The Young Turks - Leave Britney Alone

Episode Date: July 16, 2021

Twitter was outraged after hearing “despicable” dispatcher handle Richard Sherman 911 call: “Could have gotten” him “murdered.” Britney Spears able to hire her own attorney in a key win, accuses her father of “conservatorship abuse” in court. Matt Gaetz attends #FreeBritney rally outside her conservatorship hearing, calls out Jamie Spears. Democratic tensions surface as House incumbents plan a defense against far-left primary challengers. Campaign disclosures show Senate Dems in ExxonMobil expose received almost $333,000. Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in the White House. Update: full video of a woman falsely accusing a Black man of stealing her son’s phone: she is now under investigation by her employer. MIT predicted in 1972 that society would collapse this century – new research shows we’re on schedule. Americans’ confidence in Major U.S. institutions dips. 66% of Southern Republicans are for secession according to a new poll. 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. You know, I'm going to be able to be. All right, welcome the Young Turks. Jake Ugar and Akisperin with you guys. Lots of absolutely amazing stories in today's show.

But out of all of them, probably the one that has been most animated is in the middle of the show where the Washington Post just goes absolutely over the top in their bias against progressives. It's one of the most absurd articles I've ever seen. It's just, they're comical at this point. All right, so you'll get to see my rage on that later. All right, Anna, let's start. We've got a lot of news.

All right, let's begin with a story that might not be strictly political, but I think it's an important story to start the show with. So, NFL star Richard Sherman, was recently arrested in Washington State this week as he's basically now facing charges of burglary, malicious mischief, and also domestic violence. Now, before you make any thought or opinion about the domestic violence accusation or charge, just hold off until you get the full context of this story. So the arrest took place after he was allegedly intoxicated and was threatening, according to his wife, to kill himself.

So she panics and she calls 911. We now have audio of that 911 call, which we're gonna share with you in just a moment. And I think that the dispatcher in that case was just absolutely awful. But I want to give you the context of the story and what was reported about the arrest before we get to that 911 call.

So Sherman was ultimately arrested and received a minor ankle laceration from a canine unit. He was then denied bail after being booked into Seattle Correctional Facility. He is currently at that facility because in the state of Washington, if you are charged with domestic violence, they deny you bail. So they have denied him bail. Go ahead, Jank. Yeah, I just want to clarify for people what the story is about and what it's not about. The 9-11 tape is outrageous, as you're going to hear in a second.

But in the beginning, I was worried that they're framing this in a way that's weirdly seemed to be against Richard Sherman without enough facts being in. But now a lot of the facts are in, and that is not the case. So for example, if you're curious about burglary, as I was, I mean, he's very wealthy, he doesn't need to steal anything, of course. That's of course not the technical definition. Burglary is entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime, especially theft, but not necessarily theft. And he had damaged the door in his in-law's house. And that's

why he's charged with burglary. I think that the potential DUI and hit and run is much more serious. So the crimes are real. Of course, you got to give him a fair hearing. And no one was hurt. And his family continues to emphasize that. But the real outrage is in how 9-11 handled a call. 911 handled a call. Okay. So it's important to know the timeline of events. So at 126 a.m. Wednesday, the patrol received a 911 call from a construction worker. So this is after Richard Sherman had left his home where his wife and her uncles are at. So 911 gets a call from a construction worker who reported that a possibly impaired driver, in this case Richard Sherman, had driven into a closed construction zone on eastbound highway 520 and struck

a concrete barrier. So he crashes the car. He appears to to be intoxicated and then he decides to leave the scene of the accident right which is a serious offense now after that happens around 149 redmond police officers responded to a 911 call of a burglary in progress and found Sherman outside a residence in the at this area the redmond police chief says he confirmed the house belongs to Sherman's wife's parents which is why Sherman was arrested on investigation of a domestic violence-related burglary charge. So in, by the way, subsequent calls by his wife, she said that Sherman may have been going to her parents' house in Redmond and confirmed that she called ahead to tell them.

So when she called 911, obviously she's concerned because he's intoxicated, he's allegedly threatening to commit suicide. She's concerned about his safety, he's about to get into the car, she's doing everything she can to stop him from doing that and then she later calls the dispatcher again to let the individual know that he appears to be on his way to her parents' house. So that's the context. With that said, we now have the 911 call to share with you and it gives you even more context, more information about what occurred that night. Let's begin with the first clip that shows you just how combative this 911 dispatcher was.

911, what are you reporting? I need officers to my house now. My husband is drunk and blue dirt to kill himself. Stop. Stop. What's the address? Are there any weapons? Stop. We took, no, there's no gun. I'm saying there are no weapons, ma'am. There are no weapons.

You need to stop interrupting me so I can get the information I need to get officers expedited. I need officers here now. What's he doing that you think he's going to harm himself? He's being aggressive. He has sent text message. I took the keys out there in your car. He's trying to leave now in the house. He's being aggressive.

He's wrestling with my uncle. He's threatening to kill himself. He has sent text messages to people saying he's going to hang himself. And he's saying that if the police show up, so please don't shoot is what I'm asking. So you can tell that his wife, Ashley Moss, is concerned about. how the police might respond to him, right? Because he's intoxicated according to her. He's belligerent, according to his wife.

And she's just trying to make it abundantly clear that she needs help, but the responding officer should not shoot him. She's very much concerned that that could happen. And so, you know, obviously you also hear the 911 dispatcher who keeps interrupting her as she's trying to explain what's going on. That combativeness is about to get even worse in other clips that we're about to show you But, Cenk, what do you think? Yeah, so look, she's got to get the address.

We understand that, and sometimes the 911 callers need to interrupt someone because they'll be rambling because they're obviously in a panic state at that point. They're calling for a reason, but they need to get the address. Beyond that, the attitude that the 911 dispatcher has is unbearable. This is a person who's in a very emotional state and is very worried about a person. they care about. And the 911 dispatcher seems enormously indifferent to it. And of course other issues, the one Anna brought up, which is that, you know, if you're black in America, when you call for police to help someone in your family, you have to warn them, please don't shoot us. And that's really sad. But you definitely have to give that warning. And you

have to explain to them that that person does not have a gun. And if you notice and you'll see it more, the dispatcher keeps asking about the weapon. Now understandably so, the police have to know, but God, if he had any kind of, if she had any kind of weapon, I don't know how that ends. Yeah, absolutely. So before I get to the next clip, I just want to note that there have been other stories that we've done, obviously not involving a public figure like Richard Sherman, where someone calls 911 on a black male usually and makes it clear that the person doesn't

appear to have a weapon. And the cops come in blazing anyway, right? So anyway, that warning is an important one to, or that information is important to give to the dispatcher, but just understand that that doesn't always end up getting to the police officers who show up to the scene. With that said, let's get to the next portion of the call. Is it been physical with anybody there? You said he's trying to fight your uncle? Yes, it has.

Yes, it has. How has it been physical? He just tried to fight him. Okay, trying to fight somebody and actually being critical, two different things. How has it been physical? So the dispatcher is asking, obviously, like, are there, is he being physical? Is he actually getting into a physical altercation with someone? And his wife makes it clear that he keeps, like, threatening to get physical with her uncles who are also in the house, right?

But he's drunk. And in the next clip, you're going to hear just how much he drank that night. But yeah, go ahead. No, no, let's just go to the next one. It's Richard Sherman. Like, ma'am, this is like a emergency. I need officers here now.

Hey, listen to me. I'm handling this. You need to stop telling me that. Okay, but what I'm not going to slow help down. He's not going to slow help down. When someone is panicking and the wife is, I think, justified in her panic, The dispatcher is supposed to remain calm. A dispatcher getting as combative as that woman did is not helping the situation.

So she could have calmly explained to Sherman's wife, listen, everything's going to be okay. I've already sent help. I just need you to fill me in on additional details. That's it. That's it. That's all you need to do. Instead, she's getting angry at the fact that Sherman's wife is experiencing completely normal emotions during a, honestly, a turbulent time, right? During a scary time. She's worried

that her husband is going to harm himself because he allegedly kept claiming that he was going to harm himself. Yeah, so the dispatcher being so flippant and making it about herself. You know, like, why are you interrupting me? And all the things that you heard her say is unbearable. But the other aspect of this, I'm actually going to hand off to one of our members because they have a personal experience with something like this. And I want you to hear it out, guys, because this is how some people in the country feel, whether you feel it or not. Okay, that's their perspective. So Ojam writes in, nothing is scary than having to call the cops about the mental health and safety of a black man in America. I'm black, and a friend of mine who's also black was staying with me while having a mental breakdown.

And he says he was suicidal and wandering into traffic. I couldn't find himself, I couldn't find him myself and his phone was disconnected. I felt like I had no options. I emphasized over and over to the dispatcher that he was unarmed and only a danger to himself. I still feel horrible about making that call and thank God the cops didn't find him. We have a problem in America guys when a significant percentage of the population is needs to call for help, but is worried about calling for help because they're worried that the help arrives and kills the person they're trying to help. That is a massive problem in this country.

And so- And what do you do? What do you do, right? I mean, see, this story is such an important one, if you ask me, right? Because when we talk about police brutality and the need to reform the criminal justice system and policing in America, understand that the very people who took to the streets last summer are, they want protection, right? They want to have someone, a government agency to call when they need help, when they need safety. But when you're a black family in America and you're used to this kind of aggressive treatment and brutality and excessive force, who do you call when you need help?

Who was she supposed to call? And to call a 911 dispatcher and receive that kind of treatment. In your moment of panic is just, these are supposed to be highly trained individuals who keep the situation calm. The dispatcher failed to do that, just failed to do that. And then the thoughts that go through Moss's mind, that's Sherman's wife, Moss's mind as she's making this call, urging them to not shoot him once they arrive to the scene, I mean, it's just, it shows you the difference that the public has, right?

I think the, I guess like the disconnect between some people in America, and I put myself in that group, right? Where I grew up thinking and feeling that I can call the cops whenever I need them and they'll show up and they'll protect me, right? But there's a huge portion of this country that does not feel that way. And partly because they get treated like this, and partly because we've seen it happen dozens of times, somebody calls for help, and the cops come, they see somebody having a mental health issue and they shoot them and kill them. That is not the right way to handle it.

Last thing is, guys, that's why the movement was called defund the police. And we've talked about how we think that's, I think that's bad framing because people misunderstand it. But the essence of the policy was correct, which is that some portion of policing should be done by mental health experts and not people with guns. So now, by the way, you might need people with guns to escort them, right, into situations like this. But a mental health professionals should lead in a context like this. And maybe then a lot of people in this country wouldn't be scared to death to call the cops. Yeah. We do have one more clip, and I think this is an important one, which is why I'm going to go to it. So let's listen. Does anybody need the ambulance

there? You said it was physical. No. We don't need the ambulance. Okay. And he does not have any weapons or access to weapons? No. No. Okay. And how much did he had to drink tonight? Two bottles. Two bottles of what? No. A vodka and menisique. Okay, hard alcohol. It's alcohol.

He's intoxicated. Okay, sir. I'm only going to talk to one person, so please put the phone now to talk to Ashley. Okay, is the sheriff on the way? Okay, listen, it's over on dispatch, okay? Talking to me is not going to slow anything else down. Unbearable. Yeah.

I'm happy that no one got seriously hurt. As I mentioned, he got a cut on his ankle as a result of the K-9 unit because once the cops arrived to his wife's parents' house, apparently at first they were able to talk to him, but then once he realized that they were going to arrest him, he started walking away. So they used the dog to restrain him. I mean, seeing a dog on a black man is not great either, let's be honest. But did he have to be arrested? In the beginning, I wasn't sure, but given the damage on the door and he appeared to be trying

to break in and but more importantly even the drunk driving yeah the information they had that it was his car it looks like that had not only done drunk driving but a hit and run not on a person nobody got hurt but hit and run is a very serious charge so i can understand why they needed to arrest them so we're just thrilled that no one got killed in this story yeah but but we should expect better from the people who were supposed to help us again other than the dog the cops didn't necessarily do anything wrong. The dispatcher did. Exactly, yeah. All right, well, let's take our first break. When we come back, we do have some good news to share. It appears that Britney Spears and her fight against her conservatorship has made some positive progress.

So we'll give you that story and more when we return. on the Britney Spears story. Britney Spears has secured a significant win in her conservatorship case. Now she has been under the control of her father and another conservator who manages her finances. And what she's been trying to do

is change the lawyer representing her. Earlier we shared that the lawyer who had previously been representing her stepped down after it became abundantly clear that Britney Spears found the entire arrangement, exploitative and wrong.

And so now Judge Brenda Perry, or I'm sorry, Judge Brenda Penny, will allow Britney's desired replacement attorney, former federal prosecutor, Matthew Rosengarde, to represent the singer moving forward. The 39-year-old entertainer has been unable to choose her own lawyer since the conservatorship's inception in 2008.

It's expected that Rosengarde's first order of business once officially instated will be trying to oust her father, Jamie Spears, who is unfortunately serving as Britney Spears' conservator. Now, in a phone interview with NBC, Britney Spears did not hold back in expressing what she plans to do moving forward in regard to her father and how she feels that he had abused and exploited her. She says, quote, I'm here to get rid of my dad and charge him with conservatorship abuse. The singer said she wants her father investigated and that, quote, this conservatorship has allowed my dad to ruin my life.

And she has, as you all probably know, incredibly negative feelings toward the entire arrangement saying that their goal was to make me feel crazy and I'm not, and that's not okay. Brittany called the conservatorship effing cruelty and said, quote, if this is not abuse, I don't know what is. And she also said, I thought they were trying to kill me. That's something that she purportedly told the court. And just to give you an idea of how controlling the situation is for her, she had testified in court that she wanted to have more children. And in order to do that, they would need to take her IUD out. but the conservatorship prevented her from being able to do that. She was denied the opportunity to have more children.

Also, she was made, according to her, to work 70 hours a week. And they also banned her from drinking coffee or eating fast food. I mean, just literally controlling every single part of her life. And she's fighting back and it looks like luckily she's making some progress. And apparently they lied to her. and in specific regards to the courts, and she thought that she could not get rid of the conservatorship. So she recently found out, isn't that amazing?

She's been under conservatorship for 13 years, and she recently found out, oh, she actually could petition to get rid of it. So apparently, if you believe her at all, and I do give it the evidence, you know, we don't know the other side of the story too well, but apparently they've been lying to her the whole time to try to keep her under control. Now look, here's some evidence that we can all see with our own eyes that's relevant. First of all, it's $60 million that they're controlling. So let's just keep it real on what the motivations here are. Exactly. And that's a huge part of the story. And I

would argue that when you're setting up a conservatorship arrangement involving someone who makes millions and millions of dollars because they're a popular performer, maybe keep an eye on that arrangement to ensure that there's no exploitation and abuse taking place. Yeah. And so, I mean, She talked about how this is similar to sexual abuse. I don't know about that. I do know that, I mean, it is abuse of some sort if she's anywhere near telling the truth, which again, it looks like she is. And so they would make her work seven days a week and control what she ate and didn't eat.

Why? Because she's a product to them. And the product needs to be skinny. And the product needs to work around the clock. I mean, it's just, it sounds grotesque. Now, to me, here's an obvious tell, okay? or those of us who don't know the whole inside story. Because of course there's some percent a chance that they're right and what if she has

mental health issues and we're just listening to her but we don't know the other side. But wait a minute, guys, if I'm the dad in a situation like that and my daughter is going through this incredibly traumatic thing and then she thinks that I'm at fault, what would I do? Well, I would say, oh my God, I can't believe she thinks that I feel heartbroken over that. So let's solve this in an easy way. I'll get I'll step out of the conservatorship I'll let my wife do it or if she's uncomfortable with my wife let's find someone that is trusted that can do it because I want to get my daughter help I don't want her to just be on our own

because I'm worried that she's a danger to herself but if people think it's that I'm trying to take advantage of her oh my god I don't want that at all I don't want people to think that about me but more importantly I don't want her to think that right of me or anyone else so let's figure out hey Rosa guard come let's go and let's find it someone that we can work with to put her in the right conservatorship. And by the way, the money doesn't have to go to me. I mean, that's, it's my daughter's money.

She's 39 years old. Why does it, the money doesn't have to go to me at all. It should go to her and it should be protected under a trust, etc. Now, has the dad done any of that? So then you begin to get a sense of who's right and who's wrong. Yeah, it's just, it's such a, when you really think about what she's been through, right? And I've been going back and watching interview. When she, before the conservatorship, before she had a mental breakdown, just going back

and watching press interviews and also the way the press talked about her. And she was a teenager when she skyrocketed to fame. So it starts off with everyone constantly judging her, right? Why are you dressed so provocatively? You're nothing but a slut. I mean, that's what the messaging was in the framing of the questions she was asked. In fact, in the documentary about this conservatorship, there was a clip of an interview that Diane Sawyer did with her.

And I mean, it was, it's amazing because I remember watching that interview at the time and thinking that it was a totally normal interview. And so there's a positive part of this where you see how much society has evolved in a way, right? Because that line of questioning and that framing is unacceptable today. But imagine being a teenager, being told by everyone that you're too slutty, you're to this, you're to that, right? At the same time, there's like a tremendous amount of pressure for you to bear a lot of skin,

to compete with other women who are doing the same business as you. I remember Christina Aguilera, you know, there was like a competition between the two of them, and then Christina Aguilera comes out and she wants to be dirty. Like, think about that culture. And then you have a mental breakdown because the whole world is constantly watching you, constantly evaluating you, and constantly judging you and you're a teenager. So she has a mental breakdown and is forced into this conservatorship and she just wants some freedom, she's nearly 40 years old.

And she's obviously been able to do quite a bit in her career, in her personal development and growth throughout this time, and to completely like ignore or discount that is ridiculous. She deserves her freedom. Yeah, so guys, think about it, the adults made her dress up when she was a young girl, as young as 15 when she's breaking out. She was younger than that when she first got started. But they make her dress up in a certain provocative way to sell more records to other gross adults, right? And then other adults come in and blame her for it.

And they say, why are you being provocative? Why, it's your fault. Meanwhile, it's this young girl who's like, what they, they told me to dress like that. And then a world of pressure, and by the way, is in the last video, I'll do it again here. For any part that we contributed to that, I feel gross and sick about it, right? And so because we followed the media coverage at the time and no excuses for it, okay? And so she has all that pressure. But then then the last part of it is, my God, she has a mental breakdown.

And then if she's right about all this, her own dad takes advantage of his daughter's mental breakdown to take her money and then to convince her that she's the crazy one and that that's why she has to live under his thumb and work seven days a week and never relent and not, she can't even control her own reproductive rights and do oppress her and keep telling her she's crazy so that he could milk her for more money. It's disgusting. Oh my God, if all of that is true, it's really he's one of the grossest men alive. Now, again, I just caution all the time because we haven't heard his side of the story yet. But the fact that he's not withdrawing, as Brittany's lawyers are asking, is obviously unreasonable and is a sign of who might be right and wrong. She wants her father in jail. She said that. Yeah.

That was a quote of hers. I mean, that is a strong statement about your own parent. So it's like one of the statements she made that honestly haunts me about the story. So but the good news is it seems like there's some positive development here. It seems as though she's now being represented by a lawyer that she wants representing her. So we'll fill you guys in as the story develops. Now there's a different angle to it that I want to talk about because Matt Gates has decided to be an opportunist and jump into this story, hoping, I would suspect, to deflect from the fact that he's facing his own serious criminal

investigations. So. It's a hearing in this case that does not result in freedom for Britney Spears and dissolution of this guardianship. It is a black eye on the American justice. That is Republican Representative Matt Gates, who is currently facing a federal investigation for allegedly paying for sex with a minor and paying for her travel across state lines, which is a serious federal crime. But he's decided to jump in into the discussion regarding the Britney Spears conservatorship. He was outside of the courtroom protesting her conservatorship, which obviously we agree that

she should be let loose from that conservatorship. We find it to be an arrangement that exploits her and is abusive. Now, I don't know why Matt Gates has decided to get involved in this. I would suspect, this is my speculation, that he's trying to deflect from his own legal woes. But let's hear the rest of his speech. There were grifters in this process that tried to act like they spoke for Britney, that they knew what she wanted. Well, now the whole world knows what Britney Spears wants, and it is the freedom and the liberty that should be offered to, Every single American, free Britney.

There's a lot that still divides us, but one thing we can all agree on is that Jamie Spears is a and make any more decisions regarding his daughter. She is nearly 40 years old. She should make her own decisions. But you know what? This case should open our eyes to the broader abuse that occurs in this system,

to the millions of Americans impacted. And if we come together, then we think that Britney's final act could be one of graciousness, could be one of joy, and could be one that can help liberate many other Americans. So again, I mean, if Matt Gates wasn't who Matt Gates is, then I mean, obviously I'm open to that messaging. However, Matt Gates and one other member of Congress who is accused of some other horrific

sexual covering up of sexual misconduct, decided to write a letter, right, urging Congress to do something about this. And the person I'm referring to is Jim Jordan. So Matt Gates and Jim Jordan write a letter to Congress, specifically to the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, essentially saying like we want you to do something about it. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this Britney Spears arrangement remain in dispute but involve questionable motives and legal tactics by her father and now conservator Jamie Spears.

Given the constitutional freedoms at stake and opaqueness of these agreements, It is incumbent upon the committee or our committee to convene a hearing to examine whether Americans are trapped unjustly in conservatorships. I also find it funny, Jank, that he mentioned Jamie Spears as a grifter, which to be sure there's some reason to believe that, you know, I'm not denying it, but Matt Gates is the guy who has decided to ride on Donald Trump's coat tails to political success, right? Even beyond that, Anna, I mean, here he is showing up at a press conference to get press attention, And he's thinking positive press attention and maybe get some of Britney Spears fans on his side

because he's under a lot of heat. And so this was, Britney Spears was a young woman who was taking advantage of Matt Gates is charged with having sex with an underage girl. He's not legally charged with it yet, but those are, that's the evidence that's come out in a different trial. And so we'll see if he gets legally charged with it and paying for it. So it is, it is a particularly despicable grift to go and think, oh, I can improve my image of being with underage girls if I go help or appear to be helping Britney Spears with her legitimate problems, right? So you don't see a lot of legitimate politicians going out there and doing that. And this is all political stunts.

And Jim Jordan, of course, also was a wrestling coach when another coach molested dozens of wrestlers boys in that case and well no he did it but whether Jim Jordan knew about it tons of people allege the the actual students and wrestles themselves alleged that Jim Jordan did know about it and helped to cover it up exactly so these two grifters extraordinaire coming in and pretending they care about Britney Spears is is rich indeed but again on the right wing there is no bounds to the hypocrisy these are you know it's the side of the political spectrum that believes in Q and on and then he

Here you have people who participated in some form of horrible sexual misconduct with young people and Q&N people think, no, that's fine. There are, as long as they say nice things about us, it's totally okay. Also, I mean, it's not lost on me that the Britney Spears story is a story about alleged exploitation. And here you have Matt Gates and Jim Jordan exploiting this story for political gain. It's just, it's who they are. They're shameless.

They're absolutely shameless, but we're not going to forget what they're accused of. They're serious charges, and you don't get to brush off the fact that you've been accused of exploiting people by pretending like you care about the exploitation of Britney Spears. That's my take. Yep. Yeah. All right, so the next story is going to be a doozy. Jank is probably going to go off, so I want to give you ample time to do that.

Let's take our break now, and when we come back, we'll talk about how corporate Democrats are fighting tooth and nail and raising a lot of money to defeat progressive challengers to Democratic incumbents. Stay tuned. All right, back on the Young Church, Chank and Anna with you guys. Now we've got an infuriating start for you. All right, well, corporate Democrats are preparing for the midterm elections. Yes, some of them are focusing on beating back Republican challengers, but corporate Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries are more focused on raising money to beat challengers, progressive challengers to corporate Democrat incumbents.

So this is a story published in the Washington Post. I'm gonna read you a few excerpts from it, where they write that Jeffries has formed a new fundraising effort, Team Blue Pack with Problem Solvers Caucus co-chair Josh Got and new Democrat coalition co-chair Terry A. Sewell, the group will focus on protecting incumbent members of Congress in safe, this is key, in safe Democratic seats that are not a focus of the House Democratic Campaign Committee. So these are areas that are very blue. You don't have to worry about a Republican coming in and taking that seat. But what corporate Democrats want to do is prevent a growing progressive caucus. And when I say progressive

caucus, I'm not talking about the current giant progressive caucus, which consists of all sorts of people who aren't actually progressives. They want to prevent individuals who are like members of the squad, like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Ilhan Omar or Rashida Talib, Jamal Bowman, you get the picture. So Team Blue has indicated that it will defend at least two incumbents, Representative Danny Davis from Illinois and Representative Carolyn Maloney from New York, two liberals who face fresh challenges from young women of color backed by the Justice Democrats. Now, both of the incumbents do take corporate PAC money. They take large dollar donations. And of course, part of being a Justice Democrat is that you reject

that legalized bribery. And so Kina Collins, is challenging Davis in Illinois' seventh congressional district, and here's what she has to say about it. I think it is completely backward, and I think it's hypocritical of Representative Jeffries, and quite frankly, Representative Davis, who have both challenged incumbents before. He bullied Cory Bush, and he bullied Morgan Harper, who ran in Ohio, and now he's trying to bully me and Rana. And so Jeffries, by the way, started his political career in New York by challenging an incumbent Democrat in the State Assembly. Just something you should know about. Now, who's Rana?

Well, she's the individual who is challenging Maloney. Rana Abdel Hamid, a Google employee who also works as a women's empowerment and self-defense activist, has been endorsed by the Justice Democrats to challenge Maloney. Abdelahamede's campaign announced on Monday that it raised $411,265 in the second quarter, which is more than Maloney has raised in the first three months of the year. And so this is a pretty aggressive effort. Jeffries claims that this PAC that's meant to protect these corporate Democrats has already raised $1.4 million. And it is concerning when you know you want to pursue this inside-out.

outside strategy, right? Ensure that we elect real progressives into Congress who have priorities like Medicare for all in the Green New Deal, and then apply pressure from the outside, which by the way, our wonderful members have done in the form of forcing a Senate floor vote on a $15 an hour minimum wage, and we thank our members for that.

If you wanna be part of efforts like that, you can join and become a member by clicking that join button if you're watching on YouTube or going to t.yt.com slash join. But Jank, I know you have a lot to say about this story, so take it away. So there's two different parts of this story. One is what these corporate Democrats are doing, and two is how the Washington Post covered it. And I'm particularly enraged about the Washington Post coverage. I'm going to get to that in one second. First, about the

people who are doing this. Now remember, the newspeg in this story is that Hakeem Jeffries and Josh Gottheimer was one of the most pro-corporate Democrats in the country, takes tons of money from payday lenders, make sure that he passes bill. to help them. And Senator, he's part of the so-called problem-solvers caucus. I believe that Exxon Mobil lobbyists pointed out how they used that particular caucus to kill any legislation that might hurt oil companies. And the Democratic Coalition co-chair Terry A. Sewell, that these folks are getting

together to form Team Blue Pack, a pack whose whole point is to attack progressives, to raise money. And I've asked the Washington Post if they're going to do follow-ups. And then Dave Weigle has said that publicly that they would. do a follow up to see where they raise that money from. I'll guarantee you right now it's going to be corporations, lobbyists, independent expenditures, etc. So the point of the story is these folks are getting together to attack progressives.

There's the Washington Post frame it that way? Not at all, okay? But one last quote before I get to them. Godheimer, but it's part of how they covered it. They quote Godheimer as saying, if you're spending all of your resources and time fighting with each other, instead of fighting the other team, that is a huge distraction. Now remember, there's a story about how he is forming a pack to fight other Democrats.

Now, did the Washington Post point that out? No, they just ran his quote uncritically. Oh, here's this beloved Godheimer trying to do unity by gathering up millions of dollars to attack fellow Democrats. And you can see how those far left people are the ones who are at fault and Godheimer is the victim. It's a preposterous quote, you have to at least, at the very least, point out, that does seem a bit hypocritical here as we're telling you a story about how

he's doing a pact to attack other Democrats. Okay, now let's get to the heart of the Washington Post problem. First of all, the headline. Democratic tensions surface as House and governments planned defense against far left primary challengers. What the hell kind of headline is that? Who are you to determine who's far left? You can call them progressives, that's what they are.

They're the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. You could call them left wing, but far left? Far left says these people are illegitimate and you should never vote for them. Far left implies that they are radicals and they're not credible. And you think the Washington Post doesn't know that? Of course they know that. The whole point of that headline is the smear progresses and is say, now remember everybody, Hakeem Jeffries and these beloved corporate Democrats are the victims and they're the good guys

and the others are far left. Now they're gonna pound that home throughout here by they explained. And by the way, this is a hilarious part of the story. Hakeem Jeffries has accused the original squad as well as the just Democrats of being white interlopers. There isn't a single white person in the original squad. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tili, Bionna Presley. They're all people of color. Cory Bush, Jamal Bowman, people of color, white interlopers?

No, Hakeem Jeffries is a clown. And by the way, another thing that the article does is it assumed. that Hakeem Jeffries is one of the legitimate contenders to become the next Speaker of the House. Now, he might be a contender, and that's fair to cover it in the context of others. But no, this makes it seem like he is legitimate and credible. He is a good Democrat who's going to be the next speaker. And poor guy's just starting up a pack, a corporate pack, to make sure he attacks other Democrats. How outrageous is the far left?

But it gets worse and worse. The Washington Post kind of editorializes in the middle of the story about how the Democrats have to quote, avoid the fate of Republicans who repeatedly found themselves too divided along ideological lines to pass legislation when they had the majority. Now they don't say that in the context of the pact that started to attack fellow Democrats. They say it in the context of can you believe that Justice Democrats are doing primaries of other Democrats. Almost all of these Democrats got in office by challenging another Democrat in a primary, right? But now that they're the incumbents, the Washington Post is on their side.

because they have to serve the powerful. They've made a joke and a mockery of journalism in this country. And then they get into thawning praise of Hakeem Jeffries. They say, this is hilarious. He has cast himself as a leader who can bridge the Democratic donor community and the party's activist base. But wait a minute, he can frame himself that way, but then you should point out the absurdity of that.

The activist base despises Hakeem Jeffries. Activist in what way? In what way is Hakeem Jeffrey's an active? I've seen him be an activist and advocate for himself. I mean, he's been eyeing a leadership position. He's been eyeing the, I mean, he's fourth in line for House Speaker, according to how they pay their dues or whatever they do for House Speaker's. How much money they raise?

How much money they're, like that's, that's, how is he an activist? He's not an activist for the people, that's the point. He's an activist for himself and his corporate buddies in Congress. That's it. Anna, it's about to get way worse and hilarious. So since he has absolutely no support about the activist base, in fact, part of the point of this article is he's attacking the activist base. Yes.

He's starting to attack the activist base. But the Washington Post says he bridges a divide by burning the napalming the bridge, is that how he built it? So what is there evidence for him bridging the divide? They say at the end of Trump impeachment case where he was one of the Democrats who were putting on the case, he ended with a notorious BIG quote. Oh, I didn't know he was that activist. So edgy.

So edgy, what did he say, Jay? He said, if you don't know, now you know. Oh my God, he's so activist. Well, thank you, Washington Post. Notorious VIG? Wow, edgy. Yeah, well, look, Washington Post. I stand corrected.

I didn't know he was that connected to the activist base. Okay, I mean, it's a joke, and how do they end the story? Of course, with a quote from Third Way, which they never clarify, Is a corporate think tank meant to keep the Democratic Party under the thumb of corporations. Look, even if you don't want to frame it that way, everyone knows the entire point of Third Way is that they get corporate money and they try to do corporate influence of the Democratic Party. If you don't know that and you work in the Washington Post, you should retire immediately, right? But the editor gives them the last line without clarifying any of that. And they say, Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way, and they called it a moderate democratic thing thing.

So progressives are far left, which, by the way, if you look at the policy positions, we stand for the Democratic Party, according to the bowling, on almost every issue. There's a couple of outliers you can find out social issues, but on every economic issue, on most social issues. But we're the far left, even though we stand for about two-thirds to sometimes 80% of the Democratic Party, let alone the country, right? But the corporate guys are the moderates. They're so reasonable. So what are the reasonable people say? They say with Trumpian insurrectionists so close to power and our democracy, hanging in the balance. It's absolutely vital that the far left not weakened at our at risk incumbents and swing districts with divisive primaries.

This is not in swing districts. It's not in swing districts. The Washington Post lets Matt Bennett lie to their readers on purpose. And then he answers this when the Tea Party attacked vulnerable. Republicans. It costs them dearly. So that's the editor at the Washington Post saying, now remember, if you ever think about supporting a progressive, never do that. They're far left radicals that are hurting the Democratic Party. Why don't you just go work for them already, okay? This isn't journalism, this is propaganda. It is absolute trash.

It absolutely is property. You know, it's funny because you had mentioned it to me in a comment off air. You made your case. You're absolutely. right. And that final example of the third way quote to wrap up the article is just, it's wrong. I mean, you're allowing someone who clearly has a conflict of interest here and a giant bias to close out the article with a lie. Because again, these are not vulnerable Democrats. These are blue districts. And this is exactly, look, okay, so I'm going to give you a statement from a Jeffrey's spokesperson. Okay, so the Washington Post reaches reaches out to her. And here's what she had to say. It should come as no surprise that the chair of the House Democratic Caucus plans

to support the re-election of members of the House Democratic caucus who are working hard to enact President Biden's build back better agenda. Okay, let's stop right there. You guys, understand what this is really about. The only hope we have in finding members of Congress to fight on our behalf and ensure that we have important provisions in things like the infrastructure bill, for instance, is to elect people like the squad, right, members of the squad. What Jeffries and other corporate Democrats hate is that they have to debate, they have to negotiate, they have to deal with individuals in Congress who hold them accountable and force them to challenge what their corporate donors want. They don't want it. It's a thorn in

their side. That's what this is really about. That's all of this is about. They want to be able to provide all the wins for their corporate donors without having to deal with anyone within the Democratic caucus who challenges them, calls them out. And to be quite honest with you, I mean, we've had issues with members of the squad, right? And progressives in Congress in terms of fighting back and publicly speaking out against members of the Democratic Party who are clearly standing in the way of getting progressive policies accomplished. But they're the only ones that are fighting for us at all. And Jeffries and other corporate Democrats, they don't want that.

So Jank is absolutely right in that Jeffries is not the activist. He's the one who wants to stomp out the activists. Well, a sensible reason for the story is he's starting to pack to crush the activist base. But it was framed in the exact opposite way. Last thing, and you, by the way, if you saw the rest of that quote, of course, they call anyone who's a progressive extreme left, extreme left, okay, and they print that. And guys, you should know the context of, I know hundreds of reporters and editors, so I know how these stories are written.

You go and get an opposing quote here and there, so you say, hey, I was fair, right? But basically what you do is you get the quotes that you want to tell the story that you want. Should journalism be done that way? Absolutely not. Do they do it all the time? Yes. Is this a perfect example of it? Yes. The reason they end on the third way quote is so that the reporter and the editor can go. Now remember everybody, which side you're supposed to be on. You're not supposed to be on the far left extreme left side. You're supposed to be on the moderate side, which is the corporate side. And finally, this is really important. Now, when you see something like this, you know that if AOC and the others object to the so-called bipartisan infrastructure. structure bill. And they vote no. This is a warning sign to them. The Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media will come to bury you. They will call you extreme left for voting no on that corporate bill that would make sure that we hand over our bridges and our roads

to corporations and privatize them. And but if you dare vote no on that, you're hurting Biden's agenda and you're far left and you're an extremist. And poor Hakeem. who wanted to help his corporate friends. I mean, I didn't tell you that. I didn't tell you that. Why didn't you tell us about all of his corporate donors? Why haven't you ever told us about that? Because you're not journalists, you're propaganda for the establishment.

And so, and every one of those, we put pressure on those progressives in Congress. But to be fair to them, every one of them knows that if they ever dare oppose the establishment, it won't be other Democrats as much as it'll be the corporate media that viciously attacks them them and tells everyone that they are their aggressors and it is their fault and they're not good Democrats. They're good moderate corporate Democrats. Those beloved people, they just wanted to give everything to corporations and make sure you never got a higher minimum wage and make sure you never got health care. And you see how moderate they are? That's who the Washington Post is. Listen, progressives like Bernie Sanders cut into Jeff Bezos's profits and executives at Amazon's

profits by doing an incredibly successful pressure campaign that led to them paying their warehouse workers a $15 an hour minimum wage. The bitterness toward that knows no bounds, and you can see it reflected in some of the reporting. Yeah, but you know, Anna, to be fair and unfair, I mean, to be objective about it, the Washington Post was always like this before Bezos bought it too. And I don't know that Bezos sends any memos, but the thing is he doesn't have to send memos, right? He hires the top. They hire all the different layers. And it was like that before

Bezos came in. Because, and it's not just the Washington Post. The mainstream media loves the status quo. And they think the objective position is to defend what they call moderates. Some have called it a centrist bias. I think it's a corporate bias, an establishment bias. But whatever it is, it is, they view it as their job to say the current status quo that the the rest of us find deeply corrupt is wonderful and moderate and decent and should never be criticized. Think about the Kafkaesque absurdity of that. They're supposed to challenge the powerful. Instead, they've taken it as their mission in life to protect the powerful. This is the exact opposite of what good journalism is.

All right, that does it for our first hour. We're gonna take a brief break and when we come back, we're gonna show you exactly what the corporate Democrats are up to behind the scenes in terms of legalized bribery. It's a follow-up to that Exxon Mobile lobbyist story that we shared with you recently, and you don't want to miss it. So we'll see you in just a few minutes. 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 at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon. Thank you.