The Young Turks - House Democrats Target Dark Money And Matt Whitaker Caught In EPIC Lie

Episode Date: December 1, 2018

House Democrats have proposed a new bill combating campaign corruption. Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has been caught lying about his knowledge of fraud for a company he worked with. 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. Drop it. Welcome to the Friday edition of The Young Turks, the big power panel, power panel in the first hour, power panel in the second hour. I'll be leading the first. Brett Erlick will be joining us in the second. But in this first hour, while Jank and Anna are out of town, we have obviously an awesome panel here. Brooke Thomas is my Monday co-host on the Monday editions of the damage report. Best day of the week, uh-huh. I said it, JR. It's easily the best day. Everybody loves Monday more than any other day. Monday news especially. Michael Shore here as well. And Matha, I think this might be the first time we're doing the first hour together. I just had oral surgeries, so please don't judge me based on my pain level to respond

to. I will try not to. I'll inevitably do some judgments, but I'll make them subtle. Anyway, we've got a gigantic show for you, first hour and second hour. In the first, we're going to be starting off with the first bill that the new Democratic majority in the House is going to be pushing. It's a big one, it's a complex one, we're going to be trying to break down some of the more important components to it.

A little bit later on, what did Matthew Whitaker know and when did he know it about the fraud for a company that he worked for, what was going on? A little bit later on, income inequality and life expectancy in the US, we've got the stats for you. And we're gonna be closing out the show. Mark Lamont Hill recently let go from his position at CNN after giving a speech at the UN. We're gonna be breaking down all of that too. Before we get to that though, I wanna give you an update on the Amplify program that we've

We've started here at TYT, our new campaign, it has been going amazingly. This is a program where you can give the gift of TYT membership to either journalism students, members of the media, celebrities who are politically active, activists, and politicians as well. And in the week or so that's gone by, we've sold packages for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her team, Senator Bernie Sanders, and yesterday the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. So this is something where they and their teams, family members, get team. TYT memberships to try to amplify our message and then have it, you know, go out through

their avenues as well. We have some new names up at TYT.com slash Amplify right now. You can buy membership for Meet the Press, the late show with Stephen Colbert and others. And those are new options for you as well. Chuck Todd in action photo. Exactly. And I want to thank Tom Wirtz, actually, who I believe it was late yesterday. Tom Wirtz of Charleston, West Virginia, bought a few.

50 membership package for the Situation Room and their team. And hopefully they will make good use of it. And so we'll be giving you more updates on people who have done it. Not necessarily for those packages, but for journalism students as well. Those are coming up in this field, very important that they get access to diverse sorts of news. And by the way, we also will, we're gonna show you, I think in the second block, we had some of you submit designs for a shirt exclusive to people who participate in this Amplified program.

There is a winner, we'll show it to you in the next. next block. We're getting to that though, why don't we turn to some news? Okay. Are you to do the power plant old drop it thing again? I would really prefer not to do it. You did such a good job. I will assure you of this.

You did such a good job. I have never sat down on a Friday show and been like, hey everybody, I'm gonna drop it, be ready. It's always, hey, you're gonna drop it? I guess. It's Jenks thing. It is. You shouldn't have to do it.

Okay. House Democrats have revealed what the first bill they're going to be using the new Democratic majority in the House to push for. It is a multifaceted anti-corruption proposal with a number of different components that we're going to break down here. I want to start off with one of the ones that I find most interesting. And this is under the area of campaign finance reform. They want to set up a system where the federal government would provide a voluntary six to one match for candidates for president and Congress, which means that for every dollar a candidate raises in those races from small dollar donations from individuals. The federal government would

match it six times over, making it significantly more plausible that someone who is not being supported by gigantic donors, giant corporations, could compete in some of these races. What do you guys think about that part? Drop it. I know, it's like it's like I go at once. I think it's great. I mean, if you want my, listen, it's exactly where this Congress should start. One thing that you have to remember, though, is that there's no chance that this is going

to pass the Senate and there's no chance it's going to get past a presidential veto. One of the things included is that it requires presidents to divulge their taxes, right? So of course it's not going to get by the presidential veto now. But what this does is it puts Republicans in a defensive position later on in two years when they have to start running again. And today people already announced that they're going to be running. Mike Espy in Mississippi has said he's going to run for the same Senate seat in two years. So this campaign season never stops.

It puts Republicans in a position of having to defend something that many Americans find to be indefensible. So as the first, as HR1, which is what this bill will be called, House of Representatives won in the next Congress, this is going to be an important part of putting Republicans on the defense of having to say, no, no, we'd like campaign finance the way it is, we like corruption laws the way they are, non-existent. And we also want to make sure that we don't have to abide by these rules like tax return and divulgents, and some of these are being pushed by senators, but one of them is to have

no dark money so that you know where all pack money is coming from. Those things aren't going to fly, but it's going to make it easier for Democrats to control a narrative, which I haven't been able to do for a while. Yeah, and like you were saying, I think that what it does do is it capitalizes on an issue that is popular with the majority of Americans. Campaign finance reform is something that most Americans are for, and there's a spectrum around how much people are willing to push towards, and this package, as you said, is likely not going to get through, and it might be broken up into individual parts like the six-to-one public

financing. But the other thing that it does is it sets the tone for the new class, the freshman members of Congress being able to push their agenda through. And they have been very vocal on not just campaign finance, but really taking the money out of politics. And so for them to be on a team and a committee to do that also makes their voices incredibly animated and vibrant in this new Congress. I agree. Right, like you were saying on one hand, it puts Republicans on the spot, which is a good thing down the line.

But it also shows after such fascinating, I think for me, elections that we've had recently, it shows people who are newly voting, people who are newly paying attention that Democrats are listening to them. Yeah, right. And I think that's a great thing. Yeah, again, even though it can't pass, at least in terms of priorities especially, like it's literally the first bill. It is their first priority.

So look, I want to play you a little bit of a video, Nancy Pelosi with a number of the members of the House that are going to be pushing this bill once it's finally revealed in all its detail. They're well aware of the way this is going to play out politically, but they also know the long-term politics of it, too, as you'll see in this clip. How should we look at what y'all are doing here? Is this symbolic in that Democrats will do it, or is this the kind of thing where you actually think you can get Republicans in the Senate and the President of the United States on board

with this kind of effort. Our best friend in this debate is the public. You've heard me say over and over, many of you. President Lincoln said, public sentiment is everything. Paraphrasing him with it, you can accomplish almost anything without it practically nothing. And as the public observes this HR1 agenda going forward, we believe that it will have great support, and that message won't be lost on the Senate. Quirk aside, nice to see Representative-elect Omar right there.

All of those were representatives elect. Yes. So the incoming freshman class. And this will be the last time they have any influence for a while. Yeah, they are new. They're new, and they're going to realize that when you're new in Congress, you don't have the same kind of influence, but they certainly have had some influence here in this. We will see.

We will see. I wonder. I mean, for a while, for a while, for a while. For a while. I mean, they're going to be low men and women on the committee totem polls. It's going to, listen, they're going to have more influence because they're more of them, right? When you have 40 incoming members, that's, you know, that's a fifth of the, or fourth, somebody do math, sixth of the entire delegation of the caucus. That's a lot. And that's more than it usually is. So they're going to have more influence. But they're also going to have less influence than they've had as campaigners, as centerpieces of this new Democrat.

majority. So they have, they know that, and it's going to balance out, and they will get it probably more quickly than others have. Yeah, look, it's possible. That is certainly the way it generally pays out. I do wonder, though, their ability to generate enthusiasm, news coverage, going viral, those sorts of things like that is a different form of influence, but it's important. And that's a different part of the- And I don't know that that will evaporate necessarily.

The fact that a lot of them are even there breaks away from what it's usually like. But this is what was happening too with Cynthia Nixon pushing in the- the governor's race a certain political rhetoric that now they can't really escape from campaign finance reform. And what they have down to as part of this package, this anti-corruption bill, is an ethics proposal, a voting rights proposal to address the partisan gerrymandering that is happening, that it will violate every point of our democracy. I think these were very important agendas for this new class.

And if they can't push necessarily the legislation, they could at least mobilize a, like I said, a vitality. Yeah, and certainly a coverage. What John said is right. I mean, they have a way of going viral, right? They have a way of getting people to see what they're doing that an ordinary member of Congress who would be elected in a midterm election might not have. And there are a few of them who do it very well.

The problem is even among their ranks, they're not always going to get to be the the ones to say the direction of where things are going, though. I think it's unusually good to see every, I mean, of course, it's the new Congress, so they always trot out the new members. But it's very good to see all of these people clearly having a voice in the first piece of legislation. I want to run through a few more components of this bill, less people believe that it's purely about public financing of campaigns.

It's an important part, and it was the first part. But also passing the Disclose Act, which would require super PACs and dark money political organizations to make their donors public. That seems disclosure is always one of the easiest parts of this to pass, and generally people are incredibly supportive of it. Also passing the Honest Ads Act, which would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source and amount of money of political ads on their platforms, similar disclosure. In terms of ethics, you mentioned, requiring the president to disclose his or her tax returns,

you can put it in a law that doesn't mean he's going to do it. And you're not going to be able to pass it anyway. Stopping members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment cases or buy first-class plane tickets. That's a very interesting one. Blake Ferenhold starts to squirm. Giving the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and put in stricter lobbying registration requirements. That's throughout all of these, but that's a good example. The devil's really in the details.

Strictor lobbying requirements, okay, well, specifically what it is, and we don't know yet. We will know once we have the actual text of the bill. Create a new ethical code for the U.S. Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law. That could mean many different things, and I honestly don't know at this point. I'm assuming it has something to do with conflicts of interest, potentially spurred by Kavanaugh, who seems like one of the most blatantly political people to get on the Supreme Court in some time.

But then you also mentioned voting rights, and that's a big part of this as well. Creating new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote. Early voting and online voting would also be promoted. That is the way it should already be in terms of automatic voter. Yes, obviously, you should make it as easy as possible. Restoring the Voting Rights Act and prohibiting voter role purging seems timely, considering what's been going in the past few years.

But especially in these midterm elections, we saw an incredible amount of that. specifically in Georgia as well, and also beefing up election security, which we could use too. So, very big areas. It's complex, multifaceted. As I said, it is possible that, as you implied, some of this might be broken out into individual bills. I find it difficult to imagine that many of the Democrats in the House will be against this. So it seems like it'll be pretty easy to pass most components of this, at least in the House. Yeah, I mean, and what Nancy Pelosi does is keep her caucus, and we've talked about this,

airtight, right? I mean, she gets very few people leaving, and that's part of her success, especially in these last two years, not when she was speaker, but these last two years since Trump has been president. And this seems like one of the bills where she's going to be able to do that, because there's something in here for everyone. A lot of them were drawn up with the assistance of senators, too. So you saw Sheldon White House and Amy Klobuchar's names in there, you know, making you think, oh, well, maybe the Senate can pass it. The Senate can pass. There's no way the Senate can pass this. But, again, you know, online voting. I'm I'm a dissenter on that.

Well, I think that was a typo in the article at first, because there was a correction. They meant online voter registration, so they came back and they did. Oh, okay, good. I caught that too. Yeah, that whole section is about registration. Yeah, it is. So it's the first version of it said online voting and they came back and corrected that. Yeah.

Yeah, I can be kidding. I mean, you can mail in your vote. Why not email in your phone? Well, because there are too many things that happen when, when you can also follow your mailed in vote, you can't always, I mean, there are too many things, I don't know, I'm skeptical of online. I know. Well, we're a long way off. We're not there yet. We can't, I mean, you know, without a paper ballot, we're screwed when you can vote in person on a machine. That didn't work out. So why would it work out if you can do it at home on a machine? Well, because

you wouldn't stay in line for eight hours. That's right. Well, I mean, of course, we don't want you standing in line. And that's a, that's great. But if you're doing it very quickly and that vote is going to be compromised because it's online and people can't monitor that, then it doesn't, then I'd rather wait in line. You know what I'm saying? That there's something better People can't, though, that's the thing, unless they start. It's all bad because of, no, of course, the problems are all bad, but I think you get new questions, you get new problems. Basically, neither of them are clean.

Neither of them are clean. What Instagram story in your phone? Then I wouldn't be, could I opt out? I think, I think you have, actually. I have opted out, yeah. Okay, so I do have a question for you guys. Look, they can't actually pass, I mean, they can pass it, but they can't make it law. They can't really dictate the agenda.

They can dictate hopefully the conversation, and it looks like they're going to start doing that from day one, while also stopping Donald Trump from accomplishing most of the horrendous things that he'd like to do. What I wonder is, over the next two years, when they have their next chance at getting more actual political power, the ability to actually pass bills and make them law, getting the Republicans on the record on these issues, making them vote against these things, potentially other bills, what is a strategy that you think can generate the most momentum for them going into 2018? What can actually help to-2020, you mean? Sorry, 2020, yes. That's funny, I made a call to a congressman today on John's behalf, trying to get them onto the damage report.

And then I saw that we were going to cover this. And I said, what do you think of H.R. 1? And he said, it's great, but it should be H.R. 500, meaning that while it's great that it's the first thing because it sets the tone, it should also be the last thing that they do before an election, because it's really important that they get, that that's what you're saying, that they go into an election saying, hey, we're trying to put these forward and these people who you're about to vote for are against it, that that has greater effect than something that will have been, you know, almost.

A year and a half, or two years ago. I was just going to say, I think that that's what the Democratic Party was doing anyways for the last two years was protracting any sort of movement or momentum. And of course, they didn't have the numbers in the House for sure. But, I mean, the Republican Party successfully under Obama, halted, was virtually on strike, was halting any passage of legislation. And they figured out a way to do that as well. And if, you know, the Democrats are not going to retain the Senate, something that they can do

is try to stop anything from getting through. No, no, and he agrees. He's all in favor. He was very excited that this was happening. He was part of writing it. He just thinks that he wants to make sure that it's not just HR1, that it's the last thing they do also. He thinks it's more important that it's the last thing they do

in this Congress than the first thing, that's all. That makes sense, though, like especially since it's not going to happen anyway. It's mostly for show. It's like at least make it count. That makes sense because we are in this. We talk about it all the time of Mondays this space where so many people just don't. care about so many bad things. And so, yeah, if it's two years ago, that makes sense, I see what they're saying.

I don't know about that. I feel like there are people that are affected by what this legislation will materially do on the ground. And of course, it's not going to get passed, but I think that they will mobilize their own communities to put even more pressure on their political representatives. So I do see an advantage to putting something like this at the top of the new year to continue movement and traction with those communities towards 2020. And of course, like, yeah, people have short attention span, so you have to figure out a way to

reanimate them. But I don't feel like there won't be many other controversies between now and 2020. Between now and Monday. Right, exactly. Yeah, and look, maybe by having this conversation about all these different topics, we can also spur some ballot issues. Much of this could be done on the state level two. And that process needs to be started well in advance of the next election.

So hopefully we'll see more of that as well. And hopefully more on the individual corruption as well. Some of these are important parts of it, but I think there's a lot more that they can do in that area. That said, we're gonna take our first break. When we come back, Matthew Whitaker, apparently a little bit more in the know on fraud corporations he's worked for than he's been willing to admit. We'll break that down after this. Welcome back to the show, everyone.

First hour of the Young Turks, I wanna read some of your comments. I saw Gabby Marita said, I can't wait for Fox News to put up Clean campaign finance reform on their list of supposed bad things House Democrats are pushing for. I'm sure they'll find a way to justify their mental gymnastics to label it a bad thing, though, but it doesn't make it any less hilarious. Yeah, that is true. Let's see, shy Coltrane says campaign finance reform would be pointless if Citizens United is in the books. I don't necessarily agree with that.

We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-Fing the Republic or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations. corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, The UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it.

The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, You must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or, You're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. I mean, it makes it harder to do certain types of campaign finance reform, but you could still set up a system of public campaign finance, even with things like that currently. Like we need more all-incolumbent.

solution, but just because there's citizens united doesn't mean that you can't do anything possible. Right, and it would also catalyze probably another challenge to the law that would go to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, yeah. Right, but you know, then what does the Supreme, what does this Supreme Court do about it anyway? Yeah. Yeah. You know, that's the issue. And LP3 agreed with the general consensus here. Online voting is a really, really bad idea. Votes could be easily hacked. Paper ballots are the way to go to prevent fraud. Yes, I think that at some point there probably will be online voting, but if they can't get the machines right now, I don't necessarily trust them Right, when there's no, like it's all through the network.

That seems a little bit dangerous theoretically. I want to thank some of you who've been participating in the Amplify program. First off, John Lee from Minnesota, who purchased the package for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her team. Very nice of you. Thank you very much. And again, Tom Borts from Charleston, who did the package for the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.

They could use it. Page Richardson from Langley, I think in British Columbia, actually, for purchasing memberships for journalism students. Similarly, Stephanie Manzo from Modesto, California, Joshua Deekman from Akron, Ohio, Mariel as well, and Jason Constant from Manchester, New Hampshire. Thank you for participating in the Amplify program at t.com slash amplify. Covering the continent. We're all over there. There were a couple of people from Australia last year, actually. Never heard of it. Exactly. It always amazes me. Not just that we have viewers from overseas,

which is awesome, but that they're willing to donate their money to try to change things here. That just seems amazing to me. It's real bad here, okay. It's really bad. We can use the help, yeah. And we make things real bad for the rest of the world when things are real bad here. That's true. It might be like an ounce of prevention thing.

I've been spending a domestic. They're like, we can't bleed your military budget, so let's enhance your good media budget. So one other thing, coming up on this Monday, Bernie Sanders, Sanders is gonna have another one of his town halls. This one incredibly important and very timely considering the conversation we're having nationally about a Green New Deal and the multiple climate change reports from both the UN and from the US government recently. So on December 3rd, Bernie Sanders is gonna lead a town hall on climate change. We are gonna be one of the media outlets who are live streaming that town hall. You can watch that 4 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. Pacific time. Following that, there is going to be a TYT panel here in our L.A. Studio, and then a member's only longer TYT panel on climate change from 540 to 6.30 p.m. Pacific time on Monday, that is going to be Jank Yugar, myself and Francesca Fiorentini, going to be talking about Bernie's panel, also talking about climate change, we're generally as well. So a very exciting event coming up with that latter part being for members only.

So if you're not a member, there is a lot of time to become a member by going to t.com slash john. Oh, and helping me to catch up and beat Jank before he gets back. How awesome would that be? You guys know, Jank, how frustrated would he be if he was in third now? I knew who's in first. Anna's in first, by a good bit, but he's catching up on her actually. Right.

And I'm in third right now, I could use a little bit of help. Al Gore's got his climate change conference here in Los Angeles on the fourth, so the day after this. He does? I didn't actually know about that. I need to look into that. You can mention it. And go.

I would love to do that actually. Okay, let's jump back in the news. Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker apparently knew a lot more about widespread instances of fraud that were going on at one of the companies that he worked for. It was a patent company that was effectively doing nothing for people who were handing over thousands of dollars to develop and market the products that they had invented. Now this is due to a release of information from the Freedom of Information Act, documents released by the Federal Trade Commission of the Wall Street Journal show that he had received numerous

email exchanges back in 2015 about customer fraud complaints with the chief executive of the company World Patent Marketing, for which Mr. Whitaker was a paid advisor. Whitaker received more than a dozen emails and calls from people complaining about the company. In most of the cases, he then forwarded those emails and transcribed voicemails to Scott Cooper, that CEO. Now, what's important about this is not that the guy who is the lead law enforcement officer in our entire country was shilling for this, like, totally fraudulent company that was ripping people off for their inventions. It's that even up until, so far as I know, right now, he has been saying that he didn't know anything about this.

He said he was unaware of any fraudulent activity at the company, and he didn't respond to requests for comment today when it was revealed. And what's interesting is that it wasn't like he had a brief period where he worked there, where it was like he got these things and that sort of bothered him. And so he left. He got those emails, and he worked for them for nearly three years after that, after knowing that this company was a complete sham, a complete fraud. And he's our attorney general right now.

Corruption in the Trump administration? Don't say. What's so frustrating about this, so for me is, duh. All logic says, of course he knew about this, but at this point, this is just where we are. We needed emails to be, like, of course he knew about this. There's no possible way that he didn't. But it's like, well, duh, I guess now we have proof we needed. It's also the people that he passed over.

He passed over Rod Rosenstein for obvious reasons, right, and obvious partisan reasons. And, man, I'm not sure that I wouldn't have done the same had I not been Donald Trump thinking what Rod Rosenstein has on me. But if I had the option. But he picked the wrong guy and he passed over the right guy. I mean, you want somebody who's squeaky clean at the top of the Justice Department, right? Isn't that what it's about? And this person is so flawed. Do I think the president knew about this stuff with world patent?

No, I don't think so. But I don't think he cares now that he does. does know it, you know, and that's what's the most bothersome part of this, right? You know, I couldn't, I don't know that he knew about it, but that's the point. And that's what is fraying at the Justice Department and fraying in our politics now and the administration. But we want someone at the top of the Justice Department to be squeaky clean. That's not the president's top priority for this world.

No, that's true, but it's been most presidents. And listen, I mean, John Ashcroft, who was more odious than Matthew Whitaker, was squeaky clean, right? I mean, there are people in Missouri you're going to tell me right now. He did this when he was a senator and a governor, and you're right, you're right. But as far as somebody to lead the attorney general's office, he was the kind of person that people picked to lead the attorney's general's office, even though he was way off the chart. And so I'm not defending him. But I'm saying holding him up against to somebody else who is undesirable, you want the person who is clean with the law.

And what Brooke said is right, this president and this administration don't care about that at all. Yeah, we've gotten accustomed to that, though. Well, what is more heartbreaking is that Trump can go on and say that he's there for the little guy when this world patent marketing agency, they said cost consumers $26 million, plummeting them into debt, into pulling from their life savings. So clearly if he advocates for Whitaker to stay on, he's also advocating for the complete turning upside down the poor people, the little guy that he says he's for. It's almost like, would he have done that, let's say, if there was a four?

more profit college. I was gonna say, wait, he actually did this thing himself. Wait, right, right. I don't think that he did, but if he did, it's probably a point in his favor. It's like, yeah, you take those people that are, you know, maybe their lives haven't gone the way they want and they look up to people like Trump or to people like Whitaker and you screw them over. You take their last dollar, you drive into debt, screw those people.

How did Trump University not sink his candidacy? But it didn't. I agree with you, I don't think that Trump knew about this, but I'm actually less bothered about whether he knew about this, then what it was that he did know about Whitaker that chose to make him, this, it's such an incredibly important position that he is treating purely based on personal legal considerations. That is the only, Matthew Whitaker is not qualified for this position, he wasn't qualified for his last position.

Other than shilling for this fraudulent company, he was some minor lawyer in Iowa or whatever. It was Iowa. It was Iowa. And that's it. I interviewed him and I forgot that I interviewed him. He ran for Senate in 2014. Yeah, and somebody, I was reminded, we interviewed that guy, and I told it was the most, it was forgettable, oh, that was that guy. Yeah, it's the face you forget while you're talking to him.

He has no qualifications for any leadership position in that department, and Donald Trump, you know, he can't obviously come up with a list of qualifications because he doesn't know about them. So what did he know about them? Well, we already know what he knew about Matthew Whitaker. The only thing that a Republican in Trump's position needs to know is that Matthew Whitaker made, I guess, a very wise decision considering the political. and media, a climate that we're in right now, he decided a while back, I'm gonna go on TV and I'm going to say that Donald Trump didn't do anything and shouldn't face any legal consequences. And I'm just going to say that over and over again. So he gets brought in to be a chief of staff in the Justice Department, eventually leads the Justice Department

based purely off of talking about how Donald Trump deserves to be protected by the Justice Department. And that's what he has right now. As you said, they passed over Rod Rosenstein. But it goes beyond that, Donald Trump tweeted out like a day ago a meme, literally, the president is tweeting out memes, that Rod Rosenstein should be locked up for treason. And then when asked about it, he doubled down, saying that Rod Rosenstein should be in jail right now. And so much has been normalized that we don't even care. Did we even cover that yesterday?

I don't think we did. I don't know. No, I let the hour. I know we didn't. The president is saying that one of the leaders of the Justice Department should be in jail right now for investigating the president's wrong. doing, and it didn't even make the news. And then you get Matthew Whitaker, a guy who, like, it's not just that he's likely to hamper

or shut down the Mueller investigation. I know some people watching this don't even care about that investigation. But the head of the Justice Department has a long list of things that they are supposed to be doing. And you should be relatively competent in that position. So every day that he holds that position, many of the functions of that position are not being done. And what damage is that doing in DC and across the country?

right now. I don't know enough about the position to know, but I know that I probably know more about it than Matthew Whitaker did when he got the position. Yeah, also you should care about the Mueller investigation. I agree, I agree. But I'm saying that there are other, there's other consequences to this as well outside of that in a number of different areas. Okay, yes, let's move on to one more story before the next break. Yesterday we broke down the sad fact that for another year in a row, the average life expectancy in the U.S. dropped very slightly. That is a trend has been going on for a couple of years. I read, and apparently you have to go back to the time of World War I to find a comparable

four-year period with as large of a drop in U.S. life expectancy, a time when there were tons of war deaths. Also, there was a pandemic that killed, I think, 675,000 people in the U.S. So we have now reached that period of history again in terms of health outcomes for people in the U.S. But what's interesting, and I want to focus today on a different component of this, is that it's not dropping for everybody. In fact, some people in America are doing just fine and their life expectancy is going up year after year. And this is where income inequality plays a very

important role in life expectancy in the U.S. So that's what we're going to talk about today. Let's go over some of these stats. In 1980, the richest cohort of middle-aged American men could expect to live until about 83 and the poorest to 76. By 2010, the richest American males had gained six years in life expectancy, up to 89 on average, while life expectancy for the poorest men had not improved during that entire multi-decade period. And in fact, just in a brief part of that, you got much of the gains. From 2001 to 2014, the richest Americans gained about five years of longevity, while the life expectancy for the poor didn't budge at all.

And very specifically, this is an amazing statistic, this is my amazing fact of the day. Men who were among the top 1% of income earners lived 15 years longer than men at the bottom 1%. That gap, assimilately for women, was 10 years. So just the income, 15 years, that is such a huge chunk of an entire life. Right. That span, how has that increased over time? If my math, which is never good, is right, it's 94 is the expectation. Is that the expected?

I don't know how for- And it said it went up from about four, five years. Right, but then they said from $20. So we don't have it broken down by percentage points. But they have that one said. Cortiles to me. Yes. I completely forgot what I was talking about.

But the, I'm just curious as to where that gap was, that 15 years longer, that the richest 1% lives than the bottom, what percent, whatever percent you said it was, what that spread was like 40 years ago. Well, why don't we bring up, we have a little chart for you. It's gonna be a little bit complex, it's like straight out of one of these papers. But you see a bunch of lines there. These are quarter segments, hold it really fast, quarter segments by income. So if you're on the orange line, you're in the top quarter of income earners in the US.

And from on the left 2000 to just a couple of years ago on the right, you see that it's slowly creeping up. If you make less money, $83,000 on average, you're on the green line, less money 47, you're You're on the red line, and then below that, the lowest, about 17,000, your poverty line, basically, you're living far less. And you're seeing there that it's not just the poor to the rich, it's every step along the way, how long you live, let alone the quality of the life you live, is being influenced by income inequality. And for a lot of different reasons, some of them fairly obvious, you know, access to health

insurance and things like that, but it's also, there's things about diet and smoking and everything. And we know the additional pressures that when you're at the bottom rung of that economic ladder, it would be great to eat very well and exercise constantly in all of that. But you don't, you can't do that if you're working for jobs. If you live in a food desert and don't even have access to the types of foods that lets you live to 85 or 90 or 94 years of age. So these are just amazing.

In a time when we supposedly have the number one healthcare system in the world, we have tons of money were incredibly rich. Being rich, even in the U.S. context, way better than being poor, way better than being poor. And not in just the million ways that we normally say, but literally in getting 5, 10, 15 additional years of your life. That is crazy. They all seem to be going up. But that, I mean, that gap seems to have been there for quite a while, which is what I was trying to say before. And I don't know if I read the chart right. So I'm going to put that disclaimer out there. How has this been addressed, like they're talking about addressing it now, if the gap has remained constant, even as age, as people live longer, at every strata, they seem to be living longer, marginally at the lower strata and markedly at the top.

But what are they saying? What are the people that are talking about this saying, aside from health care, which hasn't changed, and so this has remained the same as well. Smoking is way down in America, that doesn't seem to have changed it, right? So what are they saying? Yeah, they're saying it's drug, alcohol, and suicide rates, but there are more stories that are related to this that are kind of corollary. So one is the opiate situation, which has taken 70,000 lives in 2017. But I think something which was more markedly interesting was the fact that the tax breaks or the tax cuts, I guess you should. could say, they're gonna have an influence on this.

So while millionaires are gonna look to make somewhere around like $6,000 through these tax cuts, the poorest who make less than $10,000 are going to have to pay $182 more. So that level, so millionaires are actually making more than the poorest people make in a year as a supplement to the tax cuts. That's crazy, but what that means is that additional stress that you were talking about. And I think the thing in all these articles that isn't addressed is stress-related disease. That's at the heart of all illnesses is stress. And the fact that you have to worry about the multiple of jobs that you're carrying, feeding

your children when there's food deserts, food swamps in your area, your mortgages, your foreclosures, all these other elements that money could be a way of addressing them are not there for you. So your life expectancy is remarkably diminished. Yeah, some of the other things that are influencing it, or social programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, that's very important. I did a report on the damage report today, actually, which should be up at YouTube.com slash the damage report about the progress of the past three decades in lowering cancer death rates, which is it's gone down quite like 26% since 1990, I think. And one of the components of that is that the difference in outcomes for black and white Americans has been cut basically in half over that period. Black Americans still die cancer rates about 15% more than whites, but back in 1990, it

was 33%. But that's not a thing over the course of your life that's constant. It tends to be that at younger ages, cancer rates for non-whites far, far higher, because they don't tend to have access to prevention and screening and things like that. It's only once you get to the older, like the basically 60, 70, 80 years old, when you have access to Medicare, Medicaid, things like that, especially Medicare, that you tend to see the outcomes being more similar across racial groups. So those programs, like if we didn't have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, there would

be no comparison whatsoever between these groups. That's helping to mitigate some of it, I think. Yeah. I mean, I also think that something that's not in this report is the prison industrial complex, which the poorest people are the ones who are impacted in it. So much of our money federally on a state level goes to those systems. And actually in California, the biggest, the largest mental health. institution is within the LA County Jail system.

That's crazy that people will only have access to mental health care and not even great mental health care at all if they go into prison. That sort of thing is the thing that is guaranteed by our systems of health care coverage, unfortunately. So I do think that stress is a big part of the story. And surprisingly, the study comes out of Stanford, that wasn't a point of discussion for Well, maybe we can contact them. With that, we do have to take a break. Couple more stories I want to get to what remains of the first hour.

We'll be back to just a few. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free segment. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Before we get back to the news, and we do have two more stories. more stories, hopefully we can get to and what remains of the hour. I did want to let you know,

we have had a contest going for some user submitted designs for an amplified t-shirt, an exclusive t-shirt for those who purchase Amplified. At T-YT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your

devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EX, P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. Packages of at least $150 for journalism, students, celebrities, members of the media, and politicians.

There is now a winner, so if we could bring it up, this shirt was designed by T-Y-T-Member Jade Neighbor. It is an awesome design. Looks great both in black and white, which is not always the case necessarily with their T-shirts. That looks good. That is really good. Multiple colors. A very awesome design. Yeah, very good. Yeah, it's absolutely perfect. Great design and also very on brand for that. You can go to t-yt.com slash Amplify to choose your sponsorship package that includes that t-shirt if you'd like to get it. Again, it is an exclusive for this program. Actually, similarly on that, I want to thank one more Amplify purchaser, Timothy Brennan from Farmington, New York.

Thank you for participating in the Amplify program and making these memberships available for journalism students. Anything else who want to mention, John? There is one of two other things. So first, on the super chat, commit comics said this, anytime Brooke is on air, I'm here for it. How nice is that? How nice is that?

It's like a play on my Twitter name. It is actually. thing between me and John because he tweeted the wrong name for the first, I know. What's your Twitter news? I don't think it was six months, but it's Brooke on air. Oh, yeah. But I was giving some very good publicity for another Brooke. I don't know.

I'm gonna look, I'm gonna look, okay? Did you forget the E? No, it was like he was tweeting at Brooke Thomas or something. I don't know why I would have thought that was her Twitter handle. Okay, well, look, then those tweets are still up. I'm gonna find how many times I actually did that, because it's still there. Definitely exaggerated. Yes.

But it's only funny this way. Yes. Well, we'll see. We'll see. You guys have plenty to talk about in the hostmates game. Yes. Okay, one more plug. We do have Rebel HQ coming after the main show today.

And it's a big, it's a great interview. If you're watching live, stay tuned after the second hour is over. It's a special Friday edition of Rebel HQ. This is 8.05 Eastern 505 Pacific Jank interviewed Congressman Rokana about a number of different topics, ending support for for the war in Yemen, his stop Walmart proposal with Bernie, and the drama surrounding progressive leadership races going on in Congress. So that will be available shortly after the show. Little plug on the damage report.

I also spoke with Congressman Kana about those topics and a few others. So that's also available on our YouTube channel or on the podcast. So watch that one actually. Let's watch that one. No, no, no, but watch the Rebel HQ too. Watch the mouth. Sure, watch Rebel, but watch John's, watch the damage report. We also talked about his new pharmaceutical bill on the damage report, no big deal.

Okay, let's transition now from me joking around to one of the most serious topics possible. Next month, peace talks are supposed to be held in Sweden that could potentially lead to the end of the absolutely brutal war on Yemen, and the stakes could not be higher. Now, we've talked about this a few times over the course of this week. There was the Senate bill that potentially could stop our participation in this war, but the war continues. And I want to focus on one aspect of it. We've talked about the drone strikes and the bombings and, you know, our support in terms

of intelligence and refueling. I wanna focus now on the famine that is currently ongoing and is expected to get much worse there. So we have a number of different humanitarian groups that are operating in the area and trying to spread the message of what's going on there. So I wanna focus on quotes from a couple of the people working at Save the Children. Greg Rahm, the VP of Humanitarian Response said, millions of children are at immediate risk of starvation. More than 85,000 children have died of starvation and the complications of hunger already.

So when I say the stakes are high, the stakes already have been high. They will get worse. The numbers are going to be far higher. But right now, that is already one of the greatest embarrassments for our species going back any number of different years. The worst humanitarian problem in our world right now, currently ongoing in Yemen, thanks in no small part to our participation. But those 85,000 could potentially be joined by a lot more.

17.8 million people are food insecure, and approximately 8.4 million civilians are on the brink of famine right now. On top of the famine, you have 1,115,378 suspected cases of cholera between April of last year and July of this year, and 10,000 new cases being reported every single week since June. Now if you, I know we want to respond, I also want to bring up this map though, and you'll We'll see over time how the situation has, that's unfortunately not the right version. You're not seeing the actual data there, but between last year and this year, the severity of the food insecurity in different regions of Yemen has become far worse.

So horrendous, hopefully in December at these peace talks, something can be done. I don't know how willing Saudi Arabia is to pull back from what's going on there. And there is of course the internal civil war component of this as well. Well, this is a pre-talk to talks. Yeah. This is what's happening. They just want to get them in a room, and we've seen what pre-talks have done in the case of Syria, which is pretty much nothing.

What should be mentioned here is that Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian monarchy, and this is an incredibly unpopular war, even in Saudi Arabia. Yet people who learn about this war in the U.S. are also against it. They learn about the humanitarian crisis, but we live in a quote-unquote democracy. Why haven't we been able to push on our leader or leaders even under Obama to push forward some sort of incentive for the Saudi regime, which experienced, I would consider a right-wind coup by its current leadership, to say, guess what? You're not getting arms, you're not getting anything, you're not getting fueling, you're

not getting intelligence from us until you ease up on this. And I know Saudi Arabia is going to cry like Iran war against them and a coming Shi'a sort of takeover of Saudi Arabia. But this doesn't stop the fact that this has also been a financial drain on Saudi Arabia's economy as well. And this makes it an incredibly unpopular war over there. But what would it take for us and the rest of the world leaders to push this? Yeah.

Well, if you have been following this story, if you'd like to do something, I'm going to suggest some charities that are operating the area. This is just list of suggestions. There are many others. Can I add some? Of course. You can go first, actually, if you'd like. So what is really difficult right now is that food for sure, unemployment, people don't

have jobs, and the cost of food is what the issue is. It's not necessarily just the blockade, there's a huge inflation on the cost of bread and food prices. So there's an organization my friend has called Port of Moka, and they have a charity wing that's trying to raise money for their farmers who are farming coffee in Yemen. And over there, you'll also see a link on some charity as well. Okay. And additionally, there is Save the Children, as we are quoting, UNICEF, the International Rescue Committee, Oxfam, America, Care U.S., the Norwegian Refugee Council, and the World Food Program as well.

All of them needing money for their operations. The World Food Program, they're the ones that seem to be working on what we just heard about, which was the fact that there is food. So damn expensive. Yeah, I think the prices of staples have doubled apparently. That's what happens in war. People are dying and millions of people are dying and living like this and you see these pictures of these babies and this is happening right outside of stopped grocery stores and that reporters go over and are able to eat, you know, fine.

It's just these people are living like this and it's not that food isn't there. It's awful. Yeah, and thankfully, I mean, look, there has not been, I would say, anywhere near proportionate outrage or media coverage of this topic generally, but there are, there have been people in the media who have been talking about it for some time, and there have been politicians pushing for it. We talked on my program about, so Rokhan on the House side, but Chris Murphy, Bernie Sanders, and recently Mike Lee on the bill on the Senate side as well.

Senator Chris Murphy has been on it from before, you know, such a long time. Also, I-24 News, you should watch it, because we lead with Yemen, not every night, but almost every night. Yeah, and as we said, biggest humanitarian problem. in the world. Hopefully people talk about it more, even though. And again, so one of the things is, it's weird in media that the more important topics don't necessarily, like, it's not just that people don't talk about it. It's when you do talk about them, but people unfortunately don't care. So, like, we, on the damage report, we talk about Yemen constantly. Those videos never

do well. We're going to keep doing it because it's important. Things that are foreign, American audiences don't watch. I know that. There's U.S. centrism that is at the core of media consumption in the U.S. And I don't know what to do either because people don't care about Yemen, but they also don't care about Iraq and the fact that, you know, there are people that are experiencing more cases of health issues than after Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And so we're not talking about that. That's crazy. And it doesn't surprise me that we don't want to talk about Yemen either.

None of us is surprised. These people are brown. We have a thing against that here. Yeah, we do. Well, we have a thing against Brown and people outside of the U.S. in general. I don't know if we have that stronger thing against London, Londonites and people in Australia. Well, we care about like the royal family. We care about the royal family, don't get me wrong, if it's pop culture, we care.

Okay, why don't we turn to our last topic of the hour. CNN has cut their ties with contributor Mark Lamont Hill following a speech she made on Israel and Palestine at the UN. We want to play you just a couple of short segments of that speech, here is the first. I am profoundly interested in the plight of the Palestinian people, as well as the broader ethical, moral, and political implications of their struggle for freedom and justice, as well as equality. The great catastrophe in May 1948, they resulted in the expulsion, murder, and to date permanent dislocation of more than a million Palestinians. For every minute that the global community has articulated a clear and lucid framework for human rights, the Palestinian people have been deprived of the most fundamental of them. While the Universal Declaration for Human Rights says that all people are, quote,

born free and equal in dignity and rights, the Israeli nation state continues to restrict freedom and undermine equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, as well as those in the West Bank and Gaza. At the current moment, there are more than 60 Israeli laws that deny Palestinians access to full citizens. rights, simply because they're not Jewish. From housing to education to family reunification, it is clear that any freedoms naturally endowed to all human beings are actively being stripped away from Palestinians through Israeli statecraft. Now I want to turn to the section of the speech that some of the pushback against Mark Lamont Hill came from, and that is in this section.

We have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words, but to commit to political action, grassroots action, local action, an international action that will give us what justice requires. And that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea. So Mark Lamont Hill gave that speech to the UN. CNN spokesperson confirmed that Hill is no longer under contract. The network did not give a reason for that, but the move comes amid objections to Hill's speech by the Anti-Defamation League and other groups.

We have a quote from Sharon Nazarian of the ADL, saying those calling for from the river to the sea are calling for an end to the state of Israel, adding that the annual event of the UN promotes divisiveness and hate. Now we have a number of tweets that we can get to from Mark Lamont Hill responding to that. We'll hold off on just a second, but let's, I believe that you actually are, you know Mark I do know Mark, I do know Mark pretty well, and I was part of the delegation he talks about in this UN speech that went to Palestine in January 2015, and he subsequently went back multiple times, and this is actually now a part of his academic research, he's at Temple

University in the field of anthropology, he's a full professor, and I think it just, it's unfortunate that 20 minutes of that speech got reduced to six words at the end, where he ends up clarifying in his later tweets about what he means, which is that he's talking about a one-state solution. And even that the two-state solution, even if you were for that, is significantly hampered by settlements. And so basically he focused in on the unequal laws within Israel and what the settlements have been doing as a barrier to peace. So no one is listening to him if they're only listening to the last six words and inferring that he means to destroy all of Israel. And I would ask why, one, that the ABL gets to be the only speaker on this, even another

CNN contributor, Peter Beinart, has written a critique around how the ADL responds to moral crises in the U.S., but acts very differently in Israel, calling it a moral schizophrenia. And people have only, haven't even listened to the speech. Well, yeah, 20-minute speech, I would imagine that 99% of the people that will respond to it will not have been. I didn't hear the entire thing even. I've heard much larger portions of it, of course, and I've digested all of his response to it. But that is the way of the internet, unfortunately. Do you want to go?

No, you go for it. Basically, I think Mark Lamont Hill should have had been heard on this, you know, rather than dismissed for it. You know, I don't, that's the thing that seems most distressing. And I don't know if there was a pattern of defying some sort of objectivity that he's been asked to have at CNN that informed their decision to do this. But it's certainly, you know, he should have been talked to about this rather than have this done in public and certainly dismissed for it because it didn't seem like it was that egregious a thing to say.

I don't agree with every single thing he said, but it's not about agreeing. I would never want to agree with everything that anybody. says, yeah. So, so it just seems like he didn't get any kind of a hearing on this, which is unjust. Then you have Alan Dershowitz who makes his politics very clear, who is still on CNN and is the chief voice for Israel on. Is Dershwitz a paid contributor on CNN? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know either. And that does make a difference. Yeah, it does. You're right. Well, why don't we hear out some of Mark Laban Hill's response? He had a number of tweets. I'm just going to focus on a couple of them, but you can, of course, go to him on Twitter to see more.

He says, my reference to river to the sea was not a call to destroy anything or anyone. It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank slash Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things. No amount of debate will change what I actually said or what I meant. I support Palestinian freedom. I support Palestinian self-determination. I am deeply critical of Israeli policy and practice. I do not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people, or any of the other things attributed to my speech.

I spent my life fighting these things. That was reflected in many of his tweets. At no point did I endorse, support, or even mention Hamas, this is dishonest. I was very clear in my comments about desiring freedom, justice, and self-determination for everyone. And the speech, obviously, was far more detailed than even the excerpt that we've shown to you, let alone his response to it. The critics, I would say, probably are largely not interested in that.

And I'm not even primarily talking about the ADL. I'm talking about the people who bandwagoned on. after that. To be dismissed without any reasoning being given, refusing to answer questions, that is incredibly suspicious. It's, I would say, cowardly of CNN to not be willing to say, if that is the reason that you're doing it, then stand by it and let people respond to it. And then they can decide whether they want to continue to support CNN if that's the standard

that's being used. And the people that are allowed to be contributors on, not saying just CNN, but MSMEC as well, Jeffrey Lord was a contributor for a year and a half. He's a guy that said that the liberal, his reconstructions of history to try to make it seem as if liberals have been behind everything bad in history. I mean, he has said absolutely absurd things about the KKK, about the Nazis, and he remained on long after Donald Trump was elected. Well, and also very disingenuous to decry a censorship by the White House on their

reporters and try to shore up support for opposing the White House for banning their reporters, not just with Acosta, but this past summer with Caitlin, I forgot her name. But then to censor somebody before they even have a chance to speak, their own reporters, how do you want us to support you and the right to freedom of speech and access to the news and information if you're stopping somebody who you formally employed? Yeah, and if he was warned, sorry, if he was warned about this. Then CNN needs to not just say they're not divulging anything. They should say, they should answer.

They should say he's been warned four times about this that the next time he said something that we couldn't countenance here for bias reasons of bias. We would dismiss him. That clearly didn't happen. But if that was the case, then we should know about it, right? What would be the reason for a warning? Exactly. I think that we're not breaking down here.

We're talking a lot about. No, no, I'm saying if they were. I don't think that he needs to be. But I'm saying if this was the last straw in an internal conversation that they were having at CNN with Mark Lamont Hill and his bosses at CNN. And this was the last straw, which I don't think this is, I'm not saying it is. That's the only explanation I have for him not getting any kind of a hearing on this and not being able to address it and have CNN not addressed it.

No, I hear what you're saying. I'm just saying that we would still be having the same problem because the issue isn't just that he was fired, it's that what did he say, what he said is being twisted and just being, it's totally like this is what he said and then this is what everyone's saying that he said, and that's the problem here. Any, I'm over this whole idea, and you see this on the internet every single day, any black person that has the nerve to have any slight critique of Israel is all of a sudden Farrakhan. And I'm so over that.

And his voice on CNN, it's a strong, powerful, intelligent voice when it comes to a lot of racial issues in America, when we're talking about politics and all other things, and now all of a sudden that's just gone, because we do this thing where if you speak out for Palestinians that's anti-Semitic, and I'm still so confused about that and how that matches up. Or that you could be anti-Israel, and that means you're anti-Semitic. That's the, you know, not anti-Israel's existence, but anti-Israeli government should somehow mean that your anti-Semitic is absurd.

Right. And so that's the issue. Even he wouldn't even say that. He would say he was anti-Zionist, which is a completely different conversation when he's also calling for a one-state solution. Yeah. And I will say, although far less important than what CNN are the people who are firing contributors for stuff like this think.

We hear a lot on Twitter and on the internet about people that supposedly are defenders of free speech, the intellectual dark web and all that be-ass. Yeah, man, they really care about free speech sometimes for some people, very personal preference for free speech. I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that some of those bozos and clowns have already come out in support of Mark Lamont Hill. I am fairly certain that that is not going on. So remember that the next time they claim to supposedly be in support of free speech.

And thank you for the young Turks for being able to have this conversation, because it's not just CNN, it is Fox News, it is MSNBC that wouldn't have this conversation. I was surprised that unfortunately I was surprised that Mark Lamont Hill lasted that long. You should also look at Ahmadinejahabedin's post on Instagram about what happened when he was hired and then fired by CNN when they found out he was Palestinian and did Palestinian. in stories for the Huffington Post. Okay. Interesting. Well, thank you, everybody, for joining us in this first hour. We're going to take a short break. When we come back, Brett is going to be leading a second

hour. Great stories in that as well. You're not going to want to miss it. Sorry. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com at apple.com slash TYT. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.