The Young Turks - Lindsey Graham's PATHETIC Attempt To Save Trump

Episode Date: October 26, 2019

Lindsey Graham is doing his best to save Trump, but it won't work. Cenk Uygur, Francesca Fiorentini, and John Iadarola, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off.

But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. hormone harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again.

Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. Hey guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five-star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. Drop it. Power, Power, Power, Power, Power Panel.

Oh, wow. All right. Thank you. John Iarolo. Francesca Fiorentini. Hey. Great to see you, Francesca. Good to see you.

All right. So, we got a big hour, as we always do. As we always do, we have a big show as we always do. A little twisty twist though, normally no conversation on the Friday show, meaning we never talk. No, the last half hour that we normally do Monday through Thursday is an interview with that we call the conversation. But we do have one today on Friday, and it's with Bill McKibbon.

So I think you guys gonna love that. What are you guys talking about? It's just, you know, Medicare for All, Pinterest boards. Yeah, oh totally, he loves that stuff. Oh, the watchman, it's exciting. Also that. Tick-tock. They copy that for me.

As soon as I saw that I was thinking about you, I was like, I don't think Jake is gonna like that. I'm gonna charge them. Anyways, seriously, we have a story about climate change in this hour. John almost always puts one in the Friday show, and every time he does, it breaks me out in our cold sweat, panic because the numbers are so bad, we're in so much trouble. It's honestly, it's way worse than I realized, and I thought it was pretty bad. So a combination of the story today and the McKibbitt interview you'll see, we will make you sufficiently panic.

Okay, but speaking of panic, Donald Trump should be panicking, that's what we're gonna start with. Why would he panic? He's got Lindsey Graham on his side. Oh, okay. And that's where we transition into this big story. Lindsey Graham wants to prove to Donald Trump that he's got his back, or his front, depends of what Trump wants.

But look, he's definitely in support of him, and he had this legal maneuver that he was going to do to try to show that this entire impeachment process is pretty pointless. Sure, you might impeach him in the House, but he wanted to get all of the Republicans on his side in the Senate to prove that this thing is gonna die there, so why even bother? On Thursday, he announced that he put forward a resolution condemning the House impeachment inquiry. By mid-afternoon, when he actually announced it, the resolution had been watered down to a plea for a different and more transparent process. Now, I want to give him a chance to explain sort of what he was thinking about. Here he is.

This resolution puts the Senate on record condemning the House for the future of the presidency. We cannot allow future presidents and this president to be impeached based on an inquiry in the House that's never been voted upon that does not allow the president to confront the witnesses against him, call witnesses on his behalf and cross-examine. examine people are accusing him of misdeeds. All I'm asking is give Donald Trump the same rights as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had when it comes to impeachment. And here's the point of the resolution. Any impeachment vote based on this process, to me, is illegitimate, is unconstitutional, and should be dismissed in the Senate without a trial. Yeah, well, that would be convenient because of course they don't want to have to go on the record in the trial. What's interesting there is that, again, this whole strategy is not about actually

trying to argue that Donald Trump hasn't broken any laws, that what he did was acceptable. It's all just the process is unfair, and look at their, they're having these depositions behind closed doors with Democrats and Republicans, that's sort of inconvenient, let's ignore that. And we just don't like that. The issue is that back in 1998, Lindsay Graham had a very different approach to how this process should be conducted back when it was a Democrat that was being impeached. Take a look.

I'm not here to tell you that Donald Trump's done nothing wrong. I'm not here to tell you anything other than that the way they're going about it is really dangerous for the country. The depositions, I think, will determine whether or not we go forward with hearings. I think it's a very smart thing to do is to depose these people and find out what they've got to say and not drag this thing out unnecessarily. So he was okay with it back in 1998. Now, I mean, the thing is, it's kind of pointless to even play this because obviously he's

been hypocritical on literally everything that he said back in the 90s. And it doesn't really seem to matter, but let's just be clear, Republicans were fine with the way things were conducted back then. They just don't happen to like it now. Funny thing about Lindsey Graham is there was a moment last week with the Syria stuff and the Kurds where it was like, oh, here it comes. Lindsay Graham was growing a little bit of a backbone and that was just like a wham-bam, thank you ma'am, done deal, sanctions on a turkey, sanctions off turkey, like, and we're back to where we were and everyone is just, you guys know the diamonds are. our girl's best friend music video or whatever with Marilyn Monroe. Come on. Of course I do.

Of course, Jenk does. Anyone with any real culture does John Ida-Rola. But like all Republicans are just like, they're just like rolling out every kind of red carpet and like handing out diamonds to Trump. Like whatever they can do here, please sit on me. Like I'm just reminded of that scene. I think that's Trump would be happy to be compared to Monroe. Well, that would be the most flattering.

glamorous. Yeah, that would, yes, that would be the best comparison he's ever gotten. Okay, so first let's dismiss the so-called substantive things, allegations, whatever, of the Republicans, and then I want to talk about a larger picture. So first of all, as you saw with your own eyes there, he thought secret depositions were great back when he was doing impeachment of Bill Clinton. Now he doesn't, as John pointed out. So dismiss it.

Dismiss it out of hand, the media should dismiss it out of hand. Okay, you're a liar, let's move on, okay, and then secondly, they say, well, Oh, my God, well, during the Clinton and Nixon things, they had a vote to begin the proceedings. Now, do you need it? No, in fact, a judge ruled today. You do not need a vote. It is not any part of the constitutional process. It wasn't in the Federalist papers.

It's not historical. It's not anything. Well, and Jane, what would the point be? Why are they saying that this is important other than a reason to discount it? What would be the purpose of the vote? Yeah, they're going to have to vote in the end. I mean, I think also, I think it behooves them. Republicans to slow roll this.

Like I've been very concerned. First of all, yay impeachment should have happened a while ago, so glad it is happening now. But I do think that Republican strategy is to slow roll it, focus on the process as it's always been. Whether it's the Mueller report, whether it's whoever is it leaking information, it's always shooting the messenger, it's always the problem of process rather than the actual crime that was committed. Yeah.

So look guys, the thing that I want to cut through here. is, it doesn't matter what the Republican charges are, because if, number one, some are just flat out massive hypocrisies, they don't care. They don't care about it being true. They don't care about it being consistent. And if they were sufficiently embarrassed by their positions, they just find new BS things to complain about. So what matters the most is not that it is the Republicans' efforts to muddy the water.

And then, okay, but there are two other factors here. So one is the Democratic Party. And unfortunately, they're really, really bad at this. So I was talking to somebody at breakfast today who is a really smart guy who follows the news but is not at all involved in politics. He said to me, totally unprompted, Jake, I don't understand, it seems like only the Republicans are making their points. And so he's not like a diehard progressive or anything like that.

He's just like, why is it that only the Republicans are making their points and I never hear the Democrats counter them? He's like, I happen to know that these points are not correct, but like, what's going on here? And that's the thing, the Democrats are so bad. So the Republicans rush to the media and go, oh my God, the closed door, oh, did we need a vote? And regular people aren't following if that's true or historical or consistent, et cetera.

They're just hearing the Republicans yelling. And then the third party involved is the media. And the media then goes on to, and we're partly guilty of doing it in this segment, of having a debate because they brought it up about a nonsense issue. What if they had said, you know what, this is an outrageous process, Donald Trump obviously cannot be prosecuted because he weighs more than 250 pounds. Everybody knows that. You know, Nixon was under 250 pounds and Clinton was 249, and everybody knows it, right?

And the media's like, all right, let's debate it. Well, we have to weigh him. Right. Is the moon made of cheese or is it not pro cheese, anti cheese? I mean, that's the thing is like the media, our problem is that we like to both sides. it. We want it to be open. We want the media to be accessible to people, but we have to keep restating the facts.

The facts here are that this is a closed door hearing, but it's not partisan, meaning there are Republicans behind those closed doors. They're not the Brooks brothers who stormed the hearings the other day, but there are Republicans in that hearings. The idea that it's secret is wrong. We have to keep on re-saying that over and over again. Yeah, and especially, and which Lindsey Graham acknowledged back in the 90s, this is This isn't the actual inquiry.

These are the initial depositions. They're talking to these people to decide, are they credible? Do they need to be involved in the actual thing, which will take place later on? I mean, we're way away from the actual trial, we're not even at the Judiciary Committee yet. This is just initial fact finding with some of these witnesses being done by both Democrats and Republicans. There's nothing controversial about that.

Following rules that Republicans themselves set up. Exactly. To begin- Which Judge Napolitano had to make clear yesterday. Right. Yeah. And so keep, I think there have been Democrats who are saying that. But for sure, they don't come out with the same fire, they don't come out. I mean, it's funny because when I was, I watched the like the House Republicans, you know,

storm the hearings. It reminded me the only time the Democrats had done something similar, which was for healthcare. Like compared, one is just to fawn and show how loyal you are to this criminal president and the other is for healthcare. But anyway, I'll just say that I think that Democrats don't often package their message in a way that has that fighting spirit. So last two things here on this topic. So I mentioned it earlier.

Today it just happened, Chief Judge Beryl Howell of U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said no, you do not need a vote to start impeachment inquiries. None of that is in any way required. So there's a judge with a lengthy opinion stating the facts of the case. So if the appeals court agrees with her, which they, unless they're stacked with Trump appointees, will certainly agree with her because she's right about the facts, she's right about the law. And she also said that the Democrats can get the grand jury testimony from the Mueller case. She said, you don't have to redo a two-year investigation.

And in fact, it would be unfair to the president if there is exculpatory information there that he does not have access to because it's being hidden away in a grand jury testimony. So, and the whole thing, Lindsey Graham says, well, he's not allowed to cross-examine who's witnesses. First of all, it's a political proceeding, not a legal proceeding, so it's not a normal criminal case, but second of all, that's not even true. The actual trials happen, happens in the Senate where they'll be able to cross-examine everyone to no end.

So this is just the beginning of the inquiry just done in the exact rules that the Republicans laid out, okay? So that's the facts of the case. But guys, if you're saying, all right, look, you're saying the Democrats are not very good at this and the media constantly debates everything 50-50, we know that, okay. So, Jen, what's your constructive critique for those parties? First of all, the media should be way more dismissive of things that are not remotely true and say that's illegitimate, if you have a legitimate point to make, let's go forward.

I know they don't have the courage to do that. But now to the Democratic Party, why don't you guys ever play offense? So that you're constantly barely, poorly playing defense against weird Republican charges. So if I'm the Democrats, I go out and I go on television and I go, look, are we going to be honest about what's happening here? The entire Republican Party is supporting a criminal president. It's not just about Trump, all of the Republicans are against rule of law. So anyone who votes with Trump is gonna say that violating four different laws, four different

felonies is totally okay. They're in favor of a criminal president because they're a criminal party. Okay, so what happens next? Then the media debates that. And then we're having a conversation about how criminal is the Republican party? It's not that hard, they just suck at it. Yeah. So actually this ties in an interesting way to what you were just saying.

I wanna circle back to Lindsey Graham because we laid out what he wanted to do, this show of loyalty. It didn't quite work out by Friday morning, only 44 of 53 Republicans that said I had signed on to his resolution attacking the impeachment inquiry. And so it was initially meant to show that he had this rock solid base of support. But instead it showed that there were some holes in that. And to sort of buttress that, the Daily Caller contacted all, that's where I go for good journalism, contacted all, and this, it doesn't really matter, contacted all 53 Republican Senate offices

earlier this week to ask if senators would rule out voting to remove Trump from office and received a variety of responses. Seven senators explicitly rejected impeachment in their statement. But what they did not find is that all of them were like, no, we definitely will support the president. There did seem to be a little bit of a gradient there. So this is a really important story because this gets to will they convict them in the Senate? Or is there enough of a threat of conviction in the Senate for Trump to resign in shame,

et cetera? So this is really bad news for Trump. Now look, we can't help but be fair. I think daily callers made up a number of stories. They're not a trustworthy source, but can they, do they have conservative sources? And in this case, they loved the president, and yet they went and asked 53 Republican senators. seven of them said I won't do impeachment. Right.

Okay, so obviously senators would convict after impeachment, but that is not a good sign for President Trump. President Trump would want the daily caller to reach out and get 50 out of the 53 senators going, oh, no way I'm gonna convict. That's not even, I'm not even willing to consider it. Lindsey Graham puts pressure on them, says, sign this, sign this, and they go, nope, I'm not going to do it. He waters it down to, oh, there's some procedural problems with how the Democrats are

proceeding, and only 44 out of 53 senators even signed that. They don't even agree there's procedural problems. They won't say yes to the watered down useless resolution that Lizzie Graham wound up with. That means they're all weighing things out. These are Republican senators, so they're thinking, am I gonna win, am I gonna lose, what's my poll numbers, what am I doing here? That means they have not decided Trump is in a world of trouble. Yeah.

I mean, back to something you said earlier, I think it's really, interesting, we're looking back on previous impeachments and looking at Clinton, for example. And this is sort of the beginning of when a super centrist, very pro-corporate, very moderate Democrat was piled on by the right and all kinds of, you know, conspiracy theories were created about the Clintons, et cetera, stuff that we've dealt with up until now even, right? And at that moment, I think you saw the Democrats were taken aback by like, well, here we've put up a very moderate centrist, you know, whatever, like criminal justice reform, welfare reform, NAF pro NAFTA president for you, and you're still tearing him down.

And instead of pivoting and being like, oh, we have to be more offensive, they pivoted and kind of rolled over. I mean, I was alive and around during those impeachment hearings, and I don't remember the Democrats making a strong case for the fact that we're talking about fallatio, like adultery, private people's lives, of which, of course, there's no comparison to the kinds of things that Trump has done in his personal life. But Democrats, we don't, we usually don't get on our moral high horse. And I think that we should, right?

Not just about, you know, adultery, but all of these other things. So I think you're seeing the withering end of that very bad strategy from the Democrats to sort of capitulate to the right wing. And now that the ball is in our court, I'm like, what are we, what are Democrats going to do? I just wanna say that I think progressives can't seed impeachment discussion only to people like Nancy Pelosi. Like I think just because we agree on her, with her on impeachment doesn't mean that more establishment centrist Democrats should control that narrative.

Because what happens? It's that we stop reiterating the facts, we start to play on the, well, hey, we followed the rules, guys. Oh, you don't like the rules? Oh no, okay, I guess we won't talk about it anymore, you know, or we won't keep on saying, you know, all of the crimes that have been committed. Do you know what I'm saying here? I know exactly what you're saying, Francesca.

The problem is you're too rational, and no one in Washington is going to listen to that. So I was just talking to people in Washington today, and so what you say makes perfect sense. Let's say I'm a congressman or a senator that's a Democrat right now. What do I care what Schumer Pelosi says? I'm going to come out on fire, and I'm going to attack, attack, right? But in the Washington culture, and I'm telling you, so I have sources inside Washington, I talk to other media inside Washington.

And so the, and so the culture is, oh no, Pelosi and Schiff are in charge, that's it. That's it. So everybody else go away. Otherwise, oh, you're ruining things by actually doing something positive, by fighting back. Don't do that, don't do that. wonderfully timid strategy we're executing. And if you go beyond that, you have no idea how much trouble you'll be in in the Democratic

caucus. Yeah, and while I think you're right that Democrats should be out in the media pushing the case against Trump, they should also, while we're relatively early on in the process, continue to push back against the Pelosi strategy of this extremely narrowly defined inquiry. I don't think it's necessarily too late to put pressure on her to expand it to some of literally just the crimes that we've brought up in this past segment. I disagree, like that's the one thing that I disagree on. I think some progressives think there should be a really broad impeachment inquiry.

I disagree. I think this is a perfect instance, a criminal instance, that I think people can get on board with, including as we just talked about a lot of Republicans, I think it was smart. What I'm saying is if it doesn't take, if the Senate, which we probably assume will not vote to impeach, we can't let the narrative of the crimes and take stock of all of the things, including maybe the broader stuff, but specifically this Ukrainian stuff, we can't let that fall by the wayside. At the same time that we can't let issues of income inequality and climate change and all the

other things fall by the wayside either. I guess I'm wondering if we can walk and chew gum, but as we go into 2020. Yeah, so let me say the last two things about that. One is on the issue of, look, for example, what we just did here, Pelosi and the Democratic caucus would find unacceptable, we had a slight disagreement about strategy, and we did it publicly. So John and I think that they should pursue them on at least four crimes and maybe the emoluments clause. Francesca says just two crimes, the two crimes involved in the Ukraine call, right?

So, but Democrats think that's unproductive. No, you want a national debate about whether Donald Trump created two crimes or committed two crimes or four crimes. It's a great debate. That's the debate you want. It looks amazing for Democrats if we just fully talk about all of the crimes. They were like, I don't know, what is the emoluments clause? Let's go over that again.

Yes, because if you bring it up, even if all Democrats don't agree with you, at least we're having a conversation and national conversation about the things that Trump has done wrong. Okay. And so that leads me to the last point, guys, all this is good and important and we're telling you the substance of what he did wrong and we've just said it a hundred times. But remember, the only thing that matters is not any of the facts, is not any of the law. The only thing that matters is Republican senator polling numbers in their home states. The ones that are up for election in 2020, if they start to drop into the low 40s and high

30s, and that's where McConnell is already, it's not even high 30s, these mid 30s, they're going to panic because they're gonna lose their own seats. For incumbents, if you're under 50%, that means you're in trouble. If you're bordering 40%, you're almost certainly gonna lose. And so that will determine whether they're going to convict Donald Trump or not. That's it. There is no conversation, any conversation that happens on TV and it happens all the time about well, will McConnell or Senator Isaacson from Georgia Act on principle, will he put country

above party? No, that is incredibly naive. No, the only question is, are they gonna lose or are they not gonna lose? If they think they're gonna lose their own seats, Trump is in trouble. And that's what this story says. Republican senators are in a best case scenario for Trump, are not at all sure if they're going to support him, because it might cost them their own seats. And if he loses them, it's game set and match.

With that, we should take a first break. All right, let's do it. When we come back, we, so now I said the Democrats should go on the offense. So what a Republican is done, you know, they've got on the offense at a massive scale. So we'll explain that. Not about impeachment. They're just counterstriking. So we'll explain it when we were.

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 powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what

you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it, the New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed

over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast and tap today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained, all at the same time. All right, back in the young church. Sorry, I forgot to look at your tweets, guys, but we got to go. So I'm going to give you guys a quick story. Okay. So it's coming to me and let's do this. So impeachment proceedings have begun. We've got the inquiry going on. And one of the The important committees involved is oversight. So obviously Elijah Cummings passed away and he was the head of the oversight committee. In fact, he's lying in state now, first black lawmaker that has ever lied in state in the capital.

And so they had his funeral today in Washington and it was very, very powerful. We're gonna talk more about it later in the show. But now there's a question about who the new head of the oversight committee is going to be. So there are a lot of people who are contending for it. of the senior Democrats, Carolyn Maloney, Gerald Connolly, and Jackie Spear and others are in contention for it. And I understand why, and they have seniority, those are the rules of the House. Now, if it was up to me, I'd go super progressive.

You know who else is on the Oversight Committee? Rashida Tilley. Now, there's no way the Democrats are gonna do that. Okay, so they would say, well, that's charged, and she's way too junior, and oh my God, the Republicans will criticize us, et cetera. So, yeah, now luckily, if you're, there's a perfect person on the committee who is both as qualified as you could possibly be in completely neutral to all the different competing factors here, okay?

If you were drawing up a movie and you put a 24 or 25 year constitutional law scholar on the committee that was a student of Lawrence Tribe from Harvard. that taught some of the other Congress people in Congress, who was beloved by Representative Cummings, who had appointed him to be the head of the subcommittee on civil rights, you'd say, ah, it's too much, come on, they have a guy like that on the committee, that's too perfect. They do! His name is Jamie Raskin. So, Jamie Raskin is progressive enough for the young progressives to back him.

But this isn't a left, right issue, this isn't a moderate progressive issue. He's a perfect middle ground also for all the folks who are competing for the actual chair position. He is not competing for the chair position. He would be acting chair during impeachment. He has the expertise, he has the qualifications for it, he's neutral to whoever is going to eventually be chair, he's on Democratic leadership already, and he's a bridge between the younger Democrats and the older Democrats.

It's nearly perfect. So we'll see what happens right now. But they say, well, Maloney's next in line, so she should be acting chair. But if you're being fair to Connolly Speer and the others, if she's acting chair, that gives her a massive advantage over the other senior Democrats. Whereas if you put the constitutional law scholar exactly when you need him as acting chair and temporary chair, that seems to check off every single box. Thumb war, that sounds like the only way to resolve it.

Just a democratic thumb war. Thumb war? Well, actually, the good thing about the idea of back you're asking is, it avoids your thumb war. Like if the senior Democrats want to have a thumb war later, they would want someone neutral who's the acting chair, not one of the competing people in the thumb war, right? And so, and they all get- I got to see their thumbs.

They have the weird thumbs, or do they have like a full, do you know I mean? Or you could go with Francesca's idea, you know, it could go either way. I don't think it's gonna happen because a thumb war is more aggressive than almost any elected Democrat would be willing to be. But two questions for you. One, why doesn't he want to actually become the chair? Is it just seniority, like he doesn't think he can? No, because that's why he's a good middle ground approach, because he's not a firebrand.

So he doesn't want to get into a middle of a political fight with senior members who have earned that spot. Now, I wouldn't handle it that way, I'd be like, oh my god, there's a fight, can't wait. But Congressman Raskin is, he's cerebral. Cummings used to call him the professor, okay? So he's not gonna get into a political battle. But, Cenk, do we need someone, sorry to interrupt you, do we need someone who's gonna be a little bit more, has more fight in them?

Or why do you think that someone who's more even keeled is better? Look, AOC's on the committee, Rokana's on the committee, Ayanna Presley, Rashida Tile, they're all on the committee. You know my inclination, but I'm in the progressive camp. And they're not gonna be like, oh, Jake made a good point. You know what, let's go with Rashida. Like, they would never do that, although I think they should. They could pick any one of those people who are huge fighters.

And I'm not saying- AOC has shown herself to be a really good, which great at research, great at questioning. I get it. Great staff, well-organized. I like how you guys are pushing me to go further left, okay, and I like it. But is it gonna be more like Mueller type where you're like, oh yeah, he's gonna be the hero and then he gets up there and he can't like get a full sense. No way, no way.

Raskin is incredibly smart, knows this material inside and out. And as a matter of optics for the Democrats, for when the Republicans are full of sound and fury, here you have a guy who literally wrote several books on the Constitution, okay, on issues just like this. If you wanted someone with the right optics and political heft, it's a bit of a no-brainer, right? Especially if I was the other members who were vying for that position, I'd be like, why is Maloney the acting chair?

Yeah, Raskin, the constitutional law scholar makes sense as the acting chair. And then we'll sort out who should be the actual chair later. Which to me reduces the chances of a fight rather than increasing the chances of a fight. Okay. I don't really have a dog in the fight, but I like Raskin, I think you do a good job. Yeah, so wonderfully smart guy, I think we're super lucky that he happens to be in the that committee in this particular spot and would certainly be able to shepherd the impeachment proceedings in a sane, reasonable way.

Yeah, so from sane and reasonable, why don't we move to Trump's DOJ plan? Yes, let's do it. Okay. Donald Trump for a long time has wanted to investigate the investigators, as you'll hear in just a second. He wants a more aggressive approach to those who dared to investigate his activities during the 2016 election. And so for a long time, he's been pushing this.

Other Republicans, elected Republicans have been pushing it, right wing media figures have. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, here is Donald Trump talking about what he would like to see happen. I try and sift out the fake news from the real news, but as you know, there's been a long term look at, look see, and it looks like it's becoming very serious from what I'm hearing, investigate the investigators. Whether it's Struck and Page, whether it's clapper, and whether it's Comey and all of these people, because terrible things went on for our country. And we have a great attorney general, highly prestigious man, a very honorable man, and they've been looking at it for a long time.

I can't tell you what's happening. I will tell you this. I think you're going to see a lot of really bad things. That right there. So as we're going to get into, he's getting his wish, and the DOJ is going to function is effectively, like his police force effectively. But what you heard right there, I think, is everything you need to know about how Donald Trump communicates and why the right wing likes him.

You say a lot of vague things. I'm hearing bad things, they're probably gonna find something really bad. He's really honorable, don't say anything specific about a bar. Say super vague things like that. Then give them a motto, investigate the investigators, because that way your base has something to tweet at people when they kick craft an actual argument of their own, and then imply that his political opponents have done something wrong even though he can't even articulate it. That was everything right there.

Well, you're making an interesting intellectual point. I, on the other hand, would like to talk about how I'm excited that one of his hand motions is back. So he's doing this one now, okay? He hadn't done that one in quite a while, and he's brought it back. Got my index. Yeah, okay. So watch, he's gonna do it in a second, and then I will actually make a substance of a point.

In fact, I'll start making it because he's going to take a couple of seconds to do that. Anyway, look guys, investigate the investigators is actually a really creepy, fascist thing to do. There it is. You see it? And he keeps doing it throughout this. He brings it back. He hasn't done that in a while, so I don't know if he's off his game.

His hands are hilarious, man. Other than tiny, all the hand motions. Oh, I was gonna say. Yeah, so big, okay. Anyway, seriously, on the substance. And this is what fascists do is they're doing a takeover. They go, oh, you want to do a rule of law? Why don't we arrest the cops?

Yeah. Right? And then we'll show them. There is no rule of law. Why don't we break into secret testimony and show who is testifying and break the rules, break the laws until there is no law and might makes right? And so this is basically saying if you ever want to hold Trump or the other Republicans accountable and you want to do rule of law and you think you're an FBI or your cops or wherever

you are and you want to treat them like any other citizen, we're going to come for you. Yeah. And so we're gonna punish you for being good investigators and we're gonna investigate the investigators. Remember earlier Donald Trump had said maybe cooperating with law enforcement should be illegal. Yeah. And that's the president of the United States said that. And don't be a rat.

Yeah, and also I think that the narratives around the deep state also play into that. Your base wants to believe that there's some secretive, ill-defined enemy lurking in the backgrounds, undercutting your duly elected president. And so you get to be an outsider to politics even while you are literally ruling the country with near unmatched power, like very few constraints on your power. You're still running against government there. That I think is a really important point because Republicans, even when they're winning, even when they're in the White House, always make the narrative about them being the victims,

They're being victimized, they're being framed. The Justice Department is against them. You run the Justice Department. You've got a lackey in there traveling to Italy, which is like, oh my God, what a coincidence. I just have to go to the best country on earth to follow up on this little Ukrainian thing. Yeah, no bias here. I like China, I guess. That's my other half.

But I just want to say, back to the deep state stuff, the narrative is attractive. came in at a point of, I think, historic mistrust in D.C. and in the CIA and the FBI. I think people on the left are also very enamored with the idea that, yeah, the FBI and the CIA, they can all, you know, go to hell. Like all, you know, and with due reason, right? We're talking about entities that have condoned torture and have overthrown democratically elected governments. But I think when you see these career diplomats who have been in the state, you know,

Department who have worked in Ukraine for decades, who are, I mean, I can't like, now putting themselves on the line to testify in front of Congress, right, about the things that they were asked to do by this overtly criminal president. I mean, I mean, these are guys who, they've been asked to lean on people in their, in the past, they've got certain agendas, sure, but like this went beyond the pale, you know, and this is my thing with this administration, it's like, there's a lot of ways to to get, you know, to do corruption, there's a lot of ways to white collar crime. There's a lot of ways to get your people in lobbying positions or whatever.

This is, this is egregious, you know, that's why Washington is so upset about your, they're like, whoa, we don't do it like this, you know, like we don't ask a foreign government to spy on, you know, a political rival. Yeah. Well, on July 18th, get excited. This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smirp my pants.

That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs. Only date is July 18th. Well, they are doing the investigating the investigators. It's been going on for some time. A couple of different investigations ongoing. And now we have a development with the New York Times reporting last night that John

Durham, the prosecutor tapped by Attorney General Bill Barr to assess the Russian investigation, is pursuing a criminal inquiry, which will allow him to subpoena witnesses and convene a grand jury if necessary. So this had already been going on. The development is that it's a criminal inquiry, which what means one of two things, at least. One, that they found something that means they need to elevate and ramp up the investigation, or two, that they want you to think that they found something, and so they elevate the investigation. And they will drag out for as long as is necessary this investigation that nobody really understands what it's actually looking into or what the purpose of it is, but it seems

like they're finding something. Trump keeps saying big things are coming down the river. You can trust in queue, it's coming. It's the same thing effectively, like a different flavor of the same thing, but it is going on, it's going on. Well, so the criminal investigation is important because they asked people to come in and talk to this prosecutor, and they're like, no, you're on an insane fishing expedition, we're not going to come voluntarily talk to you so you could try to, you know, trap us or whatever.

Right, so they're, but when you do a criminal investigation, you can subpoena them. So then they must talk to you, unless, of course, they're in the Trump administration. Because on the one hand, they're saying, you know, FBI agents better come in here, we have a subpoena. Congress says, we have a subpoena, we'd like Trump administration officials to come into like, subpoenas don't matter, we're not going to listen to your stupid subpoenas. Subpoenas are irrelevant. You've got to draw for my subpoena. Which one is it? It's subpoena envy.

Very good. But anyway, we want some more details on this. So NBC News reported over the weekend that Barr had expanded the review, which again has already been established, and that Durham is now interested in interviewing, quote, a number of current and former intelligence officials involved in examining Russia's effort to interfere in the last presidential election, including former CIA director John Brennan and former director of national intelligence James Clapper. Justice Department officials told NBC News that Durham had found something significant but didn't

specify what, because if they did, then you wouldn't be able to put in whatever you imagine it is and they need to leave room for conspiracy theorists to Fill it in with their worst nightmares. Go subreddit, go. Exactly. So Durham's review had been closely overseen by Barr. Barr ordered this review of the Russia probe back in May, even though the DOJ Inspector General was already pursuing a similar inquiry.

And a lot of right wing hopes were resting on that investigation then. But then Trump gets Barr, who was brought in simply because he was willing to pledge 100% loyalty to Donald Trump. And so even though they already had one, he decided to set up one that he would be able to the closely monitor to make sure that it is as corrupt and facilitated in the pursuit of helping out Donald Trump as possible. Yeah. Yeah.

So if Donald Trump survives impeachment and he wins reelection, they will round up almost all of his political opponents. So he's already told you he'll work with foreign governments to investigate his political opponents. He'll investigate and this is a criminal inquiry, not into his government. political opponents, but into law enforcement that dared to investigate whether he broke the law. He'll lock up all these guys. He's already sidelined them.

I mean, he's already like either fired or forced resignations or put them in some basement on some random case, you know, like, that's already happening within the intelligence community. And with other Republicans that don't tell the line, he calls them human scum. He calls the media the enemy of the people. If you think he's not gonna arrest people in the media, people in law enforcement, and his political opponents, if he wins re-election, you don't understand anything. You are dangerously naive.

He will do all of those things. If he survives impeachment and he is a Republican candidate, you can call it an exaggeration. I don't care what you think of it. I don't care what the mainstream media does in their neutrality. In the years of Mussolini, I guarantee you this press would have been neutral. Well, I mean, Mussolini says this, and his opponents say that, I don't know, let's give it a shot and see what happens, right? How about them trains?

Yeah, and so I will tell you this, our entire democracy and our former government will be on the line if Trump is the nominee in this election. If he wins, I don't think America survives, as it is as a constitutional republic. So I don't think that's remotely an exaggeration. And when he starts locking people up, you'll go, well, I mean, nobody could have seen this. that coming, we just told you, it's right here, they've already started criminal investigations into people who are perfectly innocent, who had the temerity to investigate Donald Trump. They're already going after the cops.

Yeah. Okay, why don't we take our second break? All right. Yes, when we come back, Anna kicked some ass on CNN, so that's always fun. We'll do that when we read. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data, but that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from

the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash T-Y-T, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash

T-YT. Check it out today. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free segment. All right guys, back on a young Turks, a lot of things to tell you in a quick period of time. Politicon's this weekend, Anna Kasparian, is going to be there on Saturday having a conversation

with Tommy Laren. So that's a 2 p.m. Inside Independence Hall, wherever that is. It's in Nashville, go check that out. But Anna's not done yet. On Sunday, she's gonna go on CNN with Frederica Whitfield. You can check that out at 3 o'clock Eastern. So it's great to watch these live and then tweet about it, please do that. By the way, if you do miss any of them like Anna's appearance yesterday, we're about to show

you the important parts. But any of our appearances on CNN, you can go to t.yt.com and go under special coverage. You don't have to be a member, special coverage and watch it. And sometimes I'm on air when it happens, that's how I watch it. And Anna kicked ass last night, you'll see that in a second. Blue Lizard Guts says, I still can't believe it's the year 2019. And Cummings was the first black lawmaker to be in this alliance state of the capital. That's so unacceptable.

It's sadly on brand for USA. Gabby Marita says the Republican Party is more from the party of limited government to the party of limited law. That's a good point, as usual. That boy's hell on Turliss on Twitter says, remember all the amazing things Trump's people found in Hawaii? That's to John's point from the earlier segment. We're finding amazing things.

That's what he said about Obama's birth certificate and the investigators he sent to Hawaii. And finally, Coolburn says Representative Raskin is the perfect choice to head oversight dams during the impeachment hearings agreed. Right back at you. All right, John. Okay, let's have a little bit of fun and support Anna. Well, she's not here, but maybe watching. We'll see.

Anna Kasparian was on Chris Cuomo last night, and she took issue with some of the way another guest on the show was presenting the impeachment inquiry, some of the right-wing talking points that he was spreading. Here's how she responded to that. If I were the Democrats, I would want this to be held open and very fair, very transparent, because they've got a lot of convincing to do it. I am so tired of Democrats constantly caving to the type of framing that Republicans demand. Finally, for the first time you have Democrats standing their ground, they have absolutely no

obligation to hold that vote. I believe that the way that they're conducting this investigation is not only legal, it's the correct way to do it. And the reason why they're not holding open hearings is number one. in 2015, John Boehner pushed for and successfully accomplished a law that indicated that they could do these closed hearings. And more importantly, we don't need a circus right now. What we need is to get down to the facts and figure out exactly what's going on.

There was a lot of good moments in that. My two favorite parts were quote, I'm going to go, true. It's the opposite Trump. What does he, what does Trump do? Fake, lies. What was the one, wrong, wrong, that's what it was during the debates. Wrong, wrong. True.

Wrong. No, Anna, you're the puppet. Okay, so my second favorite part was she popped that guy's knee out. She's like, oh god damn, yeah, man. And she's like, waiter, receipts please. Well, and also one of the points that he makes, this is this general thing whenever you watch interviews like this, when he's like, if I were the Democrats, I would just discount everything that comes after that. because the last thing he wants to do is give the Democrats advice. Mega McCain always tries to play that.

Like, I think what they should do is this. They should jump through these hoops that I will lay out. I will never support them even if they did that. But it would be convenient for me as a right winger if they were to do what I say. And my favorite is when they give us electoral strategy. I think you should pick the weakest Democrat, the one that no one really likes and is pulling at 2%. Yeah.

That's why Trump is tweeting at Joe Biden. Like, I hope to see you in the general, sir. Like, all right, well, now we know who we probably shouldn't elect. Yeah, and also, and so the reason that he goes into, here's what I would do if I were the Democrats, is because he doesn't want to talk too much about what's being done right now, because although he's there to imply that there's something nefarious about it, he knows, as she knows, that these were rules that were set up under John Boehner. The process is going forth in pretty much the same way it was back in the 90s.

They're doing some initial fact-finding interviews, of which we have, let's be honest. We have a lot of information about what's going on in those rooms regardless. The Republicans have even more because they have dozens of their members who are serving on those committees and they're there for all of those interviews. They want you to forget that, but it's true. So you can't actually take issue with the process on specific substantive grounds. You can only talk vaguely in circles around the process. And really fast on that, one of the things that I loved about this is we know that the

Matt Gates, the brovasion of the rooms was a big stunt, that's all it was. AOC pointed out one particular way that it was really a pathetic stunt. So Ryan J. Riley had reported that Fox News reports that some Republican members, quote, asked to be arrested during that. And so she said there have been many aspects of the GOP's little flash mob that have relied on mountains of entitlement and privilege. But them asking the police to be arrested is just, well, let's just say my community would find it hard to understand why anyone would ask to be arrested.

But we know why they want to, so that then he could come out and say, I was thrown in the slammer for just trying to find out what's going on. Yeah. Yeah, it's wonderfully sad. So I decided next time I'm debating a Republican on TV, I'm going to flip it on them. So, you know, if I were to Democrats, I would just surrender, they usually say, along the lines of John, what John was saying, I'm going to flip it on. If I was the Republicans, I wouldn't support a criminal president. But I guess you went in a different direction.

So I find that to be a little bit more egregious than some obscure process thing that you're complaining. about that isn't even true, as Anna pointed out. Just ask him if they're scared. Just that. Like, are you scared? But say it like that. If I were Republican, I'd be scared. Okay, we got to get you on Cuomo now.

But there is more of Anna's appearance. Here she is. Chris, just what? Jeff Tubin, okay, our colleague on the show pre-this, that Anderson's show said, you know, most of this stuff is hearsay based on top of hearsay. Okay? You know what? This is not a trial.

It's not a legal process. Chris, you're a lawyer. Would you go, would you, would you, would you take hearsay upon hearsay? Come on. When you have members of Trump's administration testifying against him, you have a U.S. ambassador, Bill Taylor, under Trump's administration, testifying that there was quid pro quo. Right. You have it's here say.

It's not hearsay based on hearsay in every case. You know that, Dave. We do quid pro quo all the time. I mean, you have members of his own administration saying it. And then you have Donald Trump constantly. intimidating individuals who are coming forward. Chris, you know that you would not bring a case based on hearsay. You would not proceed forward with a case based on your say. Hold on. How is it hearsay if Bill Taylor? Are text messages hearsay? Yeah. Text messages are not hearsay. Bill Taylor and

Gordon Sondland hearsay. And it's 100% right there. And I found most of what Cuomo said there to be incredibly frustrating. But look, the Bill Taylor stuff is great and it's not hearsay at all. It's Literally, he said, it's not hearsay, but more importantly than that, Donald Trump put out the transcript of the call and everything you need to know to be extremely concerned about whether crimes were committed was in there. It wasn't hearsay, it was he printed it out and presented it to us. Yeah, I just like how Anna is doing a bit of a better job than Chris is at that moment. Well, she's the one debating, to be fair to Chris.

No, Chris is doing a great job. I'm not saying, thank you for having TYAT people on, love it, love it, love it, love it. Do more on that. But also the other dude, I don't know who he is, but he's like, Chris, you're better than this, when Anna's talking, like as if you say, oh, you're better than having Anna Casparian on and almost a little sexist, like this woman tell you what you're doing. I didn't like that at all. Francesca, I totally agree with you.

I got the same vibe. Like, I won't even deign to talk to this woman, right? Yeah. And what is Chris, you're better than this? mean, it means you should shut her up, right? Like why are you allowing her to say things that are demonstrably true, right? So that hearsay talking point is from months ago when they are the whistleblower, it's just hearsay.

Now some of the things that the whistleblower had was direct evidence and some of it was hearsay. But to John's point, we're not talking about that anymore because we already have a rough transcript and even that shows that he did do it. And then we have the text that Anna mentioned, none of this is hearsay. And then we have Taylor come in as a witness and say they, it was quid, poor quote. That is not hearsay. Add everything Rudy Giuliani said on Fox News. That's not hearsay, none of it is hearsay.

He's gone to an old talking point, and he's basically saying, how dare this liberal woman disagree with my old talking point and prove me wrong? He didn't get the update. See, Republican talking points are like iOS updates or like software updates. You can't keep ignoring the update because then you don't get the new talking points. And I've been frustrated about a lot of stuff. as we've proceeded with this. But one thing is that we're still hearing from Trump primarily, but from others, attacks

against the whistleblower. They really want to know who it is, what's the source and everything? But from my point of view, and I acknowledge we've got the text messages, we got Taylor's thing, all that contextual stuff. The whistleblower raised the concern that I heard crazy stuff on a phone call, you need to look into this. So we got the phone call, what do we care, what the whistleblower told us to look into it, so we're looking into it, we got it.

It would be great for him to come and say, yeah, I was really concerned about the phone call, and you can literally look at it, it was really bad. But I don't get why we're still focusing so much on the whistleblower. We have primary source material that indicates a criminal quid quo quid pro quo. I think that when you have a guest, and I get, and I like that there are sort of left and right debates on programs like Cuomo, I think that's important. But when someone goes on to television, and I've, like, PBS is actually a good example. Like, we always talk about, you know, cable news, but like PBS and NPR are super guilty

of doing these things too, which is both sizing something. They'll have people on who continually lie. They're lying about the facts. So then as the media, what do you do? I mean, it's the Kelly Ann Conway syndrome. It's like, do we continually invite this perpetual liar back on or not? You know, and I feel like at some point, we have to just let them go. Just not put them on television anymore if you're gonna continue to lie.

Yeah, look, and so we get criticism and they say, why don't you have more conservative voices on? What am I gonna have a guy, look, if you find me honest conservatives and I do have them on, John Ziegler, don't agree with him at all. And we've had wonderful, hilarious shouting matches, right? But he's an honest conservative. And he genuinely believes the things that he says, whether you agree or disagree. And I can name you a couple of others.

In fact, Hilton from Fox News, honest conservative, I've had him on, and sometimes we actually wind up agreeing when we're having an honest conversation. But 90% of the people that go on cable news to defend Trump or just even Republican talking points are purposely dishonest. So we don't have them on and the mainstream media goes, why don't you even it out by having some liars on too? So I obviously I agree, like I today on the damage where I had an activist who started nonprofit around autism, I did not feel any sort of need to add on someone who feels

like we should be funding autism research less, I don't know what that would have added. But obviously, I don't think that the network is requiring that sort of balance because they think that it lends, it gets you to the truth, they do it because it's an investment over a long period of time that has resulted in the right wing respecting CNN. No, it hasn't. It hasn't worked at all. So why are you doing it? It's a complete waste of time.

They don't care about you, they hate you, they think that you're fake news. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I understand. They have political pressure, they have economic pressure, they have media pressure, and a cultural of group think, in my opinion. But again, look, I get that we have a self-interest here. We kidded around about it earlier. But you have to give Cuomo and CNN a lot of credit because it's a very rare show that

bothers to have an actual progressive on against these guys. Normally it's one of those guys who blah, blah, blah, and like a meek Democrat going, sorry, right? So this is much more preferable to that, which is 98% of cable news. Love you, Chris. Yeah. Love you, Chris. Okay, all right.

Hillary Clinton. Yeah, I got a note, next story. Yeah, I saw that note too. It is 401. Okay, we are already over. Okay, I don't know that there are 10 people around the country that are pushing for Hillary Clinton to enter this Democratic primary, but if there are, they used to work for Hillary Clinton. Because there is more and more talk going around about the possibility that she could run. Tucker Carlson had on one of her former advisors, and here's what happened.

I'm assuming what I just said and what we're hearing is true, that if she thought she was the best position to beat Donald Trump, she'd get in the race. I would take issue with the Macedonia part, but other than that, she, you know, she ran for president because she thought she would be the best president. If she still thought that now, if she thought she had the best odds of beating Donald Trump, I think she would think about it long and hard. I know. She's not, she hasn't foreclosed the possibility.

No, she has not. That's what I'm saying, too. She's not running because she has any anxiety about the democratic field. She really likes a lot of the people running. She knows them well. She thought about some of them for her vice presidency. But there might be a reason that she'd be the best person not only to beat Donald Trump, but to govern after Donald Trump, which is a part we don't talk about much.

She denounced Bernie Sanders Medicare for all proposal as a terrible conversation to have. She's like completely against it. The lady knows her health care. So there's two things that are kind of ridiculous. One is that that guy thinks that there is a case to be made that she is the best to go against Trump. There's a case to be made she's literally the worst person in the entire country because she's the only person who's run for president against Donald Trump and lost.

But secondly, that she might be uniquely positioned to govern after him as like a bridge to the other side that they would accept her after losing Trump. I mean, obviously, I think that we have to be. have to like take this entire conversation with a grain of salt. This is exactly the conversation that Tucker Carlson and his right wing followers want Democrats to be having. This is the conversation he wants progressives to be having. This is the conversation that does not matter. Having someone like that on his show is just, it's kicking the hornet's nest of what we all know is a horrible idea, which is Hillary Clinton getting into this race. So like I feel like we need to not

take the bait around this, because unless you're like, you know, Tulsi Gabbard, nobody wants Clinton to run. And the fact that Tulsi is trying to bait Clinton into running, and Tulsi Gabbard has also appeared on Fox News this week, basically parroting Republican talking points should give us all pause to know what is actually happening here. So I want to double down on both of what both of you said and then add one thing, which is why is he going on Tucker Carlson to make this point? Right.

That right there gives you enough sense of where Hillary Clinton's politics lies. Like, oh, I think there's a lane in the Democratic Party to get the Tucker Carlson viewers. What? Okay, all right. Gee, I wonder how she lost the last time around. And Tucker Carlson, of course, wants to encourage this for two different reasons. And he says in the middle of the interview that we didn't show you, he said a lot of Democrats say, well, Hillary Clinton is a real president, it was stolen from her.

That does Tucker Carlson believe that? No. No, he says that like, oh yeah, I want Hillary to get coming. One, to Francesco's point to make it a mess, but two, it's their dream scenario that they run against Hillary Clinton again. Tucker Carlson is thinking, we can't get this lucky, can we? Yeah. Oh, this schmuck, that's her advisor wants to come on and talk about how she's going to run again. That's pretty much the only person we could possibly be.

Yes, yes, please. Oh, you know, it was kind of stolen from her. I mean, that's what some Democrats were saying. You should be the real president. I mean, this is hilarious. The fact that they're not laughing in his face and in her face now in Washington shows you how pathetic they are. And so that leads me to the final point.

They say they're with a straight face, but it's in, we laugh at it, but in Washington, they take it completely seriously. When he says, well, look, she's not saying anything other than she, she might have to come in because she has the best chance of beating Donald Trump. Now, empirically, that is a maniacal thing to say, right? But in Washington, the reason they say that and why they think it might be a persuasive cases, what's left unsaid. In other words, well, obviously can't be Warner Sanders, they would lose to Trump because

they're not a good centrist candidate like Hillary Clinton who would beat Trump. But they really believe it. They really believe it. I mean, we cannot risk losing a dollar Trump with a progressive. So we got to go with someone who lost to Donald Trump. And they don't think that's funny. That's how biased they are. They live on a different planet where Hillary Clinton is the best candidate,

not the worst candidate to run against Donald Trump. The only way I would support Hillary Clinton coming back into this race is if, like the mountain, after death, she gets resuscitated. Game of Thrones reference. I got them. Resuscitated and comes back as whatever that is. I'm not fully through the series. Sister justice.

Sister justice. Yes, I don't think that's happened. No, but look guys, I don't even mind Hillary coming in. Because she's gonna take votes away from Biden and make a mess of the establishment. Probably yeah. And it's gonna make progressives winning much easier. They don't understand politics. That's why they got clowned by a clown.

Okay, so the water is warm. Hillary and all of her dumbass staffers who lost to Donald Trump, come on in, let's see how you do this time. I got a whoop and stick waiting for you. I just want to say one more thing, that's funny, I just want to say one more thing about Tucker Carlson, because this is something I've been trying to get people to understand for a very long time, and some people are incredibly resistant to learning this simple lesson. Tucker Carlson brings on guests to help him accomplish right wing goals, and it does

not matter if the guest is right wing or centrist or left wing. He will use whoever he needs to to accomplish his goals, chief among them normalizing white supremacy. But there's a long list of policy objectives he has, and he will bring on whoever it requires for him to accomplish that goal. They lost to Donald Trump. Okay. French Casca, thank you for joining us.

Thanks for having me. Podcast? No, check out Newsbroke on AJ Plus and follow me on Twitter and Instagram at FannieFio. All right, excellent. And everybody check out damage report. You can see that obviously throughout our live linear performance. And if you're a member, you can watch it live, t.com slash join to become a member. We've got another great hour coming up right now for you guys.

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