The Young Turks - House Votes To Condemn Trump

Episode Date: July 17, 2019

Nancy Pelosi achieved a small win. Ana Kasparian and John Iadarola, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT Network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five-star rating. Thank you.

Everybody, welcome to the Young Turks. I'm Anna Kaspari and John Ida Rola joins me for the first hour of the show today. Brooke Thomas and Maita Alhassen will be here for hour two. Jank Yugar will be returning tomorrow. Fine. So later on in the show, we are going to show you some clips from my very first Cuomo experience. Was it your first?

It was my first. I thought you'd been on there before. I was on reliable sources a few weeks ago. But it was an interesting experience, I can't wait to talk about it a little bit. But I'm also gonna give you some inside baseball on an exchange that Jank and I had prior to that appearance happening. And I'm sure he assumed that he was trying to help me, but he hurt me. Oh, I don't know anything about this, interesting.

So that'll be a fun thing to discuss. But before we get to that and all the other stories we have, I wanted to give you guys a quick update on what happened on the House resolution vote yesterday pertaining to Donald Trump's racism. As we had reported yesterday, the House got together and voted on a resolution to condemn Donald Trump's racist tweets. Now, Republicans lost because the House did vote overwhelmingly in favor of condemning Donald Trump's racism.

However, there was this kerfuffle regarding Nancy Pelosi breaking an antiquated rule regarding insults toward the president, right? So according to House rules, you are not allowed. to deem the president or the president's statements as racist. That is an actual rule in the House of Representatives. And so the racist within the House of Representatives got very upset at Pelosi when she said this. These comments from the White House are disgraceful and disgusting, and these comments are racist.

Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets. I was just going to give the general speaker of the House if she would like to rephrase that comment. I have cleared my remarks as a parliamentarian before I read them. And take it, can I ask the words be taken down? Okay, can I just say that I love mic drops? And I don't know if she intended to do a mic drop there. And you know that we're pretty critical of Nancy Pelosi and her insane weakness when it comes to fighting back against Trump.

However, I cleared this with the parliamentarian, drop the mic, walk away with your fuchsia pantsuit. Like, no, I love it. Like, I love that moment. And I just wish we would see more of that from Pelosi. Because what's gonna happen- At the right time. At the right time, exactly. Not in any instance, but in this instance it made sense. I think it makes sense in a lot of other cases where she has unfortunately shown cowardice at the face of Trump and the GOP.

But nonetheless, that was a good moment for Pelosi, and I'm glad that she didn't back down. Now, Doug Collins was the one who wanted to get Nancy Pelosi's statements stricken from the record. And he actually wanted a vote on that to have Pelosi's statements toward Trump stricken from the record. Well, how did that turn out? What purpose is the gentleman from Georgia rise? Ms. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk. Clerk will report the motion. Mr. Collins of Georgia moves that the words of the gentlewoman from California be stricken from the record.

The question is on the motion. All those in favor signify to saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. No. The nays have it. Speak our question. Ayes and eyes. On this vote, the eyes are 190.

The nose are 232. The motion is not adopted. Hmm. That's all I have to say. Yeah. Like, what's going to happen, right? So what would happen? I'm glad she stood her ground there.

Because what are they going to do? Are they going to handcuff her? Are they going to lead her out of the House floor? Because she told the truth about Donald Trump and how his tweets and his statements toward freshman Democrats were racist. They were racist, period. Yeah, I don't, I just, I feel a little bit, like watching the entire thing develop over the past, day, I've just felt a little bit crazy.

So he said those things, and so they're gonna censor him, you know, censure him or whatever. Okay, that's fine, I think that that's a fine thing to do. It just seems like for Nancy Pelosi to be like, you know what, I'm gonna be strong on this. Should he be taken out of office? Definitely not. Don't even talk about it, don't even think about it, but we can say that that thing he said was bad and we should leave him in a position where he can do and say things

like that as long as he wants. And then, like, so not only do we have that process, but inside of that process, we're reminded that you're not even allowed to say that a racist thing is racist. So if you have any hope that like, if Donald Trump decides to put tanks in the streets, that they're gonna stop him, they can't even label what he's doing as a negative thing. And then we're worried about what's on the record and what's off the record. Like, does anybody in America outside of that building right then care? She said it, okay?

She said it, it's out there, it's on the internet, who cares if it's on the record? No, you know, the whole thing's like a circus. And history cares that it's on the record. You want to know why? Because this is unprecedented. First of all, the statement was accurate, but this is unprecedented. And to have this in an official record, right, where the House is voting to condemn the president's statements as racist.

It's just important to have that in an official. And I get it. I had this, it wasn't really a debate, but I had this back and forth with Brooke on the show yesterday because I understand the frustration and I'm right there with you guys in that Pelosi has no problem showing strength. in this case, but it needs to extend to actual, like actions that really matter that would lead to true consequences for Donald Trump. Now are these real consequences for Donald Trump?

He's racist. The only thing it really does is it hurts his ego that it's now in the official record, right? But the fact of the matter is, I just think that to have the House of Representatives include this record that has this vote, that has these statements. Clearly identifying Donald Trump's comments as racist is important because you can look back at all of these Republican members of the House who voted against the resolution. Only four Republicans deemed Donald Trump's comments as racist. Only four of them voted in favor of condemning Donald Trump, okay?

All of the other ones are now on the record saying, no, we don't find him racist. Or we refuse to condemn his racism. So I just think it's important to have that on a record. Yeah, yeah, I just, I think it's silly that I don't know, do you know the name of the individual who called the vote to strip it from the record? The guy that stood up, I don't remember his name. The Doug Collins? Was it Doug Collins? Yeah, okay, so whoever Doug Collins is, that like the issue he has is with it being on the record.

And by the way, that they even brought up that that 1984 precedent for why you can't call something racist, who remembered that? Somebody did research to try to find a way ahead of time to derail this thing. That's what they're spending their time on, is trying to find a way by going back. to something that Gingrich started in 1984, it's all just ridiculous. There's real stuff going on. And like, we have four Republicans who acknowledge that it's racist. I mean, I would say probably none of those four would even go farther than that, but that's what we've got.

So let me give you the name of the four Republicans. You have Representative Susan Brooks from Indiana, Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, Will Hurd from Texas. And to give Will Hurd some credit, he's been vociferousypherson. in terms of criticizing Donald Trump and his immigration policy. Okay, good. And you also have Fred Upton in Michigan. Now Brooks, keep in mind, is slated to retire at the end of her term.

And the other three are so-called moderates who are in swing districts. And that's relevant to bring up because if you're in a predominantly red district, right? And the voters are, you know, rabid Trump supporters, you're probably not gonna wanna do the right thing or be principled in your approach because you're more concerned about your political career than doing the right thing. In this case, I mean, even with the Republicans who did do the right thing, it was a little easier for them to do so. And Donald Trump went after them already and was upset that there wasn't unity within

the Republican Party. But one other thing I wanted to add was that when Doug Collins stood up and pretended like he was outraged at Pelosi calling Donald Trump a racist, majority, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer should have had Nancy Pelosi's back. But instead, he's like, we're not, I'm sorry, but we're not following the rules here. Let me give you the exact statement. Majority leader, Steny Hoyer, announced the parliamentarian's decision against Pelosi, stating that by calling the remarks by Trump racist, she had violated the House's rules.

Here's what he said, the chair is prepared to rule. The words of the gentlewoman from California contain an accusation of racist behavior on the part of the president, as memorialized in chapter 29, section 65.6, characterizing an action as racist is not in order. The chair relies on the precedent of May 15th, 1984, perfect year for this, and adds that the words should not be used in debate. Steady Hoyer, sit down, sit down. I mean, the weakness of Democrats is incredible to me.

We are not following the rules. We need to lie to the American people and pretend as if Donald Trump's statements are are not racist because of this ridiculous antiquated rule from 1984. Sit down. I disagree. I mean, obviously I agree with the general point that they're being weak, but he's in charge of the rules. It's the rule.

Change the rule. The rule is established in the first place. But if it is the rule, he's just acknowledging it. We have a Democratic Party that's trying to play by the rules when you have an administration who does not care about the rules, thinks they are above the law. Like we're in a completely different era of politics. Yeah, change the rule. Okay, sure, change the rule.

But in the meantime, don't follow the rule. Because you're essentially enforcing a rule that forces people, representatives of the American people to lie about what's really going on. It is, it's like it's mandated deception. Yeah, I get what you're saying. That just to me is a very small part of how ridiculous and horrible this entire thing has been. To me, it's like, well, if we're gonna go to the circus and it's like someone's trying to cut the line to get popcorn and we stop them, I don't know, like that just to me seems

like a pretty minor thing. I agree with the general point and overall, the issue is that as we pointed out earlier, the fact that we can get Nancy Pelosi and a few others to be strong in this very limited case when it doesn't really cost them anything and there's no risk to it, but not on the larger point of whether Donald Trump should still be in a position to, you know, be present. Yeah, look, I think for me, just final thing I want to say about this. I get what you're saying, this is just a minor thing, why are you harping on it? It's because it's indicative of what's happening in government right now, right?

And it's indicative of the weakness that's been so frustrating for Democratic voters. So it might seem like a small thing, but I think that this small thing represents a bigger problem. It's a symptom of a bigger problem within Congress, and specifically the Democratic Party. All right, we gotta take a quick break, but when we come back, Chris Kobach is a terrible person, and he was given a platform on CNN. We're going to hear him defend Donald Trump and fail at doing so. And then later on, we will show you a little bit from my Cuomo appearance.

We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-Inging the Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and 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 not learn 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. Bye.

Hey guys, welcome back to TYT, Anna and John with you. So I'm going to tell you about cool partnerships that we have, okay? Because these are people who have companies that we agree with and want to do business with. And there aren't very many of them out there. So we want to show them some love. Squarespace happens to be one of them. John, do you have a website? I don't think it's public.

I started working on one and I gave up. So I have a website, Brett has a website that he tweeted about over the weekend. And I had an easy time building my website because of Squarespace. I didn't get a nice discount, which you guys would get. So if you go to Squarespace.com slash TYT, you will get a 10% discount, which is pretty awesome. And my favorite thing about Squarespace is you don't have to be some internet genius. They have various templates that you can use, different models depending on what you're doing. Maybe you want to run a business.

You can create your website there for your business. And they have payment methods for customers. It's awesome. So go to Squarespace.com slash TYT, get that 10% discount. Also, one of my favorite partners is Aspiration. Aspiration is a financial institution that has morals, believe it or not. They want to make sure that they invest money ethically, and they also want to make sure that they pay you guys back in your savings account.

They pay 2% interest on savings accounts, and we are going to add one other benefit to all of this by giving you one month of membership for free. So go to aspiration.com slash t-y-t, sign up for an account, and then after that, you just go to t-y-t.com slash free 30, the number 30, and you can go ahead and get your one month the free TYT membership. See if you like it. There's lots of exclusive content for our members. That was good.

Was it? Yeah. Well, it's not like I do that every day. That's true. But most people would be like if they had a teleprompter, it wouldn't have been that smooth. That was pretty good. Smooth. This is why you're on CNN.

Professional. And then finally, we have a very exciting guest coming up for the second hour of the show next week. Vic Mensa is his name. He's a rapper and an activist. And he will be joining us on Tuesday, July 23rd at 8 p.m. Eastern time, 5 p.m. Pacific. What I'm excited about is not only is he going to stick around and do the second hour with us, he's also going to have a conversation with Jank on the conversation. It's a good place to do it. It's going to be fun. Yeah. All right, let's get to the rest of the news.

Would you still support him, Mr. President? You have to think about it. You have to think about whether or not you would support a racist. Really? That's Chris Kobach, a 2020 Senate candidate, a former Kansas Secretary of State. He is very well known for stoking racial tensions, and I'll get to those details in just a minute. But Chris Cuomo had him on his program last night, Cuomo prime time, to discuss Donald Trump's racism and bigotry toward freshman members of Congress, particularly the progressive women of Congress, which we've been talking about all week.

And Chris Kobach, of course, is a racist himself. Of course, he's going to defend Donald Trump, and you're about to see that in this next clip. Okay, well, first of all, if you look at the words themselves, the words, when the president said, I think people are focusing on that these members of Congress should go back to the crime-infested places from which they came, right? So where are those places? Well, in AOC's case, it's the Bronx. In Talib's case, it's Detroit.

And in Omar's case, it is originally Somalia. Those are all crime-infested places. And in Somalia's instance, there's terrorism, too. So it's a fact. He's just to simply state that fact is not racist. Cuomo closed his eyes like he was trying not to hit him. You're so, that's so funny because I have an earpiece, obviously, so I can communicate with the control room throughout the show. And Brett Ehrlich was like Cuomo's face.

So you guys are on the same wavelength. So Chris Kobach, watching this segment before my appearance on Cuomo's show, show yesterday was frustrating because I wanted to be part of this conversation. But look, Chris Kobach is well known for his race politics. In fact, so well known that even the editorial board at the New York Times wrote a scathing op-ed about him when he was running to be governor of Kansas. So there's the headline, Chris Kobach is the GOP at its worst in his race to be Kansas's next governor, which luckily he lost, Kobach represents the ugliest part of today's

Republican Party. He also sounds a lot like the president. Now in that piece, they also said the following, he's best known for running, or I'm sorry, he's best known for having been the vice chairman of President Trump's ugly voter fraud commission spawned in 2017 to root out the millions of illegal voters who Trump's ego pathetically and falsely claimed had cost him the popular vote in 2016. Now, that commission, as we all know, disbanded shortly after because there was absolutely no evidence indicating that undocumented immigrants were voting in the general election, no evidence

at all. What a waste of time and resources. It's so weird that you couldn't find it when there were millions of them in California alone. That's so weird. It's so crazy. I mean, Trump is so thin skin, can't accept the fact that 3 million people, 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton as opposed to Trump, which really highlights our issue with the electoral college.

But anyway, jump in, John. What do you make of all this? Why are they, look, I'm glad that Cuomo is giving a voice or giving a platform for progressives because that hasn't been happening on cable news ever. Yeah. But at the same time, I mean, Chris Kobach was the second well-known racist that was given a platform on CNN that day. Yeah, that's true.

Yeah, I guess he's in a tough position because Kobach's a horrible, horrible guy. His track records, absolutely terrible. he will not rest until there's not a single black vote cast in a major election. That's the only, I mean, I'm sure he has other aspects of his ideology, but that's what he's going for, is to stop non-white people from voting. But, I mean, he's had multiple, you know, high profile runs. He's a member of the GOP. We're in a terrible position where some of the most horrendous people, like he was a narrow

second to Richard Spencer and how disgusting he was, but he's a relatively influential member of the GOP, so I guess they're going to have him on. He's going to be running again. If he fails there, he'll probably be brought into the Trump administration. If there's a second term, that's who he is. Yeah, and I will give Cuomo credit because he is not the typical cable news host who just sits there and allows a terrible person to lie and say whatever he or she wants to say. He does push back. There's a little bit of that in the next clip we're going to show you.

If he says, I'm not a racist, then it gives guys like you cover to defend him. But let me ask you, what would you do if the president said, I am a. racist. That's why I said it. What would you do? Then I would not defend him because there's no excuse for racism in America. Would you still support him, Mr. President? Um, I don't know. That would be a really tough question. You have to think about whether or not you would support a racist? Really? I'd have to know who was running against him. A racist? Look, if he said he was a racist, you'd have to know more? I mean, you're making. Chris, come on, man. It can't be that partisan.

These are ridiculous hypotheticals because of the people running against him right now. It's ridiculous that it took you that long to answer it. So I like the way that Cuomo handles these types of interviews because he does push back. At the same time, I want to do even more pushing back, given what we know about Kobach and his record. So in that last clip we showed you, he said that there's no excuse for racism in America, except he is racist himself. And the efforts that he participated in really bear that out. When it comes to fear mongering about immigration, again, I'm going back to the New York Times editorial board and the piece they wrote about him. Mr. Trump is a newbie compared with Mr. Kobach.

Starting with a failed run for Congress in 2004, Kobach has regularly sounded the alarm that illegal immigration and widespread voter fraud are destroying this nation. Indeed, he has suggested that fraud played a role in his congressional defeat. His crowning achievement as Secretary of State was a law passed in 2011 requiring people to prove their citizenship before registering to vote. Or rather, it was his crowning achievement until a federal judge this year struck down the law as unconstitutional. In the course of that case, Kobach so violated basic courtroom rules that he was held in contempt and among other humiliations, ordered to take six hours of legal,

education. This is an individual who went to Yale Law School and had to be punished for the fact that he was violating basic courtroom rules. The classic nature versus nurture dilemma. He also got a kick out of indulging the dark fantasies on his talk show, such as the 2014 caller fearful that the immigration policies of the then President Barack Obama would lead to ethnic cleansing of whites. So he would have people, I mean, people would call in and he would entertain the idea

that Obama was trying to ethnically cleanse whites in America. So I mean, what did you think he was gonna say in response to Trump? Of course he's gonna defend him. I will never understand how a party and this side of the political spectrum that implies that they are strong and the lefty guys are weak are terrified that they're all. going to be murdered. Like, if I came on the damage report every morning and I was like, we got a lot of news we're gonna get to, but first of all, I think badgers are coming for me.

You would not think of me as an alpha male. But these guys are terrified always that every person that looks like me is gonna be murdered. I think that's a likely outcome. To be so crippled with irrational fear is not a position of strength. Also, you know, just going back to the first story we did today where we talked about Denny Hoyer, you know, we need to follow the rules and we can't call the president racist because that's against the House rules. Like, is that what you're afraid of?

Right, like- Who's Denny Hoyer might start killing white men. Right, exactly. That's the point that I'm trying to make. He's an intimidating man. In this age of unbelievable and almost unmitigated weakness on the Democratic side, really you're gonna try to make the argument that Democrats are pushing for ethnic cleansing? Yeah, they are. So yeah, and he was also gonna take all your guns and how did that work out?

Like all these bold predictions, if they don't come true, it doesn't matter, they don't learn anything. The thing about that interaction that I found a little bit frustrating, and it's one of the reasons that I didn't talk about this morning was, although I'm really torn on this, sometimes when something is so clearly racist, like Donald Trump's rant, you want to take it and you want to mash it into the face of the people who refuse to accept that racism is a thing and that's driving American politics because they refused to accept that. But I'm also on the flip side, like, it's never going to happen. There is never going to be a thing that is said or done that is finally going to make that

night, Hannity, Tugger Carlson, Ben Sheper, all going to be like, they got us, that's racist. It's never, ever going to happen. You want to know when it'll happen? If a U.S. president says something negative about white people. That's true, but I'm talking about- Can you believe the racism? I'm talking about actual racism, but yes, I get what you're saying. Because the thing is, like, it's fundamentally disingenuous.

When we ask Chris Kobach or insert whoever, was that racist? And he responds with no when what he means is, I don't care about racism. It's not an issue. Like, is it a coincidence that all of these people who just happen to never see things as racism also don't think that it exists, and if it does exist, it's an issue? Like, to think that that's not biasing their response, they will never admit because they don't care. Chris Kobach's a professional politician with decades of experience. And if you watch the body language and the way he responded to Chris Cuomo's questions there, it was like you

were asking a little boy something and he couldn't help but do tells that he was lying. When he finally responds, he starts smiling because he knows that what he's saying is not true. And then when there's the follow-up, he looks up in the air and sort of sighs like, are we really going to go through with this? Sure, I wouldn't support him. Because it's not true. He doesn't care, of course he would support Donald Trump if he was a racist. The percentage of Republicans who would support him would maybe go down by a percentage point if he came out and said, I'm a racist. It wouldn't matter at all.

You're absolutely right. All of this is ridiculous. I understand why people like Chris Cuomo and even myself at times will try to get them to say that because we care about this issue so much that we just want to finally have it breakthrough for them. But it's not gonna happen. Not because they don't accept that it's happening, but because they don't care if it's happening.

I think it even goes further than that. They love that it's happening. Yeah. They don't accept that it's a problem, fundamentally. That's perfectly, yeah, that's perfectly stated. All good points. You know what else has a lot of experience? You mentioned Kobach and how he's had years of political experience.

That cowlick he had in the back of his head in that one B-roll shot, it was very distracting. We might need to think about replacing that. Well, on this particular week, I can't criticize him for that because I recently cut my own hair and missed a patch in the back. But it's cool. I only went to the gym before somebody finally told me about it. So in that way, I'm basically Chris Kobach. Brett told you about it? Yeah, he finally did.

Sophie noticed but didn't say anything, so that's the sort of working relationship we have. Thanks Sophie. That was a good place, Sophie. All right, moving on, we have some other news. I feel weird like doing a story about myself, but- You'll push through, don't worry. Yeah. Get used to it.

All right, all right. I was on CNN, and look, let's keep it real. I was invited to appear on CNN, Chris Cuomo show in particular. Jank is on vacation. I'm going to assume that they had me on because Jank wasn't available. So let me just be self-deprecating ahead of time. But nonetheless, the conversation was about infighting within the Democratic Party, which has been an issue.

Of course, Pelosi has been going after freshman Democrats pretty aggressively lately in the form of op-eds that are written by Maureen Dowd in the New York. times. And so I was invited to speak about this issue with Howard Dean, who has become quite a centrist. I mean, previously, he was certainly more progressive, and now he self-identifies as a centrist Democrat. So I thought there was going to be like, you know, a little bit of fighting. But that actually didn't happen. He said a lot that I agreed with. Take a look. So, Anna, if you're nodding in assent, but you also want to go down the impeachment road, why are you nodding an assent? Well, I think that it's important to hold Donald Trump accountable. But I think that it's ridiculous to shortchange ourselves and pretend as if we can't do both things.

We should absolutely focus on- But they can't, Anna. They couldn't even get money for the kids on the border. What have they done? I completely disagree. So first of all, that appropriations bill that, you know, the freshman Democrats voted against, which is what frustrated and angered House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, essentially gave Donald Trump $4.6 billion in taxpayer money with no strings attached. There were no safeguards in place to ensure that Trump actually improves the squalor that these children and these migrants are currently being detained in.

But at the same time, I think that it's ridiculous to say that you can't focus on economic injustice in America, the fact that our health care system is broken, and also hold the president accountable. I mean, that's the whole point of having the Democrats control the House of Representatives. You should be able to, but having just one house. to the Trump administration, then what's the point? I think you pulled them towards your position there. You think so? At least a little bit. Cuomo.

Cuomo, yeah. That was really the only moment where there was disagreement, which I was shocked by. So the impeachment issue, it's controversial within the Democratic Party. And this whole idea that Democrats can only focus on one thing. We've put men on the moon, right? I mean, the new deal, like we've done incredible things. We've, like, I don't understand why we just allow Democrats to shortchange themselves like that.

Like, oh, no, no, no, you either only focus on impeachment or you only focus on policy. I mean, we have hundreds of lawmakers, why are we not doing both? That was the point that I was trying to make. And again, that last point, what is the, why would we want or fight for Democrats to control to control the House of Representatives. Why did the blue wave even matter if they're not gonna mitigate the destructive behavior of Donald Trump? Yeah, yeah, and yeah, so in the area of like the sort of vein of impeachment, dealing

with Trump, investigations, that sort of stuff, totally true. If they're not doing that, then what are they really accomplishing at that time? On the other half, you have the sort of delivering on policy, which is obviously going to be near impossible because the Republicans control the Senate, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be trying. They don't just like they punch their card and then come back in a year and a half. No, they still have to be trying to move the needle in terms of public opinion on these policies and those sorts of things, laying the groundwork to eventually pass them once we have a sane Senate and president. Yeah, the idea that you could only do one of those two things, I honestly

don't know what Chris Cuomo. I think he was playing devil's advocate, trying to get you and Howard Dean to disagree because I don't think he actually believes that. I agree with you. So let's take a look at the next clip. And I just want to warn you, we are going to come back to the impeachment part of the discussion, because there is an update on something that happened in the House. Take a look. He can do our dirty work for us, just by opening his mouth. If we don't have a positive message of something we're going to do better, it is not enough to be just against Trump. But look, Kasparian, we know, we've all seen so many elections now. At the end of the day,

it's me versus you. You know what I mean? It's whoever the two people are. It becomes intensely personal and negative, and that's what happens to unfortunately work best in messaging and campaigns. How do you deal with that? and when? Well, I think the freshman Democrats actually handled this situation quite well. And I think we can learn something from it. So for instance, they had a press conference yesterday to respond to Donald Trump's racist tweets. And what they did is they used that opportunity to not just condemn Trump, but also talk about what their vision is for America. And so you have Representative Acacio-Cortez talking about how we need free public education on a college level, also talking

about the health care system and what she envisions is a better system moving forward. You know, you can condemn Trump, but let's not be hyper-focused on Trump is the boogeyman. Give Americans something to vote for. Okay. That's pretty good. Thanks. Yeah, and Howard Dean mostly agreed. There was literally no moment where we disagreed in this exchange, which is why I'm not really

showing you much of what he had to say. Had he said something and we debated, then it would make sense to show you like the full context of what he said and what I agreed with. No, that was a great experience. The only thing we would have been better is if we came back not to the horn but to the Howard Dean's scream. That would have been a little bit better, but you had limited time. Yeah, yeah.

That was a great appearance. I think you were a great avatar for our values. You were a strong communicator. Thank you, thank you. So one final thing that I wanted to mention was what happened in the House of Representatives today. So, the House actually voted to table a resolution by Representative Al Green to impeach President Donald Trump. Now, Nancy Pelosi is still very much against impeachment.

So she was clear about that in this vote, and I'll give you her statement in just a minute. She says, we have six committees working on following the facts in terms of any abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and the rest that the president may have engaged in. That is the serious path we're on, not that Mr. Green is not serious, but we'll deal with that on the floor. So the vote marked the first time the Democratic Control Chamber has weighed in on impeachment, an issue that's created a widening schism within the party. We've talked about that quite a bit.

So impeachment came up during the appearance on Cuomo, and I tried to make my case, see if it was convincing or persuasive. What would be the basis of impeachment? Because I don't know that you would be able to make it on the case of dead migrants. I mean, nobody should like that, but you'd have to show a direct line of a culpability. Where do you see it? Well, there's quite a bit. I mean, if you don't want to focus on that issue, I mean, there's the fact that Mueller's report gives you various examples of obstruction of justice.

You also have the issue of Trump using his charitable foundation to enrich himself. There are numerous conflicts of interest and violations of the emoluments clause in our constitution. And so I just want democratic leadership to fight Donald Trump. as aggressively as they fight the so-called squad, the progressive freshman Democrats. The last statement, I would, you know, you're speaking off the cuff and sometimes you don't say things perfectly. I would actually like Democratic leadership to fight Trump aggressively and not so aggressively when it comes to. Yeah, not that you want to continue fighting the squad and then match it for Donald Trump. So I wanted to make that clarification because I think the way House leadership is treating freshman Democrats right now is egregious.

and I don't agree with it at all. But the intro to that question was a little bit weird where he was sort of implying that the impetus for impeachment is purely on the migrants who have died. There's a reason for that. So we had just finished talking about the situation with migrants dying. And I mentioned how, you know, at least two dozen migrants have died under Donald Trump's watch. And so on July 18th, get excited. This is big!

For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs. Only did his July 18th. So I think in that statement, I included something about impeachment, and that's why Cuomo started the question that way.

So it wasn't his fault. But what I thought was really interesting is I didn't get any pushback from Howard Dean. I really thought I would. And before going on air, I got a text from Jenk. This was yesterday at 6 p.m. Eastern Time. I'm about to go live on the main show. And he's like, hey, obviously you can't call me now. because you're about to do the show, but I just need to know what you're planning on saying

during the segment. There's a reason for it. That's all he said. And I said that I would, I'll call you when I'm on my way to the studio for the appearance. Then I called him and Homeboy didn't answer. And I was like, does he have? What if there's something I need to know? Maybe there's like some inside info that I need to know. And if I don't know, it's gonna sabotage me. I don't know, I had all these thoughts in my head that I sent him a text message and just said, call me, didn't respond. So right before the interview started, like my heart was beating quickly because I thought there's something I'm missing.

I don't know what it is, but I'm going to do my best. And then I remembered, like, I lead this show every day. I know, I know what I know. It's going to be fine. Everything's going to be okay. And luckily it worked out. Later on, Jenk told me that he accidentally locked his phone in his car, which is what Thank you.

What? What was he going to tell you? I have no idea. At this point, I don't even care, but he's like, I'm sure he thought he was gonna help me, but all he did was harm me in that case. Like, call me back, there's a reason and there's like an alligator approaching him. He needs your help. Like he just, like, I need you to call me now because I'm gonna lock my phone in my car soon.

What? Hmm, okay, well, thanks for your help, Jake. Enjoy the underside of that bus. All right, we're going to take a quick break. At TYT, 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 EVE's 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 EXP-R-E-S-V-P-N. dot com slash t y t yt check it out today right back 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 yt dot com slash join today in the meantime enjoy this free second hey guys welcome back to t yt i want to read some member comments before we get to the next story I bathe in a very stable geniuses tears with the crying emoji. I like that, nice touch. Okay, we got Jank and Anna on Cuomo.

Can we get Johnny Pie too? No, probably not, but thank you. No, it's not true. I'm sure you'll be on at some point. Look, I was only on because Jenks on vacation. So the trick is to make sure I go on vacation too. A permanent vacation. I see what you're saying.

No, I would lose my mind if I had a permanent vacation. Although you know what's actually gaining some moments. gaining some momentum, four-day work week. Not here at TYT, that'll never happen. But about 15% of U.S. companies are now implementing that policy. That's one of the two positions I have that every part of the political spectrum attacks me for when I advocate for. I don't understand it. That and the texting while driving thing, I don't understand why people are so, like we got a two-day weekend.

It sounds, I mean, it sounds counterintuitive, I guess, or counterproductive. productive, people think that you have to work five days a week or else you're just not going to be or your employees aren't going to be as productive. Yeah, and at one point they thought you had to work seven days a week if they wouldn't be productive. They did. But here's, did you know that Ford was the one who realized, oh, seven day work week doesn't make sense because people are burnt out and productivity actually drops.

And they don't have time to spend the money. And they don't have time to say, well, true, that's absolutely right. But also one other thing, when you come up with ideas for the show, for your your show. When does that typically happen? Like what we're gonna cover on the show? Not just what you're gonna cover, but like when you get, your most creative moments happen when?

Think about that for a second. I mean, a lot of what I say is kind of off the cuff right then, but no, I mean, I put together, I decide some of it the night before some of it the morning up. Okay, you don't get what I'm saying. No, I don't. I get creative when I'm relaxing, when I'm on vacation, or it's the weekend and I'm just, I don't have a looming deadline. That's when I think of ideas that I want to implement in the show.

So anyway, for me, it's when it's dark and quiet. I get what you're saying. I like quiet and alone. Okay, I'll leave. Okay, you know what, we gotta move on. I'm gonna go to Cuomo. Comments when we come back from the next break, but I want to make sure we get to the next three stories, hopefully.

Donald Trump has been clear in saying that he does not want a regime change war in Iran. Now, he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, he's the one who has escalated to tensions with Iran. However, it appears that he is getting closer and closer to negotiating an Iran nuclear deal that looks almost exactly like Obama's nuclear deal. So look, there was some news earlier this week indicating that the only reason why Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal is because he was salty and bitter about the fact that it was Obama who reached that deal with Iran.

So he wants the credit, he wants to feel good about himself. And if we have to reinforce this as a way of avoiding war with Iran, let's do it. Good job, Trump. This sounds like a very good deal. You should tell you're so strong. You really know how to negotiate. All right, so let me give you the details. First, there was a huge miscommunication between Mike Pompeo and the foreign minister of Iran.

So Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Tuesday, that Iran appeared willing to negotiate over its missile program for the first time. But that's actually not true. The idea was actually shot down by Iran's foreign minister, Mohammed Javad Zarif. His spokesman said that the two men had misrepresented or misinterpreted, I should say, his statements in which he repeated past demands that if the United States wants to talk about missiles, it should stop selling weapons, including missiles, to regional states. And what he's specifically referring to there is the U.S. sale of arms to Saudi Arabia

and the Emirates, basically. And it really does destabilize the region, because you have all these foes in this, you know, part of the world. And if you're selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, you're selling weapons to the UAE, well, then And that stokes tensions and fears with people in Iran, with the government in Iran. So he's not saying we're gonna stop with our missile program. He's saying, before you point fingers at us, why don't you take a good, hard look at what you're doing, United States?

That's what he was trying to say. Now, when it comes to what Trump is trying to do here, again, he doesn't want a regime change war because it's actually politically unpopular. And according to Politico, at times, analysts and former officials say, it sounds like Trump wants to strike a deal that essentially mirrors the agreement that his White House predecessor inked, even if he'd never be willing to admit it. Iranian officials seem willing to egg him on, and by the way we should as well, saying they'll talk so long as Trump lifts the sanctions he's imposed on them and returns to the

2015 Iran deal. And also someone within Trump's administration spoke on the condition of anonymity and said something along the lines of, I don't, none of this is making sense, I don't know what's going Yeah. So I'll jump in, what do you think about all this? I think it's nonsense as much of our politics is. I guess if we have to spend literally years fighting to get back to the status quo of the Obama administration, it's better, it's certainly better than war.

And I hope that this theory that he just wants to do whatever it takes to have the deal but say that it's his, I hope that that's right. I fear that I mean, putting him in this position was allowing him to be able to be able president is a great way to go to war with Iran, if that's what you want. It certainly increases the chance that we'll have conflict with them. He's expressed the belief that a president who wants to win reelection could start a conflict with Iran in the past, and now he's in that position. If that's what he wants to do, he seems to despise and completely distrust its leadership.

And I fear that especially if polling is going against him in the next year, he could start some sort of conflict with them. Well, let me give you this next quote from Trump that might make you feel a little better. No, of course, Trump goes, I know, but sure. He goes back and forth. One minute, he's stoking tensions, the other minute he's in love with Kim Jong-un, and we don't have to worry about a nuclear war at that very moment. But in terms of Iran, he says, quote, they can't have a nuclear weapon.

We want to help them. We will be good to them, and we will work with them. We will help them in any way we can, but they can't have a nuclear weapon. Notice that he didn't mention missiles there. So he is focusing on preventing them from developing nuclear weapons. He's saying that he's gonna be much nicer, he's gonna be good to them. I think that that statement is a positive side. But again, you never know where Trump is gonna go, especially when you have war mongers like

Bolton in his administration. Mike Pompeo is apparently more concerned about his political career post Trump administration. So he's worried that if we're not taking punitive actions against Iran, more aggressive actions against Iran, that it's going to hurt his Republican political career in the future. It's just amazing how little they care about anything, about doing the right thing, about representing the American people, about keeping us safe. They don't care about any of that. All they care about is their own career and how they're going to look after the Trump administration.

I got news for you, Pompeo, you're in the Trump administration. You're trash. That's true. Yeah, I mean, my only goal is no conflict with Iran. I had Alex Ward from Voxon a couple of last week, I think. And we talked about it and he's talked with many experts to say that if there was a conflict with Iran, it would kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people. If we did attempt to pull in a rock on them, we're talking millions of people that would

actually die. It's absolutely horrendous. I hope that Donald Trump is in his weird Kim Jong-un mode, but I fear that he's not. He's an idiot when it comes to these things, and I don't trust. him at all. I personally think that the Iran nuclear deal was really, really inconvenient for neocons who want wars. It stops Iran from doing the sorts of moves that are used as a pretext for conflict.

So they shred that. And now Iran has started enriching nuclear fuel. And so that can be used as a pretext for war. They have set up a position that makes it easier for them to lie us into another war. And I'm worried that that's what we're seeing. Yeah, one thing that is different from previous cases where we've been goaded in. into war is that I think Americans are a lot more aware of the fear mongering that we see from the right wing.

The Trump voters were very much against a regime change war or even invading Iran. They were also very skeptical of the evidence that the Trump administration was presenting when it came to alleged Iranian oil tanker attacks. And so I'm not saying that because I think, you know, oh, there's a lot of hope with Trump voters. But when it comes to this issue, there is, and that's positive. He does wanna serve his base more than anything, that's really all that really matters to him. So that gives me a little bit more of a positive outlook when it comes to this issue. But we'll see, we never know.

Yeah, I hope so. I will say that I would have to see polls now on what his base, let alone the American public think. But that's also before three to six months of Fox News and Donald Trump beating the war drums every day. They are a people that psychologically fall in line to authority figures. And I'm worried that they could be cowed into supporting a war with Iran. I guess we'll see. Well, update you guys on this story as it develops.

Let's go back to domestic politics, because this story is a doozy. Earlier this week, Joe Biden rolled out his vision for fixing health care in America. And it's essentially an expansion of the Affordable Care Act. Now, here at TYT, we have various hosts, myself included, who are much more supportive of a Medicare for all single payer system. And someone who was actually also very much in favor of that single payer system was Simone Sanders when she was working on Bernie Sanders campaign back in 2016. Now she is an advisor for Biden, and she's helping with his campaign.

And she is, of course, saying that she's in favor of expanding the Affordable Care Act as a to supporting Medicare for all. And when she got called out on it, she didn't like it so much. Take a look. You used to, and in your prior role with working with Bernie Sanders, you intellectually came to the conclusion that you could have Obamacare, add to it, and get Medicare for all. And obviously now you're saying that it's different, right?

Because Joe Biden is saying you can't. You can't have Medicare for all in Obamacare because Medicare would replace Obamacare. Here you are back in 2016. And I want to play at Simone because I want to give you a chance to explain to everybody how you came to change your mind. Here you are. Thinking big is how we get change in this country. Thinking big is how we got the Affordable Health Care Act. And thinking big is how we're going to build on that with a Medicare for all single payer system.

When we talk about a Medicare for all single payer system, we're talking about universal health care. We're not talking about doing away with Obamacare, with the Affordable Health Care Act. We are talking about building on its enormous success. So now Joe Biden says that it would, Medicare for all, would get rid of Obamacare. Let me put back on you for just a second, because I unequivocally reject what is being set up here. What I just saw, to be clear, let me just be really clear for a second. Yes, in 2016, I served as a press secretary for Senator Sanders.

I'm extremely proud of the work that I did on that campaign and the work that I have gone on to do since when I left the campaign in June of 2016. But let me tell you something. Talking about universal health care has been a very popular point in the Democratic Party. It has been popular in places across the country. Frankly, it's popular with Republican voters and independents alike. But when you talk about healthcare, when you talk about coverage, we have to talk about specific plans. And what I, in 2016, we were having these conversations, what Senator Sanders has put on the table is not an expansion of Obamacare. It is.

Okay, so we have another clip to show you in just a minute. I thought that answer was bad, and it's about to get worse in the next clip. But I think this, like the whole basis of the conversation and the way it's being framed is disingenuous, almost like, I don't know, it's just deceptive because Medicare for all would be better. It would be better because like, oh, why is everyone so married to a healthcare, you know, why is everyone so married to the Affordable Care Act knowing that it had so many major? your flaws.

So the way that I see this, the way that the establishment and the media are trying to frame this is, oh, they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, right? And then you're gonna have nothing. You're gonna have nothing as this debate goes on about Medicare for all. I mean, it's a big writ. No, that's not what's gonna happen. The Affordable Care Act, as flawed as it is, especially now that the mandate has been repealed, will remain intact.

But you push for Medicare. for all to replace that system. I mean, you can argue that it expands that system, it's the ultimate expansion of the Affordable Care Act because it's a single payer system that covers everything. And we've talked about that on this show before, I'm gonna give you the details of Medicare for all in just a minute because I think it's important to just repeat what it covers. It covers, the plan would allow patients to visit doctors with no out of pocket fees. The inclusive coverage would only require patients to pay for brand name prescriptions.

Okay, let me give you more. His proposal includes a list of financing options, including different ways of taxing the wealthy. That's just to, you know, answer questions about how it would be paid for. But benefits shall first be available under this act for items and services furnished on April 1st of the fourth calendar year. That's not important. Okay, here's what it would cover. Let's go to Graphics 6.

Hospital services including inpatient and outpatient hospital care 24 hours a day, emergency services and inpatient prescription drugs, ambulatory patient services, primary and preventative services including chronic disease management, prescription drugs, medical devices, biological products, including outpatient drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment including inpatient care, laboratory and diagnostic services, comprehensive reproductive maternity and newborn care. It covers everything. Oral health, health, meaning going to the dentist, audiology, and vision services. I mean, it's one thing after the other.

It covers way more than the Affordable Care Act has ever even entertained covering. And so we're having this ridiculous, disingenuous conversation about whether or not it's going to expand on the Affordable Care Act. Yeah, yeah, it's going to expand the ultimate expansion. It's going to cover everything. What they're so hyper focused on is, oh, what are we going to do about the private insurers? We gotta protect the private insurers, which they're gonna get to in just a second. Yeah, well, they're in a tough position because they want the money from those private

insurers and he's getting a lot of money from that area. She is in a particular tough position. She put herself in that particular tough position. Yeah, yeah, I don't have a lot of sympathy for. So there's obviously no case to be made that the actual outcomes for individual Americans would be better under Biden care, Medicare for America, whatever alternatives versus Medicare for all. You can't actually make that case, so you have to retreat to one of the common criticisms

of Medicare for all, which is either saying it's impossible to pass or it costs too much. Those are difficult arguments to make on the cost side, because that study that we talked about most of last year shows that it would actually save money over what we have right now. So that undercuts that argument significantly. And the argument that it would be too difficult to pass is either an admission of cowardice that you wouldn't push for it, or could be similarly used for any other massive expansion of healthcare. It is gonna be difficult, but it's worth fighting for.

So those two arguments don't really make sense to make. So instead, they get into sort of a procedural thing about expansions and replacements and whether temporarily be like all of that stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the actual outcomes. Yes. They don't wanna talk about the outcomes because that will people get people excited for pushing for the outcomes like Medicare for All. So while in that first clip, she failed in making the case for why Biden care would

be better than Medicare for All, in this next clip, she's about about to get even more defensive because someone had the audacity to finally do her job and ask a question that should be answered. Take a look. For anyone to suggest, for anyone to suggest that because I work for Vice President Biden, now I feel differently, I, that's just not true. I welcome a conversation. No, no, no, no, but I'm not suggesting you feel differently. I'm suggesting, hold on, but Simone, let me say why I played that. No, I want to be clear. Because I do feel some type of way here. Hold on, hold on. I didn't say it to do a gotcha. I said it because It looked very different than what you're saying now.

You're a thoughtful, smart person. You've changed your mind. And I want to give you a chance to explain to people why. Because, Erin, I believe in building on the enormous success of Obamacare. But the plan that is currently on the table that is being discussed by a number of folks when they talk about Medicare for all, particularly Senator Sanders plan, does not do that. And nobody, no actual person cares, whether we're expanding previous legislation or replacing it. They care about how their health care will be delivered and how much it will cost

them. That's what they care about. This is all procedural BS. I totally agree. 100% agree. What really stood out to me there was that she seemed to be blindsided by that question when a savvy individual who's working on campaigns, who was the press secretary for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, like you should expect that question, you should be prepared to answer that question. Instead, she got angry. She accused Aaron Burnett of got your journalism. You should be ready to explain why you no longer support a proposal that you champion, that you pretended to be incredibly supportive of when you were working for Bernie Sanders. Why have you changed your mind? Now, your answer might not tell the truth, but as someone who's worked in press relations

and PR, whatever, you should be ready for the spin. And she wasn't even ready for the spin. The only the way she handled it was, I'm gonna get defensive, I'm gonna accuse you of gotcha journalism. That is insane to me. Yeah. But again, she's put herself in a top position. She's supported Bernie Sanders now. She supports him. They're not, they're closer ideologically than some, I suppose, than a hickenlooper, perhaps.

But there are wide disparities and on some of the biggest, most important issues in this primary. So you either have to say that I might have disagreements with the person I'm supporting on a particular policy, but I believe they're the right person to be present, or you have to explain why you change your mind in that policy. And she doesn't want to admit to either of those things. She doesn't even have to. My point is, had she been prepared to answer this question, which she should have prepared for, she could have said, even something is simple, stay calm.

I think that Medicare for all, while it's an impressive vision, it's much more practical to focus our efforts on expanding the Affordable Care Act, right? I mean, I don't buy that, I don't believe that, but that would be a much better answer than the nonsense that she pulled in that interview. That's my take. Anyway, thank you, John, you're awesome. But I'm really looking forward to hour two with Brooke Thomas and Matha Alhassen. Make sure you guys check out the damage report.

It's gonna be awesome. Tomorrow, not only we're gonna have the news and everything, but we're also gonna be joined by the executive director of the Justice Democrats, Alexander Rojas. Nice. We're gonna be talking about three of the newly announced candidates. We're also gonna be talking about some of the political controversies attacking some of the established already Justice Democrats, so it should be a great show. Awesome. We will be right back with a whole new panel and a discussion.

discussion on a new tape featuring Donald Trump discussing women with Epstein. 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 t-y-t. I'm your host, Jank Huger, and I'll see you soon.