The Young Turks - Kashing In

Episode Date: February 21, 2025

Ana responds to attacks from Emma Vigeland and Sam Seder. Kash Patel gets confirmed as head of the FBI. Stephen A Smith Has PERFECT Criticism For The Democrats. Hosts: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Condoms for Hamas. Hot dog is my favorite meat. I need it. Let's go! All right, welcome to the young church, thank you, Granite, with you guys.

Huge show ahead for you guys, Republican Civil War continues unabated, and now folks are beating sides. And shockingly, you'll be pretty surprised, I think, certainly if you haven't tuned in the last couple of days as to which side some on the left they're taking. So, but in a good way. And then people turning on Fedham, we got a huge show ahead for you guys. Anna's got the first segment for you all. All right. Well, let's get right to it. Last week, Emma Viglin and Sam Cedar, of the majority report thought it would be fun to put out a more than 18 minute long video chastising and mocking me for my willingness to admit that I was wrong in part for downplaying the possibility of Donald Trump implementing Project 2025 upon winning the election.

People have admitted that they made a mistake. All right, back on T.I.T. Chang and Anna with you guys. More news. So I just want to address something, I was wrong about Project 2025. MAGA hates Project 2025, and I thought that Donald Trump actually cared about his base because in his first term, he seemed to be swayed by his base. He seemed to listen to his face. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Maga hates Project 2025? Where's the evidence of that? What? What, like, what is, what is this MAGA that they speak of? You know what? Sam is totally right. It is he who understands the MAGA base better than anyone else. I mean, the guy goes out of his way to engage in dialogue with Trump voters. He seeks to

understand where their hearts and minds are at. Here he is touting his openness to understanding people who vote differently than he does. We can't take the power back without talking to Trump voters and making them realize their mistake. Well, wait. So let's pander to them first. Pick your battles. It doesn't have anything to do with talking to Trump voters or not. Or flattering false consciousness.

You've just decided to make some weird connection there. We can't take the power back without talking to Trump voters and making them realize their mistake. Actually, no, we can't. There's millions and millions of other people who need to be motivated to get into the fight. Is that I am coming from the Polymarket Studios? insulting them and lumping them all together as the worst among them doesn't help either. I don't know when we have done that with all 78 million people.

But, oh, I got news for you. The percentage of those who voted from Mitt Romney, they also, they can suck my shit. I don't care about any of that. I don't care about any of that. Astute analysis, there you have it. Sam Cedar noted expert on Trump voters who he won't talk to and has no interest in understanding. Got it. But it's worth asking why Trump would repeatedly deny.

supporting Project 2025 on the campaign trail. Was it to appeal to libs like Sam Cedar? Or maybe it's because he knew his base doesn't support large swaths of the policy agenda laid out in the project's 900 page document. So to say that Trump is implementing Project 2025 isn't even fully accurate because, well, there's a lot that he doesn't agree with that's in that document and said that he won't actually pursue. After getting elected, he said these things. For example, Project 2025 wants to eliminate every single tax bracket and replace it with just two brackets, 15% for anyone making under $168,000 annually and 30% for those earning more than that. If this is the first time you're hearing about it, it's because Trump hasn't mentioned it

and isn't likely to pursue it. And are we going to pretend like Trump read a 900 page. document? Really? He does, however, plan to extend his 2017 tax cuts for individual filers. Trump also wants to lower the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, which I've spoken out against, repeatedly. Project 2025 also proposes cuts to Medicaid. What does Trump have to say about that? Social security won't be touched, other than if this fraud or something we're gonna find it's gonna be strengthened, but won't be touched. Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched. Nothing.

You don't have to. Now, if there are illegal migrants in the system, we're going to get them out of the system and all of that, fraud, but it's not going to be touched. I mean, well, look, touching Medicare or Medicaid, super unpopular. And maybe Trump is just saying that publicly while behind closed doors, he's telling Republicans who are currently working on a budget that they should totally slash Medicaid, right? Well, it turns out, no, wrong, that's not what's happening. Trump had previously weighed in privately against cutting too heavily into Medicaid,

telling House Republicans at a closed door meeting earlier this month that he wants to be very careful with Medicaid. His public remarks on Hannity represented a broader and more forceful assertion of that red line. Nonetheless, Trump's agenda and Project 2025 do have a great deal of overlap, especially in regard to the dismantling of the administrative state, which his base actually does like. But how, how could anyone be in favor of scaling back on government agencies that are full to the brim with unelected career bureaucrats who get to create, judge, and enforce their own policies and rules? How could this be? A scathing review of the CDC, finding the agency repeatedly botched its pandemic response.

and failed to meet the moment of crisis. The CDC long under fire for its guidance on masking and vaccines over the last two years. This is really confusing. There are more than 10,000 chemicals and additives allowed in food in the U.S., often in small amounts, but many have not been evaluated by the FDA in decades. The majority are safe, but some chemicals allowed here have been banned overseas after research has linked them to cancer and developmental or behavioral issues. Is the food industry basically policing itself? I would say yes. 45% of the FDA's overall budget now comes from the companies it's reviewing.

And 65% of the FDA's budget specifically for human drug regulation comes directly from Big Pharma itself. The historic $2 billion payout by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to black farmers and other farmers of color who experienced discrimination when applying to the USDA's farm loan programs. The lender who was a federal employee who was employed by a government spat on me. I was called the N-word from the same official. So I do a lot of work surrounding environmental justice issues here locally as far as activism goes. And I've done research fellow at the local EPA. The admin at a time when I was a research fellow were primarily comprised of people who were affiliated or directly coming from the Department of Defense.

And they put, they put in a lot of restrictions as to like what the researchers get to, which PFAS compound researchers get to study. Right. Is the EPA turning a blind eye to these dangerous forever chemicals and why? Unfortunately, the EPA is not turning off the tap of the. chemicals from the polluters, the polluters who knew they were poisoning their workers in the 60s and their neighbors in the 70s and ultimately all of us. And they're continuing to allow these polluters to send their PFAS wastes, not only into our rivers, but to our wastewater treatment plants where they are then sold to farmers who unknowingly contaminate their

fields. Whoopsies. Now, if you watch Beavis and Butthead on the Vanguard YouTube channel, which the majority report hilariously treats as some authoritative source, you'd think that TYT is totally in favor of the Trump administration gutting federal agencies. Except we're not. Two things can be true at the same time. These agencies have been deeply corrupted, do engage in waste, and should be reformed. But treating the federal workforce as if their Twitter employees is a disastrous way to handle it, as we've been learning in recent weeks. But let's hear what Emma has to say about my on-air correction.

It is not, it is not the prediction. People make predictions all the time. Right, I was wrong in my prediction about the election. This is not making like, you know, polymarket bet here. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We can't tell. Yeah. Yeah. There was an abundance amount of evidence of this. And even if your opinion, not prediction, opinion, opinion, was, I can't see them doing this. This is pretty radical. The idea that you would mock people for believing it and saying it was a conspiracy theory. The people had Trump's arrangement syndrome.

I'm sorry, give me a break. Apologies, I forget that Sam usually doesn't let Emma get a word in edgewise, but I'll address what she said in that video in a second. But before I do, did I Sam? Did I mock voters who were worried about Project 2025? because I don't remember doing that. What I do recall is chastising Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party for offering nothing to voters other than incessant fearmongering about Trump. I also remember criticizing members of the media who simply regurgitated anything the Democratic Party claimed.

I also found it fascinating that as the whole of the Democratic Party was engaging in said fearmongering, they were also playing part in a massive cover up about Biden. mental decline. I mean, just think about it. Democracy is under threat. We the Democrats insist that this corpse stay in the race to give us the best chance of beating Trump and saving democracy. But since Emma brought it up, let's address the fact that inaccurate predictions are totally okay, but only when she's wrong. In the lead up to the presidential race, Emma declared that her final electoral college prediction is that Harris sweeps all seven swing states and eeks out of victory in Iowa. My only reservation is that I don't want to

jinx the results, but I'm trying to avoid the trappings of magical thinking. Well, Emma, the magical thinking is what led you to think that Harris would sweep all battleground states. Not that you cited superstitious jinxing. And of course, Trump, not Harris, went on to win all swing states and the popular vote. The average of polls clearly showed Harris trailing Trump. She ran a horrific campaign, stood for nothing, was unpopular with anyone who was paying attention, and wasn't even nominated through a democratic process. She was anointed. How's that for saving democracy? But you, you worked very hard to launder her reputation and sell her to Americans, so much so that I thought maybe, just maybe, all those Kamala Harris ads that interrupted your YouTube videos were

possibly clouding your judgment. But you say you were delusional all on your own. And you know what? I'll take your word for it. But since we're on the topic of issuing corrections, one of your viewers is curious about something that you've said and whether you're gonna correct it. One of your viewers wants to know that since I admitted I was wrong, can majority report admit they were wrong, saying there wasn't a Venice well in gang that took over an apartment complex in Colorado, even though residents were coming out and saying that was going on for months. I haven't heard a peep from the majority report. Well, you know what? That's actually a great question. Majority report seemed to direct

their audience to harass me for months for accurately reporting that story. When that story was updated to include a horrific incident in which Trenda-Aragua gang members literally kidnapped and tortured a couple that lived in that Aurora Colorado apartment complex, majority report couldn't be bothered with it at all. A Colorado apartment complex plagued by suspected Venezuelan gang activity in the spotlight again after a brutal kidnapping. They were pistol whipped, they were beat, they were victimized, they were terrorized. Police say on Monday night, more than a dozen people approached a man and a woman,

forcing them into an empty apartment where they were held against their will and the man was stabbed. The two victims were released by the assailants after they promised not to call police, authorities say. Police say 19 people were initially detained in connection to the attack. Tonight, 16 are an immigration and customs enforcement custody, according to an ICE spokesperson who says they are all Venezuelan nationals in the country without authorization. Prior to that, the Aurora Police Department had already arrested 10 Trenda Aragua gang members from the same building. Wow, take a look at that, that's a lot of mugshots for a Venezuelan gang that definitely

does not exist and definitely were not victimizing other migrants in addition to low income Americans in that same apartment complex. That totally didn't happen. Oh, but by the way, that's not all. Earlier this month, this month, ABC News had this headline, quote, ice carries out raid in in Colorado, 100 members of Venezuelan gang targeted for arrests. Alleged members of Trend de Aragua were arrested at an Aurora apartment complex. So I'm just really curious, super curious.

Is ABC News funded by Polly Market, and that's why they're reporting these news stories? Are they making it up? I mean, it's just how many gang members do you need to take over a single apartment complex? But look, that's not all. Does Emma have the integrity to admit that she was wrong to gaslight everyone about Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass's austerity measures, namely her decision to cut the budget for a fire department that had already been chronically short-staffed and underfunded? She put this up on Twitter, lots of people are spreading this $17 million fire budget

cut story and it's just not accurate. She then included a comical thread to bolster her claim. The thread made no sense. And it was clear that Emma didn't even bother to read the thread that she herself quote tweeted. She was even called out by other lefties like Sam Sacks, who correctly stated that Emma was sharing an incoherent thread she couldn't have possibly read. And then when told the actual facts doubles down and accuses everyone of lying to help the right, she still hasn't deleted the post that was retweeted 5,000 times. I checked today, it's still up. And therein lies the heart of the issue with Majority Report.

Anyone who has a thought or belief that deviates even slightly from their doctrine is just a right winger. And right wingers could never make any legitimate points, right? We must all worship the all sanctimonious majority report and their ideological dogma at all cost, even when there's evidence proving them wrong. Although I can't decide if people like Emma are really this cultish with their politics or if they're just terrified by their own audience. DSA Josh, I live on the west side of L.A. All the criticism that conservatives are directing towards Mayor Karen Bass is 100% motivated by white nationalism and violent misogyny. Their fascist's full stop.

Hey, DSA Josh, you're unhinged. And guess what? I'm elated that you watch majority report. They deserve you. As for TYT, we're going to correct the record when we get something wrong. And I'm positive it will happen again in the future because we're human. And guess what, humans make mistakes. Emma is also susceptible to making mistakes. And that would be totally fine if she showed a modicum of humility and corrected herself. Instead, she plays the role of Hall Monitor. She polices what one can say, what they should believe, who they can talk to, and what they can talk about.

It sure is ironic for someone who claims to loathe cop so much. But that's the role she and others like her play in the left wing and everyone's sick of it. We'll be right back. Back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys. Also pill 2K3, thank you for joining and hitting that beautiful join button below. Melody loves music gifted 10 memberships as American Hero, Chris gifted 5. Michelle Moody gifted 20 and Michelle wrote in Anna, I respect your honesty. Thank you for saying that Anna, we appreciate it.

And guys always two last things I'll tell you. Number one, look at people's track record. So for example, a lot of the other left wing shows said Kamala couldn't lose. She was going to win all the swing states. She was going to win beyond the swing states, et cetera. We said watch out Trump can win and watch out for populism. Populism is coming and we should be more populist, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, I said back in 2013 Bernie could beat Hillary Clinton.

We've got a track record that you can check out all, you know, over and over again. We've told you whether it's right or wrong meaning like on the strategy, on the policies, on what we want or not, what is actually going to happen? What is more likely to happen? And so you should care about things that turn out to be true, not the things that you want to hear,

especially before an election, because that's going to lead you down a disastrous path. If you're like, oh, we got it. I heard on all the left wing shows, we don't even have to worry about it. We're going to win all the states. Well, that's not reality-based thinking,

and that doesn't help. Last thing is, look, mocking corrections is particularly loathsome. So for example, Emma got it wrong that she thought comma was going to win all the swing states and maybe Iowa. So what? She got it wrong. And then she comes out and says, hey, that was embarrassing. I got it wrong. No problem. I got no problem with that, right? Or you thought, hey, Biden was going, by the way, a lot of people thought Biden was FDR 2.0. And that he was that the bills that he passed were so amazing that American people were going to love them, right? And then he was going to win easily.

And then he was going to do almost all of his agenda. We thought that wasn't going to happen. And so, but if you thought he was going to do that, I don't hate you for it, right? And I'm not going to mock you if you say, well, I wish, I thought he was going to do his agenda. And it turns out he didn't. Oh my God, I love you for saying that because truth matters. Okay, so I've said my piece. Anna, what's thanks.

All right, let's get to the news of the day, beginning with this. We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media. Yes, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you. Whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out. But yeah, we're putting you all on notice. And Steve, this is why they hate us.

This is why we're tyrannical. This is why we're dictators because we're actually going to use the Constitution to prosecute them for crimes. They said we have always been guilty of, but never have. That man, Cash Patel, has just been confirmed as FBI director for the Trump administration. The clip you just heard dates back to 2023, but nonetheless, he has been confirmed, and he is as loyal to Donald Trump, as you can imagine, has an enemy's list, which he published in his own book. And this vote was 51 to 49 to confirm him. Republican Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski joined all of the Democrats in voting against the confirmation for Patel. Now

Patel has attracted plenty of controversy for statements like what you just heard in that clip. But he has also worked in Donald Trump's first term. He was the senior advisor to acting director of national intelligence and chief of staff to acting U.S. Secretary of Defense. Again, this was all during Donald Trump's first term. Now, here's what his colleagues thought of him. Even in an administration full of loyalists, Patel was exceptional in his devotion. This was what seemed to disturb many of his colleagues the most. Patel was dangerous, several of them told me. Not because of a certain plan he would be poised to carry out if given control of the CIA or FBI, but because he appeared to have no plan at all. His priorities

today always subject to a mercurial president's wishes tomorrow. He's also called to shut down the FBI's DC offices, which is a bit symbolic or mostly symbolic in nature, and compiled a list of executive branch deep state members in one of his books, which he has referred to as his enemies list, Jank. Yeah, so we got a poll here that, again, I'm very curious what you guys think of it. Will Cash Patel target those on his enemies list? So it's in a live chat on YouTube, shows live 6, 8 o'clock every day Monday through Friday, and we like you guys participating in it.

So this one, I'm not sure, but likely. So let me explain. Sometimes Trump will say outlandish things to get attention, or as a way of A, B, testing a preposterous idea and see if like a trial balloon. Hey, are people into it? I'm the king. You guys like it? Like it? Like it? No, you don't like it? I was just trolling. Oh, you do like it, then I will, right? So there's, and, you know, like, is he going to take Greenland? Is he going to invade Canada? I've said to you, no, I don't think there's any chance he's going to do that. Because if even his own base, I know, if people will say no, his own base will love it, etc.

But I don't think so. I think that they are actually anti-war. And they love when he troll about it, they love that, oh, yeah, we're a big, mighty thing. But if you send troops into Ottawa, no, no one's going to like that. That's an absolute epic disaster. And they know that. So that's to get attention. Enemies list, I think, is real. And I think Trump was a guy who is very thin skin, who hates anyone who's ever

criticized him, attacked him, et cetera, unless they turn around and kiss his ass, right? And so Cash Patel has no bounds. This I'm sure of, whatever Trump orders him to do. He will do. That is his whole point of existence. That is why he was nominated. That's why he's the head of the FBI now. So if Trump gives him an illegal order, I am positive. Cash Patel will follow it. So let me give you a little more insight on what he said in his book, what he, you know, why he has his enemies list to begin with. So the book calls for a comprehensive house cleaning of the Justice Department and an eradication of government tyranny within the FBI by firing

the top ranks and prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law, anyone who in any way abused their authority for political ends. And by the way, if you're curious who's included on that enemy's list, you have the entire fake news mafia press corps. He also lists Adam Schiff, Paul Ryan, Bill Barr, Cassidy Hutchinson, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, and others. bipartisan list, you know, he's he's not picking one side or the other here, Jank. You know what the funny thing is, Anna? I hate almost everyone on that list. Save, yeah. Because that's the part of the Uniparty and Bill Barr is a monstrous right winger who just, which I can't believe he had a boundary, but his boundary was apparently doing a coup

against America. And they're like, how dare you? Not enough, right? Et cetera. But as much As I loathe the people on Katz Patel's enemies list, would I arrest them? What kind of un-American person even contemplates that? No, because somebody disagucity with you, you don't get to arrest them. That's mental. And look, guys, I don't use that term lightly. It is literally un-American. In America, we have freedom of speech, freedom with the press.

We have political freedom. We're allowed to say what we want, including against the benighted, amazing new king, Donald Trump. Yes, you are allowed to criticize him, even if you're not. in media and politics and not get arrested. And if you do, that is certainly not for freedom and that is certainly cancel culture. I am curious, look, do I think that Cash Patel and with the guidance of Donald Trump is going to pursue retaliatory measures against Trump's enemies? I do.

Like if I had to make a prediction or make a bet right now, I would take that bet. The question is, how would he do it, right? Like so he's saying that he's going to prosecute these individuals. Well then the judicial system would have to play along with him. Yeah, well, so here's the problem. Yeah. So as we know from being outsiders, what the mainstream media and the establishment have used in the past is what they're going to partly weaponize. So what do I mean by that? So they'll go for looking for needles in a haystack. So Elliot Spitzer is a sheriff of Wall Street.

Well, let's see if we can catch him in a sex scandal. And so then we'll say, oh, that's the whole haystack is the sex scandal, right? So if they're gonna go after Bill Barr or Liz Cheney or whoever it is, right? What they'll do is they'll start digging. Now where might they dig? They might dig at the IRS to see if they had any issues with their taxes. Oh, right, Elon Musk is demanding the private information of everyone at the IRS. And then voila, then you dig through that haystack and see if you could find a needle. Oh, look at that wrong classification back in 2016, whatever it is. But just to be clear, just to be clear, there would need to be evidence of wrongdoing.

Oh yeah, I mean. I mean, it's politically motivated, I totally get that. But I mean, I can see why someone like Hillary Clinton might be worried, right? No. I don't think the hate, I don't think you need to search a massive haystack to find that needle with someone like Hillary Clinton. No, see, that's the, look, I haven't heard of Hillary Clinton. I've heard of Hillary Clinton doing 10,000 unethical things. And I think she totally works for the donors.

And I think she's corrupt in that sense. And I get it, guys. They go into office broke. They come out with $150 million. But $150 million, they didn't get through knuckleheaded bribes. Like, oh, here, you have money. Oh, Twitter owes you $10 million. Wink, Elon Musk gives Donald Trump a $10 million check.

That actually looks way more like very direct corruption. Whereas what they would do is they'd write a book, they'd get speeches to the bankers, and then hey, look at that, they agree with the bankers when the bills come around, right? So that's totally corruption, but as it stands, not illegal, right? So if you could prove, okay, when she deleted the emails, that was illegal, well, that is similar to some of the stuff Trump. Did Trump had way more classified documents, so it was way more obstinate, et cetera, okay, but we're in the ballgame.

But like, I, if they said to me, hey, should we go looking for something to pin on Donald Trump, I would have said, hell no, even though that guy has lived an enormous life of criminality. But if he says, here's the boxes of top secret documents, and I will not hand them over, well, But you don't have a choice, what are you gonna do? Just leave them in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom? Right, yeah. But Hillary Clinton hasn't, to our knowledge, done anything like that. Bill Barr loathsome, but to our knowledge hasn't done anything like that.

I know, to our knowledge. But that's the thing though, that's about, he's at the FBI. Because when you, they're not prosecutors, they're investigators, right? So when you weaponize the investigators, what you say to them is, I don't care if you already have evidence of a crime. I care that you target this person and go find me evidence. Oh, find me evidence of a crime. Yeah, that's deeply problematic.

No, I do find that deeply problematic. And while I do not agree with this notion, the thought process among, you know, Trump supporters is that this is the method that Democrats used against Donald Trump. And look, the reason why I disagree with that is because he committed crimes out in the open. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. The classified documents, again, the federal government asked him repeatedly, can you just please return the classified documents?

He refused to do it. Then he returned some of them and lied and said that he returned all of them. That led to the FBI raid. So that's a classified documents case. And then obviously we know what happened with the fake electors case. And the January 6th riots that were part of that. But look, nonetheless, there are 5,000 FBI officials who have been named. And those names have been given to the Trump administration.

These are FBI officials who apparently worked on the January 6th cases. And those names were sent to the Trump Justice Department. And so they're probably gonna get fired if I had to bet on that. But we don't know yet, we're gonna see what Cash Patel does. Now in his confirmation hearing, Patel promised that no FBI employee will be subject to political retribution. But as we know, these Senate hearings for confirmations mean nothing, okay? The nominees are gonna say everything that the lawmakers want to hear them say. Nonetheless, Trump meanwhile has vowed to fire some FBI employees who worked on the January

6th investigations and alleged without evidence that they are corrupt. So there you have it as FBI director Patel's term will last 10 years. Yeah, so when he gets her to Chris Ray, who he himself appointed Trump did, he's saying I don't like that you investigated me. So even though you're supposed to have a 10 year term and I'm the guy who picked you. So since you did your job in a way that in my opinion was without fewer favor, remember he also targeted Menendez, who's a Democratic senator, Quayar down in Texas, Democratic representative, Eric Adams, Democratic mayor. And as a Democrat, did I want him to target those people? Yes, because it looks like they had actually committed the crimes. Menendez

This has now been convicted when it's a criminal that happens to be kind of on our side. I have no interest in them. I have no interest in defending them. I have an interest in sending them in prison, right? Because we care about principles and we care about what's right. But when you say, hey, you're going after all these corrupt people, including me, and you're trying to prosecute me for obvious brazen crimes that I'm going to get rid of you. That is not what the American government is supposed to do.

Guys, once you weaponize it like that, I know, we've been over it a billion times. Republicans are absolutely convinced that the Democrats weaponizes against Trump. But even if you think that is correct, do you think it's the right thing to do it back to them? Please tell me that you don't think that. Because look, if you said to me, like I believe in principles. I believe in the Constitution. Hey, Hillary Clinton's people weaponize the Justice Department against Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders won the presidency.

Should we go and find different rando crimes against Hillary Clinton's staffers? Should we weaponize the Justice Department to target them on unrelated matters? I would say, hell no, because then you're just as bad as Hillary Clinton. Why would you do that? Why would you degrade yourself and say, look at how terrible they are, and watch me, I'm going to do worse. Okay, I mean, you could say revenge, but that's not principles, that's not the U.S. Constitution. That's not the American system. In the American system, the FBI first finds the crime, then finds a person who did it.

You don't find the person you want to target and then try to find a crime. All right, let's take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about Stephen A. Smith causing some waves, going after the Democratic Party and some disturbing polling for Democrats. Come right back. All right, back on TYT, Cenk and Anna with you guys. Also, Colin Simon Gaming, thanks for joining. We appreciate it, Endami Mami Matrix.

It's always a fun handle. Thank you for gifting five memberships on YouTube. We love this community. You guys are amazing. I thank you for all having open minds and open hearts. And I'll just read one last comment here from tyt.com. Simply Populist wrote in, I just renewed my TYT Membership yesterday. TYT is the only subscription I have because I mostly agree with your approach.

Rise above the condescending purists. We've got work to do. Love that attitude. Way to go simply populist. All right, Anna. Well, let's talk about the ongoing dread among Democrats. There's some pretty bad polling for the Democratic Party that just came out. And Stephen A. Smith has a lot to say about them. I want to make sure America understands this. I believe it is an utter embarrassment to the Democratic Party that I am a candidate in people's eyes for the presidency of the United States. It's an indictment against them and they need to get their act together before somebody like me or somebody else takes it real seriously and says to hell with y'all because the roster that I'm seeing right now, y'all don't have anything. Well, on Monday, sports broadcaster Stephen A. Smith, who has flirted with the idea of a presidential run, went absolutely ballistic on the pathetic state of the Democratic Party. And special thanks to case study QB for capturing that moment from his show and making this a topic of discussion.

A lot of people are discussing it. And by the way, that was far from all Smith had to say about the Democrats, right, Jank? So, no. So Smith's going off on the Democrats, and I like it. But the only people are really talking about Stephen A. Smith running for president is Stephen A. Smith. So I mean, let's keep it real on that. I'm going to propose to other people that are in the media, very similar jobs that are way better choices and could actually win. All right. Well, before you do that, let's watch more of his rant. But you got to get somebody with sizzle. You got to get somebody that when they speak,

They influence minds. They influence hearts. And they get people to really, really think and spin their wheels. I'm talking about not people on the left because you got them. I'm talking about the independence. I'm talking about the centrist. You got to get somebody that can speak to that audience that can go across the aisle and dare Republican constituency to bet against them.

Because guess what? I'm better than the candidate that you have because I'm a lookout for you better than the candidate that you have because that's what Trump was telling a bunch of black folks Hispanics. What do you have to lose and all of this other stuff? This is what Trump did. He was fearless with it. Where are those Democrats? I don't see them around. I love Westmore, and I love Josh Shapiro.

I think both of them got a chance, all right? But I need somebody that was a national appeal, and maybe it is one of them. I hope so. I really do, because the Democratic Party is in a bad state right now. The whole damn thing needs to be purged. I'm dead serious. They need to go. Those strategists fire every damn one of them. Get rid of them. Get rid of them. They serve no purpose. Find somebody else. All right, I'm sure I have some sticking points with Stephen A. Smith in regard to who the best Democratic candidates could be, but I do appreciate the, you know, candor, how candid he is in just calling a spade a spade when it comes to the Democratic Party. But by the way, the pain

ain't over yet because CNN's Harry Enten also reported that for the first time in years, Republicans now outnumbered Democrats in the United States. Donald Trump and the Republican Party has changed the electorate. What do I mean by that? Well, let's take a look at party identification, Democrats versus Republicans. You go back to 2017. Five points more of the electorate was Democrats than Republicans. You go to 2021 when Joe Biden was starting out.

Look at that. Six points more of the electorate was Democrats than Republicans. But look at what's happened in February of 2025. Look at this. Republicans, there are more Republicans in the electorate than there are Democrats, Republican plus two. So Donald Trump and the Republicans have remade the electorate. They've turned some people over from being Democrats or independents

to become Republicans, new folks have entered the electorate who are more Republican leaning. So here's my question to left-wing media, Democratic politicians who keep perpetuating the notion that all Trump supporters are deeply racist, deeply bigoted, deeply terrible white supremacists. All those individuals who switched parties, are they also part of the big, bad, you know, white supremacist racist in the country? Maybe not. Maybe Democrats really drop the ball. Maybe they realize that Democrats haven't really offered them much other than Trump bad. And by the way, one other thing, a Quinnipiac poll that was released yesterday found that 40% of Democrats approve of the way the Democrats in Congress

are handling their job, while 49% disapprove and 11% did not offer an opinion. So that was actually devastating because that used to be, I think 54% percent. positive margin so for the Democrats in Congress from Democratic voters. So that means that it's won 63 points what Democratic voters think of Democratic politicians. By the way, thank God finally. That's like my favorite poll of all time. I've been saying on the show for 20 years. These guys just represent their donors. They're not on your side. It's all a trick. They're playing good cop, bad cop with establishment Republicans.

And now the Democratic voters in mass, almost overnight, with a 63 point swing going, no, you're right, they're useless. I hate them. I disapprove. I disapprove of our politicians. And you should. You know why? Not because they have the wrong policies.

It's that they never do the policies. They keep telling you, and it's just a marketing giving. Oh, we're going to give you a paid family leave. We're going to give you a $15 minimum wage. We're going to give you voting rights. We're going to give you all these things. And then they get in office. Oh, Phil.

filibuster, parliamentarian, meany, Republicans, there's nothing we could do. Trump gets in office, he's like, executive order this, I'm eliminating that, et cetera. He's like a bull in a china shop, and I'm not, I don't want that. I don't want reckless, I don't want something that isn't well thought out, et cetera. But man, he doesn't seem to care about the parliamentarian. He's taking tons and tons of action, whereas we have to do nothing Democrats, whose constant motto is, There was nothing we could do, there was nothing we could do, and now they're saying it when they're in the minority. No, it's amazing.

But brother, if there's nothing you could do when you're in the majority, and there's nothing you could do when you're in the minority, you're just telling the voters, there's literally nothing I could do. So don't bother electing me. And eventually they believed you and stopped electing you. So there's that. There's the lack of policy accomplishments, right, that actually have a material effect, positive effect on people's day to day lives. But then there's also, you know, a lot of those who like to provide cover for the Democratic Party like to just repeat this same line over and over again. No, it's just a messaging problem. It's just a messaging problem. You know what? Partly, partly, I agree. Okay, maybe it is partly a messaging problem. For instance, if the culture within your party is picking out different groups of people to let them know that you think they're bad and immoral, you're going to turn people. people off. White men bad, white women bad. Asians, they're also bad because they want to be like

white people. Latinos who want stronger border security but have voted Democrat their entire lives, bad. You keep pushing people out. Eventually, you're gonna have no one left except for a tiny group of elitist academics who buy into this nonsense. But nonetheless, just to compare the current numbers, Jenk, to what the numbers were in March of 2023. So let me read Graphic 1, One More more time, just as a reminder, 40% of Democrats approve of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job while 49% disapprove. That is a stunning change from March of 2023 when Democrats approved of their elected representatives by a 54 point margin. Democrats are cooked and either they wake up and realize it or they're gonna keep losing. Their leadership

is garbage. Hakeem Jeffries is as boring as watching paint dry. Honestly, I'd rather watch paint dry. And he's the one who literally held a press conference recently and just said in regard to, you know, serving as the opposition party and fighting back against Trump, what leverage do we have? What leverage do we have? What kind of leadership is that? Yeah, so it's not leadership at all. And there, all the Democratic politicians right now are frozen in place like robots. They're like awaiting orders from donors, donors have fled, we don't know what to do. Do something, oh, well, what should I do?

What drives you, Hakeem Jeffries? What drives you, Chuck Schumer? What is it that you really want to get done for the American people? Come on, you know the answer is nothing, right? Everybody knows the answer is nothing. The answer is my ego. Me, me, me, me, me, me, me. I want to be the leader.

Look, Stephen A. Smith is a little bit more conservative than we are. He's still a Democrat. But, man, I'll take any action over non-action, okay? And so I like that he's at least ripping into the Democratic politicians. And the consult is, he's absolutely right. How much do you have to fail before you're all fired? So couldn't agree more. You guys in media that could actually win are John Stewart, who I talk about endlessly

because he's nearly a perfect candidate. And some Democrats are like, oh, Stephen A. Smith, he's in media, he can't win, he's not a politician. Oh my God, I'm sorry, but that is monumentally dumb. Have you not noticed American politics shifting towards whoever is a celebrity popular? By the way, forever, Ronald Reagan was a movie star, Donald Trump was a reality star. So would it be surprising if John Stewart then became a viable candidate instead of boring-ass Bob McBoring from senator from Virginia? Are you kidding me? John Stewart would have an enormous advantage, not disadvantage, but the other guy that would, I think, could be interesting is Charlemagne the God.

So I know that was more controversial. But he at least gives a damn. And now he's become more progressive, so they might call him racist. I don't know. Because, and I want to get to this part of it. So now Jamie Harrison, former head of the DNC and Roland Martin with one of some of the most ridiculous identity politics I have ever seen. So Ken Klippenstein, former TYT host. Reporter. Sorry, reporter. was criticized Hakeem Jeffries because he's sentient.

Anyone with a brain can criticize Akeem Jeffries. The guy is literally going on the podium going, I don't know what to do. There's nothing I could do. It's just absolutely pathetic. So Roland writes, and it's clear that Ken Klippenstein is fixated on Representative Jeffries, Hakeem Jeffries. Why is he only focused on the House Minority Leader? He's not only focused on him.

Hold on. Look at his tweets. It's all Jeffries, not Chuck Schumer, not other damn leader. just as Jeffrey's obsession, I wonder why. Okay, that's of course demonstrably false. You can just look at Ken's timeline. He criticizes Democratic leaders, Republican leaders, Chuck Schumer over and over again.

But no, everything has to be about race. So then Jamie Harrison, the failed incompetent loser head of the DNC that lost the Donald Trump, one of the worst leaders any party has ever had. That utter fool comes in and goes, oh, things that make you go, hmm. Oh yeah, oh yeah, I wonder why. Because Sakeem Jeffries is black.

And Ken Klippenstein is a racist, racist. We got you. Now, not only are all Republicans racist, not only are all Trump voters, a lot of them not Republicans racist, now progressive reporters who dare to criticize any Democratic politician as long as they're the right race. Racist.

Okay, why? Okay, then now progressives can get lost and probably Charlemagne and Johnson. They're all, everybody's racist, and only Roland Martin and Jamie Harrison and like seven other dudes will be left going, we are the only non-racist in the country and we're going to win. We've now alienated 330 million Americans with our brilliant politics. Yep. No, that is, that is not wise strategy, nor by the way, is it anywhere near correct. Yeah.

And you might want to actually give a goddamn about the facts instead of just going to your one trick pony. Oh, you disagree with me? Racist. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Roland, we've seen it a thousand times. Jamie Harrison, you loser, we've seen it a thousand times, okay? And what is it cover for? It's cover for your incompetence.

Don't put it on other black people. Don't put it on other minorities. We didn't, no one said other minorities, no one. You guys are only using it to cover how awful Jamie Harrison and Hakeem Jeffries are as they suck up donor money. And they serve and who are those donors? Are they the African American community? Did those donors come from Oakland?

Are they from Chicago? No, you know what those donors are. Super rich white guys who tell Hakeem Jeffries, Jamie Harris. So also, by the way, also Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer and everyone else, you do what you're told and they follow it. That's why they don't do anything, because the donors want the status quo. But the minute you challenge the status quo, here comes people going, oh, we got a great idea, we're not going to do any policies.

We're not going to help anyone. Do nothing, Democrats are great. Do nothing, do nothing, do nothing. But if you criticize the Democrat, racist, fascist, yeah, yeah, yeah. No one wants that crap anymore. So go peddle it somewhere else. Look, I have to add something to the Roland Martin part of this story because, you know, the mayor of Dalton, which is like a suburb near Chicago, her name's Tiffany

Henyard and there is a mounting pile of evidence indicating that she has been misappropriating and misusing taxpayer money from this community. A majority black community, this is not a wealthy community by any means. And they're outraged by her, outraged by everything she's been doing. Tiffany Henyard doesn't do any interviews except for Roland Martin's show where he glazes her, totally provides cover for her, does a softball interview because, hey, Tiffany Henyard is a black woman and the only reason why she's getting attacked is because she's a black woman. Or could it be that she is using taxpayer money from her town allegedly as her own personal slush fund? Okay, last two things from me. I can't help it. All right. So number one on Roland and all the rest of them, that they don't like progressives. So Nina Turner, strong black, black woman. No one would disagree with that. They're like, oh, you guys seem to criticize her all the time. I don't see you criticizing Rokana that much. I don't see you criticizing

other people in Bernie's campaign that much. But when it comes to Nina Turner, you guys all get riled up. Oh, Nina Turner, right? Why? I got it. Racist, sexist. I figured it out. I'm using your formula. By the way, you'd better not criticize me, Islamophob, bigot, easy, super easy. Anybody can play this game, okay? And I want to, Go back to Jamie Harrison, because Roland's not important. He's a media guy like me, okay, we yell and scream, and I agree with Roland on some things. We'll brawl and then we'll agree, whatever, right? That's okay, that's part of the nature of this enterprise, unfortunately, okay?

So, but Jamie Harrison is a relevant person who ran the DNC. And when I ran for president, it was a protest candidate, obviously. I thought that Joe Biden, by saying the race was going to ruin any chance of beating Donald Trump. Guess who was right about that? But Jamie Harrison was like, no, he's young and dynamic. Young and dynamic, he's the only one that could win. Why? Because Joe Biden picked him to be the head of the N.C. So he didn't serve the Democratic Party or voters or African Americans.

He served Joe Biden, okay? So when I ran, Jamie Harrison was part of the decision making process in the Democratic Party that said naturalized citizens, even though the 14th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, said all people born or naturalized in the United States have all of the same rights, equal rights. He said, no, I disagree with the 14th Amendment. Do not apply the 14th Amendment. Jank is a naturalized citizen and he doesn't belong. So Jamie Harrison was against civil rights, period. There's no question about that. It is absolutely indisputable. Why? Because his boss told him to be against civil rights. And that's what Jamie did. Things that make you go,

Exactly. All right, we gotta take a break. When we come back, we'll talk about what we're hearing from the Trump administration in regard to cuts at the Pentagon and more. Don't miss it, we'll be right back.