The Young Turks - Kavanaugh Accuser's Classmate Discusses Rumors

Episode Date: September 20, 2018

Kavanaugh accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford had a schoolmate that remembers odd rumors surrounding the incident in question. Dr. Ford also wants FBI to investigate before she testifies. 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. Well, the Young Turks, big day ahead for you guys. Lots of Kavanaugh's news, including a TYT scoop. We have an important breaking news on something we have discovered about Kavanaugh. might go to his state of mind and what did he know and what the Republicans know before the allegations.

So very, very interesting. We're gonna get to that in just a little bit in the program. And then later in the program, it turns out water is tremendously wet. More musings of Donald Trump. But to be fair, we know that water is wet from the standpoint of water. From the standpoint of water. Okay, so we'll get to that a little bit later in the program. He is bedeviling, but also at times accidentally amusing.

Okay, and actually there might be good news from Donald Trump today, believe it or not. And that would be the most, the hardest thing to believe. I know it seems a little unbelievable, but it might actually be the case. Yeah, good news is not coming from Trump, but there is good news. All right, all right, we'll see, we'll see. Okay, now later in the day, we have a great rebel headquarters for you guys. Of course, we have an excellent post game for you. If you missed yesterday's post game with Eric Biler, please, if you remember, check that out.

We got a lot of people saying that that was a really, really interesting discussion of race in America. A lot of people really enjoyed that. Eric's part of our rebel headquarters team and our TYT Investigates team as well. TYT.com slash join to get all those postgames. Today I got a couple of doozers for you guys, including a story about debauchery in Vegas that leads me to believe that we should tax the rich even more. Okay, so that's coming up, and then old school tonight. So if you're a member, it's a great day to be a member, t-y-t.com slash join. Actually, let's check the thermometer real quick.

We did the member drive started it right after Labor Day at 27,661. It's now 31,540. No, let's keep it real. Let's slow down a little bit. Okay, I'm just keeping on 100 here. We're trying to get to 100. The campaigns be on the left side of history. Progressives need a home.

We believe we are it. Let's see if we can get to 31,600 by the end of today. That would be great. It's not asking for a lot, but any of you that care about us fighting for progressives and getting our dozens of shows, that would be a great time to do it. Okay, so let's get started with Kavanaugh. What do you got in? All right, lots of updates on the Kavanaugh story.

Some of the schoolmates who are personally, you know, who have personally known the victim in the Brett Kavanaugh case, Christine Blasey Ford, Dr. Ford, are coming forward and they're sharing their experience, going to school with her, and also some of the things that they heard while they were going to school. And one of the latest examples includes a woman by the name of Christina Miranda King. She went to school with Dr. Ford, and she shared her perspective in a face-work. post, which soon went viral. She didn't expect the circus that she would then be pulled into, but I think it is important

to share her perspective with you. Now keep in mind that what she shares is not specified based on who she got the information from. So we don't know whether or not this is something that she heard because Dr. Ford spoke about it or if Kavanaugh spoke about it or if Mark Judge spoke about it. But here's what she shared. Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me. I did not know her personally, but I remember her.

This incident did happen, and here's what she says following that. Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However, Christine's vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true. So apparently people had heard vague details about that occurrence. And remember, Dr. Ford said that she hadn't spoken to anyone about it until she went to couples therapy with her husband in 2012. So, you know, I'm curious personally, if this was spoken about back then, where did these

details come from? Dr. Ford said that she hadn't spoken about it. But remember, she said that she locked herself in a bathroom and then ran out of the house. So it's when she heard the guys go, finally go downstairs. So it is entirely possible that the other people in the party saw that, or they heard it from Kavanaugh or judge, and then those rumors spread around the school. Now, if you were in a court of law, this would be pretty weak evidence. It's secondhand, it's from 35 years ago, it's unclear how she heard it and she heard

rumors, she didn't directly witness it. Now in terms of whether it affects your point of view on whether it happened or not, well, I always try to think of it in two ways. One is what if the shoe was on the other foot. And the second is, you know, just being human related to my own experiences. So I remember, and I won't get into the details of it, a particularly stark story that was a rumor in my high school. And so does that mean that it definitely happened and that it definitely happened in

the way that I remember? No. But if that story came about in a setting like this, where it was either a Republican, let's say, a conservative or a liberal justice that was up for the Supreme Court, and people said that person accused the other person of this, I'd say, well, I definitely remember that story being told in high school. Now that doesn't mean that it happened exactly in that way, but it does mean that certainly people knew about it back then, it's not a figment of someone's imagination.

So, it's just that, so when I look at it from that human perspective and my own perspective, I think it makes it a little bit more likely that it's true, just a little bit. I mean, yeah, sure, a little bit. I mean, I would take this with a grain of salt. However, there is a bigger, I guess, effort being taken by people who want to back Dr. Ford, and these are people who went to school with her, who knew her personally, and they have signed a letter stating that they not only support her, but they believe her because they also experienced an environment where the boys at this elite school acted a certain way. And I didn't know this,

but Julia Louis Dreyfus is one of those people who signed the letter. She actually went to the girl's version of this elite school. And so she shared the letter on Twitter, and she also said, I was class of 79 and signed this letter. And to give you some more information, the girls' school is Holton Arms, and it says that Dr. Blasey Ford's experience is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves. So 200 women have signed that so far, and I think that that means something.

Yeah, I think that Christina Miranda King's comments are more relevant than that letter. That letter is relevant to give you the context of the Times, but it says nothing about Kavanaugh or that particular party or that particular incident. It's just a number of women saying stuff like that used to happen with quite some, with quite regularity. That's pretty vague. It just gives you some context, that's all. It doesn't mean that it's useless.

That context is important. So, five former federal prosecutors wrote an op-ed today talking about why they believe that Christine Blasey Ford's version of the story is very credible. And so I just want to go over real quick for you guys, because some of the stuff they were saying backs up what we've been saying for a couple of days. They said, look, the fact that she told a therapist back in 2012 about this incident, and that would take it as prosecutors, we would look at that very, very serious. Like, why would she make that up six years ahead of time for something she has no idea

of what happened today regarding that person? She took a polygraph test and said, look, it's not admissible in court, but we know in our experience that it is, it's relevant. It's an important piece of data that she wanted to take one, took one, and passed it. She is not particularly political, so it doesn't have a deep motive here. If she worked in politics for some portion of her life or today, you might question her Our motive more. I like that they're thinking at it again, from a prosecutor's point of view as to what

makes sense and what doesn't. And one more. So one real quick, and we've mentioned this in our prior stories covering this. While she hasn't worked in politics, she has been a Democratic donor. And not a huge donor, but she's given small donations to Democratic candidates. So just to be fair, it's not like she hasn't had anything to do with politics. Yeah, no, no. But I mean, she voted, I hope a lot of you vote.

I don't think that's a big thing. And her donations were small. They're not these Soros Koch brothers kind of, she's not like a big donor in that sense. Right. She's like a regular person who gave a little bit of money from time to time. So she cares about politics but doesn't work in politics. Yeah, exactly. I just want to be absolutely clear.

Yeah, that's right. And then the last one is the one we've been mentioning for a couple of days, which is that they say if someone is making up a story. Remember, these prosecutors have had to deal with people making up stories. And they've got to decide to you prosecute the case. Do you go forward or do you not, right? They said, for her to put a defense witness in the room makes no sense at all. Knowing that Mike Judge, the other person in the room, is friends with Kavanaugh and would likely be on Kavanaugh's side.

If you were making up the story, you just wouldn't put him in the room. It's just all that could do is hurt you. So the therapist one and the Mike Judge one are really good evidence that there's excellent reasons to believe her, she can still be wrong, she could remember wrong, etc. But when you add in today's news about, you know, Julia Lewis Dreyfus backing her, that's tiny. I mean, she happens to be a celebrity. You could technically say the vice president has backed her since she stars in beep on HBO. But I think the Miranda King one is a little bit more relevant because we remember that rumor. It's just one more piece of evidence on top of what is already.

pretty good evidence that she didn't just make this up out of nowhere. Right. And for me, it's not about us deciding whether or not Brett Kavanaugh is guilty. I mean, we can have our opinions. What's important is for an investigation to take place by the FBI. The FBI wouldn't do a criminal investigation since this isn't considered a federal crime. It's considered a crime on a state level. But the FBI would do what it was doing during the Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas, sexual harassment case. They wanted to provide information so the Senate can vote based on, you know, all the information available in regard to the accusations. And that's what the FBI should do here.

Of course, Donald Trump, as usual, fabricated things about the FBI. He said they really don't do that. That's not what they do. Not remotely true. They do it all the time. It's called a background check. He said, well, they already did six on. on him throughout his different hearings earlier on too when he was up for nominations for lower courts. That's true, but it's also true that in the Nina Hill story, the FBI jumped in and did another background check once those stories emerged because they wanted to give the senators as much information as they could before they voted.

So there is excellent precedent for doing that and asking for that now. Unfortunately, the White House has to ask the FBI to do it, and Donald Trump, of course, says no way. So let's talk about that a little bit, because that's another angle to the story that we should dig into. All right. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has agreed to answer questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

However, she has specified one specific condition. And that condition is that the FBI conduct an investigation into the allegations before she testify. Now, it seems as though the Trump administration is unwilling to allow for that to happen. The White House would have to ask the FBI to conduct the investigation and to be absolutely clear it is not a criminal investigation that's being called for. It would be an investigation to look into these allegations to provide senators the information necessary so they can make a decision the best that they can. However, the Republicans in the Senate

are not happy with this, and it seems like they're going to push this Monday testimony through and then go for a vote. So echoing Senate Democrats, she said an investigation should be the first step before she has put, quote, on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident. But here's what Republicans did. They signaled that they would not negotiate an alternative, an alternative date specifically, and would go ahead with the hearing without her or declare it unnecessary if she refuses to appear, then possibly move to a vote. Now, one of her lawyers, Lisa Banks, was talking about this on CNN, and here's what she had to say about it. Are you saying there has to be an investigation by the FBI or else Professor Ford will not testify?

What we're saying is that there should be an investigation because that's the right thing to do. If there's not an investigation, would she appear on Monday? She is prepared to cooperate with the committee and with any law enforcement investigation. And that has been her position and it continues to be her position. So she will cooperate with the committee in whatever form that takes and it remains to be seen. we have to talk with Senator Grassley's office and the other committee members to determine what form that will take. Just a random side note here.

That's what a lawyer looks like and sounds like. Because we've just gotten use of Trump's lawyers on TV all the time. Well, let me tell you something. Is the truth really truth? Is a crime really a crime? And we've gotten used to lawyers being clowns on television. But that's what a professional lawyer sounds like. I agree, yeah.

So, all right, so she's, I think that what Dr. Ford is asking for makes all the sense in the world, because quite honestly, if you don't have the FBI investigate this and try to get to the bottom of the truth, you have two individuals testifying on this date, which would be on Monday, and it would be at least painted as a he said, she said type situation. I think that it's important to have the FBI get involved and try to find, get some the bottom of the truth. That way, we're not left trying to decide, oh, is she telling the truth? Is he telling the truth? Now, we all have our opinions on who's telling the truth, but I think that the FBI would really solidify the facts of this case.

Or at least they have a potential to. So what would they do? I've now read investigators saying, well, look, just background check 101 in a situation like this is you simply start contacting all the people in the yearbook, okay, over those years. and see if there are any witnesses. So it seems like a he said, she said, but wait a minute, there's probably a lot of people at that party. So now some classmates have begun to come forward and say that there were rumors of an incident at that party.

Well, who was at the party? Did they see the guy stumbling down? Did they see her locked in the bathroom? Did they see her run out in a panic? Well, those would be really, really relevant facts and why the FBI should do that background check, just like they did in the Clarence Thomas and Eda Hill case. There's two reasons why Trump doesn't want it done. He of course lies and says, they don't want to do it and it never gets done.

Neither one of those is true. Okay, so he doesn't want it done because one, they might find out things that corroborate her story. And two, it's going to take a little longer. And the longer it takes the closer we get to the midterm elections and the less likely it is that they can confirm Kavanaugh or anyone else. And then if the Democrats went over the Senate, they might not be able to confirm anyone. So that's why the Republicans is like, we gotta go, we gotta go right now.

Right. I mean, for the first time ever, Republicans have your tick, tick, tick, tick in the back of their mind when it comes to this case because they don't look, they want political wins. They want a conservative Supreme Court justice to be confirmed as soon as possible because there is a pretty good chance that Democrats would have more control after the midterms. And so they don't care whether or not this is true, right? I believe that some of them already knew about this before it became public information. We've talked about that before.

But what I also find really interesting is the way some Democrats are reacting to it. So you have Democrats who are coming out strong and I commend them for that. And then you have wanna be Democrats like Feinstein who say things that are used to the Republicans advantage and this drove me crazy. So she was stopped by Fox News and Fox News interviewed her, and here's what she had to say. And keep in mind, conservatives are now using her words against Dr. Ford. No one called her or called her lawyer.

My understanding is she got emails. I have no say. I'm the lead Democrat, so this is all up to the Republican side. I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know. Okay, so it's just saying I can't say anything's truthful, right? Like, you'll have one political party who's like, she's lying, we don't believe her, right? They have no problem saying they don't believe Dr. Ford right off the bat, even though they have no idea.

And then Feinside, just don't say, I don't know if she's telling the truth. I mean, that's a fair statement in a real world where things aren't as dirty as they are here in the United States. Keep that to yourself. Find a way to finesse the situation and say something that is, that's going to play better. So your own words won't be used against Dr. Ford. The way I would have handled it, as I would have said, you know, I think it's important. I'm inclined to believe the client, but I think it's important for the FBI to investigate this and get to the bottom of the truth.

Yeah, and unfortunately, Feinstein keeps slipping up and framing things from a Republican perspective. She's done it many times before. And Anna's right that this is not a normal situation, where if you're having a conversation between friends, and you want to be fair and say, look, I don't know that it definitely happened. That's a fair statement. But if you say that in the context of today's America, that quote will be taken out of context and put in every paper and every right wing blog and every cable news show. And that's exactly what's happened. So it makes it seem like her main backer, fine science says, I have no idea if she's telling the truth. And especially when you

see it written as opposed to the context, even of that short interview there. So we need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purpose.

obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the

propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. it's the Democrats are quite often frustrating but look I'm but from a person why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you no matter the size whether you're taking over your parents basement or moving to campus IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget after all you're in your small space era it's time to own it shop now at IKEA.ca. who wants to get out what's real instead of just picking sides, I wish they would all come out of it with a more open mind. So a bunch of the Republicans have already said, oh no, she's definitely, quote unquote, mixed up.

That's their play now. It's possible that this did happen, but it wasn't Kavanaugh, she's mixed up. That is the talking point that they're now repeating over and over again in the news cycle. Yeah, and a whole bunch of them like Cornyn and say, no, just no way, not true. Again, how do you know you didn't talk to her? You won't let the FBI do the background check. You won't talk to witnesses. And so, to be fair, the Republicans, a couple of them did come forward, like Corker and Flake and say, no, we've got to hear people out.

Which leads me to my last point. Corker changed his tune, though. No, I know he did. Yeah, Corker said Republicans extended a hand in good faith. If we don't hear from both sides on Monday, let's vote. No, I know. And so I don't agree with him, of course. I think they should have the FBI do the background check and not just for political reasons

of wanting to delay it, but like let's find out. I mean, again, Judge Napolitano, we live in strange times, made a good point on Fox News, where he said, look, if they don't take their time to find out what actually happened, it's going to stain Kavanaugh forever. So maybe he didn't do it, but if you just rush through it, people will always have that question mark over him. And so now, given that, I still think she should testify. And so let's talk it through, but-

I would not testify, I wouldn't. And you know, I had the same opinion as you until I looked into it further. The reason why I wouldn't testify at this point is because Republican senators have made, they've made up their minds. And so is there any possibility that- that having her testify would change their minds? At this point, no, they've made up their mind. However, there is a possibility if you have the backing of the FBI.

Remember, the FBI, Dr. Ford is the one asking the FBI to do the investigation. I think that that's powerful by itself, because that means, no, I want them to get to the bottom of this, and I want to have, what they're going to find is going to back me up. That's what it messages to everyone, in my opinion. So having any possible evidence or information that the FBI could have would help strengthen her testimony. Otherwise, she's just going to testify in a room full of dudes who have already decided that she's making things up or she's mixed up. And by the way, she's dealing with what you can expect, the death threats. She's moved out of her home.

She's in hiding now. She's hired private security. This is a difficult thing for her to go through. And I think that, you know, if you're going to testify and put yourself through that, You want it to be worth it. Yeah, you know, it's we we have gotten used to the sixth state of society because we often get the threats so frequently that we've kind of become inured to them. But it is, it's sad that anytime anybody comes forward politically is against the right wing.

It is a fact that they will immediately get death threats, people will find out where they live and they'll have to change where they live. I mean, think about how fascistic that is and how sick that is. is. And she was worried about that, and that's what she got immediately. But look, on the core issue here, whether she should testify or now, if they really vote on Monday and they don't hear from her, that's terrible. And so I think that she would, my guess is that attacking her would backfire if she went to go testify. My guess is that hearing it from the person herself would make a big impact on the country.

And so it's less than ideal to say the least under these circumstances without a background investigation to testify. But in my opinion, it's way better than not testifying and having them just push this through. I hear what you're saying. But I'm getting so tired of people caving to Republicans who just want political wins and doing everything under their terms. I think, like, they just want to rush this. That's the way that this is playing out.

They just go, no, no, no, we want to vote. We want to vote. Midterns are coming. We're losers and we're going to lose the House. And so, and possibly the Senate, and we don't want to risk that, right? So, no, no, no, let's hurry up. Let's hurry up. That's so pathetic.

That's so, because here's the thing. At the end of the day, this is about way more than political wins. We're talking about a lifetime appointment as a Supreme Court justice, someone who's going to hand down rulings or decide on cases that affect all. of our lives, whether you're a man or a woman, but to the Republicans, that doesn't matter. We want a conservative. We want a pro-corporate conservative in the Supreme Court. And so who cares if he's hurt people in the past?

We don't want to get to the bottom of the truth. I don't want to cave to that. I don't want to cave to that and do everything under their terms. You see what I'm saying? But I do see your point. It is important for her to testify. I don't know what the right answer is. I just know if I were in her shoes, I'd want the same thing.

And look, those are tough, tough shoes to be in right now. because she's going to get attacked either way, whether she testifies or doesn't, the Republicans already hate her. And by the way, if she doesn't testify and they just push this through, some Democrats might be frustrated. And so she's in a really bad spot. It's another piece of evidence that why would you go come forward on something like this, knowing that you're going to get stuck in this catch 22 and your life is going to be turned

upside down if it didn't, if it didn't happen. And while you share your thoughts of feeling sorry for her, that she has to go through all this, and we know how brutal people can be when it comes to politics, Donald Trump has decided that the real victim in this story is Brett Kavanaugh, and he spoke about it again. So take a look. Really, they're hurting somebody's life very badly, and it's very unfair, I think, too. As you know, Justice Kavanaugh has been treated very, very tough. And his family, I think it's a very unfair thing, what's going on.

And he has an unblemished record. This is a very tough thing for him and his family. And we want to get it over with. At the same time, we want to give tremendous amounts of time. I'd really want to see her. I really would want to see what she has to say. If she shows up, that would be wonderful. If she doesn't show up, that would be unfortunate.

So a couple of things there, Anna. One, it's obvious that he was coached. Whatever you do, do not attack her. That is going to cost you elections. Even if it doesn't cost you personally, it's going to cost the Republicans. Do not attack her. For once in his life, he at least had enough discipline not to attack her. He wound up attacking the Democrats and Feinstein, et cetera, later on.

But he can't help himself. He's got to embellish everything. So he's like, we're going to give this tremendous amounts of time because they told him, hey, sound like you're being fair, right? Tremendous amounts of time, the Republicans just said they're going to vote on Monday. Is three days, four days, tremendous amounts of time? But he has to add tremendous in front of everything. But of course, the core point is not, my God, she might have gone through this.

Even if it wasn't Kavanaugh and I feel terrible for her. and we hope she's okay. That doesn't even occur to him. He just constantly looks at her from the point of view of the accused shoes he stood in plenty of times before for good reason. So he's always like, oh my God, it's so unfair to him. It's so unfair to him. And he said it about Porter.

He said it about himself. He said it about almost every man who has been accused of committing some sort of transgression towards a woman. And almost never in any of those instances did he ever once say, oh, I feel terrible for her. Of course not. Of course not. But I will give him, I guess, some credit for somehow managing to avoid attacking her specifically, right? Yeah. Because he can't control himself. Like, I feel like he's going to blow in any moment. Yeah, that was the most amount of self-control I have ever seen him exercise. It's kind of amazing.

And by the way, was that a good statement? Not remotely. It was a clownish, ridiculous statement. But that's as good as it gets with Donald Trump. But the whole time, as I was looking at him, to me, screamed bully. There's parts of his statement really fast that maybe gives more credence to her not doing it. Because I was thinking, too, let's hear from her. That's the first thought, because we at least want to see what the real story is.

And he keeps saying, when you talk about not doing anything with the FBI, I trust the Congress to do what they're going to do. They're going to get to the bottom of this. They're going to work it out. I trust them to do it. I want to hear her. The plan is to, I mean, we've seen it before. We know the playbook. It's to attack her character, find anything you can about her, and that will be the litany of the things they will come after with. Who are you? What did you do this time? There's one time you were 16. What about that time you were 17? And then the time you're taking her down with no background to what really happened. That's the plan. And he's like, I can't wait to see her show up so we can go after her. That is the plan. And that's what they're

setting up for. He trusts them to do the takedown. So yeah, it's a really good point. And it backs up what Anna was saying earlier. So it's a really good point. So one more striking against testifying is, what if they're planning an ambush? And it's not like it's not possible. And so- What do you mean, what if? No, no, no. Are you crazy? No, look, that ambush could turn into a disaster for themselves if they're perceived as attacking this respected doctor who is coming forward under this traumatic situation, etc. But if they start getting into, oh yeah, but at the age of 21, did you do this? At the age of 37, did you do that? Right. And then without any advanced knowledge, she has to defend her whole life while the entire nation is watching. That's a hell of a

spot to be in. And remember, this is a hearing where they're testifying about these allegations, you're not going to have the lawyer get involved and be like, you know, what do they say again? Objection, your honor. Okay. There we go. I'm not out of order. You're out of order. Order in the court. Order in the court. There's none of that, right? So it's even more difficult than a criminal case involving allegations. Because the whole nation is judging. Exactly. Yeah. Look, it's a, it's a very, very tough. spot. I really hope the country hears her point of view, but I understand the significant downsides of that. Let's take a break when we come back. I have a scoop and we want to share

it with you. Yeah, it's an important story that T.R. TMSC. It's about Kavanaugh, and I don't want you to miss it because it could make a big difference. We'll do that when we return. All right, back on the Young Turks. First, I want to go to the member's comments here. Rinaldo Johnson writes in, I love that Jank and Anna don't always agree and that I don't always agree with one or either of you. News delivered by humans, not humanoids. So who did you agree with in that last segment, Mirage? Hold, hold, let me finish the comment.

Then they say, I agree with Anna. and J.R. this time. Okay, all right. So that's how you want to roll. I got you. Duly noted. Duly noted. Okay.

Now I'm going to Twitter. Kara Curley writes in, it's so frustrating that in situations like this, women have to move and get death threats. But the men get defended and cudd like babies. It's not great, but it causes me trust the woman far more because of it. Yes. Right now, as Trump said, oh, my guy, I feel so bad for him and so unfair for him. Meanwhile, she's in hiding, worried about her life. Hiring private security, by the way, with her own money.

I don't know how she's going to afford those lawyers and the private security, and people have no idea how that ruins your life financially, too. Okay, Santos-Wante writes in, Republicans waited an entire year for the presidency to end before filling a vacant SCOTA seat. What's the rush? Another great point, and of course they don't care about that hypocrisy, but they waited 14 months and did not fill Merrick Garland, that seat for Merrick Garland. So, but now all of a sudden, they're like, we got to vote by Monday.

We've got to vote by Monday. So we have one more thing that I want to tell you guys about. A lot of you have been asking, hey, look, I'm already a member. Can I also donate or give money somehow to support what you guys are doing? My answer to that is... Okay, so we literally came up with t-y-t.com slash yes! Okay. I'm saying yes there, just in case.

T-y-t.com slash yes. So thank you guys for constantly asking about that and making us do it. So yes, if you want to give money there, look, anytime you like something we say, you want to go to t-y-t.com slash yes and do a donation, bless your heart. supports Homo and Progressives and makes us more possible. And we appreciate you guys looking out for us. Okay, now let's get the story we broke. All right.

Back in 2015, Brett Kavanaugh gave a speech at Catholic University's law school. And during that speech, he said something interesting, especially given some of the sexual assault allegations against him today. Take a look at what he said during that speech. We had a good saying that we've held firm to the, to this. day, as the dean was reminding me before, before the talk, which is what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. That's been a good thing for all of us, I think.

Look, that's certainly not dispositive. A lot of people have said that because of the Vegas tagline and he's kidding around. But what happened next is interesting in what TYT investigates is uncovered. Exactly. So TYT Investigates looked at the documentation. that he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Of course, this is part of their review in the confirmation process. So he's supposed to disclose as much as possible, including some of the speeches that he's given.

Now, TYT investigates found that Kavanaugh's claim that what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep was a saying of his high school, was a saying of his in high school that does not appear in a transcript of the speech he submitted in response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire. So they asked for this documentation. He submitted it. He submitted the speech, but he took that part out of the speech, out of the transcript. Yeah, and Jonathan Larson broke this story.

He makes it clear later. The transcript appears in essay form as it appeared in the spring 2016 issue of the Catholic University Law Review. So he spoke in 2015. They put it in the law review in 2016. and they took it out of that particular transcript. So it's not clear if Kavanaugh asked them to take it out or if to school for whatever reason made that decision on their own, TYT reached out, but got a very generic answer from

the school that didn't prove anything either way. They said the Law Review publishes articles submitted by legal scholars and practitioners on a quarterly basis. So that doesn't really address the question. Now, why is this so important? Well, if Kavanaugh asked that that part be taken out of the transcript, he would have asked back in 2015 or 2016 well before the allegations came out in 2018. So what made him concerned enough to ask them to take it out of the transcript?

Not only that, he then submitted that transcript to the Senate. And so it had to be accurate and it was not accurate. And the part that it left out was not irrelevant. It was not just a random anecdote about something that happened at the school cafeteria. It was an anecdote that was exactly relevant to these allegations. Well, so I want to give you the entirety of that part of the speech because I think even, when you add even more context to it, it's, I don't know, I find it more interesting. So let's go to Graphic 12A.

So he had said Mike Bidwill, Don Ergo, and Phil Merkel, all people the FBI should speak to, and they were all good friends. They were good friends of mine then and are still good friends of mine as recently as this weekend when we were all on email together. But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to this day as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. That's been a good thing for all of us, I think. That was the original speech. That's the speech he gave. But then in the version that was submitted in the transcript, he said, I'm proud to say that three Georgetown

prep classmates of mine, Mike Bidwell, Don Ergo and Phil Merkel, happened to be 1990 graduates of this law school. They remain very good friends of mine. And they well reflect the values and excellence of both Georgetown Prep and this law school. So he will be testifying on Monday. Democratic senators should ask him, did you take that part out? And why did you take it out? Why would you know in 2015 or 2016 to take out that part if you thought there was never any allegations against you?

Because if he had left it in, okay, they did a lot of drinking back in the date. No one cares about that, okay? So if you said, oh, just kidding around, man, we did at Georgetown prep when we drank when we were underage and we shouldn't have, stayed at Georgetown prep. And you didn't have a guilty conscience at all. You'd leave that in. Why wouldn't you leave that in? Why would you try to take it out? But if you're worried that some allegations is going to come forward that is far, far more serious, then you would take it out.

And that means you knew about it. Because right now, Kavanaugh is claiming, oh, I might have known her in passing, but I didn't know who was going to. to accuse me before she revealed herself because this never happened. No incident like this had ever happened. So golly, gee, I wouldn't know anything about this. And so now there's also evidence that they knew each other before then. So him saying I knew her in passing seems also a little bit questionable. But this is a question that must be asked in the hearings.

Who took out that statement and why did they take it out? Yeah, I think it's very relevant. So we'll see if anyone asks that question. But I am curious what his answer is. Yes. And as always, I want to thank all of you guys that made TYT Investigates possible. That's your reporting team that's bringing out important revelations and questions that should be asked in a very important time in American history here.

And please go and check out all the articles at t.t.com slash investigates. And if you're watching this later, we'll have the link down below in the description box. Some great, great stories quoted from Bernie Sanders, all the way to the New York Times, from great reporters like Ken Klippenstein, who revealed that we're training Saudi pilots who might be doing the bombings of civilians in Yemen here in America. Now, drones going to the border, so many other important stories that have been broken by the TYT investigates crew. Let's take a break.

When we come back, Donald Trump goes after Jeff Sessions again and other news. including his thoughts on Comey. Again, the going after sessions is unbelievable maniacal. I've never seen anything like this as usual. Okay, in this case, with this guy. I will come back and tell you exactly what he did. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content

while supporting independent media, become a member at t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free sentence. All right, back on the Young Turks. So Blake C writes in on YouTube super chat. My PR professor says, TYT isn't a credible news source. I had to bite my tongue not to scream establishment bias. Why'd you bite your tongue? Just tell them.

You don't have to scream it. You could raise your hand and say, are you claiming that CNN does not have a bias? that they just are robots out of nowhere, that they don't have a world view, that they don't have a perspective? Look, I think, I don't think your professor is a bad person. I think she, he or she, is just old school. I mean, even the, look, the journalism school I went to, it was a very common thought. Like, you don't share your opinion.

If you share your opinion, you're not credible. And so it's just an old school way of thinking. Things have changed. I think that you can call a source not credible if they're going out of their way to mislead the audience or be deceptive or lie to them. And if we're ever wrong about anything, we want you guys to tell us because I don't want to share anything that's wrong with the audience. But anyway.

Okay. Milu writes in on Twitter, it occurs to me that maybe the GOP is in a mad rush to confirm Kavanaugh, before any more women come forward, would anyone be surprised if that scumbag had other shoes waiting to drop? No, wouldn't be surprised. So, leaving out the adjective, yeah, certainly if you're concerned about that, you'd want to move as quickly as possible. And so, and if we've seen in the past, and we have no idea if that's the case so far,

but when one story comes out, not every time, but a lot of times, many other. follow. So we'll see. And then finally, Dan writes in, you've been to Vegas, right? I think he's challenging my interpretation of Kavanaugh here. How many times did you say what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas? What? Did you attempt to rape someone? Okay. So, no, Dan, but if I had said that, I wouldn't go try to edit it out of a video because I would have been talking about how I made a stupid bet on the Cowboys, right? I wouldn't have been talking about something terrible. If I was talking about something terrible, and then I edited it out later to make sure nobody saw it, that could be relevant evidence.

Yeah, that, him saying that isn't the problem, him editing it out, possibly him editing out. We don't know if it was him or if it was the school, but taking that out of the transcript and then submitting it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that's the problem. Definitely. All right, let's go forward. Okay. Donald Trump had an interview with Hill TV, which is a Coke Brothers funded news show. I just want to be clear about that.

Watched it today, started with an ad talking about protecting U.S. energy. I just want to make sure you guys are aware. They do have a good host in Crystal Ball. Sure, yeah, great host. So let's move on. Crystal Ball's fine. I know. They're funded by the Coke Brothers.

That's it. Anyway, our media is a joke. So anyway, moving on. So during this interview, Trump talked about a number of things, including how he wishes he would have fired Comey after the Republican National Convention, you know, before he was even president of the United States. So let me give you his statements. Trump said that he believes his crusade against the FBI, whose past leadership he has

criticized as biased against him, will ultimately reveal corruption inside the Bureau. Uncovering that corruption, the president said, could be one. one of the crowning achievements of his administration. So as we had talked about yesterday, one of the things that Trump wants to do is force the FBI, the special counsel specifically, to release classified documents pertaining to the Russia investigations, and he wants them to be unredacted. So he wants all of it to be out in the open. So he was also saying to the hosts of Hill TV, I hope to be able to put, I hope to be able

To put this up as one of my crowning achievements that I was able to expose something that is truly a cancer in our country, he also says what we've done is a great service to the country really. Okay, people are just moving on with their lives because Trump says outrageous things all the time. But let's just pause here to note that the President of the United States just called the FBI a cancer to this country. Now some people on the left might say, hey, you know, they've done a lot of terrible things

that that's interesting. And it, wow, what a comment by a president. And maybe there's some truth to it back in the day and there's still some abuses, et cetera. But this, the focus on cable news, New York Times, White House, all of the establishment Democrats, all the establishment Republicans. In the past, if anybody had said that their heads would have exploded, it would have been one of the most, if not the most controversial thing. a president had ever said that the FBI is a cancer to the country.

Yep. But we're used to Donald Trump being like borderline lunatic. So we're like, oh yeah, of course, the president says the FBI is a cancer. Let's move on. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I have nothing else to add to that. Yeah, he has normalized this kind of behavior, attacking the FBI, simply because the FBI is

investigating, well, investigating him now. The investigation didn't begin, it didn't begin with Trump. 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 cybercriminals.

And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three. extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans.

That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash T-YT. Check it out today. Being investigated, but his obstruction of justice is now being investigated. He also told the Hill that he should have fired Comey. The day I won the primaries, something he obviously would not have the authority to do. Because you're not even the president of the United States. How are you going to fire the FBI? from the FBI. You have no power.

You just won the primaries. That's it. He has the mind of a dictator. Like, let's just keep it real. That's the way he thinks. I know, but he's- Crazy. He's also amazingly stupid.

Who would say I should have fired the head of the FBI when I wasn't president when I won the primaries? He went on and on about how, oh, I should have fired them after the convention. You were still not president after the convention. Why are you saying those things? If any other president, it doesn't matter of Democrat or Republican, if Obama, Bush, Clinton, anybody had said, the FBI's a cancer, there'd be a giant controversy, you'd have hearings, what is going on?

Does the president, why is he attacking law enforcement? If a liberal had attacked the FBI like that and law enforcement like that, oh my God, they're terrorists, et cetera. I mean, Black Lives Matter protests, people getting unarmed people getting shot and they get called terrorists on Fox News. This guy says, screw all law enforcement, screw the FBI, they're at cancer. And by the way, I'm so unbelievably ignorant that I think I could have fired the director of the FBI when I wasn't president.

And we just move on. If Obama had said that, you know how Fox News would have said, oh, dumb, ignorant, doesn't know what he's doing. Mustard on a hamburger, okay? Let's just, let's all, let's all remember those things. Mustard on a hamburger, tan suit. Those were national scandals according to conservatives. Okay, by the way, just to be clear, obviously Obama didn't, wasn't perfect.

He of course had flaws, but those were the flaws that were ignored by the media, right? The killing of civilians abroad through drone strikes and signature strikes, no one cares, who cares, right? Fox News like that. That's why they had to pick mustard on a hamburger to criticize them. It's so pathetic. I mean, every time we remember that, it's amazing. Now you have a moron who doesn't know that you can't fire the FBI director if you're not the president.

Remember healthy lunches from the first lady? She's trying to tell you kids what to do. This dictatorship is out of control. Oh, that's so right. You're controlling what your children eat. Remember Obama had like a speech that went out to all the schools. He's coming across there. It was like a Hitler figure speaking to your kids, pumping some kind of subliminal message into

their brains. Remember all that? Yeah. Now, this guy says, he said earlier, maybe flipping ought to be illegal. Flipping is when you cooperate with law enforcement. The president suggested that cooperating with law enforcement perhaps should be made illegal, but Michelle Obama was dictatorial because she wanted your kids to eat vegetables. So the FBI has responded to Trump's demands to release.

the classified documents, you know, regarding the Russia investigation. And the Justice Department has also responded, and they're trying to find a middle ground because releasing those documents is going to put national security in jeopardy. And so the Department of Justice and the FBI in the office of the Director of National Intelligence are reportedly expected to propose redactions to a series of documents related to the Russia investigation that President Trump ordered to be classified, or I'm sorry, declassified this week. So remember, Trump does not want anything redacted, okay?

He wants everything out in the open. And so the response from the Justice Department and the FBI is, okay, fine, we'll release these documents, but we need to hide the identities and we need to hide certain information because it puts us in jeopardy. So let me explain. There was a woman who worked with Donald Trump as an executive in the Trump. organization for a long time. She wrote an op-ed recently and explained that Donald Trump oftentimes doesn't want you to follow

his orders so that he could later blame you for not following his orders. He gives preposterous orders that he knows people can't legally follow. And the example she gave was he wanted all the braille removed from his elevators in Trump Tower, which is illegal. But he apparently hates people with disabilities so much. And he said, I don't want any blind people in Trump Tower. Okay, so now he knows that the guy can't, I think we think he knows that the guy can't follow that order, right? So he tells the FBI, release all of the material that you have about the Russia investigation as it relates to Orr and Comey and Strzok, et cetera.

The FBI says, but wait a minute, that might reveal our sources from where we got the intelligence from Russia and it might get them killed. It might endanger national security what Anna was referencing there. And he's like, I don't care, just released him. They're like, finally, today, they had to be like, no, we're just not going to follow that order. No, we're going to redact it so we don't get people killed. Sorry, not going to follow it. Later, of course, you'll say, oh, the stuff they redacted. That's where the real witch hunt was.

That's where the conspiracy, because here's another amazing part of this sequence of events today. So they asked Donald Trump, well, you say that the stuff that they're going to release will show that it actually was a witch hunt. That's an amazing claim because no one actually believes that it's a witch hunt that was meant to take down the Trump presidency, right? And so they're like, so what's in there? And he says, oh, I don't know, I didn't read it. Wow. Just when you think he can't get any dumber, there's no bottom to that ignorant barrel.

So you didn't read it, then how do you know it proves you're right? You don't know what's in it. He's like, well, I'm sure. It's a witch hunt. It's going to show that it's a witch hunt. Oh, Jesus. Yeah. Intellectual curiosity is so low.

He doesn't even want to save his own behind him doing so. He can't. There's some chance he can't read. Like, who doesn't read the documents that either shows you're guilty or not guilty or that the investigation is fixed against you? Do you, how could you, like, either you have such little intellectual curiosity that you have broken every conceivable record on planet Earth, right? Or maybe you literally can't read.

Well, I mean, I don't know, I feel like you need to have a decent attention span to investigate things like that, right? Because these are not documents that have the same type of language that you would see in the National Enquirer, right? Like, I think he might have a, he can read, I think. not like, you know, legal documents, investigative documents, those are difficult documents to read for the average person. And the average person is a million times smarter than Trump, so imagine him with like

a fifth grade reading level trying to understand. No way it's fifth grade, no way it's fifth grade. I'm not kidding, my son's in third grade and can read way, way better than Donald Trump. And look, this is a fact. I love this debate. No, no, but it's absolutely true. So every single person, including in his own White House, says he cannot read past the page. That's why they have to, they used to have the briefings about national security that were four pages.

He's like, four pages, I'm out, there's no way. I don't care if on page two the Martians invade or Al-Qaeda hits this again. I don't care, I'm not reading the page two. I don't believe he has the capacity to read past one page. And then they found out he has trouble reading one page. So they started putting pictures in and graphs in and kept mentioning his name. so he would pay attention. He doesn't read grass.

So whatever the reason is, I don't know if it's dyslexia. I don't know if it's just an enormously low IQ. I don't know if he just never learned how to read. I believe that he could read a sentence, I think, right? But sure, because he writes tweets. He writes tweets, to be fair, right? Barely. Right?

But barely and constantly misspelled weird grammatical errors, weird capitalization. nothing makes sense, he's, he's unbelievably ignorant. And I think even on stuff he deeply cares about, he actually physically cannot read past the page. That's amazing. Wow. That's amazing. And by the way, he also is not self-aware enough to try to hide it. To be like, well, of course I read what was in the documents.

And it's damning of Peter Strach and his conspiracy against me. And they're like, did you read? He's like, no. Yeah. All right. So there's some other stuff we got from the interview. So let's get to that. During an interview with Hill TV, Donald Trump decided that it was a perfect opportunity

to attack Jeff Sessions again. And so he claims that I don't really have an attorney general. Let me give you his exact quotes. There it is. I don't have an attorney general. That was one of his quotes. I mean, it's such a Trump quote, because on one level, what does that even mean, right? By the way, like, he's not your attorney general.

He is the United States Attorney General. So to some extent, like, he doesn't understand what the role of the Attorney General is. He thinks that the Attorney General is a publicly funded personal lawyer. That is not what the Attorney General is supposed to do or act as, you know? Yeah, so if you're trying to understand it, as a rational person, and a president, any president comes and says, I don't have an attorney general. He'd be like, oh my God, what happened to the attorney general?

Is he okay? Was it a car accident? What happened, right? So then you go, okay, all right, so he's not a normal president, that's his way of attacking his attorney general, which let's again pause to note that if any other president was actively attacking his own attorney general, it would be the biggest scandal by an order of magnitude For Obama, Bush, Clinton, et cetera, what do you mean? You hate your own attorney general, and you think he said at one point in another interview,

what kind of a man is he? Oh, my God. It's just unreal. Okay. So, just to remind everyone in case you forgot, the reason why he hates Jeff Sessions so much is because Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself from the Russian investigation. That's it. He wants Jeff Sessions to defend him.

and wants him to essentially break the law. I mean, Sessions did the right thing in recusing himself. He doesn't do a lot of right things, but he did the right thing in recusing himself here. And that's why Trump hates him. Now, he also gives other reasons for why he's upset or angry at Jeff Sessions. He says, it's very sad, I'm not happy at the border. I'm not happy with numerous things, not just this. Okay, so he's not happy with the border.

What do you mean? Sessions gave you everything you wanted with the border. He went on tour talking about how the zero tolerance policy is going to be a fantastic deterrent. I mean, he played along with you. Why are you upset with the border? No, no. So let me explain that.

So first of all, again, a total Trumpian sentence. I'm unhappy with the border. At the border. Okay, what is, okay, all right, fine, let's get past it. Okay. Mr. Border, I am so unhappy with you. Okay. So, why is he doing this?

Because his advisors have told him, hey, dumbbell, you keep saying that you don't like sessions because he recused himself from an investigation about you. If you fire him, it will clearly be obstruction of justice because you're unhappy that he didn't block an investigation of you. So what should you say? Next time, we know that you're a dumbbell and can't help it and we'll say the thing about the Russian investigation. but could you also please add that you're mad at him about other things.

Note to Trump's advisors, you must fill in the blanks. So he's like, oh, well, then I'm also mad at him at other things. No, no, okay, you got to spell it out. He's like, okay, I'm also mad at the border. That's it, that's all he had. So a sophisticated denial would be, first of all, if he was capable enough to, to cover things up and that's why I always said he's gonna get caught because he's too dumb to cover anything up.

He would have never mentioned the recusal instead he would have picked something else that Jeff Sessions had done slightly wrong and not the border because Jeff Sessions has agreed with him 110% at the border. So that's a poor example, he would have picked something that Sessions had disagreed with him a little bit on and go, oh my God, what I'm really perturbed by is Jeff's actions in regards to this. Look, he's my attorney general, but I've really got to consider this when I take into account his tenure here, but we're considering all of our options.

And then later when you fire him, you'll say, oh, no, wasn't the cover up. No, no, no. It was because I was concerned about what he said about marijuana. I really think marijuana should be, you know, up to the states. Yeah, I mean, look, those are the dirty politics that we're accustomed to, right? Those are the, I guess, smart, strategic things that politicians do that, honestly, we find repulsive. But at the same time, it's a smart tactic, smart strategy.

Trump isn't capable of that. You're right. And so there's something interesting about his transparency because it really does give us a sense of the way he thinks. At least we know what he's thinking. But at the same time, it also makes us confront the fact that our president is the least smartest person that we've ever encountered in politics. Yeah.

So he said, but again, he couldn't. So in another interview of the New York Times, of course, he had said, how do you take a job and then recuse yourself. It's extremely unfair. That's a mild word to the president. That goes to Anna's first point and the most important point out of all of this, which is he's not your attorney general. That's why he says, I don't have an attorney general.

He's not supposed to be your attorney general. He's supposed to be the attorney general of the United States of America. His job is supposed to be to uphold the Constitution and enforce our laws, not to protect the political person who put him into office. But Trump, A, has never understood that. B, doesn't understand that other people will think that that's a problem because it is a problem. It's not how our democracy works. It's not how our government works.

But he's too stupid to understand that other people will say, hey, knucklehead, you seem to be doing obstruction of justice. He's not your attorney general. He's the country. He's like, no, he's my attorney general. Why isn't he protecting me? And he recused himself. And now I'm so unhappy at the border. Okay, okay.

One other thing that I want to mention about this. So I want to give some of Trump's base some credit because it appears that this whole Jeff Sessions thing and the way that Trump is handling, you know, his public commentary in regard to this investigation is turning some of them off. So, I mean, look, we've already seen some of it when we've had some of the TYT reporters go to the rallies and talk to. These are Trump supporters. They're at the rallies.

You don't go to a rally unless you're part of Trump's base, right? Or a reporter. And many of them, when they're asked about this, will say, we don't think the president's above the law. We don't think that he should fire Mueller. We don't think that he should be making these statements about sessions. And even on social media, some of the public figures who are part of Trump's base, the Ann Coulter's of the world, they hate the session stuff.

And so, by the way, I'm not giving her credit, but I do want to give the average Americans out there who are supportive of Trump credit if they do feel this way, because this is Trump showing that he believes he's above the law. And remember, his whole campaign platform was about, I'm the law and order president. I mean, that was the thing at the R&C was front and center. You know, we support law enforcement, law and order president. Not really. Yeah, so Eric Beiler, who did some of those interviews for us on Rebel headquarters, was on the postgame last night. Please check that out if you're a member, because we talked about, unfortunately, some conservative's view of law enforcement is not to protect and serve all the citizens, but it is to protect and serve them against some of the other citizens, right? And so that might go to explain some of the other conservatives that are sticking with Donald

Trump, because when they think rule of law, they don't actually mean uniform rule of law. They mean, no, rule of law against you, okay, so I can keep my own. But like you said, Anna, to be fair to them, about half of them are now saying, that's not really how it's supposed to work. And Jeff Sessions, especially for the politicians, they're like, we know that's our guy. Yeah, they love Sessions. I mean, there is nothing liberal about Jeff Sessions, not one thing. He's not one percent liberal.

So they're like, if you're going after sessions, it's not because he's not right-wing enough. You're definitely going after him for other reasons, things that make us go, hmm. Yeah, let's take a break. When we come back, we will discuss Social Security and Medicare and its solvency. It's definitely in jeopardy, and it's because of Trump. And then later on, we will discuss Gary Cohn and his statements about banks and how maybe banks weren't. really at fault for the economic collapse. No, no, it turns out it was your fault. Oh, he's terrible. Okay, we'll explain that when we come back.

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