The Young Turks - Kavanaugh Accusers Are Growing In Numbers

Episode Date: September 25, 2018

Brett Kavanaugh is facing more sexual misconduct accusations from TWO additional women. Michael Avanetti is representing the third with 'credible information' against Kavanaugh. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS 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. All right, welcome the Young Turks, Jane Hugo, Anna Kisperin, with you guys on a day of unbelievable allegations. So, unfortunately, we do believe them. So, and, but look, let's have a conversation about all of them. So obviously the Cabinol one, or in this case two, is the most relevant and important,

and we will discuss that in a minute. And it is, it's absolutely enormous in terms of the ramifications. But later on, more allegations against more political figures, I don't know if I believe them all. They're amazing, unbelievable, scandalous allegations, and they're devastating. And family members turning on one another. There's a lot of that today. There's a lot of that on the show today.

I mean, so red weddings abound. I did a YouTube live over the weekend on the poll numbers for the Republicans. Oh, wow, that is devastating. And partly relates to the first story that we're going to do. And the list goes on and out. So it's a hell of a show today, guys. Thank you for tuning in. Obviously, if you miss any part of it for any reason, if you become a member, you can get it

anytime you want. TYT.com slash join. All right, Anna, let's do it. All right. Over the weekend, the New Yorker, with reporting from Ronan Farrow, broke a story indicating that a second woman has come forward with allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. So these allegations are by a woman named Deborah Ramirez. and she went to Yale with Brett Kavanaugh, and she admits that, you know, the alleged assault

took place a long time ago, and so there are parts that she doesn't clearly remember. However, what she did relay to the reporters in this case, she says she does remember, and we'll see if these claims get investigated. But let me give you the details. So Deborah Ramirez remembers that Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. She was quoted in the story as saying, I wasn't going to touch a penis until I was married. I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.

Brett was laughing. I can still see his face and his lips coming forward, or his hips, I apologize. And his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants. And so she says that she never came forward or told anyone about this because she was embarrassed. She was also drinking, so she was concerned that people would go after her rather than look into these allegations. And it seems as though those who support Kavanaugh today are using that against her, and we'll get to the reactions later.

The claim dates to the 1983-1984 academic school year when Kavanaugh was. was a freshman at Yale University, the offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. So the New Yorker notes that the Senate had known about this, at least the Judiciary Committee, had known about this last week. And the reaction from Republicans was to rush the confirmation. And that explains why all of a sudden there was this ultimatum, indicate. that there was a very strict deadline for Dr. Blasey to agree to testify.

They later, you know, changed that ultimatum. And now it's being reported that Dr. Blasey is likely to testify on Thursday of this week. However, with these new allegations, Senator Diane Feinstein is calling for a postponement for that hearing in order to do further investigation. And they're also calling for the FBI to get involved. So if the hearings do happen on Thursday, we will cover it live and give you commentary on the spot as we're showing it to you guys on t.com slash live. And now let's get the heart of the Ramirez allegations here.

If true and can be shown well enough for people to understand that it is true, obviously would be the end of Kavanaugh. And now there are some progressive groups that are actually calling for him to be impeached from his current position on the federal bench. Now, she clearly says that she had trouble recollecting some of this and that she was very intoxicated that night. So that, to me, cuts in two different directions. One is that, well, okay, then you have to be a little wary about what she's saying because

she's not entirely positive. On the other hand, which person who's looking to set them up politically would admit that. If you were trying to do a hatchet job, you would never say that. You would say I'm positive and come forward to yourself, et cetera. So now the second part of the question of whether you believe her or not, and look, these are the things that we all look to as we read these stories. And, you know, for example, look, even before I get to that, let me just say, if you If the story isn't true and Kavanaugh got blocked on that basis, that would be really,

really troubling. It would be devastating. And it would be devastating because there was an injustice done to one person. It would also be devastating to the cause of protecting women because then it would give people carte blanche to say, oh, we knew all of it wasn't true, et cetera. So that's why it's really important for us to the best of our abilities to discern is Is it true? Is it not true?

Is it relevant, et cetera, right? So then that gets to the witnesses. So Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayor broke this story there immaculately careful with these stories. That doesn't mean they get everyone right. But they did take a lot of care and have defended themselves about this particular story to try to reach out to all the different witnesses. Now again, this is what the FBI should be doing. So we could all have a better sense of it, whether he did do it or didn't do it so we

can make clear decisions, but now reporters are chasing it down. New York Times and all of a sudden the Trump administration's best friend, and I don't say that derisively towards the New York Times, I say towards the Trump administration, because the New York Times is just simply trying to report out a story, say that they talk to about a dozen people who did not recollect this at all. And so now the Trump administration doesn't think they're the failing New York Times. They think that they're the brilliant New York Times and are spreading that to everyone who will consider it.

Pharaoh and mayor, the New Yorker said, yes, we also talked to dozens of witnesses, and a lot of them did not remember this story, including a really good friend of Deborah Ramirez. On the other hand, several people did remember this story. That's right. And by the way, there was one individual quoted in the New Yorker, someone who identified as a close friend, former close friend of Ramirez's, and said, you know, we were close for 10 years and she never brought this up. First, let me just be clear about something. Just because someone didn't bring up a sexual assault doesn't mean it didn't happen. It could be something that this individual was very embarrassed about, just didn't feel comfortable opening up about. So let's just take that into consideration. But another thing to take into consideration is that that friend who was close with her for 10 years is now married to a man who was allegedly present when this alleged sexual assault took place.

So there's a possibility that that person wants to protect her husband. Again, this is all analysis that's being done by me, by other people in the media. And the fact of the matter is, it's all irrelevant. What matters is having a nonpartisan FBI investigation into this to get to the heart of the truth. But that is something that Republicans do not want to do. In fact, when they heard these allegations, they wanted to rush the confirmation of Kavanaugh. and they do not want the FBI investigation. I'm inclined to believe the accusations, right?

And I'm starting to think that Republicans in the Senate are inclined to believe the accusations because they refuse any investigation into these allegations. On this allegation, to me, there are a couple of things that go in different directions. And so everybody gets to make up their own mind and obviously a lot of people come into it with their own biases. And I hope that some don't. And I hope that I'm one of the people who don't come at it with a bias because I'm I always think what if it was a Democrat or a liberal appointee and this was happening.

Okay, so that leads me to one person who does remember this incident. It is an unnamed person, but mayor and the Trump propaganda on the fake news media is ridiculous. Mayor and Farrow aren't going to make up someone and call them an anonymous source. The reason Trump believes that that could happen is because he used to do it. He would pretend to be someone else, John Miller, John Barron, and be an anonymous. anonymous source for people. So he thinks, well, everybody's probably a serial pathological liar like myself. So my jury's in on Trump. That's not the issue here. So on this, a classmate actually did talk to mayor and Farrow, and this is what he had to say. Here is the New Yorker

quote. A classmate of Ramirez said that another student told him about the incident either on the night of the party or in the next day or two. The classmate said that he is, quote, 100% sure that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was a student who exposed himself to Ramirez. Well, that's number one pretty clear. Again, it's just one witness. But Pharaoh and mayor say that he independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez.

They did not coordinate. So these reporters are great reporters. They said, okay, what do you remember being the details? And that person had the same details that Ramirez had in her story. And that person apparently added, quote, I've known this all along. It's been on my mind all these years when his name came up. It was a big deal. So the only thing that where I go on the other hand is that she says she had trouble remembering.

That's tough. That's a tough thing to say. Hey, there's a super serious accusation against someone at a pivotal time. and you're telling me you had to take six days to remember it exactly right, I get where a lot of people go, bah, no, I'm out, that's not good enough, right? But it is independently confirmed by this other person, and she's, and she is apparently a reputation for it, by even the people who say, I don't remember that story, say, oh, no, no, Deborah Rubiro's a super honest, like, known for being over the top honest. And that's, and she shows it by saying, I was drunk and I had trouble

remembering, no political hack would ever say that if their job was to go get Kavanaugh. So she's not a political hack that I'm certain of in that sense. She might be a Democrat, but this is not a hatchet job that she invented. Is she remembering right? I think that's a legitimate question. And then you have this evidence to help you make up your mind on that. For me, what also happens to be pretty telling is her willingness to come forward with these allegations in a pretty honest way, meaning that she's admitting to, you know, things that maybe

she doesn't remember, admitting to the fact that she was drunk at the time. But more importantly, the fact that she's willing to come forward, knowing the way that Dr. Blasey's been treated, the fact that she's had to move out of her home, she's had to relocate her family, and she has to hire private security because the threats against her have been terrifying. And she's also seen the way that Dr. Blasey's been dragged through the mud by Republicans. The fact that she's willing to put herself out there with these allegations, it doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it's something to consider. And again, the most important thing to do is to conduct an investigation.

And that, again, is something that Republicans do not want to do. And understand the politics of this, too, which is that, yes, the Republicans don't want to do the investigation because they're afraid it's going to get past the midterm elections. They then might lose the Senate, and then it might not get Kavanaugh confirmed. The Democrats, for the same reason, do want the investigation, partly to find out the truth, but partly to delay the proceedings. That is a real political concern of the Democrats. So I'll take that into account as well.

For me, I think, man, if it isn't true and you buried this guy and you didn't do an FBI investigation, or you put him on the court and it wasn't true, and we never find out, that still is terrible for him. Because forever, a huge percentage of this country is going to think that he did it. And if it isn't true, I would want, if it was me, I'd be like, my God, get in there. Talk to here's my witness one, witness two. And nobody's recollection is perfect from 36 years ago, et cetera. But I got to get this off my name, right? Absolutely. I know that if I were dealing with false accusations, I would 100% want someone to investigate it to ensure that my name gets clear.

And it's just strange that he doesn't want that. You know, Kavanaugh, for his part, has responded by saying, I won't be intimidated. I won't withdraw as a nominee for the Supreme Court. And so he continues to deny the allegations. He wants to keep moving forward with the hearings and get confirmed. But let's say best case scenario for him, he does get confirmed without any investigation. Is he comfortable knowing that there's a huge portion of the country that either doesn't know what the truth is, they're kind of, you know, on the fence or are convinced that

he is someone who's committed sexual assault. This is a serious thing. By the way, attempted rape is a serious crime, and we're not calling for a criminal investigation, but I don't think that anyone who has committed any type of serious crime should ever make it into our justice system, but more importantly, in the highest court in the country. Yeah, and one more, some degree of strike against them, you wait again, whatever you think is appropriate. He said that these charges by Ramirez were, quote, smears pure and simple. So he's now super aggressively fighting back.

Now, if you thought they were smears, I would fight back super aggressively, and you probably would too. But as I read Ramirez's story, I thought, no, this definitely happened to her. I'm not 100% sure that it was Brett Kavanaugh, but she didn't make up the whole story, and she's not doing it for political reasons. Otherwise, she wouldn't do all the things that I described here, and she wouldn't be hesitant. And by the way, another thing you should know, and this cuts in two directions as well. The Democrats apparently went fishing here, trying to find someone because they had heard of a story at Yale where Kavanaugh had done this.

Number one, that apparently exists, enough people have heard about it that the Democrats found out about it. Number two, they then went and tried to find who would happen to. And through that process, Ramirez gets revealed. So that is a strike, that is a thing in her favor, because she didn't come out here and go, it was me, it was me, I'm doing it. That Kavanaugh, I don't want him on the court, she's not doing any of that, she got dragged into.

You want to count it as a strike against the Democratic Party for going fishing and finding this person? Okay, fine. And that seems like that's what happened. But the question is, is it true? If I'm Kavanaugh and I read this story, of course you're going to get mad if it wasn't you. You're going to be super mad, right? But at the same time, I'd read it and go, she definitely thinks it happened to her, okay?

So then the question is, who was it? Because I didn't do it. And I wouldn't, I'm not sure I'd go out there and say, this is a spear through and through. I said, look, man, we, that's a terrible thing for that to happen to her. And maybe we should look into figuring out who did it because it definitely wasn't me. Unless he just thinks, no, she's just a super, super clever liar, and this was a political trick all along. But this fact pattern doesn't seem to match that. Right.

Again, there should be the FBI involved in this. They should look into it and try to figure out whether or not there's any corroborating evidence, whether or not any of these allegations are true. It's ridiculous that it's now up to people in the media to do the investigation and figure out what the truth is. By the way, one other thing I wanted to bring up, last week we played a video featuring Senator Maisie Hirono, and she had asked Brett Kavanaugh, you know, have you ever been accused of, I don't remember the exact wording, but she asked if he ever was accused of

sexual assault as an adult. And I thought that was weird wording, right? And now I'm realizing, oh, it probably had to do with these outlets. allegations. Because remember, these allegations are from when he was a freshman at Yale when he was an adult. The allegations that Dr. Blasey brought forward happened when they were in high school when he was 17. And so who knows, you know, like what's happening behind the scenes. You're right. It does seem like Democrats are on a fishing expedition trying to find more accusers. But nonetheless, I don't want to, I don't want this to be a guessing game.

I want this to be something that's looked into by nonpartisan professionals. And the exact question was, have you committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? And that was in context of when he was an adult. And so at the Yale incident, he would have been an adult and it certainly would have qualified as that. And he said no, that he had not. So one super last thing on this is that, look, Kavanaugh has now been caught saying several

things that didn't prove to be true. So that context is also relevant. And so now in the context of a guy who's swearing up and down the certain things are the case and it turns out they're not the case, now you have this situation, well, it makes him less credible. And obviously every new accuser makes him even less credible. And both sides know that and hence why the Democrats want to see if there are more accusers. And now Michael Avanotti is talking about he has another one.

Or, and I'm sorry, and the Republicans think we gotta get this thing down right now. So that there are no more accusers and he's on the court, I don't care if he did it or didn't do it. Which way is he voting? He's voting with corporations, he's voting against Roe versus Wade, he's in, he's in, go, Go, go, go. And that appears to be the case, except for one caveat, unless they think it's going to cost them the election.

Because the thing that any politician cares most about is their own seat. And so that's the calculation is being played out this week. And actually one super duper last thing is that in a post game today, I want to talk about the context of Georgetown Prep where Kavanaugh came from and how they would apparently target one woman at a time and try to get them intoxicated and, you know, they called it there, and the thing that they concocted was jungle juice, et cetera. But I want to talk about that, even separate from this story, obviously it's related to this story, but that concept of guys trying to do that, it's just merits of further discussion.

Let's do it in the post game. You get that by being a member at t-y-t.com slash join. Yeah. Okay. All right. So let's take a quick break. When we come back, we will discuss. reaction to the story by both Trump officials, Trump himself included, and also Trump's base.

Emma Viglin was at a Trump rally in Springfield, Missouri. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-E-NF-TR. 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 On The Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research,

razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must 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. They had some fascinating things to say about Dr. Blasey's allegations. All right, back on a young church's member comments first. Paul says there's a big difference between investigations done by reporters, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the FBI background check. FBI is best option to get to the truth. If you believe they are nonpartisan, as we do right now in this point in history, then you should want the FBI. Now, of course, Trump hates the FBI, so that's another factor because they're investigating him. Well, he hates the truth. Yeah. Fort Costa Rica writes, and it's simple. If you're innocent, you want the investigation.

If guilty, you make excuses not to. Smooth writes in, leave it to Trump to pick a judge who can't get confirmed in what would have usually been an easy vote in the Senate. Now this makes me wonder the atmosphere Justice Kennedy fostered. That's an interesting comment, too. And he clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who insisted that Kavanaugh be picked, apparently, according to some allegations. Okay, and then I'm going to go to Twitter for two more.

Gabby Marita writes in there, but the new allegations really that unbelievable. at this point, they seem very much par for the course. Gabi, I hear you on that. I was actually referring to later stories on other allegations. And you will get to those in a little bit. And Joe Oliver 44 says, think about the party that would march through hell to get a rapist on the SCOTUS, because he'd make it so that rape victims would have to have their rapist baby. Now, look, I think it's too over the top to call him a rapist because that has not been proven.

Or even alleged so far. Yeah, alleged attempted rape is the heaviest of the charges. But the second half of your tweet is unfortunately a very, very good point. I mean, here we have a guy who is apparently against Roe versus Wade. So if you're raped, sorry, you're going to have to have the rapist baby. So I mean, that is so deeply disconcerting to begin with. But the Republicans view that as, yeah, that's no problem, I don't see why that's an issue. Right?

So the fact that we have to start the conversation there is so terrible. When you add in the alleged attempted rape, it does make it even more problematic. Okay, I do, we are doing the membership drive. I wanted to check it on that and they give you guys an exciting story about that in a sec. So let's just look at our thermometer. We started it at 27,661 after Labor Day. Let's see where we are today, 31,905. Now that would be great to get the 32,000.

by the end of today. Yes. That would be wonderful. TYT.com slash join to support progressive media, your home of progressives here on the Young Turks. Speaking of which, aggressive progressive one of our shows has a very important exclusive tomorrow. So make sure that you are checking that out. It is at live at 3 p.m. Eastern at t.y.t.com slash members live.

Because you have to be a member to get aggressive progressive live. But if you are and some of the members already know who it's referring to because they get notices ahead of time and they're super excited about it. But for everybody, sign up now, don't miss that exclusive interview with someone I think that you guys are all fans of with an important announcement. So t.t.com slash join to become a member and then watch aggressive progressive tomorrow live at 3 p.m. Eastern for that exclusive. All right, Anna, what's next?

There are now two women who have accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, and Michael Avanotti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, has come forward alleging that there is a third woman who has credible claims against Brett Kavanaugh as well. So we don't know what those accusations are. Avinati hasn't released any details about those accusations yet, but it appears that he will be representing this woman. And again, he says that the allegation. are credible. Now, with that said, I think an interesting conversation would be the political calculations slash miscalculations by Republicans in regard to this story.

There has been some polling recently indicating that Republicans are losing support among female voters. And so Trump has, uh, Trump, weird slip, Jenk has more details on that. I don't know where that came from. I have strong details. I have the best details. Maybe that's what you came from. Yes, yes.

Okay, so before I get to the political calculations here, which are affected by if there is a third woman, Avanade on Twitter has been talking about this since Sunday night. We're doing the show live here, of course, Monday night. He says his client is no longer a government employee, but that she still holds a security clearance, so that is relevant. It makes you wonder if she worked with Kavanaugh at some point in the Bush administration or when he was a judge, and he says that she's had multiple security clearances. Now, there's no way of judging whether that person exists and how credible they are

or what any of the details or the allegations are, because they're not public yet. Now, Avanotti, as a person, cuts in two different directions. Clearly, he's against Trump, so you can take what he says with some grain of salt. On the other hand, when he has promised big scoops in the past, he has always delivered. There has not been like, hey, I'm going to do this. I'm just kidding. I was just trying to get media attention. That has not happened yet.

So if he says there's something coming out, it doesn't mean it's going to be credible, but there probably is going to be something. So that would be a third person. So now, as the Republicans look at that, here is the calculation they're making. Okay, if we think we're going to lose the majority in the Senate, then we have to get Kavanaugh through right now. Otherwise, we're not going to be able to get them through if the Democrats control the Senate after the elections. On the other hand, if we can hold a majority, who cares about Kavanaugh? Let's just get rid of them.

Let's get someone else that is not going to inflict political damage on us right before the election, especially with female voters. So that is what they're weighing right now. And how much damage is it going to do the Republicans if they keep this national conversation going where they're constantly attacking women who are making serious allegations and saying, oh, they're lying, they're smears, they're this, they're that. So now, factor in the poll that Anna mentioned that came out over the weekend. And I was so blown away by the numbers that I did a YouTube live on it. And so the generic congressional elections, Democrats versus Republicans, who do you want

to control Congress, was at already an incredibly high eight point advantage for the Democrats until this poll. This poll now has it at a 12 point advantage. And there's only six weeks left. So tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. Now the only demographic that the Republicans are still holding is men over the age of 45. They have lost every other demographic. And now, because their lead among men over the age of 45 is strong enough, they're still holding

men overall. But now that lead among men is just down to three points, which is really bad news for Republicans. They have to hold men at much higher numbers in order to win these elections. Now, how about women? They've always had a disadvantage when it came to women. And to me, when the Democrats in MSNBC always touted, oh, they lost women. I was like, yeah, but they have men. Wait, you're just telling half the story.

That doesn't make any sense. So, well, now in this case, I just told you the other half of the equation, men, when it comes to women, the lead that the Democrats have now is no longer big or significant. It is now gigantic. The Democrats now hold a 25-point advantage among women. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that math, only a three-point lead with men and a 25 point deficit among women. And women have been showing up in record numbers in the primaries.

And that's just within the party. Okay, wait to get a load of the general election. Now, the last stat that has got to get Mitch McConnell and his colleagues super nervous, which whether it's the right thing or not the right thing, is probably going to affect Kavanaugh's fate more than anything else, is even in Republican districts, their lead compared to the Democrats, on average, for the whole country, is down to one point. Now, understand that a lot of those Republican districts are super safe. They have 20 point leads, 30 point leads in some of those districts.

So if you take all the Republican-held districts on an average, they're down to a one-point lead against the Democrats, that's not a wave. That's a tsunami. Republican poster said, I have never seen numbers this week. So as they get together in caucus this week, which is exactly what they're doing, I need you to understand that they're going to keep it real, that McConnell's going to talk to those guys. How many of you do you think are going to lose?

Ted, do you think you're going to lose in Texas? Yes. Okay? Yes. And how many, hey, are you going to lose in Missouri? Are we going to get McCaskill back into the Senate, right? So what do we need to do? I mean, are we going to go from 25 point deficit with a woman down to 30 points?

Then we're all toast. we might all lose, right? So that's what's happening right now. I have so many things to say. Okay, so first off, when it comes to Republicans losing support, I do think that the Kavanaugh hearings have a lot to do with it. But also, I think Republicans have really underestimated how disastrous Trump's administration has been for their poll numbers.

Because they've continuously supported him, and it appeared, especially when it came to the election with Mark Sanford. Remember, Mark Sanford was one of the lawmakers who decided to criticize Trump, and he lost the election as a result of that. And I think that there was too much emphasis and too much attention paid to that where Republicans thought, no, we better fall in line, we better support Trump, because if we do, we're going to pay the price. But I do think that there were a lot of moderate Republican voters who ended up reluctantly

voting for Trump, but then later saw, you know, how disastrous policies were, like the tax policy, it had very low approval ratings from the get-go, right? Before it even got passed, and Republicans passed it anyway, and they didn't care. They didn't think that they would have to suffer the consequences for that. And I do think that they will. And I think that this Kavanaugh thing, this Kavanaugh story is just another example, or maybe the straw that breaks the camel's back. We'll see. But going back to Ted Cruz, yeah, yeah, Ted Cruz is in trouble. And I think that Senate Republicans see that. There's a really good chance that Cruz could lose to Beto O'Rourke. And what makes that abundantly clear to me is the way that Cruz

tries to attack Beto. He can't attack him based on policies because Beto's policies are popular. So instead, he attacks Beto for having nice hair and good teeth. He attacks- That is literally the weakest attack I have ever seen in politics. I mean, is it really an attack, though? I mean, like, hey, you know what? You're too good looking. Hey, attack me like that all day long. Okay, but I guess if you're Ted Cruz, you can't help but think that. Anyway, so now my final thought on this is, look, do I think taking into account Kavanaugh's potential vote on Roe versus Wade and then that impact on the elections and your electoral chances as a senator is a legitimate way to think about whether you should vote for Kavanaugh?

Yes, I do think that. Do I think that taking your electoral chances into account is a legitimate way of deciding Kavanaugh at this point is the right way to go? No, I do not think that. I think that they should make that decision at this point based on whether they think he did or did not do those incredibly serious allegations. So I don't think politics should play into that because those allegations are either obviously disqualifying if he did do it or you should go to bat for him and defend him to the hilt if you think for sure that he didn't do it. Because that's an unbelievable smear job if you think he didn't do it. And you say, I don't care that he got smeared.

Like, I'd lose my political career over defending a person that I thought was being smeared. But these are politicians. They're not like you and I, right? The only thing they care about is their own seat. So when, as they look at these events that are unfolding, man, they all have to be super, super nervous about it. Because my God, when you have women showing up at the primaries at the record rate that they are, you got a 25 point deficit with women. Now imagine that you rush this confirmation through, and Avonati's right, and there's a third person, and they're credible, now you got women wondering, my God, what the hell

has Kavanaugh been doing all his life? Then you got the story we didn't even do because we thought it was, you know, not to the level of these other stories about how he needed a certain kind of, a certain look for women who are applying, et cetera, I don't want to get into too much of those details. But when you put all of that into consideration, and then you go, yeah, all these horrible, horrible charges, we don't care women. The only thing we care about is that he's going to vote against Roe versus Wade. I mean, you might have awoken a giant that you're not going to know what to do with.

And so if you wanted record turnout like we've never seen for women voters, that is the exact recipe for that. So if they're not caucusing right now to be incredibly careful about their political chances, they ought to be because they might be walking into something that they literally have never seen before in their political lives. Well, let's talk a little bit about the reaction to the latest allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, because I think those reactions give you a sense of some of these lawmakers' priorities. So let's get to that. Following allegations from a second woman indicating that Brett Kavanaugh may have sexually

assaulted a Yale student by the name of Deborah Ramirez, a number of people who are aligned with Trump and Trump himself have come forward denying the accusation, saying that they still support Kavanaugh and that this is nothing more than a smear campaign. So before we get to the Conways and the Lindsey Grams of the world, let's go to Donald Trump. He wanted to address these allegations made by Deborah Ramirez, and here's what he had to say. Mr. President, people just have concerns about these fine men with an unblemished and these are highly unsubstantiated statements from people represented by

lawyers, you should look into the lawyers doing the representation. I think it could be, the chance of this could be, one of the single most unfair, unjust things to happen to a candidate for anything. People come out of the woodwork from 36 years ago and 30 years ago, never mentioned it, all of a sudden it happens. In my opinion, it's totally political. It's totally a good way to figure out whether this is a smear campaign and whether this is purely political and whether this is unfair and unjust is to call for the FBI to do an independent investigation. This would be a background check, a more thorough background check to see if any of these allegations might be true.

But Donald Trump and Senate Republicans do not want that investigation to take place. Yeah, the bar for Trump is so low now that whenever I watch a Trump clip and he doesn't say that water is tremendously wet, I feel like, oh, hey, he got through an answer without totally humiliating himself. Now, in this case, he's now actively decided that he's going to attack the people who might be victims of Kavanaugh, and he's going to decide, no, I'm all in, I'm going to call it all political, that they're made up, that they're totally made up. and that the Democrats work with the lawyers for these women to make them up. I don't think that's a fruitful strategy, but that's super obvious. When was the last time Donald Trump had a productive strategy? If right, exactly. So Kelly Ann Conway was on CBS this morning, and she also addressed the latest accusations.

Here's what she had to say. Why does it not matter to anyone that Judge Kavanaugh has said unequivocally and categorically, these allegations are false. He thinks the latest ones show a pattern of a smear campaign against him. And he has said from the beginning that he wasn't at the party in question 36 years ago. In Maryland, all of that has to matter. But this president wants them both to testify in the Senate Judiciary Committee has set up a process where they both can. I just don't think one man's shoulders should bear decades of the Me Too movement.

What does that even mean that one man's shoulders should bear decades of the Me Too movement? No, like, he's being accused by two specific people at the moment. There could be a third based on what Michael Avanotti says. And by the way, let me just correct myself. She was addressing Dr. Blasey's allegations in that clip. And so, look, so her argument is, well, he says he wasn't at the party, so that means something. But it's he said, she said. Like, that's why you need to have an FBI investigation.

And that's exactly what Republicans want. Lindsay Graham, you know, talked about the hearing with Dr. Blasey, which is at the moment scheduled for Thursday, and he was asked if there are going to be any other people involved or there are going to be any witnesses, anyone else speaking other than Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. And he said, no, that all you need to do is hear from those two. But then if you do that, again, it's a he said, she said situation. They don't want any corroborating evidence. It's crazy. Yeah. So the general principles she lays out are perfectly fine, but when you, in this context,

it makes no sense. So what do I mean by that? So if you said Charlie Rose shouldn't have to bear the whole Me Too movement on his shoulders. He's not. He's just being judged based on what he did. Nobody's judging Charlie Rose on what Harvey Weinstein did or what Roger Ells or Bill O'Reilly did. They're just saying, Charlie, what you did was bad enough that you got to go.

Right? Now, if you said, hey, Aziz Ansari should not be judged for the actions of everyone else. You should just judge him based on what he did. Well, we would agree to that too. And different people come out differently on that issue. But that's more of an open question and one that can be and has been debated, right? Then it's right to say, well, you can't put Weinstein on Aziz, 100% right. But nobody's putting Weinstein on Charlie Rose or on Brett Kavanaugh. They're all judged on the merits of their particular situation. If you said to me, Kavanaugh didn't do these things, but Weinstein and O'Reilly did, I'd be like, and why would I care what Weinstein and O'Reilly did in this context? You just told me the guy didn't do it. So of course he doesn't

bear the burden of what other people did. So it's a straw man argument, okay? And then when she says, well, you know, his point of view should also be taken into account. I don't know. I'm sure that there are people who don't take his point of view into account, but we do. That's why it's not like we came out, we're like, we're positive, okay, it's over. Ramirez is definitely right. Dr. Blasey Ford is credible, but not just credible, she's 100% right, and I don't care what he says. I don't think anybody reasonable is saying that. We're saying, yeah, that's why it's hard to figure out.

He says it didn't happen. They have a credible case that it did happen. That's why we'd like to find out more. Well, there is one specific person, a senator, who does not care what Dr. Blasey has to say. And this is the point that I was trying to make when the whole debate happened regarding whether or not Dr. Blasey should testify if the Republicans refuse the FBI investigation. I argue that these senators, Republican senators, have already made up their mind. They don't care what she has to say while she testifies. And guess who proved that point for me?

Senator Lindsay Graham. So I'm going to skip ahead to video four. Here is Lindsay Graham arguing that, eh, doesn't matter what she has to say. I've made up my mind. I want to listen to her, but I'm being honest with you and everybody else. What do you expect me to do? You can't bring it in a criminal court.

You would never sue civilly. You couldn't even get a warrant. What am I supposed to do? Go ahead and ruin this guy's life based on an accusation. I don't know when it happened. I don't know where it happened, and everybody named in regard to being there said it didn't happen. I'm just being honest. Unless there's something more, no, I'm not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh's life over this.

Okay, so he also said that based on, you know, what's been agreed to on Thursday for the Thursday hearing, it will just be Brett Kavanaugh testifying and Dr. Blasey testifying. Things could change. Things are constantly changing. There are new allegations by another woman. And so Democrats are saying, we need to postpone this and have an FBI investigation. But just to quickly answer Lindsey Graham's question, what do you want me to do? Here's what I want you to do.

Here's what a lot of people want you to do. Have the FBI investigate this, do a thorough background check. You know, he brought up, oh, you know, the statute of limitations is over. You can't have a criminal investigation. No one's asking for a criminal investigation. He even brought up a civil lawsuit. No one's asking for a civil lawsuit. We're asking for the FBI to get involved so we can have an independent organization try to determine

who's telling the truth here. And even barring that, the least you could do is to listen to the hearings with an open mind. He's not interested in that. Again, if it was a Democratic appointment or a Republican appointment, and I was a senator on that committee. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean

we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals. 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 T-Y-T, you can get three extra months for free with this

exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. I would definitely want to hear both sides of the story. Because if it leads me to believe that he didn't do it, I'd be doubly pissed. If it leads me to believe that he did do it, then would I change my mind? Yes, of course I would change my mind. But here's a sitting in the United States senator going, I don't care. There's, what, there's nothing she can say that makes you believe that. Well, he doesn't want to ruin his life.

He doesn't want to ruin Kavanaugh's life by listening to that testimony and actually, you know, being unbiased in this case. If you thought after listening to it, you thought, no, these allegations are not credible and I don't want to ruin the guy's life, okay. But before listening to it, saying I've already made up my mind, well, first of all, it's not the right thing to do. Second of all, it's also not a very savvy thing to say. You know, if you were a little bit smarter, you would play politics better than this and you go, oh yeah, I got a total open mind, my God, my voters, you should understand what kind

of an open mind I have, then listen to it and then go. Oh, well, golly, gee, man, it turns out he's right and she's wrong. But now they're so brazen, they don't even care to lie anymore. They're like, no, no, no, I'm biased. I don't give a damn what anybody thinks, hey, my Republican base, remember how biased I am in favor of the man and never the woman, okay, just so you know, and the conservative and never the progressive, and never anything else. It doesn't matter.

I'm always going to be biased in favor of my team. Well, he probably thinks politically maybe that does help him because Republican voters don't care anymore, that they do want you to be biased, and they don't care about the facts. Actually, now that I've put it like that, there is an argument to be made that Republican voters don't care about facts anymore, so this might appeal to them. Well, we actually have some evidence of that, and when we come back from our break, we are going to hear from the actual voters. These are Trump voters who attended a Trump rally in Springfield, Missouri.

So come right back. We'll show you those clips and more. 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 say. All right, back on the Young Turks. Let's check that thermometer real quick.

TYT.com slash join and become member. Support home and progressives, get all of our programming, including aggressive-progressive, We're going to break some news tomorrow. Old school. By the way, Terey's going to join us on Old School right before Politicon. So can I see the thermometer real quick? Yes. 31, 923.

All right, going up nicely. Let's see if we can get 32,000 by the end of today. Let me read some member comments for you guys. Alex writes in, and I'm not sure that he was saying this sarcastically or not, but he says, it's weird that they would push a bad person for such a high office instead of doing the right thing and getting a clean pick there. Are you familiar with the Republican Party? Yeah. Push a bad person for such a high office.

I think you're being sarcastic because I'm pretty sure that they already did that for the presidency. By the way, I feel like Democrats, like if someone came forward with allegations that a Democratic Supreme Court pick littered one year. Like, they're like gone, gone immediately. They're not even having a conversation. It's over. That person's gone. I mean, they argue that, hey, these. women are Democrats, and so they're not to be trusted.

The first person that came out with an allegation against Al Franken worked at a conservative talk show. Again, it's always projection, right? Anyway, WV Libby 71 writes in in the member section. I'm so sick of hearing a 72-year-old man say unfair over and over again, like a five-year-old. Here, here, totally agree with you on that, Libby. Math Man 71 says, when did not being on the Supreme Court mean someone's life was ruined? Okay, fair point.

And then Tish ACP writes in, is that 12 point advantage for progressive women too? Because we've got several strong ones running in November. No, the 12 point advantage is generic Democrat versus generic Republican. Who do you want to control Congress? So it is not based on particular congressional seats, nor they ask based on males or females or so it's just generic Democrat versus Republican. But does that translate it over to women who are candidates? In my experience in the primaries, more so, yes.

So for example, as I sell those numbers, Kevin Yoder in the Kansas 3rd District running against Shrease Davids, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, gone. So those female candidates are getting even more female voters to turn out. So let's see what happens. There's 45, or a little less than 45 days left, but I think they're in a world of trouble. All right, Anna, what's next? All right. How do Trump voters feel about the allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh?

Well, Emma Vigland, one of our reporters, went to a Trump rally in Springfield, Missouri to speak to the voters, and we're going to hear from them in just a minute. But before we do so, the conservative media has gone out of its way to smear the accusers. And there are two, as of now, we have Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who initially had the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh groping her without her consent and allegedly attempting to rape her when they were both in high school, and then later a Yale student who was a freshman at the time accuses Brett Kavanaugh of pulling his pants down and thrusting his penis toward her face. Now, Steve Crowder is a gross person.

I mean, that's my bias against him, but you don't need to believe me, you can see for yourselves. Here's the way he covered the Brett Kavanaugh allegations and how he referred to Dr. Flazzi Ford. Still in news, everyone's talking about the alleged attempted rape accusation from Dr. Christine Ford. By the way, no longer going to be calling her doctor. Christine Ford. It's such as like, Christy, Christy Ford, you're Dr. Christy. Let me just say this. Of course, it's possible that the accusations here could be accurate.

Right. And we're not saying that all accusations of attempted rape are false. You have to balance the scales of justice between, was there an attempted rape some 30, something years ago that someone doesn't know when it happened or where it happened and why you possibly stopped mid-rape, possibly drunk and passed out? Or is she a lying whore? We're going to present the evidence to you and you decide.

Yes, by the way, I know you're saying just me, no one else in this room, I labeled her a lying whore without proof. Granted, she did the same, but with attempted rape. That's the purpose here. Rapeist, whore. Okay, so he called her a lying whore, and he also accused her of calling someone a rapist with no evidence. She did not call anyone a rapist. She accused attempted rape.

Those were her allegations. But more importantly, there was evidence. There were notes where she had spoken to her therapist on two different occasions in 2012 regarding these allegations. And so there's that. There's also the fact that she took a lie detector test. That is considered evidence. But nonetheless, Stephen Crowder, I mean, this is what you can expect from trash like him. So I hear high-pitched voices are really funny.

So congrats on that. So I'm not calling her a doctor anymore. Why? What does that even mean? No, it's a signal to his misogynistic viewers. Never respect a woman. She's 51 years old. She's a professor.

She's earned that respect and she earned that degree, but we're taking that away from her because come on, she accused a man of doing something wrong and we of course know that that's unacceptable. So she's no longer a doctor. Okay, now she's Christy, always, you know, find a way to put women down one way or another. Then she says, isn't he merciful? Not all attempted rape all allegations are false. Wow, well thank you for conceding that. I really appreciate that.

Now of course, you know the overwhelming statistics on this is that most allegations in that field are overwhelmingly true, meaning that the great majority of the allegations when you go to court prove to be true. So if there are stats on it, and so the cases that are true greatly outweigh the ones that are false. So if you're gonna say anything at all, you would say, hey, you know what? It doesn't mean that every accusation is true, because some are not, but the overwhelming majority are, right? That would be factual. But instead he turns it around, I'm not saying everyone who says rape is false,

but come on, right? Yeah, so by the way, so this signals to any woman who comes forward with or has been victimized by any type of sexual assault or rape, this signals to them, hey, don't come forward because if you do, you're going to be labeled as a lying whore, right? He has no evidence that she's lying. He has no reason to think that she's lying. And by the way, why is she a whore? How is she a whore?

Even if you don't believe the allegations, what makes her a whore? We are going to denigrate and try to humiliate every woman, and my audience is going to get off on that, is what he thinks. And so, yeah, this will be so much fun, they'll get a kick out of it. So look, whether you think there's any evidence to back up Kavanaugh or Dr. Blasey, it's certainly not a question that I think is 100% settled either way. And that's why we want an FBI investigation to find out more. That's why we want the hearings, et cetera.

But to conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is not telling the truth and that there's nothing to back her up is a weird conclusion because she certainly genuinely believes it. Maybe they think, no, no, no, it's so everything's politics, everything's a conspiracy, everything. The fact that she's a 51-year-old professor greatly respected in those circles, it's all a conspiracy, it's all a conspiracy, right? But look, you got your audience who doesn't believe in fact, so they're probably willing to believe anything you say.

But to say that there is no evidence on either side, like for example, on Kavanaugh's side, there's the fact that it was 35, 36 years ago. There's the Mike Judge who's in the room saying it didn't happen. So he has some facts on his side. She has a lot of facts on her side, including the therapist notes, and we've done a lot of stories about all different evidence on her side. and how credible she is and how she told her husband, and she told the therapist, the lie detector test, and it goes on and on.

So if you were to say, hey, I weighed all those, but I believe Cabinon, and so if I, I think that she might be making it up and I find that deeply disturbing, okay, I wouldn't agree with your conclusion, but okay, that's your opinion. At least you're not being a dick about it, right? Like, at least you're being, you know, a reason, I don't know about reasonable, but at least, you know, you're coming at it from, this is what I'm inclined to believe. but I would like an FBI investigation. Or you don't want one because you want him in the court by hook or by Kirk,

whether he did it or he didn't do it. Okay, but when you say, okay, now based on no evidence at all, I'm going to then turn around and call her a lying whore. The point of that appears to be that, hey, we will try to destroy her. Totally. And so, and as long as I put that propaganda out there, right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, and none matter, at least I did some damage to her. And then he will turn around and go, I don't know why anybody calls me misogynistic.

I mean, God, these liberals, they're so touching, you know, you just call someone a lying whore and all of a sudden they get all emotional and stuff. Nobody's getting emotional, Steven. And by the way, when we do these videos, then they need their safe space. Yes, I know. He's going to whine and cry, like a little bitch. No one cries more than a conservative. So you just call him a bitch, right?

He is. That's what he is. He's a fucking bitch. Sorry. Okay. Sorry about that. I just, I can't help it. All he ever does is whine and cry about everything.

Oh my God, people don't like me. Oh, people are complaining about me. And then he goes off and he calls people a lying whore, right? Calls people who are accusing someone of sexually assaulting them lying whores, right? And we're not supposed to ever respond to that. And I know. And if you do, then they need their safe space and they say, oh my God, I'm melting. I'm a special snowflake.

I can't believe Anna Kasparian was mean to me. Women aren't allowed to be mean to me. They've been mean to me my whole life. Go ahead and cry, Stephen. Cry all day long. And we know exactly what you're about. And at least thank you for giving us clarity on how you feel about her and women in general. Exactly.

All right. So let's move on to the Trump rally in Missouri. TYT reporter Emma Vigland was in Springfield, Missouri for a Trump rally. And during that rally, she specifically spoke to Trump's supporters about the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Here is what one of those supporters had to say. As a woman, I think it's horrible that she would bring this up 35, 36 years later. If she was really assaulted, she should have reported at the time. By waiting this length of time, she makes all women look bad.

What do you think about the statistics that say only 23% of, 23% of sexual assaults are reporting? reported at the time, like, why do you think that is? Well, I've seen enough episodes of Law and Order SVU that that's probably correct. Okay. So she just contradicted herself. I know. But while citing a television show for, like, a place to get information. But okay, that's fine.

A fictional one, a drama. So, but all the people I'm interviewed, that doesn't mean it. every single person who was at the rally, and it doesn't mean it's every single Republican voter. But she does a pretty good job of trying to find a collection of people to give you a range of opinion. So, for example, in other rallies, she's found a lot of folks who have an open mind about the Mueller investigation. So great, that's interesting. But on this issue, I don't know, weren't a lot of open minds. No, didn't hear, you should watch the full video on Rebel Headquarters. That's the YouTube

channel, well, you'll find the full video in full context. But if you watch the full thing, you won't see a single Trump supporter that she's spoken to who believes the accusations or cares, even if they are true, right? Yeah, it was divided into two camps. One is, of course it's not true. A Republican says it's not true, and we're done with it, right? And the second camp was, yeah, maybe it's true, but who cares? I mean, he was 17 when he was trying to rape women.

So it's not that big a deal. Jesus, it's amazing. But, yeah, we'll have the link down below if you're watching later on YouTube or Facebook, but you should check out YouTube.com slash RebelHQ or Facebook.com slash RebelHQ because they've got a lot of those interviews and they cover these Trump rallies all the time. So let's hear from another Trump supporter. It's just his word against hers and I'm sure she's making it up. I hate to say that, but I think she is. Most men, most men are very compassionate towards women on something like that.

And women aren't. What? Okay, that didn't seem awfully compassionate. So most men are compassionate about attempted rape, but women are not. I just, sometimes I have trouble keeping up with them. I don't know, I literally don't know what he meant other than, nah, guys are right and women are wrong. Yeah.

All right, one more clip. So you think that they're making it up or she's making it up? Totally, and it doesn't matter even if she isn't. statute of limitations was over years ago. But, yeah, so it doesn't matter that her therapist notes corroborate kind of her accusations from 2012? Not really. Yeah, it's just the highest court in America, the Supreme Court.

But who cares if he did it? Yeah, look, if you were going to say that point of view, one way to handle it would be, my God, I'm really concerned about those allegations, the idea of a guy. guy holding a woman down, closing her mouth, and trying to rip her clothes off, while the other guy's turning up the volume so no one can hear her screams, is deeply problematic. But I think that a 53-year-old man can't be judged for the actions of when he was 17 and drunk. I don't agree with that sentence, but that's a way of phrasing it without seeming like,

ah, who cares if he tried to rape her? He was young. What's the difference? You feel like the rest of that sentence is, who hasn't done that before? And in fact, that has been quotes I've seen from other conservatives about this. Like which young, there was another panel put on cable news of Trump supporters. And one of them said, which young man hasn't tried to do something like that? A lot, I hope, a lot, the great overwhelming majority.

Right. I just, if you are a woman who identifies as a Republican in this era, in the Trump era, you deserve better. You deserve better than being in the same group of people that includes men that think of you this way, that think sexual assault doesn't really matter, that if a man has been accused of sexual assault in his life and the woman accusing him of that sexual assault is telling the truth, it doesn't matter. They should still be a Supreme Court justice with the ability to make decisions that

impact your life every day. You deserve better. Okay. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, there is a Minnesota lawmaker who has abandoned his campaign because his daughter is alleged sexual assault against him. 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 Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.

Thank you.