boris Epstein was allegedly, we have not confirmed this, was trying to shake down people for access, for contracts, for money. My father's been incredibly clear, you do not, you do not do that under any circumstance. And believe me, there will be repercussions if somebody was. I certainly hope the reporting is false, and I can also tell you if it's true, you know, the person will probably no longer be around. President-elect Donald Trump's son, Eric Trump, made clear while appearing on Laura

Ingram's Fox News show last night that Boris Epstein, a close Trump advisor and aide, will in fact be terminated from Trump's orbit if he has in fact been shaking down possible Trump cabinet appointees all year long. Now, over the weekend, Trump campaign general counsel, David Warrington, actually put out a review into Epstein, which found that he had unsuccessfully tried to shake down potential Trump administration nominees. Epstein sought money from two people, and one of those people was actually Trump's current Treasury secretary pick, Scott Besant. So according to the review, one day after Trump met with Bessent for the first time in February. So this happened in February, Epstein invited him to lunch at a hotel in Palm Beach where he asked for a monthly retainer of at least $30,000 to $40,000 to promote his name at Mar-a-Lago in case Trump won the election.

So the idea is, listen, we don't know if Trump's going to win the election, but I know you want a cabinet position. If you want that cabinet position, who better than me to be in Trump's ear and encourage him to choose you? Now, in order to do that, you're going to have to pay me a retainer of $30,000 to $40,000 a month. Yeah, and he did it way more than twice. Two people have come out and talked about it. Okay, so more people have come out. Interesting. But now, yeah, like Palladino, who's running in New York, said, yeah, everybody told me that I'm supposed to give to this guy to get into Trump's ear.

And so I did and it was theoretically for consulting, but I don't know what I got out of it. And Trump didn't endorse me. Oh my God, Epstein was lying to you. I could have never guessed that. What a little shyster. Yeah, he is in that case. Okay, so let me give you the details, though, because Besant allegedly declined the offer. And he also complained about it after declining the offer.

He spoke to a Trump aide, campaign aide specifically, and complained about being, you know, a victim of a Epstein shakedown. Later, when Epstein asked Bessent to invest $10 million in a three by three basketball league, don't know what that means, he declined but told associates, Epstein would probably give him better access if he had taken up the offer. And then finally, Bessent then called Epstein fairly recently on November 14th to see whether he was criticizing Besson to people around Trump, the review said. Epstein told him that it was too late to hire him and that he was Boris Epstein with an expletive

between the two names. So Boris Fing, you know, Epstein. He then suggested the hiring was for consulting. And then the other person who we learned about this morning from the New York Times reporting on this story was a defense contractor who also allegedly turned down Epstein's offer to work for him on retainer. Epstein wanted $100,000 a month from this individual. Like, it's amazing. Yeah. So I like when the guy calls back Besson, who actually got the Treasury Secretary

job, so apparently he didn't need Epstein. He was a huge Trump donor. Yeah. Yeah. And that'll usually do it. But I like that he answered the way that he did. It's too late. You don't know I'm Boris Eftschen Epstein.

Okay. Are you? Are you? Because that leads me to the Carl Palatino quote. He said again, ran for Congress in New York. And he said, he was highly recommended as having good relations with some people that work for Trump. He explained back in 2023. I was told that it would be in my interest if I sent money to this Boris.

I did, and we heard nothing from the man. He was totally useless. I mean, it sounds like you're totally useless. Like, what a sucker. Yeah. Like, really, you didn't question whether this was a good idea. Is this legal? No, I don't think it is.

But you know, look, I don't know when, when, hey, I will do consulting for you, whatever the hell that means. And I will, and I'll, where that ends and a shakedown begins. So, you know, prosecuting this would be probably incredibly difficult, but nobody's going to go in that direction, right? They're just either going to fire them or they're not going to fire them. And the reason why this is an open question is because Epstein has been so loyal to Trump throughout. And so Trump loves to reward that loyalty. So it's like, this guy stuck with me the whole time. But it turns out he's been trying to make a buck off me the whole time.

On the other hand, it's probably what Trump would have done if he was in Boris's position. Okay, fair. I totally do think that this is like a griff that Trump might take advantage of if the tables returned. But I don't know if Trump would take kindly to all of this stuff happening behind the scenes, which could hurt Trump. because he should be the one who gets to pick, right? Like really, it's about manipulating Trump.

Like Epstein is saying to these potential appointees, hey, pay me tens of thousands of dollars a month, and I can manipulate Trump in order to get you chosen for this cabinet pick. So I think this is what it's going to hinge on. And I don't know that Epstein is smart enough to make this defense. And I feel a little bad saying it publicly because apparently people do watch in that camp. But like the defense he should go with is, oh, no, no, Donald, Mr. President, I was just robbing them. I was never going to influence you because that's sacrosanct. I give you real and honest advice, but these guys were suckers and they wanted to give me money, so I took their money.

Trump might listen to that, be more open to that. But if Trump gets a sense that Epstein was trying to screw him over and take him for a sucker or a fool, then he's going to be super pissed. He's definitely going to fire him. And also, you see what I'm saying? So he's better off just admitting it, hey, I was grifting them, not you. Okay, but that defense only works if he hadn't been in Trump's ear, make, like pushing for certain people to be chosen for certain cabinet positions. So I don't know what he has been talking to Trump about or what he's been egging Trump to do.

But what I do know is, you're right. I mean, look, there are people within Trump's orbit now, people like Elon Musk, for instance, not a fan of Boris Epstein, can't understand why Trump is so loyal to him. So Elon Musk and by the way, also Tucker Carlson have both remarked to associates that they did not understand why Trump plays so much trust in him in Epstein. And it also might have to do with the fact that Epstein did in fact help Trump through all of his legal battles this year, 2024. He assembled and oversaw the Trump legal team during the criminal investigations and in the

multiple criminal cases, including when Trump found it nearly impossible. to find capable lawyers to represent him. Boris is always right. Trump is said to have remarked about Epstein's legal strategy. Okay, I have a conclusion. So Trump's kind of like a mob boss. That's how he thinks. So the captains have to bring him in things.

Whether it's money or its influence or its power, his captains have to deliver for him, right? But if they don't, then they're in a lot of trouble and he's going to let him go, right? And in the old days, you know what mob bosses do, but now it's just easier you can just fire him, right? And but what Trump does sometimes is he sends people to Siberia and then lets them earn their way back in. So he might not say Epstein is the worst. I can't stand him. I can't believe he did this. He's fired. He's dead to me. No, he'll probably send him away and say, no, we're not working with him anymore, but leave it at that and see if Aboros can earn his way back in. Yeah. I've seen him do that on a number of occasions. And so the thing that he's going to be mad about, and that's why I mentioned the mob boss thing is, you don't take money out of his

pocket, right? And this is in a sense, like, hey, that money could have gone to the boss man, right? If we're shaking people down, right? You do it right. You do it for the boss. You don't do it for yourself. If your compos are looking out for themselves and not for you, that's a core violation of how a mob runs. Remember, though, there was one specific. agreement that Susie Wiles, Trump's incoming chief of staff, needed a commitment from Trump in order to agree to that position in his upcoming administration. And it was, I need to limit access to you, Trump. And that includes people who were more involved in your first term.

I would be shocked if Susie Wiles was on Epstein's side. I have no idea, but I'm really curious what her take is on all of this. Yeah, I mean, look, it's complicated real quick. Susie Wiles is a professional that has significant upsides, more likely to contain Trump when he's thinking of doing something wild or radical or letting the lunatics like Michael Flynn, et cetera, into the White House. But the downside is she's in the class of more professional robbers. She's a typical like corporate Democrat, right?

She's been. Corporate Republicans, same thing. I mean, I'm sorry, Republican, that's what I meant. But she's been involved in, you know, campaign strategizing and all of that stuff since like the late 1970s. Yeah. And so her job is to push all the money towards corporate donors, right? So that's a much bigger racket than the tiny little racket that Boris Epstein is running.

Exactly. At least she's a professional about it. But one last ray of hope here on Trump, wait a minute, why is he allowing Susie Wiles to be the gatekeeper? I thought he was a madman who was totally out of control. listen to anyone yet he's giving her concessions the reason why he's giving her concessions is because there's another potential upside of Donald Trump again in a mountain of downsides right but I'm trying to find the upside so that we could figure out how to make the best of this administration and an upside here is he says well Susie wiles did a good job running in my

campaign got me reelected I see her value if for me so hence I'm willing to give her something back, not just a position, but an agreement that she could be the gatekeeper, right? So he's making a deal based on results. And that's not such a bad thing either. All right, when we come back for the second hour of the show, we will discuss the Kamala Harris camp finally coming out. They're telling all to Pod Save America. What have they learned from the failed Harris campaign? We've got those. Flawless. Flawless. Queen Latifah. We'll be right back. Buhn't know. I don't know.