The Young Turks - Julian Assange In Custody And Trump Suffering From Amnesia?

Episode Date: April 12, 2019

Julian Assange has been arrested. Trump doesn’t know what WikiLeaks is. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, 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.

All right. I need everybody to calm down and not panic because Uyghur is back. Da-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-da-na-na-na-na-na. Makes me want to panic more. All right, young Turks, Jank U-Gur, Anna-Kasperin with you guys. So, a big show ahead. We're, I'm in a good mood, which is going to get a spoil as soon as we start doing the Julian Assange story. So, so let me just enjoy this for a minute.

Later in the program, but-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-un. Medicare for All, introduced by Bernie Sanders, will explain all of it. And of course, the attacks have begun. We will, as usual, counterattack. Ilhan Omar being attacked, as usual, we will counter attack. Come on, what would you guys do without us? Okay. Anyways, I'm not saying anything I'm just saying.

Third hour of the Young Turks today, our seventh presidential candidate on the Young Turks. Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow. Sound effects provided by Jay Hugar. Okay, so lots to get to, obviously. Nothing but fun today. Let's get to it then. Let's do it. Let's do Julian Assange, and then watch me get angry.

Okay. Okay. Authorities from London have arrested Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy. They were able to do so because the Ecuadorian president made it clear that Julian Assange has overstayed his welcome. I'll give you the details on that, but first let me tell you what he was charged with. Assange is charged with one count of conspiracy to hack a computer related to his role in the 2010 release of Reims of Secret American Documents.

So let's stop right there. I just want to be clear that as of now, this is what he is charged with. It has nothing to do with the last general election where the DNC emails and John Podesta's emails were leaked, this is so far only in regard to what happened in 2010. Now, it is likely that Julian Assange will face additional charges, but this is what we have so far. Also, it is not an espionage charge, a significant detail that will come as a relief to press freedom advocates.

The United States government had considered until at least last year charging him with an espionage related offense. Now again, I want to stop. That is the interpretation by the New York Times. But again, we don't know if there are going to be additional charges. In fact, I would argue it's likely he's going to face additional charges. Well, so let's keep 2010 and 2016 distinct. And I would defend Julian Assange on both of those, although obviously there are no charges

yet on 2016. So first, let's talk about 2010 with these, that's regarding the actual charges. One is about conspiracy, we'll get into a little bit of detail there. It's a total nonsense charge, horrible charge, doesn't make any sense at all, it's a complete attack on press freedom. I don't agree with the New York Times. Yeah, I agree with them, charging it with espionage would have been worse, but this is not something where press freedom advocates could be like, oh, let's take it easy, it's not

It's not a big deal. No, it's a giant deal and it's a horrible overreach by the government and totally unconstitutional. Now whether they charge them with espionage on top of that is a different question about the 2010 charges that's related to, of course, the materials that Chelsea Manning released and gave the WikiLeaks, okay? Chelsea Manning now back in jail because she will not cooperate with law enforcement in this. American hero, Chelsea Manning is, and Assange for the different things that I might disagree with Amman, that is totally irrelevant to this.

In regards to fighting for journalism, he is definitely a hero in this case. And the Obama administration had decided that they didn't want to charge him with the espionage act. And now it's the people are saying, oh Obama wasn't going to charge him at all. I'm not sure that that's clear at all. I think the government, American government, under both Democrats and Republicans, have been targeting and Julian Assange for a long time, because they hate it when information that is damaging to the United States government is released by any journalist.

Now, if you wanna snipe at fellow cabinet officials, oh, leak away, who cares, national security, no one cares at all, right? If you wanna do leaks that are in favor of the United States government, no one will ever be prosecuted for that. So this is a gross injustice. So I wanna jump in with one other distinction that I think is important as we move forward. So what you're commenting on, and I agree with what you're saying, is the leak of information, classified information, and that happened, again, in 2010, right?

And so we are supposed to protect whistleblowers. There's still a debate about whether or not whistleblowers are considered journalists. I believe that they are. In order to protect our democracy, you need whistleblowers who give you insight into what the government is doing wrong or what the government could be doing unlawfully. But that said, the way that they're going after Assange is with a conspiracy to hack allegation, right? That is the charge.

And so hacking is not protected by law or the Constitution, and they would need to prove that there was a conspiracy to hack into government computers in order to obtain that information. That charge is also total and utter horse crap. So you want to detail that a little bit? Yeah. So here's the situation, guys. The government says, well, Chelsea Manning, as she was giving the information of WikiLeaks, says she was having trouble with a password.

And Julian Assange offered to help her with a password. It turns out that he couldn't help her solve the password at all. So what? An attempted conspiracy to hack is the best they have. But let me tell you, in reality, do journalists help their sources either determine? obtain information, no, they don't help them steal it, right? If they're stealing it, right, but do they help them cover their tracks? Do they help them obtain information in other ways?

Yes, all the time. It's core to investigative journalism. So to pretend that Julian Assange is the first person to say, oh, I don't know how you can, you know, like here's a little bit of helpful advice on how to do X, Y, or Z? No, he's just not at all unprecedented. It's investigative journalism 101. And so, and they're saying, well, he also helped to persuade him. What is that?

Every journalist goes and talks to their sources and tries to get them to reveal the information. You'd have to arrest everyone who's doing real journalism. Unfortunately in America, that wouldn't be a lot of people. Because a lot of the reporters out there, look, I could tell you all the hacks that are former intelligence officials on MSNBC, I'm not talking about their hosts. I'm talking about their pundits are ecstatic about this arrest. They're like, yes, crushed of journalists. Don't ever let anybody take damaging government information again.

Why were they? Why? They were part of the intelligence people who screwed up the Iraq war and who screwed up everything after that, who covered up for the torture, et cetera, et cetera. Of course they don't want damaging information coming up. It might be about them. And so, and MSNBC has hired those people to the hilt. And so it's kind of gross what's happening.

in some corners of the media where they're celebrating Assange's arrest, not realizing that they're doing untold damage to the media overall and to the U.S. Constitution. So let me jump in, because maybe some of these individuals who are excited or happy about the arrest of Julian Assange don't care about journalism, don't care about maintaining the freedom of the press. But what I'm seeing more than anything is arguments made based on partisan. preferences. So let me be clear about something.

I do not necessarily like Julian Assange as a person. Some of the activity that took place in 2016, including stuff that he decided to leak and stuff that he decided not to leak, made me worry that there was an agenda. However, that doesn't matter. I'm still supportive of what WikiLeaks does because what WikiLeaks does is important. So my partisan preferences are completely irrelevant to this story. or my analysis, because what really matters here, regardless of whether you like Julian Assange or not, is the precedent this sets when it comes to future leaks, when it comes

to whistleblowers. And I believe that in the grand scheme of things, the most important thing to do is to protect the freedom of the press, right? And so Democrats were very supportive of Julian Assange back in 2010 when classified documents were leaked in regard to our activities abroad. But a lot of them did flip following what happened in 2016. And so you need to remain consistent. Again, at the heart of this story is not who's Julian Assange and what is he done, it's what

will the outcome of this case set as a precedent for journalists. Okay, so let me double down on that. Look, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks released information damaging to Hillary Clinton and they seem to time it to maximum impact on the election. So would I have done it in a similar timing? I don't know, it's hard to know when they were actually ready and how much of it was political decisions because they didn't like Hillary Clinton because she had targeted them in the past.

Well, look, if I was targeted by Hillary Clinton and my life depended on it, I might hold a grudge too. But I would hope that that would not affect my journalism as to when I release things. Having said all that, even for things I might or might not agree with in 2016, I would still defend them if they were going to charge him on legal grounds, for what? Revealing information like any other journalists not only would have done, but did do. Everyone took the WikiLeaks stuff and then ran it. So you're gonna arrest everyone at the New York Times, everyone at the Washington Post?

No, you're giant hypocrites, the elite and the club are protected, but if you're an independent journalist, God help you. So hold, hold for a second. Look, the argument, the counter argument to that, and I wanna be fair in analyzing this. Right? Is, well, the New York Times didn't steal that information. But neither do weak leaks. Well, that's, okay, so that's fair.

So that's something that needs to be proven. So this charge seems flimsy. But again, what they're arguing is, well, hacking is illegal and he assisted in hacking. Total garbage. Total garbage. Let me explain. That's fair, Jank. I'm just saying that is what they are alleging.

Okay, yeah, it's a total rules. And so this is very important, guys. You could argue, hey, Ellsberg stole the Pentagon Papers. Did he have a right to take the Pentagon Papers from the Nixon White House and turn it over the New York Times? New York Times ain't it in a bed of a guy stealing the Pentagon Papers, arrest everybody in the New York Times? Well, we had that conversation, we had that debate, it went all the way to the Supreme

Court. And yes, the press has a right to print information that people give it, even if it comes from sources that, you know, where they might not have had, quote unquote, the right to take that information. The Panama Papers, if they have a right to break in and figure out all the financial, you know, things that were going wrong in all the banks in Panama and all the corruption that they exposed? I don't know if they technically had the right to get that private information, but is it

newsworthy? Hell, yes, it's newsworthy. If you say anyone who prints something that someone else got that might have been improper and then in any way encourage them is going to go to prison, every real journalist is All you'll have left is a bunch of Patsy's who do nonsense leaks that only help the government. Yeah, that's fair. Yes, and now back to 2010 and how it relates to this. The main charge, look at how flimsy this is, is they said that on, Chelsea Manning said

to Assange on March 7th of 2010, after this upload, that's all I really have got left. And Assange apparently replied, curious eyes never run dry in my experience. Wow. So the government is charging. Since he said maybe you can get more, they're saying, 80 to betting. Are you kidding me? If the New York Times asked Daniel Ellsberg, hey, do you have any more of the Pentagon papers?

Would that have justified arresting the publisher, the editor, and the author of that article at the New York Times? Of course not. Julian Assange is asking his source, do you have more? You would be negligent. It would be journalistic malpractice if you didn't ask that. So every, look, here's, this is good because this is the whole thing's a debacle and it's disastrous. But one thing it's good for is it's a clarifying moment.

If you see anyone out there saying who is pretending to be a journalist, who's part of the media, who is protecting the government, defending this charge, and attacking Julian Assange, that means, A, they're a hack, and all they care about is their own political point of view and which way the political winds are blowing, and they never cared about being real journalists in the first place. All they want to do is get, oh, their precious access to the government, oh, access, me and my friends, we're gonna write things that are so positive about the government, and then we're gonna get promotions.

You're disgusting. Yeah, I definitely agree with that. Now, there's a different part of this story that I wanted to do. jump into. Julian Assange has just been arrested and the Ecuadorian embassy was willing to allow authorities to come in and arrest him. He's been charged with conspiracy to hack and it's in regard to the 2010 leak of classified documents pertaining to the various wars we were in or still are in by the U.S. government.

Now during 2016 though, Julian Assange was also in the news. And it was because of the fact that WikiLeaks had put out the emails of the DNC and John Podesta. Now currently, he is not facing any charges in regard to that. But that did to some extent help Donald Trump. And at the time, he seemed to be very much in favor of Julian Assange. Now with that said, what does he have to say about Julian Assange today? Do you still love WikiLeaks?

I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing. And I know there is something having to do with Julian Assange. I've been seeing what's happened with Assange, and that will be a determination. I would imagine mostly by the Attorney General who's doing an excellent job, so he'll be making a determination. I know nothing really about him. It's not my deal in life.

What would you like to be happening with what punishment is? I don't really have any opinion. So remember, it is Donald Trump's Department of Justice. that is going after Julian Assange with this charge. And it's important to keep in mind, especially when you go back to 2016, or at least the election cycle for 2016, and remember what Trump had to say about Julian Assange back then. WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.

This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart. You got to read it. It's been amazing what's coming out on WikiLeaks. This WikiLeaks is fascinating. This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trope. Getting off the plane, they were just announcing new WikiLeaks that I wanted to stay there, but I didn't want to keep you waiting.

Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks. This is so indicative of who Donald Trump is. He will love you when he can use you, and then he will immediately turn his back to you when he doesn't need you anymore. It's amazing. Why does he say that? Why does he say he doesn't know anything about WikiLeaks? I mean, we're just so used to it.

We'll move on. And, you know, I guess the best defense is he misspoke. Kiemethis say that I don't know anything about the case in particular and the Attorney General is pursuing it. But the way he said it, you saw it on tape, you saw it with your own eyes, I don't know anything about WikiLeaks. Then we show you the clips of like, WikiLeaks is the best, I love WikiLeaks, I love reading WikiLeaks.

If he loves reading Wicked Leaks, it's the only thing he's ever read. But he turns around and says, Wiggickleaks, what name so? Like he just can't help himself, it's pathological. Just give like half an honest answer for a second. Hey, listen, I ain't got none to do with it, take it up with the Attorney General. They do an independent investigation there. And hey, you know what, you saw me during the election. I was happy that they released some of that information.

But that's political, and that's not for me to interfere with the Attorney General and having him do his legal job. There's an answer, right? Yeah. But he's not smart enough to put together those sentences. So he goes, WikiLeaks, I don't know WikiLeaks, what's Wikileaks? I don't know it. Come on.

Jesus Christ. He has no leg to stand on. no like to stand on in terms of making the argument that the Attorney General and the Justice Department is independent. Because the Justice Department and specifically the Attorney General, current Attorney General, William Barr, has certainly not been independent when it comes to getting involved in defending Donald Trump in this whole Russia investigation. But look, the point that I wanted to make is that anyone who's around Trump right now,

Anyone who is blinded by their thirst for power is blind to the fact that he is going to turn on you at any given moment. He will use you to his advantage when it suits him, and then he will turn around and allow you to deal with whatever consequences, you know, his lackeys feel are appropriate. Yeah, they're having a huge party under that bus that Donald Trump has thrown everyone under. So Julian Assange, understandably was upset with Hillary Clinton. She threatened his life and his liberty.

And she did so in a way that I thought was horribly unfair. And the Democratic establishment was terrible to Julian Assange overall. But if he thought he had a friend in Donald Trump, that's a terrible miscalculation. So, look, I don't think anything he did is illegal in 2010 or 2016, and we're people of principle here. But, you know, and I know that WikiLeaks disagrees with us, and I know there are WikiLeaks defenders who disagree with us. But the timing of the release of that information was super curious, and it certainly seemed

to suggest that they favored Donald Trump in the election. Oops. So, Julian, you'll find Kierston Nielsen under that bus and Jeff Sessions, and you'll find Jim Mad Dog Mattis and Rex Tillerson and John Kelly and about a hundred other people under that bus. Trump is not your friend, he's not anybody's friend but himself. And most importantly, he is not the friend for journalists or of journalists. He does not value journalism, he is fighting pretty aggressively to roll.

back any protections for journalism and journalists. And so this doesn't shock me. What happened to Julian Assange today under President Trump's Department of Justice does not shock me. But what does worry me is what this all means for the future of journalism in America. What kind of precedent this sets and what kind of protections we're now seeing rolled back for people who actually care about getting the truth to the American people. And if you're one of those bitter Democrats or whoever you are who's now celebrating Julian Assange

being, you know, taken into custody and charged in America, hold your celebration. Because what you're doing while you're pretending to be part of the resistance, God, these Democrat establishment figures, they're really repulsive. What you're doing is you're letting Trump open the door to arresting journalists for for aiding their sources, saying, hey, do you have anything else for me? Which is just journalism 101. So here's a guy who's called the press, the enemy of the people, and encourage attacks against them.

You want to let him open that door? You must be out of your mind. And so if you do, and you're part of the people celebrating today, then you got no right to complain ever again about Trump or anyone else taking press freedoms because you celebrated while he did it. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging.

It's often your hormones, too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. Hormone Harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients, designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more.

With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. Whether we agree politically or not with Julian Assange, this is a terrible day in America for journalism. And this should not stand.

The courts should definitely overturn this and protect the United States Constitution. When we come back from the break, we are going to share the conversation about this charge against Julian Assange on the view. And well, Jake's going to rage. Let's keep it real. I'm probably just going to present it and then duck for cover. Okay, duck for cover when we come. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-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-F-E-The-Republic or Un-N-FU-N-N-E-Rubbleau. 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. Back. All right, back on a young Turks. First of all, let me tell you some excellent programming we have for you guys next week. On the 15th, there's going to be a Bernie Sanders Town Hall. Yes, I'm Fox News. But right afterwards, we are going to be analyzing it. Okay, so 5 to 6 o'clock Pacific, so that's 8 o'clock Eastern.

T.Y.T.com slash live. And of course, members, again, all of it on an uninterrupted, TYT.com slash join to become a member. So that's Monday, April 15th, next Monday. Don't miss it. How will he handle Fox? And then on Tuesday, live in the studio, Titus Williver, star of Bosch. He was also in Lost and Deadwood and just a terrific, terrific actor. And Ben's going to come in and interview him. That either, so we're feeling pretty good about that. All right, now, a couple of comments for you guys, and there's some significant disagreements. I think the best one is shrink the right wing on TYAT.com. He says, if it's a conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, all based on Assange giving

Manning a suggestion, what do we call it when Trump goes on TV and gives a suggestion to the Russians to release documents on Clinton? That is a great point, yeah. So I'm expecting the arrest of Donald Trump imminently. Otherwise, we're gonna have to let Assange go, right? Seriously, I hadn't thought of it that way, shrink the right wing, great job, excellent point, totally stealing that and running with it on Twitter all night long, okay? So, but you'll know it was you, okay?

You're the worst. God. So what do you want me to do in 280 characters? Strength the right way from T.O.T. decade? Actually, I would, I would, I'll just forget, that's the reality, but anyway. For now, I love you. Okay.

All right, zero divisor says, Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Revelle are the only two presidential candidates who have spoken out, but I guess Tulsi's still not a progressive, right, Anna? Oh, just please calm down, okay? So first of all, Tulsi Gabbard's speaking out on this, wonderful, okay? Furthermore, she was part of the folks who fought for net neutrality. Did a great job on that just passed the house. So, nuance, folks, nuance, okay? People can be great on some things, not so great on others, and let's not be close-minded

in any direction, okay? So great job by Gabbard on both those things. Okay. Move on, we gotta know, we got news to do. Logan writes in, in disagreeing with us, I'm content with Assange being arrested, the manner in which he released the documents was reckless and could have been done more intelligently to keep people safe while still releasing the documents. as well as his and WikiLeaks connection to Russia's incredible disconcerting and calls into question the accuracy of anything he released.

No one is, but look, Logan, I love you, but I'm going to challenge two of those assumptions. No one's questioning the accuracy of what he released, not even the United States government. They're not mad because it was inaccurate. They're mad because it was accurate, both in 2010 and in 2016. And just saying that he released it in a reckless way is another way of, and by the way, there's no evidence to that effect either, in my opinion. Whatever little thing that they charge you with on that, it's a way of saying, oh, please, I do declare it wasn't in the New York Times. So that independent journalist couldn't be careful enough.

So be careful about that stuff. One more that disagrees with us from Twitter. Ms. M.C. says, Jank and Anna, Assange is not your ally. Jank defending Assange because he's complaining him with Manning is just plain wrong and bad politics. Assange is a menace, his agenda is unnerved governments. This is not journalism, this is terrorism. Oh my God, I love you, but I totally disagree, totally disagree.

There's an element of truth in that comment. There is, right? So, and we were, and continue to be critical about the agenda in 2016. But I think if you create a situation in which you criminalize him as a publisher of leaked information from whistleblowers that does unfortunately set a very bad precedent for other journalists in the future, that's where I'm coming from. So I hear you on some of the, you know, unsavory things that happened in 2016, I'm actually in agreement with you on that, but you have to separate your dislike for him and look

at the bigger picture and what this all represents. That's all I'm saying. Yeah, I mean, that's part of being principled, guys. So even if we didn't agree exactly with what Assange did in 2016, you still have to defend him as a journalist, because he is that. He found incredibly relevant information, and he published it, like any good journalism. journalists would. So, and you can say, hey, oh, he has an agenda.

So does Fox News. Are we gonna arrest everybody at Fox News? Before you get too excited, then okay, we have a point of view. Are we gonna arrest everyone here for having a point of view? Oh, no. No, okay, see, all of a sudden, no, right? All of a sudden, bad idea. Yeah, I mean, okay.

Yeah, that's a perfect interpretation of, you know, you gotta get your personal emotions out of it, which is hard to do, I totally get that. Yeah, super last one is on YouTube, super chat. Elliot says, I heard on Democracy now this morning that John Bolton was pushing for the arrest Assange, and I was like, of course, in Jenks' tone. So I just did it in my tone. Okay. Not surprised.

John Bolton is usually at the root of all things evil in the Trump administration. All right. All right. YouTube has YouTube membership, which allows you to engage with other members of this show on YouTube, and you get little perks. Like for instance, you get to use our host emojis, which are kind of fun. All right. I actually love them, man.

When I saw like the Anna emoji, I was like, no way, that's so much fun, stop it. Is that really what you thought? Yes. Then I saw John's, I was like, oh my God, John has one, hilarious. What about you? Look at you. Me, I deserve one. That makes sense.

All right, fun. So if you're interested in joining YouTube membership, just click on the little button that says join right underneath our videos, it's underneath to the side, and then go through the motions. It'll be very self-explanatory. All right, moving on. The ladies of the view chimed in on the whole controversy involving the arrest of Julian Assange. Now, I just want to quickly mention again that Julian Assange is facing a conspiracy to hack charge pertaining to the leak that happened in 2010. Currently, that is the only charge he's facing. There could be additional charges in the future. It's important context to keep in mind as we watch these clips. Now with that

said, let's take a look at the first video. The politics of this have always been completely hypocritical on both sides. Eric Holder, under Obama, decided against pursuing persecution of Assange, of concerns that WikiLeaks was, quote, a journalistic organization that would raise first amendment issues. This is something that a lot of people who had put national security at first, I put myself in that category, had been warning about and warning about and warning about. And the only time the Democrats started caring is when it started affecting them politically and Hillary Clinton's emails were released. Okay. And John Podesta's emails were released. Does anybody what's going to happen with him? That's my question. So here's the biggest problem.

I hope he rocked in hell starting at that. Yeah. Okay. So I just want to be clear that there are more videos that we'll get to and there was a significant disagreement on the panel. But with that said, go. Okay. So actually when she first started, it's fine. She, she's actually right. Democrats have shift their view on a sign depending on how it's suited them politically. And so was Donald Trump. He went from, I love WikiLeaks. I read them all the time too. What's WikiLeaks?

I don't know what WikiLeaks is, right? So that part is true. The rest is horrific. So I hope he rots in hell. Okay, so let's just back up and talk about what the underlying issue was in 2010. So again, he's been arrested for what happened in 2010 with the Chelsea Manning leaks. not having anything new with the 2016 elections, okay? So one of the things that J.L. C. Manning released was information about how many civilians we'd

actually killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it showed that the American government was lying and doing it on purpose and significantly undercounting and underreporting the number of civilians that had been killed. Okay, pause. So for people like us, that information is incredibly important, right? That type of whistleblowing is incredibly important because what's the whole point of journalism? The point of journalism is to hold people in positions of power accountable. How do you maintain a democracy?

You do so by holding people in positions of power accountable. And how are we supposed to know that the government is carrying out these actions unless you have whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, right? you have an organization that's willing to publish that information like WikiLeaks. So for us it's important, but for someone like Megan McCain, whose father was notoriously a war monger, that information is not necessarily important. No, it's actually quite the opposite. It's embarrassing.

John McCain loved the Iraq war, defended it to the hilt was one of the people who caused the Iraq war. So when we found out that a lot more innocent civilians had been killed and some murder by our bombs, including first responders and members of the press, well, that was inconvenient to the McCain family. And if you remember before he passed away, he was desperately trying to start a war with Iran, where a lot more of that would have happened. But nearly a million innocent civilians died in the Iraq war, the people who started that

war should not rot in hell. The people who reported what happened in that war, according to Megan McCain, should rot in hell. Now imagine if anyone had said that about her dad. Oh my God, the tears and the drama and the soap opera and oh my God, I'm so outright, how could you say that? My dad's a hero. Oh, but you can say it about Julian Assange all day long, right?

And that's not an issue. Why? Because he's not in the club. He's not an elite. And if it's the elites, I know them tears, tears, tears. It's an actual independent journalist that actually tells us some of the atrocities that the government committed, including your dad, rot in hell, how dare he challenge to elite like my papa?

Okay, pass the great Poupon. So I got no interest, Megan. What are you? What are you? Journalist, Megan? Is that where you are? All right, come on. Okay.

All right, are you done? Not anywhere near done, but keep going on the clips. All right, so there was disagreement among Megan McCain and one of the other ladies of the view, Sonny Hosten, who does have a background as a lawyer. So here is her argument, take a look. If you have a problem with Julian Assange and what he released in terms of national security, then you need to have a problem with the Pentagon Papers. You need to have a problem with the Panama Papers.

You need to have a problem with the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs being released. Because those items being released, I think, protected our democracy. And the reason that the Obama administration and Eric Holder decided not to punt, but decided that our Constitution protected Julian Assange is because our Constitution does protect Julian Assange. Because our Constitution, excuse me, you can push back after I'm finished speaking. The Constitution protects freedom of the press. So I wanna, I don't know if I retract, withdraw some of the criticism I have of the view

in the past, because I actually think Sonny does a great job there. Sunny is fantastic. Yeah, not just there, but in many appearances. And Joe Behar is arguably the most progressive person on television. So yeah, they have right wingers, but so does everybody else. And whoope is frustrating oftentimes with it, because she's the establishment point of view, but that's a different point of view too. And so the fact that they actually have a real lawyer who understands the United States Constitution

is willing to push back against Megan McCain and clearly explain the situation, that's a lot better than the rest of cable news, credit where creditors do. Absolutely. Yeah, I thought that that conversation, even though it was frustrating to hear some of the points made by Megan McCain, I thought that conversation really did add something to, I guess, daytime talk shows because it provided a perspective that we're not seeing pretty much anywhere else on television right now. Yeah, absolutely.

I don't see a lot of Assange defenders out there. And obviously there is online, there's us, there's Glenn Greenwald and a lot of others, but television is for the establishment. And so the fact that the view has two progressives on there is amazing and literally might be more than the rest of television combined. Is that amazing too? So all right, but one more thing about what Sonny said there, because I want to back up what she's saying with even more authority.

The ACLU has weighed in and there said clearly a violation of the Constitution. This is freedom of the press, and they're defending Julian Assange completely. That is what people of principle do. And Anna and I have been saying all day, we didn't necessarily agree with Assange's politics in 2016, how he chose to act, but that doesn't matter. This is about principle and protecting the Constitution. Now, Sonny Hosten's comments seem to have infuriated Megan McCain, and so I want to share her rebuttal with you.

Take a look. I think what you said was just straight propaganda, just so we're clear. Well, if the law is propaganda, then I'm sorry. They're not First Amendment. He was a cyber terrorist from day one, which is how we got in the situation we're in right now. You've really 750,000 classified or sensitive information that put our military at risk, that put our spies at risk, that put our diplomats at risk. And I'm sorry, but Democrats only started carrying once it started implicated Hillary Clinton.

And I am very consistent on this issue for years. Yeah, you're consistently a warmonger like your dad, consistently want to protect. the United States government and crush any opposition to it and any journalists who dare to oppose it. She makes up all these things about, oh, the diplomats were at risk and all these sources were at risk, really, did anyone get compromised based on that? Nope, no. You have no such information.

You just love to throw that around anytime anyone reveals something embarrassing about the United States government. Now, you wanna know what one of the things that Chelsea Manning revealed was through WikiLeaks? The Apache helicopter video. And so there you see people in the US military and they're not sure who the people on the ground are. They're like, well, they seem to be holding something in their hand. That's true, they were holding something.

You know what it was? It was a camera because they were journalists. So they shot them up and killed them all. And then first responders showed up and that was clear. They were first responders coming to help the wounded and the dead. And we shot them too and killed them as well. But that's inconvenient to Megan McCain. So she's like, why will journalists expose that?

Why don't they just cover it up on behalf of papa and all the people who agreed with them in the administration and who led to all those deaths? Why did Julian Assange commit that act of journalism? And look at what she said at the end, it was disgusting when she said, cyber terrorist. Okay, under that definition, anyone who publishes anything inconvenient to Megan McCain online is now a cyber terrorist. Her and her friends in the government didn't like that, okay, you can call anyone that. She has no information, no facts to back her up.

When Sunny cites the United States Constitution, she's like, that's just propaganda. U.S. Constitution's propaganda, but you making up facts about how diplomats were at risk is not propaganda, please spare me. One other thing I want to add is I just want to talk a little bit about the value of those leaks, Because while you'll hear people like Megan McCain make these incredibly shallow and unfounded arguments about how it threatened national security, the reality is it not only allows us to hold people in positions of power accountable, but it also gives us insight into how our foreign policy leads to certain consequences, right?

So if we're carrying out certain missions or certain military activity that leads to all these civilians getting killed, then it helps inform, you know, it informs us into like why it is that there are hostilities toward the United States. It gives us some insight into why there are terrible terrorist groups like ISIS who are able to recruit people abroad. It helps us understand what's happening with our foreign policy. And that's important when it comes to democracy as well, because we're able to go to the polls and actually vote as informed voters as opposed to people who are kept in the dark about

these things. So last thing I'll say on this is the two biggest crimes in America are not actually anything that's illegal. One is disrespecting a police officer. That'll get you arrested every time even though it's not in the law anywhere. And I'll get you arrested quicker than murder will. The second one is being uncivil to anyone in the elite club. And so that is what Megan McCain is trying to enforce here.

So you can torture anyone you like, you can commit acts of war any way you like, you can do war crimes any way you like. Those are not a problem, those are just policy disagreements at most, right? But if you are uncivil to someone in the elite, oh, Julian Assange, when he revealed a monstrous, horrific, murderous things that we did, he was uncivil to me and papa and papa's supporters. So, no, Assange, cyber terrorists, cyber terrorists, remove him from the building, right? And so that's how the club works, that's how the elite work. And that's Megan McCain trying to intimidate people.

I mean- It is fitting that she uses the word terrorist here, right? Because terrorist or terrorism was used to convince the American public to support a preemptive war in Iraq. Like it's this fear-mongering phrase or word that's just put on anything that's that The right wing wants to persuade you is wrong. Yeah, and not interested. And so finally, the point of all that is no accountability. So hey, don't you dare question anybody in the government, because they're the powerful.

You don't get to hold the powerful accountable. So when Chelsea Manning does it, in reality the rest of us thinks she's an American hero. But people like Megan McCain, who are among the elite, think unbearable. When WikiLeaks releases that information, that is valuable. journalism to the rest of us. But to people like Megan McCain who are in the club, it's unacceptable. They've committed the gravest offense there is, being uncivil and impolite and disturbing the wonderful time they were having at the Capitol.

When we come back from the break, we're going to switch gears and talk about some of the additional charges that Michael Abenotti is facing. If he is found guilty of these charges, he could face up to 333 years. years behind bars. It's insane. Come right back. 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 activity 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 E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-Y-T. Check it out today. 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-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second.

All right, back on the Young Turks. So a couple member comments first. Chet's mom says, did Joy Behar get a TYT membership? She seems to have been upping her game lately. I think you guys did get membership for the view. But to be fair to George, she's been a wonderful progressive for decades now. So I'd love to take credit for it, but we can't. Chris Durand said, I'll give McCain credit here though.

This is the first time any conservative in the media has called a white person a terrorist. Well, I hadn't thought of it that way. Our members are always thinking. And last one here is Zephyr Records on YouTube super chat also disagrees with us. Assange helped Russia destabilize our democracy. He helped Trump, Russia is a criminal government and he aided them. I hope that SOB never gets out. Yeah, okay.

Even if you think all that, you still shouldn't be in favor of having him arrested for doing journalism. It is a terrible precedent to set and it'll come back to haunt all of us. Okay. If you are doing anything online, you should use a VPN to do so because it helps protect your privacy. And lucky for you, we have a partnership with NordVPN and we have a giant discount for you.

Giant. Giant. Yeah. So you get 75% off for three years and you get one month free if you just go to NordvPN.com slash TYT to sign up. I think those discounts are preposterous. Eventually it's gonna be like 99.9% off. for 28 years and 48 months free.

Yeah, those deep discounts. Okay, so that's as good as good as it's gonna get. Seriously, NordvPM.com slash t-y-protect yourself. All right, what's next? Prosecutors in California have added additional charges against Michael Abenotti, and the 61-page indictment, which has been unsealed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that Avanotti for years hid and then completely spent a four-million million-dollar legal settlement obtained in January of 2015 in favor of a mentally ill paraplegic

client and hit $2.75 million of that settlement for another, or of another settlement, I'm sorry, 2.75 million settlement for another client that Avinati allegedly used to help pay for his share of the purchase of a private jet valued at up to $5 million. Now, again, these are the charges, and he will have his day in court. But with that said, I want to show you what the prosecutors have to say about these charges and any additional charges that he's facing. Take a look. First, wire fraud related to the theft of millions of dollars from five clients, including

a paraplegic man who agreed to a multi-million dollar settlement, but has received only a fraction of the money despite the fact that Mr. Avanotti received the full settlement amount over four years ago. Second, tax fraud, including failing to file income tax returns for himself and his law firm. As you will hear in a few minutes from Special Agent in Charge Corner, Mr. Avanadi also allegedly took steps designed to obstruct an IRS collection. So there are more charges. And again, he needs to have his day in court. But assuming that he did commit these crimes, these are horrible crimes, especially when it comes to a disabled client not getting the settlement money that he is entitled to.

So before we give you more information, I want to say I came at this with significant skepticism when all the different charges started coming out against Avinati a little while ago. And there's a couple of reasons for that skepticism. One is he is an avid opponent of Donald Trump and now, you know, U.S. attorney's appointed in the Trump administration are going after a political opponent of Donald Trump. So it's important context. And then the first charge that came out against him had nothing to do with any of this and

it had something new with assaulting a woman. And that charge appeared to be orchestrated by the alt-right. And we don't know that definitively, but prosecutors and police decided that it was nonsense. And I don't know if nonsense is the right way to describe it, but they dropped it. And it turns out as far as we can tell it was not real. I'm like, okay, so the right wing attacks him for being against Donald Trump, and it wasn't real. Then the second set of charges is about Nike, and it looked like he was trying to do a settlement with Nike.

Nike then uses its muscle to say, oh yeah, he's threatening us and blackmailing us. Well, couldn't any lawyer suing you fit that definition? So I thought that was really weak sauce, and they're still pursuing them on that in New York, and I'd be shocked if they got him on that. So now you've got two charges that look like they don't have much merit. Again, all by U.S. attorneys, all under the Trump administration. So that's super important context. Now, having said that, you have to be fair no matter what.

And these charges, if they can prove them, are devastating. Yes. And it would be the end of Avanotti, one, because he faces 333 years in prison. But look, he's relatively wealthy, so we won't get that. You know how that goes. And number two, I mean, obviously he's going to be disbarred if proven, because he seems to be stealing his client's money. I'm going to keep on saying you have proven, okay?

But also, that's the last you'll ever hear of Avanani. I mean, but you know what, I shouldn't say that because the media is so crazy. He'll probably get a job. Yeah, like he might go to a nice white collar prison, play some tennis, get out, and then CNN's He's like, ooh, you're even bigger star now, okay, and might give him a show, but- Might, we'll give him a show. Okay, but let me give you a little bit more of what he allegedly did. So there are IRS issues as well.

He allegedly didn't file taxes and then used fraudulent tax returns in order to obtain loans. And so there's all sorts of allegations, which is the reason why he's facing so many charges and so much time behind bars should he be proven guilty in court. Now let's go to another video featuring the prosecutor outlining some of the other issues and other charges that he's facing. Mr. Avinati received money on behalf of clients and simply took the money to finance his businesses and his personal expenses. In one case, after receiving $2.75 million for a client, Mr. Avinati allegedly took nearly

all that money and used it to pay for his portion of a private jet, a jet, incidentally, that we seized yesterday. But I want to note that some of the money withheld from the paychecks of employees of his coffee company, money that was being held in trust and was supposed to be used to pay payroll taxes, was instead used by Mr. Avanotti in relation to other crimes alleged in the indictment, including making lulling payments to clients from whom he had stolen, from whom he had stolen settlement money. I wanna also give you one other devastating part of all of this, and it's about the disabled client that he had.

Let's go to Graphic 13. Because Avanotti failed to respond to the U.S. Social Security Administration's request for information about the paraplegic, the client had his supplemental security income benefits discontinued in February. Okay, so let's break down the different levels of offense here. Stealing from your clients to pay yourself and your own businesses and to buy private jets. If proven, 10 out of 10, terrible. Then, I mean, he did not pay taxes after 2011.

Just didn't file. And then in 2015, he sells his home in Laguna Beach to pay some of the back taxes. Otherwise, you know, they're going to take everything, et cetera, presumably. After 2015, he goes back to not paying taxes. Personal taxes, business taxes. I'm just amazed by people. Like, I feel like if any of us did that, we'd be toasts, we'd be goners. I wouldn't dare do 1% of any of this stuff.

It wouldn't even cross my mind. Yeah, but there are guys like this in the world. We're like, yeah, of course, I'll take my client's money. I'll lie to him and I'll just transfer it over and buy a private jet. And then I won't pay my taxes. And then my employees, they're paying payroll tax. I'll just take it. And I won't give it to the IRS.

What? What? Ten out of ten. And then he goes and according to the charges, if proven, he then lies to a bank to get a loan and makes up taxes he didn't pay. Okay, man, if they proved this stuff, Goner, Goner, he should get the full weight of the law on him. This is unreal the way he ripped off his own clients.

Yeah. If proven. And I want to say one other thing. For what? This reminds me a Manafort, an ostrich jacket, right? For a private jet, what do you need a private jet for? What do you rip it off clients for a private jet that's mental? No, don't rip off people for a private jet.

And I used to think like you, I used to think, like, why would anyone want a private jet? And then I realized, like, flying is the worst thing in the world. No. So I get why people want private jets. I don't think they should have private jets, but I get, like, I get the reasoning behind it. No, no, I understand what you're saying. But look, we'll talk about it more in the post game because it's a fun story. I just took first class flight to DC and back, please.

Oh, you fancy. Oh, I do declare. I'll tell you why I did and how I did it. But I can tell you this, first class is amazing, it's amazing, you don't need a goddamn private jet. Thank God you uncovered that for us. That's right, but more of that exclusive coverage in the post game for the members in the third hour, t.t.com slash join to become a member. Seriously, I'll tell the whole story why I took first class, et cetera, and my trip to D.C.

But back to Avanotti. There are just people in the world who are brazen. And so I guess it's that same kind of brazen attitude that led him to get into the spotlight and have. But notice that the media ate it up, there was like, there's a moth to the flames. They're like, hmm, like somebody who's like wild and crazy. And crazy and brazen, yes. Now, look, to be fair, I liked it because it was, because we're so starved for anyone who

actually fights against Republicans or Donald Trump. Or who knows how to beat Trump in trolling, because Trump is the top troll. And it's, it appeared that Michael Avanotti was the only one who knew how to get under his skin with his cable news appearances. That's right. And so, but at the end of the day, it looks like there were similar characters, you know. massive fraud and brazenly breaking the law and covering it up. And then knowing that he did all that stuff, he went on national TV a thousand times over

and brought the spotlight onto himself. I mean, if you did that stuff, wouldn't you hide in a corner or something and try to get away with it? No, he's like, no, I got this. I got this. I'm going to go on TV and attract all this attention and I bet they won't investigate me. Wow, that's crazy, but he did that. And so we'll see, they gotta prove, he says no way, I'm totally innocent, I'm gonna plead

not guilty and I'm gonna take this all the way, and we'll see it, I'm sure he'll make a spectacle of it in court. But I do wanna note the final irony, while he's being arrested and faces 33 years, the con man that he was opposed to, Donald Trump. Who defrauded students, who used his own charitable foundation to enrich himself. He's the president, like he's not dealing with real consequences. Why isn't he facing 333 years? Because I mean, on Trump University, he paid a $25 million fine.

He clearly ripped people off. He ripped them off at a larger scale than Avanati did, let alone the Trump foundation. And you can put aside all the other law breaking just on those two things. Those are in a sense clearly worse than what Avinati did. But yet no consequences. One, he's the president, the Republicans back him no matter what. And the Democrats are so afraid of their own shadow. Like, oh my God, I don't know, should we point out that he broke the law?

Meanwhile, everybody, rightfully so, is coming down on Aveni like a ton of breaks. Why? Because he doesn't have any power anymore. So it's easy. So you could crush people without any power. Before when he was all over cable news, I remember being at the White House correspondent in it. We could talk more about that in the post game too, okay?

When Avanotti walked in, everybody's like, ooh, ah, celebrity Avanotti is here, right? Now everybody's saying, oh, I knew it, Alvinati, he's terrible. All of them, they're so unbearable. We will be back from the break with more news for you, including more attacks against Representative Ilhan Omar. Brian Kilmead is behind these attacks now. And there have been black churches set on fire in Louisiana. We're going to give you the details on who did it.

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