The Young Turks - Kavanaugh Paints 'Church Boy' Persona On Fox News

Episode Date: September 26, 2018

Kavanaugh, wife by his side, played the victim and repeatedly stated he was a 'good boy' in school during the years two women have accused him of sexual misconduct. His interview was robotic and obviously scripted as he dodged questions and repeated himself. 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, well, the Young Turks, Jake U Granite, Kisperin with you guys. Big Day at the Young Turks. Namiki Kans broke a story exclusive on aggressive, progressive, earlier. If you remember, you got to watch that live.

WIT.com slash join to become a member. And today we have Trayvon free coming up in the second hour for you guys, writer for The Daily Show for Samantha Bee's show and also working with Issa Ray and the list goes on and on. Tomorrow we're gonna have Trey Crowd around. He is known as the liberal redneck, so that'll be fun. And a fun quick thing for you guys before we get to the stories, we're nominated for three streamies, not a big deal. But here's the two fun parts. One is for a show of the year. Sorry. Really? Yes. How did that happen? You're so funny. No, no, it's not because I don't

think that we're worthy. I just think that everyone seems to be against us at all times. You know what I'm saying? No, I know. Except for our audience, which we love. We've actually been nominated for that before, too. But show of the year on the internet, period. That's amazing. And then my favorite actually is we have not one, but two nominations in the best news show of the year category, both in the Young Turks Network. The Young Turks versus the breakdown. What? Oh, drops.

So Haas and Francis, it's on, brothers, okay? So from just day forward, breakdown, we're done with you. Okay, so no boat splitting here, okay, we're going to throw them under a bus real quick. Just plain, just plain, check out the breakdown. It's on YouTube as well, but mainly on Facebook, of course. Anyway, so, huge newsday. Bill Cosby, that's coming up a little bit later. Sentenced will give you the details on his sentence.

and why and how and all that. And by the way, a vicious attack against another progressive by the weird Duncan Hunter Jr. Amar Kampanajar will be on Rebel Headquarters, another Young Turks show later today to defend himself against these outrageous attacks. So I don't know how else to tell you to become a Young Turks memory. There's dozens of shows that you can check out as a progressive, and it's all for $4.99 at the lowest level. If you want to help more and get a little bit more extra, become an activist at $10.

T.Y.T.com slash join and make that happen. Okay, obviously, though, enormous news about Kavanaugh as well. So, Anna, take it away. All right. Late on Monday, Brett Kavanaugh agreed to an interview with Fox News, and the interview could be problematic for him in the future, considering some of the declarative, strong statements he made. And we do have some clips for you today, which we will not only show.

you, but also do a little analysis of. Apparently, while this interview was being broadcasted, the writers for the New Yorker who broke the story about the second woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct were fact-checking Kavanaugh. So we will give you some of those corrections after we show you the clips. But with that said, let's take a look at the first video. So here is Kavanaugh denying that he was at the party that the first accuser said he assaulted her at. She doesn't remember the date and she doesn't remember the place. But what she does remember that I just detailed is very specific.

And other assault victims say that they've had similar memories where they remembered exactly what happened, but they didn't necessarily remember the events surrounding it. You have categorically denied that this happened. Did anything happen? No, I've never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not ever. I've always treated women with dignity and respect. But with regard to Christine, four, do you know her?

I may have met her. We did not travel in the same social circles. She was not a friend, not someone I knew. You don't remember ever being at parties with her ever? I do not. And this is an allegation about a party in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West Highway with five people present. I was never at any such party.

The other people who are alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. Okay, so he is responding to the allegations by the first accuser, Dr. Blasey Ford. And if you can recall her specific allegations, there were things that were murky, things that she didn't specifically remember, including the exact address of where the party took place and where the alleged assault took place. And it's strange that he knows the exact address and that he's reciting it there in the interview. I don't know why he did that. That was super weird.

So I wouldn't remember the address of a party I wasn't at. I wouldn't remember the address of a party I was at when I, if it was 35 years ago. So I don't know why they thought that was a good idea to specify the address of the party that he claims he never went to. That was absolutely bizarre, and I don't think it helped this case at all. It did the reverse. I mean, obviously, neither one of us know why he did that. I can only assume that he's probably exhausted right now because everything in the interview

seemed very rehearsed, very well planned, except for that specific portion where he recited the address. No, no, you'd have to memorize that address to even remember it. You know, they must have planned it, but I can't for the life of me figure it out why they would give the exact address. It sounded like he was like, look, I was not at Connecticut and 287 Maple Avenue connection. I wasn't on the second floor where there is green wallpaper with ducks on it.

I did not see that blue carpet, nor was I rolling around in it at all. Like, what, what do you, what, why are you saying these things? It's very strange. And I also want to point out one other thing. He used the words dignity and respect toward women countless times. I mean, that was something that he wanted to drive home. It was something that I think he was coached on. And so he wants to, and you will notice this in the following clips that we show you,

he really wants to present himself as this good guy who was a good boy at the time that these alleged assault took place. So just real quick before we go to that, one is, look, I get it, he's on a tough spot. So if he did it, he's in an awfully tough spot because he did it and he has to cover it up. If he didn't do it, boy, he's also in a tough spot because you have to deny it while making sure you're not greatly angering women in this country. And so you have to talk about dignity and respect of women. And he also has to be really careful about his answer is not to incriminate himself.

But at the same time, this looks so rehearsed and fake that I don't, do people really still believe that any of this, that he didn't practice it with lawyers and advisors over and over again? Now, it doesn't mean it's not true, but it is 100% rehearsed. Well, another thing that also screams of this was rehearsed and everything was planned out in detail is he did what standard establishment people in the political world do, which is I'm gonna bring my wife along with me. Yeah.

And it's painful. It's painful. And you know what? Maybe she really wants to be there to support him and it is what it is. But nonetheless, it does seem rehearsed and just to answer your question, Jank, and this is from my perspective, I do think that people who care about politics or passion about politics who've been following this story, unfortunately have made up their minds with few exceptions. People who do want to keep an open mind, as we've said on this show numerous times, we don't

know. We don't know without a shadow of a doubt that he did it. And we want to be fair. And the testimony is important. But with that said, I do think that on the right, especially lawmakers have made up their mind. And they've been pretty open and honest about that. Yeah. And some parts of the jury have come in for me on what they are. So let's keep going with the clips because when he talks about what a choir boy he was, that part of the jury's in for me. And again, if you're trying to convince people that you're not a liar, you should stop lying. Yeah. So in the next clip, he addresses Deborah Ramirez's allegations, which were profiled in the New Yorker.

And that was the article written by Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow. She says she was at a dorm party, and this happened, quote, Brett was laughing. I can still see his face and his hips coming forward like when you pull up your pants. I'm confident about the pants coming up, and I'm confident about Brett being there. She was initially uncertain it was you, they write in this piece. But after six days, she's confident enough, she says. Should the American people view her as credible? I never did any such thing.

Never did any such thing. The other people alleged to be there don't recall any such thing. If such a thing had happened, it would have been the talk of campus. One roommate, I think his last name was Roche, who said, you know, that he could see this kind of thing happening, that you drank a lot in high school, drank a lot in college. And although he hadn't seen or heard this incident himself, that it added up to him. That it made sense that you treated women that way. I've always treated women with dignity and respect.

He does not corroborate the incident at all. The incident did not happen. You remember him. He was your roommate. I do remember him. So why do you think he would say that? What I know, I'm not going to speculate about motives. I know I never did that. If I had done that, it would have been the talk of campus.

So I have to just quickly address some of the things that he either intentionally lied about or maybe missed in the original reporting on that story. Now, as was accurately reported here at TYT, there were some issues with her memory, right? And she was very honest about that. Deborah Ramirez was honest about that. However, to say that there was no one who corroborated it or to say that it would have been the talk of campus, he, in the original article, it's clear that there is a specific person who corroborated it and he's basing it off of what he heard a couple days after

the alleged assault. So again, the reporters here, Jane Meyer and Ronan Farrow were fact checking him as this interview was happening and so, or at least as it was airing. And so Meyer noted that she and Farrow reported at least one witness suggests that the event was talked about on campus in the days afterward, she continues to write. And so it was a classmate who heard about it at the time, at the time, told me he has thought of it every time he hears Kavanaugh's name or heard Kavanaugh's name for the last 35 years. So yeah, I mean, maybe he just forgot about that part of the story, but to say that no one

corroborated it and to say, hey, people would have been talking about it and no one was, It's just, that's not true at all. Yeah, so but here, I think we have a lot more of a mixed record because now remember, no one is saying they were at the party and saw it happen. There is someone who's saying that he was 100% sure that people told them about the party. So that goes against Kavanaugh's point that nobody on campus was talking about it because they were, but there is no other witness right now that was at that party. And in the case of Ramirez, look, do I think she's genuine given her over the top honesty

about how she doesn't remember certain things and how intoxicated she was, et cetera? I believe she's totally genuine. On the other hand, that's a tough thing to accuse somebody of to say, like, I don't remember if it was him, but after six days of thinking about it, I'm sure it is him. You just, look, if that was against an ally of mine or a friend of mine, I'd say that's a pretty tough way to accuse someone. Yeah, look, I agree with you on that. And I do think, based on the way Republicans have shifted in the way that they're handling

these allegations, the New Yorker piece might have been counterproductive because now it seems as though they're latching onto Ramirez and the fact that she was drinking, which I don't think that's a credible way of, you know, discounting her recollection. But more importantly, they're saying, well, she doesn't remember. So this is, you know, an attempt to slander, defame Kavanaugh, to smear him. It's all political, that's all this is. So in a way, it has been a little counterproductive. Look, that's the politics of it.

And I care less about that in this context. But if you did care about that, no, the second woman always makes a giant, giant difference. And I think the tenor of the conversation changed even a little bit more when the second moment came forward. So I think her accusations are very relevant in that sense. Whether you believe them is a different question. And in this case, there's a good reason to believe both people, right? She could genuinely believe that and you might say, yeah, but I'm not sure I trust her recollection.

That's all. Right. And just to clarify my point, look, I think that among Democrats, it certainly helped, right? Maybe some Democrats that are on the fence. But among Republicans, what it signaled to them was, oh, this is a fishing expedition. They're looking for anyone and everyone who's willing to smear him. And that's how it's a little counterproductive. I've personally noticed that the tone from Senate Republicans has changed.

Whereas before they were a lot more careful to be a little respectful at least of the women. And now it's no holds barred, we're gonna go after these women. And that's what I mean when I say it's counterproductive. With that said though, let's go to the next clip where Kavanaugh talks about being such a good boy when he was in high school. When I was in high school, and I went to all boys Catholic high school, a Jesuit high school, where I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship. Friendship with my fellow classmates and friendship with girls from the local, all-girls

Catholic schools. And yes, there were parties, and the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there. And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion. And people generally in high school, I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an allegation of sexual assault.

I've never sexually assaulted anyone. Yeah, so this is the part that's among the worst of his responses, because by every account, he was a wild man in high school and college. And so you could say, hey, that's no big deal. And if it didn't involve the sexual assault allegations, it would be no big deal. But no one thinks that he was a choir boy that was, I went to Little Flower every Sunday. And what I cared most about was my friendships with the boys and the girls and the local schools. No, man, you were on the football team that bragged about sexual conquest all the time.

The football at large did. You guys were the rowdiest of the bunch. You over drank by everybody who knows you thinks that. So the more honest way to go would be go, hey man, did I drink too much in college and in high school? I did. You know, I was a young kid, et cetera, but that doesn't have any new sexual assault. And I wouldn't do that. But yeah, we did a bunch of stuff that I regret.

I mean, we were young knuckleheads. That's a normal human answer as opposed to this rehearse behest. Well, I think what's notable from that answer was that he said something along the lines of, you know, did some people have one too many beers, right? He didn't take any responsibility for over-drinking during this interview. However, when he gave speeches at college events in the past, he bragged about over-drinking. You know, we were partying, I'm obviously paraphrasing, I don't have his exact speech in front of me.

But I remember he recalled this one time, and I believe it was when he was in college, where he and his buddies were on a bus, and then they finally got to the location that they were trying to get to, and they all kind of like fell out of the bus because they had been drinking. so much. So in other instances, he'll admit to partying and over drinking. But in this goody, two shoes interview, he's presenting himself as someone who was just like constantly studying, going to Sunday school every Sunday or going to church every Sunday, and just looking out for his friends, and that's it.

Anna, if you had the whole speech in front of you, you still wouldn't have the whole speech in front of you. Because as we showed on TYT investigates in a speech he gave a couple of years ago, he said the famous phrase, what happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep, but somebody took that out of the transcript. Yes. So again, we're hoping that a Democratic senator asked, did you take that out of the transcript? And if you did, why did you take it out of the transcript before any allegations came out?

So make sure you check out t.y.t.com slash investigates to see that story. So during Brett Kavanaugh's interview with Fox News, one of the things that he really wanted to drive home was that he needs an opportunity to be heard, which is fascinating because usually it is the victims of sexual assault who feel like their voices haven't been heard. But nonetheless, here's Kavanaugh talking about how he just wants people to treat him fairly. I want a fair process where I can defend my integrity and all I'm asking for his fairness and that I'd be heard in this process.

All I'm asking for is a fair process where I can be heard. Again, again, just asking for a fair process where I can be heard and I can defend my integrity. I would say fair process, let me be heard, fair process hear from both sides and listen to me. I just want a fair process where I can be heard. You don't have any thoughts on where this is coming from? I just want a fair process where I can be heard, defend my integrity,

defend the integrity of my family. Again, I'm just asking for a fair process where I can be heard and defend my integrity and defend my family's integrity. We're looking for a fair process where I can be heard and defend my integrity. You don't want to talk about where you think this is coming from. I just want an opportunity of fair process where I can. I don't defend my integrity. Okay, we did not repeat any of those.

He said every single one of those. So gee, I wonder if it was rehearsed, I can't quite tell. But there's something greatly ironic there. I just want a fair process where I could be heard. Well, good news for you, you're in the middle of a national interview. You can be heard right now. Right. So she's asking your questions.

Are you gonna do the same thing in the hearings where you don't answer the questions? And that's an incredibly friendly interviewer from Fox News. If you can't answer her questions and you're going to go with the rehearsed answers your lawyer gave you, then what are we doing here? And what do you mean fair process where you can be heard? You've been heard over and over and over again, and you will be heard again on Thursday. Well, who's shutting you up? Actually, I disagree with you, Jank, because I do think that he's being treated unfairly, okay?

And it's because of the way Senate Republicans have been behaving, specifically those on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Brett Kavanaugh absolutely deserves a fair process. And the only way that we will get to the truth is an FBI investigation. Not a criminal investigation, as I've said a billion times, I'm specifically calling for a background investigation, which is what the FBI did in the Anita Hill Clarence Thomas hearings, okay? To get to the bottom of the truth, is there anything they can find in his background, given this new information that can get to the heart of the matter, that can get to the bottom

of the truth and figure out what's really going on, right? 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-B-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called power

long bendy twizzlers candy keeps the fun going keep the fun going 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. No, that's a great point.

And he keeps saying that he wants to get to the bottom of it. There is a good way to get to the bottom of it. bottom of it. That's the FBI. And look, and you have to understand that would be stacked totally in his favor. Why do I say that? Because the FBI is biased? No, no, no, no.

In this case, I don't think they're biased towards the Republicans, which would be the charge here if you were saying that. No, I'm saying they're likely to find it inconclusive because it was 35, 36 years ago. So if you have the FBI look into it, very likely they'll either come back with, you know, If he's right, they'll come back with, there's no other witnesses. The only other witness mentioned is the one that Dr. Blasey mentioned, Mark Judge, who is a friend of Kavanaugh and backs him. So it might clear him in that sense.

They wouldn't say guilty or not guilty in an FBI background check, but they would say there are no other witnesses. That'd be a huge win for him. The other thing that they could do is come back and likely say inconclusive. And then he can say, come on, you're going to deny me over inconclusive? I guess the one thing he's afraid of is the percentage chances they come back with. witnesses, many other witnesses, or many other women. So he says he wants a fair hearing, but meanwhile, he's like, let's hurry up and vote. That's exactly right. And Senate Republicans

have been clear in that as soon as this testimony happens, as soon as this hearing happens, they want to rush a vote as soon as possible. They have no interest in hearing what the accuser, possibly accusers, if Deborah Ramirez is included, have to say about any of these cases. Now, let's go to Kavanaugh mentioning all the people who back him. Listen to the people who've known me best through my whole life. The women who've known me since high school, the 65 who overnight signed a letter from high school saying I always treated them with dignity and respect. You know, I was good friends with them and we remain good friends. That's how 65 people on a moment's notice, 65 women, listen to the women who've

known me my whole life, a letter from friends I knew in high school, produced overnight, 65 women who knew me in high school. Listen to the people have known me throughout my life, the men and women, the women have known me throughout my life. The women I knew in college and the men I knew in college says it's inconceivable that I could have done such a thing. The women who knew me when I was 14 years old. For the last seven years, I've been coaching girls basketball. Ask the moms. So, 63 women who have signed that letter because two of those women have since withdrawn their names.

In fact, one of those women appeared in the Judicial Crisis Network ad that we had shown you when the story first broke. But those women, Luisa, Gary, and Dino Ewig have decided to withdraw their names because of probably all the developments that have happened since they agreed to sign the letter supporting Kavanaugh. Yeah, and they mentioned, look, there's no way of knowing that the Ramirez story didn't happen. So I don't want to be part of a letter that says, that seems to indicate that these things didn't happen when there's no way we can know.

And so that's a super fair response. They're not saying Kavanaugh did it. They're just saying, we also don't want to say Ramirez is lying or Blasey's lying because we don't know that. But I think the most important part of that is that it was a woman in the ad. I mean, the corporate pact that is supporting him, Judicial Crisis Network, I don't know who funds them, but they have millions upon millions of dollars that they are spending to back Kavanaugh, and they picked a woman who they apparently thought, this is the perfect

person out of all those people to represent Kavanaugh. Now she's backed out and going, I don't know about that. Yeah, in fact, I want to bring that judicial crisis network ad back to give you a sense of how aggressively she supported him at first, and now again, she's withdrawing that support, because she says, I don't know, I wasn't there, and I don't want to be associated with people that are just outright denying that these things happened. So, Louisa Gary is her name. Again, she appeared in the Judicial Crisis Network ad in support of Brett Kavanaugh.

The Judicial Crisis Network is essentially a group of right-wing conservatives who specifically want to make sure that the Supreme Court is stacked with conservative Supreme Court justices. Let's take a look at their ad. Friends with Brett Kavanaugh for 35 years. I've never thought about doing a TV commercial. I'm not involved in politics, I'm a teacher, I'm a coach. I believe that we need to have bright, curious, open-minded, thoughtful, empathetic people

who are judges. And I trust that Brett is that person. Oops. So whenever you see an ad glossy ad like that, you should wonder where it came from. So these guys are gonna spend at least $5 million back in Kavanaugh. You guys know anybody who's got $5 million's lying around who's going to give to things like, no, no, no, no. It is very, very wealthy people who have an interest in having Kavanaugh on the bench.

A lot of times Republicans can't find people to real people to put in the ads and they'll put in actors. In this case, they get a real person and oops, and now she's backed out going, I don't know, okay, so that's not good. Now look, at the risk of nitpicking a little bit, when he says, Hey, I coach girls' sports and you could ask their moms, dude, it's a low bar, right? I mean, okay, you didn't molest any of the girls or their moms when you were their coach. Yeah, can I-

I know, but we're like, I get it, he's trying to- No, but, okay, I'm going to explain why that's an insanely weak defense, okay? Because look, all of us have different characteristics depending on who we're dealing with, right? And so we're not all innocent, right? I mean, we're not all engaging in possibly criminal activity, but I'll give you an example. So when I'm with my friends, like I'm a high school student or a college student with that. When I'm with my friends, I behave a certain way, right?

I let loose, so I might drink or I might partake in other things that I wouldn't want adults knowing about. But then when I'm around my friend's parents, I'm not like, woo, spring break, I don't do that, right? So for someone to say, go ask my friend's parents, they think very highly of me. Of course they do because you make sure to edit your behavior when you're around those people. I mean, so it's a great point. And people always like, who's the real, you know, fill in the blank?

Howard Stern, the guy on air or not on air, et cetera. There is no real anyone. You're 100% right. You act completely different next to your parents than you would next to your friends. And so yeah, if you were going nuts while coaching little girls, that would be. be really weird and deeply problematic. Right. But I know he's just trying to thrash about, trying to make any defense for himself.

So look, in the post game, I'll tell you guys embarrassing stories about me in high school, not high school, junior high, and in fifth grade where I told two terrible lies. And it's still kind of haunts me to this day, and it's weird like that he can't just be human for a second and say, man, the stuff I did in high school was, I feel really bad about Because we were kids and we were knuckleheads and we were trying to brag to each other. Just be a human for a second. And what's super ironic is that the Republican Party, and I'm specifically talking about voters, found Trump so appealing because of how real he seems, right?

How authentic he is when he speaks off the cuff and how he doesn't follow the typical political script when he's communicating. But then with Brett Kavanaugh, he is the definition of traditional politics in the way he carries and conducts himself. And it doesn't really seem to matter with Trump's base. They're still very supportive of Kavanaugh. Yeah, and by the way, if you want to hear those outrageous stories of my youth, t-y-t.com slash join to become a member and get all of our shows, including the post game.

I don't know if they're outrageous, but I still feel bad about them. But unlike Kavanaugh, I'm not a robot, and I can talk to you about it. Awesome. All right, so we gotta take a break. When we come back, Trump's latest reaction to these accusations against Kavanaugh, and And also some shadiness coming from Republican senators in regard to this upcoming hearing on Thursday. All right, back on the Young Turks.

Let me read you guys a couple of comments and then a fun announcement for you guys. Okay, Lazarus writes in, if Kavanaugh is such a great person, he could demand an investigation easily. Every single person defending him should be demanding an FBI investigation. This is from YouTube's super chat, let me give you one more from there. Campbell writes in, Kevin O's not on trial, he's on a job interview, don't need guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, let the FBI do the eye, investigation is right in their name. Totally agree.

Yeah, and so it's a great point that that is often overlooked in the media, which is that nobody's looking to put him in jail. He's applying for one of the most prestigious jobs in the country, arguably one of the top 10, definitely one of the top 20, right? So nobody's owed that job and this is this is what you get to get a thorough interview president has to go through basically a two-year interview somehow we still got Trump It's amazing it is amazing but that's what that's how it goes if you're applying for those positions Okay, quick comment on that any of us who apply for any average job like let's say minimum wage job

Would probably get denied if someone came forward with allegations like this. Oh, are you kidding me a corporation would be so nervous, you'd be gone, gone immediately. Okay, Dr. Pepper O'Doom says, Mark Judge said in an interview that he doesn't remember any of the stuff going on with girls, girls, plural. There are definitely more victims from their high school days. I don't know, but we do have a story about his high school days that really, to me, struck a chord and not a good one.

And Avanotti says, basically tomorrow he's going to come out with another woman. So we'll see, we'll see how that goes. Okay, so I want to tell you guys something really important. Today is National Voters Registration Day. Okay, and we only have about 41 days left before the election, and I don't know a midterm that was more important to vote in, and I don't normally say that. I've said on this show a hundred times, they always say this is the most important election of our lifetimes, but it depends, sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

And in terms of midterms, this is it. This is the most important one by a landslide. So you gotta go out there and vote. And I love what Voto Latino is doing. So they're a great group. If you don't know about them, part of their mission statement is to engage, educate, and empower Latinos to be agents of change. And to build a stronger and more inclusive democracy makes sense.

They have a great president's CEO, Maria Theresa Kumar, who I've done a number of events with, and Rosario Dawson was a co-founder. So what they want to do is have a voter registration drive, but make it into a fun challenge. So they've got an app that they're announcing now called Voter Pal, and it's pure voter registration app. And what it asks you to do is if you haven't registered, definitely do so. And it's super easy to do it on the app. It takes about two minutes, and this is the part that got me. Just take a picture of your driver's license.

And that does like 90% of it. I'm like, oh, even I could do that. Okay, luckily, I'm already registered. But if you are, they say, that's okay, that's where the challenge comes into play. Try to get three of your friends who are not registered to register through this app. Voter Palau takes two minutes, super, super easy. And I think that that's a really great idea. I mean, there's a lot of goofy challenges.

Sometimes for good causes, sometimes for mediocre causes. But this one is for, in a lot of ways, because the government controls so many things in our lives, perhaps the most important. So record a, and if you want to do the sharing part, you record a short video, share your screen showing you registered three friends and challenge three more people to do the same. I think this is awesome, and it's a really smart idea. And even if, you know, you have no interest in participating in this particular effort, you know, I think that what they're trying to get across is so quick.

critical. And think about it in these terms, lawmakers, specifically right-wing lawmakers, have been fighting so aggressively to prevent you from voting. They don't want you to vote, right? And they've done that through voter ID laws throughout the country. They've done that in so many different ways. They've disenfranchised certain people that they know are likely to vote against them. So use this right, go out there, be politically active, and vote, register.

I love that they're doing this, and I really hope you guys take part. Yeah, so, and look, people get frustrated at Republicans, they get frustrated at Democrats. Either way, this is your time. This is your time to make a difference. So voter pal is the app and the organization putting together this effort is Voto Latino. Okay, let's go on with the news. All right. Recently, the New Yorker released information and details regarding the second accuser in the Brett Kavanaugh debacle.

Deborah Ramirez alleged that Kavanaugh had taken his pants down at a party and then thrust his hips toward her face, and she unfortunately touched him as she was pushing him away. Now, Trump decided to weigh in on these allegations, and as you can imagine, he didn't have very nice things to say. 36 years ago, nobody ever knew about it, nobody ever heard about it. And now a new charge comes up, and she said, well, my not nice thing. be him, and there were gaps, and she said she was totally inebriated, and she was all messed up. And she doesn't know with him, but it might have been him. Oh, gee, let's not make him

a Supreme Court judge because of that. So I knew that people, specifically people who were supportive of Kavanaugh, would really latch on to the fact that she had admitted to being drunk at the time that this happened. And that was one of the reasons why she didn't. come forward in the beginning. She talked about how embarrassing it was. She was embarrassed by the fact that she was drinking. She was worried that people would smear her for that. And so that's exactly the way that it's playing out now.

In the very beginning of his statement, he was actually talking about the first accuser, Dr. Blasey, and he said nobody has ever heard about it, which is, again, completely false. Back in 2012, when she went to couple therapy with her husband, she talked about the alleged sexual assault and then did so again later. And so to say no one knew about it is just an outright lie. So, of course, Trump couldn't help himself and was going to weigh in on this. And of course, he's going to come out aggressively against the woman. That's what he does every single time.

So, in fact, I'm surprised that it wasn't more vicious, but hold. Tick, tick, tick, right? Wait for that to come. So overall, the Ramirez situation, as I've said now many times, cuts two different ways. One is that her saying there's gaps in my recollection, and in the beginning I wasn't positive that was him. For me, if I'm a juror in this case, that makes me believe her a lot more, because who would admit that if they're trying to set them up?

So you can't have it, and that doesn't mean that she's right, I'll get to that in a second. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say it's a political hatchet job meant to smear him, and she says she's not sure that it was him in the beginning. Well, if it was a smear job that was to get him, she would have definitely said, oh, I know. I know for a fact, I never had any questions about it. It was definitely him. She doesn't say that at all.

She says, to be honest, I had trouble recollecting, but I'm now sure that it was him, okay? So you would never say that if it was a smear job. Never. That makes no sense, okay? Exactly. Yeah. So it can't be both. Now in term, but if I was on a jury, would I convict on that?

I'd say, look, she wasn't even positive in the beginning. So I probably, to be honest with you, would not convict on that. But as one of our viewers just pointed out while we're doing the show live, but it's not a trial. He's not gonna go to jail. That's not what this is about. He's applying for one of the most prestigious jobs in the country. And so if you had this kind of accusation and while you're trying to get a job at a company,

you probably wouldn't get the job. And so, and he's applying for a lifetime appointment. So it's a little bit of a different standard and make of that what you will. Arguably one of the most important jobs in the country, right? And so it is important to get to the bottom of the truth. And it seems as though there is little interest in getting an independent organization involved to do a real investigation to see if there is corroborating information, either clearing his name, Kavanaugh's name, or at least corroborating what these allegations are.

Now with that said, the testimony by the first accuser, Dr. Blasey, is set to take place on Thursday. Kavanaugh is also expected to testify during that hearing. Things could change, as you all know, the news cycle is rapidly evolving and changing. We'll see what happens. But with that said, it does seem as though Senate Republicans. have already made up their minds, and I'll give you a few examples. First, their Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In a speech on the Senate floor, Mitch McConnell promised a vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination

shortly after the hearing and cast the judge as a victim of the weaponization of unsubstantiated smears. So it's clear that he's made up his mind about it. But there are some Republicans who are speaking out in pretty fascinating ways, and Democrats are, you know, huddling together trying to figure out how to do. to take advantage of it. I'm just being honest. I mean, it's political on both sides.

So there's Senator Richard Durbin, and he's a Democrat, but he's frustrated because he had mentioned that, hey, Republicans are now thinking about bringing on a prosecutor to question Dr. Blasey, why? And what are the terms? What are the details? They're not being open and honest about it. So he said that he was frustrated by the lack of specifics. He has heard from his Republican colleagues.

Some of the frustration stems from a plan by Republicans to hire an outside counsel to pose questions to Christine Blasey Ford. And here's what he said specifically. There are still many unresolved issues. We don't know who this prosecutor is, if that's what she is. And we don't know the procedure in the committee, what the sequence will be. We don't know how long our questioning period is. It's all a mystery, right? And then he was asked what Republicans had told him about Thursday's hearing, and Durbin replied

dryly, the table and chair's situation has been resolved. So he's salty about the fact that they're bringing on a prosecutor. And I think that's important to mention because, remember, they don't want the FBI to get involved because they're like, this is not a criminal investigation. You know, he's not on trial. Stop treating him like he's on trial. Okay. But then you're bringing on a sex crimes prosecutor to question Dr. Blassey.

And her lawyer specified that they were not notified about it ahead of time. They're also being very hush-hush toward her lawyers about this. So there's an issue there. And then when it comes to Republicans, Senators Collins and Murkowski, they still seem on the fence about this and they think that it's important to have a fair hearing. But I don't really know how they're going to come out on this because it seems like they're wavering constantly. So Murkowski says, I'm sorry, Susan Collins says that she would like to see Deborah Ramirez speak under oath to the committee but has not specified when she would like to see that happen.

Seems like other Republicans are, you know, not wanting that to happen. And then also Lisa Murkowski says, if the allegations are true, then Ramirez needs to be willing to come forward with them just as Ford has been willing to come forward, albeit reluctantly and understandably so. And so in order for us to take them under consideration, she needs to take the next steps. But what I don't really understand about that framing is it doesn't appear that your Republican colleagues have asked for that. And it doesn't seem like they want that. I think it would be important for her to speak as well. Well, so Murkowski told reporters that she wants an FBI investigation.

So that's really important. So if she sticks to that and assists on it, then we're not going to have a vote soon because they need almost every vote. So we'll see if she really means that or not. That would be potentially monumentally important. Republicans can lose one vote in the overall Senate and still get it through of Pence votes to break the tie, but they can't lose two votes, so every one of them is precious. Now, when it comes back to the Republicans who are being unreasonable, my favorite of the

lot is Orrin Hatch, they asked him about Ramirez's allegations. He could have said what I said, which is, well, it's tough to say you didn't remember, but now you do, but he's like, no, they're phony. Okay, and so the reporter asked him, why, why do you think that? He says, quote, because I know it is, that's why. How do you know that? Were you at Yale at that party? How could you possibly know that?

In other words, I don't give a damn what the truth is. I just want to put Kavanaugh on the court because he's going to rule the way some of my voters that wanted that are anti-choice, but also my donors, my donors want Kavanaugh. So I don't give a damn what he did or didn't do to a woman earlier. Okay, so Orrin Hatch isn't seeking re-election, right? That's right. Okay, so I think it's important to bring that up because oftentimes, as was the case with someone like Mark Sanford, for instance, Mark Sanford all of a sudden cares a lot about what

tax cuts are going to do to the economy after he loses the primary. So now he's free to really speak his mind and be who he really is instead of, you know, appealing to his donors. On the other hand, with someone like Orrin Hatch, who's not seeking reelection, you see who he really is, which is a deplorable person. Yeah, yeah, if anything, he's actually leaned into the corruption even more now that he's retired, because he's been in Washington so long, it's who he is, it's in his bones. So now, last thing is the cowardice of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.

And I think that word is fair, because what they're going to do is, it looks like, based on what I just explained to you, they're going to hide behind. a woman. 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 TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans.

That's EX, P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash. STYT, check it out today. So they're gonna get a female prosecutor to try to grill Dr. Blasey. So grilling her already bad enough and she's, and her lawyer says that's disrespectful, I thought we were trying to air things out, not try to do cross-examination, et cetera. You could have a different opinion on that, I understand. But hiding behind someone else, by the way, if you don't get it, why they're doing that? They don't want to be on tape to be used on commercials later attacking this woman viciously.

But they do want to attack her viciously, so they're gonna hire a woman to go attack her and then turn around and go, it wasn't me, it wasn't me. I didn't have the moral courage to ask the questions. By the way, is that normal or not normal? Totally unnormal. Right. Okay, the Democrats are gonna ask their own questions and the Republicans in every other instance that I have ever seen in covering politics for a long time.

They always ask their own questions. They never bring in somebody. They don't call the soft paw in from the bull pit to ask the questions. You only do that if you're trying to hit the person super hard but not be blamed for it. So if I were a Democrat, a Democratic senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would respond to this by also hiring a prosecutor to, because if you're going to treat it like it's a trial, then let's treat it like it's a trial. Let's bring on a prosecutor on the other side to conduct the line of questioning toward

Kavanaugh. Why not? I got a guy who was pretty good at law enforcement. James Comey. But honestly, I don't even want Comey. I'm kidding. I wouldn't want any. But that would be hilarious just to see what Trump's reaction was.

Like if he starts coming out of the tunnel, oh no, here comes Comey, he's got a chair. That would be pretty epic. Just to see Trump's reaction, he'd lose his mind. But look, by the way, one last part of it is that all 11 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are men. So they've got one woman to hide 11 guys behind. So if I'm a Democrat, I want to ask the questions. If you're a Republican and you had any kind of courage, you would want to ask the questions

to arrive at the truth and not hide behind anybody. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, some pretty nasty stuff from Kavanaugh's yearbook, we'll tell you that story and more. That's the story that actually really got me. Now I think he's a terrible guy. Whether that affects this proceedings is a different question, but we'll show you why. So we'll be right back.

We hope you're enjoying this free clip from The Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t yt.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. All right, back on a young turks. I'll read some tweets here, hashtag TYT live during the show to talk to us. Temple of the Hut says, is there any way to remove a sitting Supreme Court judge? So shouldn't the hiring standard be the highest possible?

So we've talked about this before. You can't impeach a Supreme Court justice, but it is inordinately difficult. So it would be unprecedented to be able to do that, at least in our lifetimes. And so should it be the highest standard? Yes. But oftentimes what happens is when someone has put up, they don't perceive it from the lens of, man, you know, this is such a hard process, you're not likely to make it through. We'll probably have to go through a couple people before you get to one.

They perceive it as, oh, it's so embarrassing if he doesn't make it on. Oh, I feel so bad for him. No, no, no, let's just confirm him. What? That's not how it's supposed to work. And obviously the Republicans didn't feel that bad when they wouldn't even listen to Merrick Garland. So now two more from Twitter. Mommy Bot says, to any Russians out there, I dare you to release the Kavanaugh documents, emails, text,

and it wouldn't hurt you if you threw in Trump's tax returns. Thanks, America. I like how it's signed America. And Screet Gill writes in, I don't understand any women that doesn't vote every time. We had to fight for 45 plus years and many died and were beaten and starved for us to get the privilege to vote. We need to vote in every election. Here, here, my favorite tweet, that's excellent. I totally agree.

All those people didn't fight for your rights to vote, whether you're African American or a woman or gay or even non-propertyed so that you don't exercise your right to vote. Okay, apparently we have breaking news. We have breaking news, yes. So let's do it. The Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation the day after the hearing featuring his first accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. And so yeah, it'll take place on Friday. And that's according to a notice that Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa sent out.

And so this is honestly expected. It was pretty clear based on some of the comments coming from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that they wanted to vote shortly after the hearing. But this is really shortly after. Literally the day after. No, no, this is them saying, we don't give a damn, we're moving on. And we don't want to hear from a third woman or a fourth woman because it endangers the likelihood that he is going to get on the court or that any conservative is going to get on the court.

So are they treating this fairly to see, to really hear Dr. Blasey out? Nope. Come on, what are they going to hear Dr. Blasey and be like, oh, you know what? That was compelling. We all change our minds. Yes, I'm glad we're voting tomorrow. We're all going to do a 180 immediately. No, if you were treating it seriously, you would take time to pause, consider it, maybe talk

to other people, think about, hey, how do we deliberate on this? Should we have Ramirez in, who is the other accuser, et cetera? No, a Friday vote means we have already made. up our mind and we're done with this. So a few things to address, first off, it remains unclear whether or not Deborah Ramirez will be involved in any hearing. Right now it seems as though she's not going to be involved in the hearing that's planned on Thursday.

No hearing has been scheduled for Deborah Ramirez, but she and her attorneys are adamant that an FBI investigation should take place, and I completely agree with them on that. If I were accused of wrongdoing, I would also want the FBI to get involved if I truly do believe that I was innocent. Also, another thing to consider is that there is a possible twisty twist, and that twisty twist twist should take place at some point tomorrow. Michael Avenotti, the lawyer for Stormy Daniels says that he has been in touch with a third woman, a third accuser.

We of course don't know the details of those accusations, but he says that we will know what those accusations are soon. So it looks like there's gonna be madness on Thursday. The Republicans don't even have the courage to ask the questions themselves. They're apparently going to bring in a woman to do it, because all 11 of them are men. There might be curveballs coming tomorrow, God knows if they get asked about. How will the Democrats react now knowing that the vote will 100% be rushed through? And so we're gonna cover it live.

We're gonna cover every minute of those hearings at t.t.com slash live. We'll have our different hosts. I will start the proceedings at 10 on the morning Eastern, and we will have other co-host coming in and doing live analysis as we watch the hearings together. Also on YouTube.com slash t-y-t. You could watch it in either place, and so don't miss the Thursday hearings. They will likely be historic, given the gravity of the situation. And then finally, I think that this is a bad idea politically for the Republicans.

I know that they're not overly concerned about my opinion on that. And perhaps maybe I shouldn't even give them advice. But Rush Limbaugh is giving them advice, and of course the wrong one, he says if they don't rush Kavanaugh through, they'll be hell to pay in the midterm elections. Trump retweeted that. Now, of course, Trump is an unclehead because you're not supposed to worry. about the politics of this if you're pretending to care about the women and you're pretending to care about the issue itself and the person themselves instead of worrying about the midterm

elections. But Trump, as usual, not bright enough to realize you're not supposed to retweet that. So, but yeah, I mean, look, Trump has been on the record in various cases. I'm not even talking about Kavanaugh, but through his presidency, even before his presidency, he's been pretty vicious to women, and he's been pretty clear that his ego and his political motivations are much more important to him than the safety and well-being of women. So that doesn't surprise me at all, but I do agree that he's really miscalculating what this could do to the Republicans politically. Oh, my God, if Obama had said, oh, I just want to rush the Supreme Court justice

through because of our political chances of the Democratic Party, people think, oh, my God, I can't believe that. This is supposed to be a nonpartisan process. How dare you've besmirge to office? But we're used to the madness with Trump. But finally, what I was going to tell the Republicans is, look, guys, you, if, especially if another woman comes out tomorrow and you guys go, three women, yeah, we heard him for a second, don't care, we didn't, you know, and we attacked her during the hearings, and we used a woman

and we hid behind her to do it, the prosecutor of the thing you're bringing in, and don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care what happened to the women at all, don't care if he's guilty, I'm going to put him on the Supreme Court. It's going to look terrible. You're already down by 25 points among women voters. How low can you go? Can you go to 35? Because it is going to be a slap right across their face, saying we don't care about you.

We're going to give this guy a lifetime appointment. Is anyone think right now that the Republican Party, the overwhelming majority of them, haven't already made up their mind? So, yes, there's a question about Murkowski and Collins. Maybe flake, right? But there's no question about over 90% of the Republicans. They're like, no, no, no, we're done with this, done. I mean, they say it.

Lizzie Graham says, I'm not questioning or I'm going to have somebody else to do it, but I think this is all outrageous and I know which way I'm going to vote. Orrin Hess says all of it is phony, I know which way I'm going to vote. So they're going to say, basically, we don't care if he sexually assaulted women. Either way, we're putting them on the court, that is a horrible, horrible message. At least be more politically savvy, take a little bit more time so that you could say, hey, we gave people a fair hearing, but today's Republican Party is not interested in fair hearings. No, I mean, at least a weekend, at least.

I know, I know. They can't even wait a weekend, it's amazing. All right. Well, we have one more Kavanaugh story, and then we'll move on to other things. This one's important. Well, all of them are. The New York Times broke a story regarding a woman by the name of Renate Schroeder. She actually went to high school with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

And she also happened to be one of the women who signed a letter vouching for Kavanaugh and his character. So she's been very supportive of him until she found out what Kavanaugh was referencing in his personal page in the high school yearbook. So the word Renate appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School's 1983 year book on individuals' pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Judge Kavanaugh, who were described as Renate alumni. It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, again, the woman who had supported Kavanaugh in that letter,

who was also then a student at a nearby Catholic girls' school. So mentions of Renate were part of the football players. unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests. So anyone who used that label in the yearbook was essentially signaling to everyone that they had essentially slept with her. Or at least hooked up with her in some way. Yeah. So one student from the school who's familiar with all this says, I can't express how disgusted

I am with them then and now. That's Sean Hagan. He's a former Georgetown prep student. Also, it was reported that Kavanaugh's personal page, in addition to the Renate reference, talks about the drinking, 100 kegs or bust. And I'm only bringing, look, I don't care about the drinking. The only reason why I'm bringing that up is because it is relevant, given the interview he just gave to Fox News, where he said, you know, that he was this good boy who just went

to Sunday, church every Sunday, and who just focused on his studies and worked really hard. And he made it seem as though some of the other students might have had one too many beers, but he didn't take responsibility for his own drinking. Okay, so there's that. Also, Renate Schroeder Dolphin joined those 64 women who said that they knew Judge Kavanaugh during their high school years and they signed a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And here's a direct quote from Renate Schroeder Dolphin herself.

She says, I learned about these yearbook pages only if you're not. few days ago. I don't know what Renate alumnus actually means. I can't begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17 year old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful, and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment. So she left it at that. But I mean, it gives you a sense of the way that they spoke about and treated women at the time. So let me give the one and only caveat. before I rip into him, that it does not necessarily mean that he did the sexual assault on Dr. Blasey.

Now, what does it mean? It means he was a terrible guy back then. So no story has affected me as much as this one. Now it's kind of a weird thing to say, given that the gravity of the other stories are so much worse. But on those stories, we have said throughout, look, there's a fair debate as to the recollections from 35, 36 years ago, and especially with the Ramirez's allegation where she wasn't sure, et cetera, right?

And so if it's true, they're much worse. But some degree of questions remained about that. This is super clear and gives you an insight into the kind of people that they were. And so they had a PR guy, Jim McCarthy, issue of statement, saying the Renate references were, quote, intended to allude to innocent dates or dancing. partners. No, it wasn't. I was in high school. We all were. You don't say you're a Renate alumni because you wanted to say, oh my God, I had a crush on her. That's not what football players who are known for doing 100 kegs or bust say, okay? In fact, there's another great quote

here if I can find it. Yeah, I have it. I have that quote. So it's Graphic 32. And it's a former student who knows Kavanaugh well. His name is William Fishburn. And he says, those guys weren't big on crushes, I think they felt that if a girl didn't want to date them, then they must be gay, meaning the women or the girls, I'm serious. So I knew those kind of guys, and they're the worst. So they would, I mean, look, they're terrible in two different directions. One, you hook up with a girl, and I get it, you want to brag to your buddies. Everybody understand that?

It's not the right thing. You're going to put it into a yearbook, and you're going to say that 14 of us hooked up with her, knowing that that might get back to her, God damn it, don't you have any conscience? And then apparently, a lot of them, of course, did not hook up with her. In fact, in this case, this woman says, I never even kissed them. I don't know where he got that from. So apparently he wanted to go along with the guys and he wanted to pretend that he was a tough guy, so he writes he's a Renate alumni.

He didn't even do anything with her. Like, why are you shaming women who had the bad judgment to hook up with you in the first place. Yeah. Right? That drives me nuts. And then to even make up one because you're so pathetic, you couldn't hook up, but you wanted to shame a woman that you couldn't hook up with anyway, God damn it, man, that pisses me

off. It's always pissed me off. Right. And it's, by the way, this is not as many women who are watching this right now. They know that this is not an isolated case, this is not unique. Any woman has gone through an experience where if they sleep with someone and that person ends up being a bad guy, he'll go around and paint you as a whore, whatever it is. And then if you refuse to sleep with that person, they'll also slander you as either a prude or just

make up that they did sleep with you when you really didn't. That's a common thing. And I want to reiterate, and it is important, this doesn't mean that he is guilty of any wrongdoing, right? Doesn't mean, this doesn't confirm any of the accusations. But I do think that it paints a picture of who he really was, because his public image, or at least the public image that he's putting out there right now, does conflict considerably with some of the evidence that's out there. And one other thing I want to bring up, look, the FBI allegedly did six comprehensive background checks into Kavanaugh. I mean, that's at least what the Senate Republicans and Trump himself have said over and over again. There's already been an investigation.

They've already looked into their background. They didn't find anything. Why didn't they find this? I know that I would be curious if I saw that reference, like, what does that mean? Well, look, this is not a, look, I want to be clear. If this was just by itself, nobody's not getting confirmed to the Supreme Court justice because they were a jerk in high school and they wrote terribly mean things in their yearbook. But within the context of these stories, what we're trying to figure out is who's right, who's wrong. And one of the things I constantly questioned throughout.

all of this and you see me doing it on there is can a 17 year old be you know is that the same guy as a 53 year old that he is today no it's not okay no and I know it's not and of course many people change almost everybody changes in different degrees so I'm sure he wouldn't do this as a judge I hope oh on another hand some of his positions shame women on a national level on a macro level so but but a guy who does this was never a decent guy, and like, so could he become decent later? I guess. But I know I would have known that guy in high school and hated him. And so you know those guys, you know every

one of those guys. And before the jury wasn't in on his character, at least back then. Right. Now the jury's at least definitely in on his character back then, which is he was a total and utter jerk who didn't mind humiliating and embarrassing people. so that his bros could think that a little more highly of him, and he can get a notch in his belt for the accomplishment of humiliating other women. Right. I just want to quickly disagree with you slightly, because I do think there are certain things, like everyone grows, I don't think that who you were in high school is indicative of who

you are now, but there are exceptions. And so the exception that I make is if he is found guilty, if there's some way of proving that he did attempt to rape someone, that goes beyond, you know, character for me, right? Because I think if you were willing to do that at any point in your life, that says something about you, right? And we were all, you know, immature, juvenile, whatever, when we were in high school. And we all mature, we all grow up. So I don't want to necessarily hold this whole yearbook thing against him.

But I think it's important to bring it up because, again, it conflicts with the image that he's trying to put out there at the moment. No, and I don't want anybody to get what I'm saying wrong. The jury's out on whether someone can change that dramatically, and I know I've changed a lot in my life, so I wouldn't want to prejudge people on that. What I'm saying, as I just said a couple of seconds ago, is jury's in on who he was back then. And look, I'm sure I did a lot of things when I was younger that was jerkish. but this deeply humiliating someone, I mean, I hope to God, that's not in my character.

And there's a kind of person, like- You're the kind of guy, like you've told stories about this in post-game shows. Like, you were the kind of guy who would literally get into physical fights with students that would pick on the powerless. Yeah, but I like to fight, et cetera. But, you know, this at least tells you, he doesn't mind her. hurting the feelings of someone else very significantly. It's not an issue for him back then.

So if you take that as some evidence of other ways that he might want to hurt doesn't mind hurting other people's feelings or doesn't care about other people's feelings, it's some evidence of that. But to me, at least overwhelmingly it's evidence of his character back then and it ain't good. And it's certainly not the choir boy picture he's trying to paint on Fox News. All right, we gotta take a break when we come back. We will have a special guest. Trayvon Free will join us.

And we will, of course, talk about some of Trump's embarrassing moments at these UN meetings. Yeah, I mean, the whole world literally laughed at him. And we have Bill Cosby, too. We'll be right 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. is Shane Huger, and I'll see you soon.