The Young Turks - Logic Not Required

Episode Date: August 8, 2023

Trump on Pelosi: “She is a wicked witch whose husband's journey from hell starts and finishes with her. She is a sick & demented psycho who will someday live in hell!” "Technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law": Here are the five wildest moments from Trump lawyer’s Sunday show blitz. Judge rules Texas’ abortion ban is too restrictive for women with pregnancy complications. The city and borough of Juneau, the capital of Alaska, announced a local declaration of emergency Sunday after a major release of water from the Suicide Basin (a side basin of the Mendenhall Glacier) prompted record flooding. The city said at least two structures were destroyed and those at risk in other buildings have been evacuated. Twitch streamer charged with inciting a riot after his giveaway draws huge crowds to Union Square in New York City. HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur) & Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Jane Huger, Anna Kasparian with you guys on a lovely Monday evening in America. Is it? Well, I can argue that it is. So Trump's lawyers make unhinged arguments. That's fun for everybody. And then there's a riot because somebody wanted to give away a couple of PS5s.

And apparently, YouTubers are very influential. Twitchers. Both YouTube and Twitch. He's huge on YouTube as well. So it's a fun story, interesting. Well, I don't know about fun. But it's an interesting story later in the program. And for all of you find members out there who power us,

Anna and I are going to have an interesting, interesting review of Barbie in the members-only bonus episode. bonus episode. I have a lot to say. Well, I also have a lot to say. Okay, so does Ben Shapiro, but he's not going to be joining us. He's going to be making an appearance. But he is, but he is making his slight appearance there. All right. Anyways, fun for everybody. Let's get started. All right. Let's begin with some updates on Trump's latest indictment. But when I saw his coming out of his car and this or that, I saw a scared puppy. He looked very, very, very concerned about the fate. Look at that, I didn't see any bravado or confidence or anything like that.

Now that scared puppy comment from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi certainly got under former President Donald Trump's skin and he responded to it on truth social, writing that I purposely didn't comment. on Nancy Pelosi's very weird story concerning her husband. But now I can because she said something about me with glee. That was really quite vicious, he says. I was a scared puppy, she said, as she watched me on television like millions of others that didn't see that. I wasn't scared, nevertheless. No, I wasn't, I swear I wasn't.

How mean a thing to say, she is a wicked witch whose husband's journey from hell starts and finishes with her, she's a sick and demented psycho who will someday live in hell. Now look, I will say the visuals that, I think that was on MSNBC, used while Nancy Pelosi was arguing that he looked like a scared puppy, didn't really depict that. But I mean, make of that what you will. At this point, he's facing three separate indictments. The latest indictment, of course, has to do with his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. And, Jank, before I go to you, I just want to say, animals are innocent. And I'm kind of sick of politicians using adorable puppies to make their political points.

Because Pelosi wasn't the first one to do it. In fact, back in March of 2020, Trump also used puppies in order to attack Nancy Pelosi. Watch. When you see Speaker Pelosi come out and say, President Trump's denial at the beginning of this was dead. Yes, the president fiddles, people are dying. What's your reaction to that? Well, you know, it's a sad thing. Look, she's a sick puppy, in my opinion.

She really is. She got a lot of problems. And that's a horrible thing to say. Scared puppy, sick puppy, just leave the puppies alone. Okay, Jank, what say you? Okay, so there's definitely someone who is psychotic and unhinged among those two politicians. And it ain't Nancy Pelosi. I got 100 problems with Nancy Pelosi, but being dementia.

and living in hell are not among them. Okay, so look, and I can say this with most of you that watch the Young Turks understanding that I'm totally unbiased, because I can't stand Nancy Pelosi. And it's not personal, it's just that she took a billion dollars in corrupt money and then did those corrupt donors' interests. So I got no love for Nancy Pelosi, unlike everyone in mainstream media who feel like their mom was attacked, right? Well, what is Donald Trump talking about?

There's two different problems here. One is just absolutely psychotic statement, right? She's gonna live in hell, what, for calling you a scared puppy? That's what gets you in a hell these days? I mean, that's a pretty low bar. I think maybe, well, apparently you're going to hell too, because you called her a sick puppy, so you're gonna live in some sort of demented hell. And you know the reference he's making to Nancy Pelosi's husband, right?

Of course, I'm gonna get to that in a second. That's the most dangerous part. Okay, so just like the whole idea that this was some sort of vicious attack against Donald Trump, she just said scared puppy. This guy is so fragile, right? Wingers, don't you see it? What's wrong with you? Clean out your eyeballs.

To be fair. Like, he's so weak. He's the weakest man in America. It doesn't take much to get under his skin. And he loses it over any perceived insult. And there's something about Nancy Pelosi trolling him in particular that's particularly effective because she gets under his skin very easily. And so, you know, look, to be honest, the day he got indicted for the third time, earlier

in the day, Homeboy was playing golf. Like, I don't know if he's actually scared. No, he's, yeah, I know. I know with great certainty. How do you know with great certainty? I'm inside his mind, that's why. He does have a certain level of unearned confidence, and I think that that usually carries him through all the legal battles that he typically deals with. I think in this case, it's going to be a lot more difficult for him to skirt responsibility or consequences for what he engaged in.

But what do you think? The reason why I say, look, does anybody know with the absolute certainty? Of course not. But what do I base it on? I'm based it on literally hundreds of people that were insiders of Donald Trump, that were right next to Donald Trump. Some who he's had spectacular fights with you on or you could dismiss if you want, but a lot that he didn't. And they all leaked the same thing, or they all say with their name attached to the quote,

like, he's a nervous wreck. He leaks himself to make what it looks like Maggie Haberman, right? Right. And Maggie Haberman is like number two most reported thing ever from the New York Times is Trump's a nervous wreck. He's like so worried about this. He's scared. I know guys like this.

It's all false bravado. I mean, if you're, like guys, we've been attacked online, 2,000 is incredible low ball. Two million times, I don't know. Two thousand times today alone. Yeah, 2,000 times today alone. Like, scared puppy is the lowest, like, is thing I've ever, like, meaning like, it's no big deal. It's like the smallest insult I've ever seen, right? But for this guy who's so insecure, so weak, even the little, the tiniest little insults, like,

You're going to live in hell for calling me a scared puppy. What a mess. What a sniveling, pathetic loser. He called her a sick and demented psycho. For saying scared puppy? Have you, do you exist online? Have you ever? My God, if he ever goes on Twitter and finds out what people are actually saying about him.

Okay. Okay. And of course. No, but I think, look, honestly. Nancy Pelosi triggers the hell out of him. Yeah, but you know why here's that's another reason why he's so weak. It's always women that trigger him, right? And if you're a strong, confident man, who cares what another guy says about you,

or a woman says about you, or a puppy says about you? Who cares, right? Like, sure, everybody's affected to some degree, but you let it bounce off for you. It's ironic because he's considered Teflon Don, because all of the different attacks against him, because Maga says we don't care if he murders anyone. We love the terrible things that he says, et cetera. But internally, in his psychology, everything sticks to him. Even this tiniest little critique makes him cry and cry and cry at night.

He's not strong 1% and you could tell it by how personally he takes it when it's women who do it. That's the sign, telltale sign of a weak, weak man. And look, he has been lashing out more than usual lately. And it's not just toward Nancy Pelosi. He's been lashing out at everyone. Of course, he's been putting out some threats as well, which got him into a little bit of trouble on Friday. I'll get to that in just a moment, but he's gone after Pelosi.

He's attacked Mike Pence, special counsel Jack Smith, of course. The judge presiding over this particular case, this indictment having to do with the 2020 presidential elections and his attempt to overturn the results. It just goes on and on. And one of the threats he put out there apparently has led to some court filings by the prosecutor. So in a court filing just before 10 p.m. on Friday, senior assistant special counsels Molly Gaston and Thomas Wyndham alerted the judge. in Trump's latest criminal case, U.S. District Court judge, Tanya Chutkin, to a combative post Trump sent earlier in the day. And in that post earlier in the day, Trump wrote, quote, If you go after me, I'm coming after you. Now, that is clearly a threat, but it's interesting

because the prosecutors are using that statement to make a point about how the judge needs needs to implement some pretty severe restrictions in order to prevent Trump from going public with some of the evidence that the prosecutors are going to share that they've obtained through the discovery process, right? So I want to give you some information on that. So Gaston and Wyndham wrote in their court filing, all the proposed, all the proposed order seeks to prevent is the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public. Such a restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges,

attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him. And so in response to that, a Trump spokesperson told the press that, look, all the federal prosecutors are trying to do here is violate Trump's freedom of speech. Trump repeated that line or that talking point in a truth social post writing that, no, I shouldn't have a protective order placed on me because it would impinge upon my right to free speech, deranged, he loves that word, deranged Jack Smith and the Department of Justice. Injustice. Should, however, because they are illegally leaking all over the place, meaning leaking to the press, which could be true. I mean, Someone's leaking something to the press.

That's how we get so many reports about the updates to this case. And the judge on Saturday, Judge Chutkin, let's go to Graphic 7 here, ordered that Trump's team file a response to the federal prosecutor's motion by 5 p.m. today, Trump's attorneys attempted to extend the deadline. The judge denied that. And sure enough, today, there was finally a response from the, from the prosecutor. I'm sorry, the defense attorneys, let's go to that graphic next. And they wrote that in a trial about First Amendment rights, that's not what this trial is about. The government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights. Worse, it does so against its administration's primary political opponent during an election season

in which the administration, prominent party members and media allies have campaigned on the indictment and proliferated its false allegations. I just want to reiterate again, regardless of how many times Trump's. defense attorneys repeat this, regardless how many times conservative media repeat this stupid talking point. This trial is not about First Amendment rights. This trial is about the actions that Trump put behind his words in regard to installing fake electors in order to overturn the results in the 2020 presidential election. Yeah, so I want to clap for a couple of things. First of all, the protective order, I think, is being mischaracterized by a lot of the press.

So it makes it sound like Jack Smith and the prosecutors were like, hey, the court should protect us. No, they're saying it's a protective order to make sure he doesn't leak about the case. We're about to send him all these documents. By the way, including witness lists. And so when he's saying, if you come after me, I'm going to come after you, that could easily be a threat towards the witnesses. Now, the thing with Trump is that he purposely leaves things a tiny bit vague so that it could mean, well, no, I'm just going to come after you rhetorically, which I have every right to do. And that's true. Plausible deniability.

That's what he's an expert at. Yeah, and it could mean I'm going to come after you legally, if you're going to come after me legally. Some plausible deniability on that. But in other times that he has said that, people have been physical and violent. And he has, according to even his former chief of staff, enjoyed that. And he thought they were right to go after Mike Pence and so many others on January 6th. So now, whether you say, hey, that's actionable, meaning like, are those words alone enough to put another charge on? Trump? No, I wouldn't go that far, right? But should they be careful about him targeting

witnesses publicly? Of course. Lunditic deranged fans of Donald Trump have tried to murder a lot of people. I mean, we can go through the whole dozens of cases again of the pipe bombers and the guys showing up near Obama's house and the Supreme Court and so many other places where they threaten to kill people based on what Donald Trump said it. Donald Trump is perfectly aware of that. So remember, we started with calling someone a scared puppet is apparently vicious and demented, but saying if you come after me, I'm going to come after you with the implicit threat of, remember all the other times that I said that, and people try to kill others, right? That is apparently not vicious. That's totally okay. And again,

in Maguworld, nothing matters. They'll believe that. They'll think calling someone a puppy is like this sickest, craziest thing in the world. And Trump is citing violence after violence after violence is just free speech and it's all good, right? And Anna's, of course, right. It's not about whether you ask for a recount. He asked and received many recounts. All the recounts he wanted. No, it's when he did a fake elector scheme and had them sign papers saying that they were the real electors when they weren't. That is textbook fraud, let alone all other things. And I want to just come back to speaking of violence. The last point I want to make about Nancy Pelosi's husband, right? So he makes an illusion juror like, oh, I didn't want to

say anything about how your husband got his head bashed in by another fan of mine. But now that you called me a meany, meaningy word, I'm going to talk about it and unleash more demons against you. And though your husband was smashing the head with a hammer by one of my fans, because he thought he was helping me, but no, it's actually your fault, Nancy Belosi. And you basically, his message seems to be you had a coming because you dared to ever criticize me. So what does that mean for anyone else who criticizes him? Yeah, he's a mobster, he's a piece of crap, he's a lifelong criminal, it's super obvious

unless you're an occult. I want to shed a little bit more light on the threat about Nancy Pelosi's husband, because remember there were also all sorts of strange conspiracy theories floating around from the right wing alleging that, no, no, no, no, this man who attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband is not a Trump supporter, it's actually. Nancy Pelosi's husband's secret lover. They're hilarious. I mean, look again, that's why we hate.

By the way, MAGA idiots, that's why we call you a cult because you believe in insane theories like that. Oh yeah, I bet they were gay lovers. That's why he smashed them over the head and said, I love Trump, okay? Come and get that out of here, man. Look, the rest of the country can see you guys. The only people who can't see straight are you guys who are like, oh, yeah, no, smashing someone over the head.

Yeah, that's because they're gay lovers, gay frogs, gay everything, my, obsessed, lunatics. So no, like, and by the way, the reaction of a lot of MAGA watching this, like, oh, yeah, we're going to do violence against you. How dare you call us violent? Okay, look, it's, why don't you fight with words? A political ideas, I know you have none, zero, okay, Trump, what did you ever accomplish? Nothing but trillions of dollars to the rich. Okay, get suckered by this con man, see how you like it. They should draw the line when he encourages violence.

When he encourages violence, the law should apply to him along with every other. American citizen. I know, Maga, you think you're above the law and that your dear king should be dictator of everyone and should get to break any law he likes and incite any violence he likes. Sorry, I don't agree. I believe in America, unlike you guys. I believe in democracy, unlike you guys. And I believe in winning in the battlefield of ideas, not violence, unlike you guys. When we come back from the break, we'll get to the various interviews that one of Trump's attorneys, a man by the name of John Loro, did over the weekend. One of his interviews and one of his talking points was so egregious that it led to the host literally laughing at him in real time.

We'll show you that and more when we come back. on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys, and look at these American heroes. Gingja, the Invert, gifted a sub on Twitch, and Dave Schmidt 311 gifted two. He's only gifted 943 before. It's amazing, amazing. Dave, thank you, brother. We appreciate it. Anna's got more news.

Trump's attorney John Loro appeared on all the major Sunday talk shows in order to defend Donald Trump, but didn't have some great moments, including one of the moments. including one of the moments where he was on CNN and said something so insane that the host, Dana Bash, couldn't help but laugh immediately after he said it. Without further ado, let's take a look at what he had to say. One of the last and the ultimate request that President Trump made was to pause the voting for 10 days to allow the states to recertify or certify or audit. And Mr. Pence rejected that as well.

After that, there was a peaceful transition of power. So that's how the constitutional works. What happened on January 6th was not peaceful. I want to ask you something about John Eastman because you talked a lot about how he's a respected constitutional attorney. The transfer of power is certainly peaceful. Did you see what happened on January 6th? Did that look peaceful? And by the way, did you, I'm not saying that that was in any way, in a pro,

Appropriate, but the ultimate power of the presidency was transferred to Mr. Biden. We all know that. As you do. Listen, according to our justice system, everyone has the right to an attorney, even Donald Trump. But who the hell would sign on to that job? Honestly. I mean, how do you sit there with a straight face and argue that Trump engaged in a peaceful transition of power? Till this day, he denies that he lost the election.

Till this day, a peaceful transfer of power requires the individual who lost the election to agree that he lost the election and to urge his supporters to also accept that he lost the election. Trump in every action, in every word, in every social media post has been the antithesis of a peaceful transition of power. But this guy is his defense attorney. So of course he's going to lie on behalf of Trump. He's going to do it on national television. But who the hell would sign on for that? After everything we've seen, after all the stories we've covered,

after all the statements that Trump has made today. Yeah. So I guess his argument is, look, I mean, we created a riot, obviously, to try to circumvent a peaceful transfer of power. But when that didn't work, as Joe Biden was getting into office, Donald Trump did not punch him. Wow. Is he not merciful?

No, by definition, when you get a crowd riled up and tell them to attack the Capitol and they do, that is not a peaceful transfer of power. And so this is exactly what we're worried about with Donald Trump. And so that's why they're having this case in the first place. Now, he later went on Meet the Press and tried his best to spin Trump's phone call with the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, in which he asked the secretary, of state to find enough votes to switch that state from supporting or voting for Biden to voting for Trump? Here's how Loro spun that whole situation. If he had proof he won the state,

why did he threaten the secretary of state with a criminal charge? That wasn't a threat at all. What he was asking for is for Raffensberger to get to the truth. He believed that there were in excess of of 10,000 votes that were counted illegally. What the Biden administration has said is somehow President Trump obstructed a federal proceeding. That relates to what was going on in the states. And President Trump had every right to ask the Secretary of State, I believe that this election was conducted improperly. There are deficiencies here.

I want to see if there are more than 10,000 votes or whatever the number was that were counted illegally. Once again, that's core political speech. Except in the recorded phone call with Brad Raffensberger, Trump did not make any point about the excess of votes counted illegally. In fact, Trump asked Raffensberger to find something very specific. And if you might have forgotten what that was, we have that phone call for you right now. Let's listen. The ballots are corrupt.

And you're going to find that they are, and which is totally illegal, it's more illegal for you than it is for them. because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state. I just want you to find, hold on, let me check 11,780 votes. I just want you to find those votes. So we can flip the state of Georgia from voting for Biden to supporting me.

Now, an incredibly important context that his lawyer, of course, is leaving out is, it's not like he just asked for a recount. He had already gotten a recount. He'd already gotten several recounts. He'd already gotten a hand recount. After all that, he's still like, well, that didn't find me any votes. So why don't you find 11,780 votes without a recount? Like, maybe find them, make them up. make them up. And by the way, if you don't, as you saw in that, heard in that tape,

it could be a criminal offense against you if you don't find those votes, exactly the number of votes I need to win that state. Grade A thug, obvious mobster criminal, just if you can't see it, you have a psychological problem. Everyone else in the country can see it. It doesn't mean you're wrong about everything. You know, if you're a maggot guy, you hate the establishment, you're right about that. But you've lost your mind. think this guy is not trying to steal the election. And so, and look, the earlier comment, oh, what violence? Golly, gee, right? All right, I'm going to show you the clip. You've seen it

a hundred times, but that's what he said afterwards is more important. Let's go back and hear the Mike Pence chant. Ray, Mike Pence, Ray Mike Pence, Ray Mike Pence, Ray Mike Pence, Ray Mike Pence, Ray, Mike Pence, it's reported by a witness. that Mark Meadows, his chief of staff, told him that, and he said that he didn't mind. Gee, I wonder if not minding the murder of your own vice president, because he wouldn't steal an election for you, is a peaceful transfer of power or not? And finally, later in an interview with this week, Trump's defense attorney, John Loro,

tried to make a point about how his former vice president, Mike Pence, would actually be a fantastic witness on behalf of Trump in his interests. Let's watch. Mike Pence will be one of our best witnesses at trial. I read his book very carefully. And if he testifies consistent with his book, then President Trump will be acquitted for these reasons. Number one, Mr. Pence recognizes that John Eastman, who was giving legal advice, was a renowned legal scholar. Number two, Vice President Pence recognized that there were discrepancies and fraud in connection with the election. He wanted it to be debated on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Trump wanted it to be debated in the state legislatures, but make no mistake about it, based on what Vice President Pence will say, the government will never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump had corrupt or criminal intent. And that's what this case is about. Now I wouldn't agree with the last two sentences there. However, he does have a decent point here about Mike Pence, because if you read his memoir, well, you'll see something that kind of goes along with what Laura was saying here. So in the memoir, Pence keeps gesturing vaguely at voting irregularities and maintains that

the Republican members of Congress who objected to the electoral count were doing the right thing. In the months between November of 2020 and January 6th, Pence felt heartened by Trump's lawsuits to overturn the election, saying, quote, I remained hopeful as we all did that those legal challenges would succeed, end quote. So while Laura said all sorts of crazy things over the weekend, I think this is the one area where there is some merit to what he's arguing in regard to Pence. Now, will Pence actually end up being a good witness on behalf of Trump when push comes to shove? I doubt it. However, I do think Pence's memoir serves as a little bit of an issue. here? Yeah. So Penn's, why did Pence say that? Because he's trying to protect all the other

Republicans. He doesn't want to say, oh, Donald Trump is an obvious criminal that was trying to orchestrate a coup because hundreds of Republicans went along with it. So then they're going to say, why are you in the Republican Party filled with criminals who tried to do a coup against America? So he lies on behalf of Donald Trump there, in my opinion. But they're going to get to use it in court, no question about it. So then, and he's going to, by the way, say, look, I was hopeful about the court cases, and then we didn't win the court cases, then January 6 comes, and then Trump says, well, cheat anyway. So remember, the timing is important, okay? And so, and there's one witness here that I think is going to make all the difference. And it's the guy who is not named as an

unindicted co-conspirator, and that is not Mike Pence, but Mark Meadows. So Meadows is his chief his staff at the time. And Meadows is the one that said to others, yeah, Trump just said he did not mind if Mike Pence was murdered. So that is going to be super powerful testimony if they've got that. It's not, we're not positive yet that they have that. But if they, we know the quote, we know that Mark Meadows is basically in hiding and has not said anything publicly and it would be indicted otherwise. So if Meadows comes out there, the last piece of the dominoes there is, That's a devastating set of witnesses against Donald Trump. And when they asked Pence too, they think they got a friendly witness.

Do you think it was criminal? Pence might say, well, not necessarily, right? But then the prosecutors are gonna get up and say, look, I'll give you a quick analogy here. If somebody says to you, you got a bunch of lawyers saying you can commit bank fraud, and you've got way more lawyers saying you can't commit bank fraud. Number one, does that give you permission to commit bank fraud? And the answer is obviously not. No, you can't just say, well, a couple lawyers told me I could.

And I think Pence's testimony is going to go in that direction. Yeah, there were a couple of crackpot lawyers, as Pence has said recently, right? But the overwhelming weight of the evidence was obvious that we couldn't do this. That's why I chose not to do it. But Donald chose, Donald Trump chose to break the law to do it anyway. And after all of those, all of that testimony, Trump's gonna have to make a decision. Is he gonna let all that stand or he's gonna, is he's gonna, is. Is he gonna get on the stand and testify?

If he gets on the stand to testify, he's toast. There is no way he will have enough, as a writer recently said, emotional and psychological self-control to not blurt out so many incriminating things. He's not gonna testify. I mean, his lawyer has to tackle him before he testifies. Everyone knows that he's a pathological liar. He'll perjure himself 2,000 times, and he'll blow the case because he's an idiot. He'll accidentally admit everything he did. So I'm very much looking forward to seeing how that

develops as the whole country is. entirely move off of Trump and give you an update, a positive update on a lawsuit that was filed in Texas over their abortion restrictions. I had to get first to an identical version of my daughter without a skull and without a brain. And I would have had to hold her until she died. A judge in Texas has now ruled that Texas has now ruled that Texas abortion ban is too restrictive following a lawsuit that was brought forth by five women who were denied abortions after learning that their pregnancies were not viable and in some

cases even endangered their lives. Now, during this two days of emotional testimony in an Austin courtroom, women gave wrenching accounts of learning that their babies would not survive birth, and they were also unable to travel out of state in order to get abortions where it was still legal. Now, part of the reason why is because the abortion restrictions in Texas involve criminal prosecution of abortion providers. If there's any indication that these abortion providers conducted an abortion after six weeks, even if the woman's life is in danger, even if there are exceptions that are part of the current law, it has led to a chilling effect where doctors are so terrified of criminal prosecution that they just do not offer the services, even if

the services fall under the exceptions as it's written in Texas law. The problem is the law is written in such a vague way that it is leading to that chilling effect. And that is what this lawsuit is about. I want to give you another example of what the testimony was like during this lawsuit. And then I'll give you the decision by the judge. Another plaintiff recalled the moment that she learned her pregnancy was not viable. And I can see her pain in her eyes. And she told me that my daughter has been diagnosed with anencephalate, and that means that her school and her brain is not fully developed.

And that she was sorry and I didn't have any option. I was pregnant. She then called in a caseworker, caseworker came in. And they added me a paper that said funeral holds on top of it. She told me that I didn't have any options because there was a law that the Texas abortion law prohibited. I wasn't able to get one. So I felt like I was abandoned. Yes. That woman grew so distressed on the stand.

You see her there. She started to vomit. Now let's get to the Texas judge's decision here. On Friday, the judge ruled that the state's abortion ban has proven too restrictive for women with serious pregnancy complications and must allow exceptions without doctors fearing the threat of criminal charges. So the injunction, by the way, also applies to women who have a condition exacerbated by pregnancy, who can't be effectively treated during their term.

It also covers cases where the fetus has a condition that makes it unlikely to survive after birth. Now what I think is fascinating about this story, Jank, is that while the state has alleged over and over again that they have written in the law, that there are exceptions for women who who have all these issues during their pregnancies, they want to appeal this judge's ruling. Why? I mean, this makes it abundantly clear to the abortion providers

that these exceptions exist. Don't you want that? Apparently they don't because they want to appeal this. No, I don't know how they get around your argument, Anna. I thought the same thing as I was reading you. So you're saying, oh, don't worry, these exceptions already exist. But since you said they should exist, we're going to, appeal because we don't think they should.

Well, that doesn't make any sense. It's just not logically coherent. And why are they purposely not being logically coherent? Number one, let's be honest, they're right-wingers. Logic is optional. Secondly, because they wanted to be vague, so they scare the living crap out of the doctors, so they don't do any abortions under any circumstances. To that point, let me read you, Graphic 5.

Under Texas bans, it is a secondary felony to perform or attempt an abortion, punishable by after life in prison and a fine of up to $10,000, the law also allows private citizens to sue anyone who aids or abets an abortion. So it's not just the government suing you, some Yahoo off the street can sue you, and then they can sue you out of existence. The criminal penalties are life in prison, 10,000 dollars. I've read $100,000 in another article, by the way. It could be, it finds way in excess of that in civil damages if the rando sues you. So you might go to prison for life. Gee, I wonder why the doctors are hesitating. And Texas is like, oh, I don't know why they're hesitating. Shouldn't it be obvious when they need to do an abortion? It's not at all obvious. And you're making sure that it's not

obvious because you don't want anyone doing any abortions because you don't care about these these women? Yeah, look, oftentimes when legislation is passed, not on principle, but on political motives, and I do believe that's the case with these abortion bans in states like Texas, they will screw up and they'll write the legislation in a way that might be overly vague and it has unintended consequences. But in this particular case, I don't even believe that's what's happening here. Because clearly, there is an effort here through the judge's ruling to make it abundantly clear

that these exceptions exist and that abortion providers need to be protected from criminal prosecution should they provide these services that fall under these exceptions. And you have the law, you have the state wanting to appeal it. So now I don't even believe that they accidentally vaguely wrote the legislation. I think that they wanted the chilling effect. Of course, of course they did. And by the way, if you ask them in a political context, he'll say, that's right, we don't want any abortions. That's all murder, man. I don't care. Right? That's what every one of their politicians

that passed that law says. And then you ask them in a legal context. So like, well, no, I mean, golly gee, is it big? So it seems to ban all abortions, even the ones the doctors think are absolutely necessary? Oh, I guess we did that, didn't we? Get out of here. The woman who testified and became physically ill during her testimony, I just want to share with you what she went through. She was told in the middle of her pregnancy by the doctor, this is a non-viable pregnancy, okay? The fetus is not going to survive. If you give birth, if the fetus is alive after you give birth, she's not going to survive any longer than a few hours. And that's exactly what happened. She held her baby in her arms for three hours as she watched the baby gasp

for air, desperately gasped for air, change colors from red to blue. to purple and literally die in this woman's arms after she delivered the baby. That's what she had to go through thanks to this insane and restrictive law in the state of Texas. Pro-life, am I right? Yeah, look, what are you going to do with the right wing? So 70% of the country wants abortion to be illegal in the first two trimesters as it was under row. about 98% of the country doesn't want women to go through what Anna just described, right? But all Republican politicians are wedded to that 2% radicals that are in their base.

And so they're like, no. And they make up radicals on the opposite side on this issue. And they say, oh, yeah, the left wants post-birth abortion. Totally made up. Lunatic conspiracy theory doesn't even make any sense. There is no such thing as a post-birth abortion. But you listen to any right winger, and they believe it's true, because everyone in right wing media lies. Everyone in right wing media, everyone.

I've seen all of them say post-birth abortion, when they all know that's not a thing. They all know they're lying about Northam, the Virginia governor. Every one of them. So then right-wingers think, oh my God, they're killing babies seven months after they're born or seven minutes after they're born. It's a lunatic, right? Meanwhile, this is actually happening. It's an actual real legal case, goes to court, the women testify, and the court says this is barbaric, you can't have this.

And Republicans in Texas go, no, we want it, we want it. So we're going to appeal, we're going to appeal, and we're going to make those women go through that tragedy over and over again. Well, okay, Republican politicians, you want to listen to that 2% of your base that are absolute monsters, you want to lie to the rest of your base to deceive them over and over again. Okay, then you're monsters and you prove it by your actions. And look, it has not been politically beneficial for the Republican Party, but if they want to keep going in this direction, have at it.

Because even Republican voters are not in favor of these insane restrictions. They're not at all. And let me be clear about that. So a lot of times, and you'll see me do it more than anybody, I will go after right-wing voters. And that's like sacrosanct. You can't do that, right? But I do.

I did it earlier in today's show. But in this case, even in deep red states, Montana, Kentucky, Kansas, forget about this extreme, just normal abortion. Do you want it yes or no? And Republicans vote yes, we want abortion. And so they join Democrats, they join independents. And so none of those states, when they put it to ballot initiatives, said no, ban abortion. None of them, none of them. When you ask about this issue, hey, should women and doctors be allowed to decide, is it a life or not?

You have a tiny percentage of the radical right. It's the overwhelming majority of Republicans, let alone the rest of the country, says, don't do it, don't do it. Don't get, have big government thugs decide for families and moms and doctors. But nope, they're going to listen to the most radical, radical, insane part of their base. And that's why they're passing laws everywhere, even though they're deeply unpopular. So you are what you do. So don't come telling me about how Republican politicians might be moderate.

almost none of them are. They're all barbaric like this, and their actions and the laws that they pass absolutely prove it. All right, we've got to take a break when we come back some severe flooding in Juneau, Alaska, and it is absolutely tied to climate change. We'll show you how when we return. All right, back on TYT, Jank Anna, esoteric soul, Quentin Smith, and Kurt Vaughn. Thanks guys for being members.

We appreciate you. Casper. Well, why don't we talk a little bit about climate change and how it is destroying communities and homes that people have spent their entire lives building and paying for, just like any good right-wing show would? Let's get right to it. You're watching a home collapsing into the Mendenhall River in Juneau, Alaska. Officials declared a state of emergency over the weekend due to a new glacier lake outburst,

which led to record-breaking flooding in the area. At least two buildings have been destroyed, and residents in the area have been evacuated. We have more details on this. But one thing that is definitely true, and you can see it in how quickly the Mendenhall Glacier has been, melting in recent years is that Alaska is actually warming two times the rate faster than the rest of the country, the rest of the globe. And it is leading to severe impacts in that area, Juneau Alaska specifically. We have a few more details in this news report. Let's take a look.

Tonight, the dramatic moment a massive house collapses into this river in Alaska. We're just watching the banks just slowly erode. Then all of a sudden, the whole roof and everything just came down. Watch as the raging rapids of the Mendenhall River erode the banks in Juneau, triggering the destruction. This giant tree toppling into the rushing water before being swept downstream. Officials tonight issuing an emergency declaration, blaming the flooding on the rapid melting of the Mendenhall Glacier. Experts say Alaska is warming at twice the rate compared to the rest of the country. That warming contributing to this unprecedented flooding event.

This is a 1% to a 0.2% chance of this type of flood taking place at any given time. So this is a very rare event. So this was something that I actually witnessed firsthand myself when I went to Juneau, Alaska with my family on a trip. And when you see, you can actually see markers of where the Mendenhall Glacier was and how much it's receded, especially beginning in 2011, it began to recede at a very rapid pace. And we have a video that we'll show you in just a moment to help you visualize just how much that glacier has receded as a result. And so when you have melting ice, obviously that's going to lead to increased water levels.

Let's go to graphic three here. The lake crested at a record 14.97 feet, far higher than the previous record of 11.99 feet set in 2016. My Sunday night, the lake had lower to around seven feet and is expected to drop below six feet Tuesday night according to weather service data. So the lake was three feet higher than it has ever been. And that last record was in 2016, which is not that long ago. And so the only thing I object to is people being surprised or using words like unprecedented. Yeah, I get it, they're unprecedented before these times.

But in these times, they're not at all surprising. And so, yes, if you have houses by the water, in a lot of places, not just in June Alaska, they're going to fall into the water. That's what the scientists told you. You didn't believe them. And so, okay, by the way, everybody will be shocked when one day Miami Beach is underwater. And they're like, oh, nobody could have seen this happening. Except all the scientists, who told you, it's going to go underwater.

There's now flooding in Miami without it raining because the water is rising. The glaciers are melting. And once the glaciers melt, you can't unmelt them. And the methane is released from them. Methane is even worse than carbon. And then the temperature gets even warmer. And then the water gets even warmer. And then there's more glaciers melting.

And then there's more flooding and more houses falling into the water. That's how it works. It's not at all surprising. It's exactly as it was predicted. So if you're in Alaska, you're generally voting for Republicans. Although these days it's changed a little bit. It has. And in fact, that was the thing that stood out to me.

because up until the point that I went to Juneau, Alaska and was in a tour group with a bunch of Republicans, I was under the assumption that most Republican voters have bought into the climate denialism. But that actually wasn't true because every Republican in that group was terrified and concerned about climate change. And we were looking at the Mendenhall Glacier. You can see the markers in regard to where the glacier was and how much it's receded. And remember, a lot of these people love to be out in nature just as much as the left does. And they're seeing the impacts firsthand themselves. In fact, let's just quickly go to this video because it's going to show you exactly what I'm talking about.

So you're gonna see how much the glacier has receded. So, and it's gonna give you a marker in just a moment to show you how much it's receded. But you can see the ice melting and starting in 07, they started to really track this. But, okay, so you could see the marker right there, how much where the glacier was and how much it's receded. In fact, climate change is melting the glacier. It's face retreated eight football fields between 2007 and 2021, according to estimates from the University of Alaska Southeast researchers. It's having an impact on the local wild salmon as well. It's just a disaster for the local environment, of course.

It's a disaster for people who are now losing their homes, having difficulty getting insured as a result of the extreme flooding that's taking place. This is a problem that impacts every single one of us. No one is safe from the impacts of climate change. And for anyone who's delusional enough to say, well, you could just sell your house. The person whose house just collapsed into the river, are they going to sell their house? What's going to happen to that family? Yeah, and that's why huge tracks of land in Florida now are uninsurable. And then people complain about that, but honestly, I don't blame the insurance companies one bit.

What do you want me to insure houses that are almost certainly going to be underwater at some point? The insurers companies understand that their profits depend on science. So they don't have the luxury of being able to do right-wing propaganda and say, Oh, no, I don't believe the scientists. No, they believe the scientists because it's going to cost them money if they don't. But look, it's also so infuriating, Jank, because what has led us to this point is the drilling for oil, the fracking for natural gas, the insane profits that the fossil fuel companies have made, they've been able to pocket, they're doing well.

But ordinary people are losing everything. and on top of that, increasingly finding it difficult to find insurers for their properties as a result of this. So ordinary people suffering the consequences of the greed of these fossil fuel companies is what infuriates me the most. By the way, it's not just Florida. California is now experiencing insurers dropping people or pulling back coverage because of wildfires that are intensified as a result of ongoing droughts. Well, guys, you've got to vote based on that. I mean, if they're going to not give your house insurance and you're going to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in value, you have to be super mad about that.

And now don't get like don't go right wing and get all violent and physical, et cetera. No, take it out in the voting booth. And by the way, so Hillary Clinton is right about that. It's a rare thing I agree with her on. She said, well, then don't vote for Republicans. Totally true. On the other hand, have corporate Democrats done a great job? Thank you.

Right, they haven't. So by the way, so vote out the corporate Democrats. So, and look, and stop watching right wing media. So the reality is Anna's right, a lot of regular Republicans understand that climate change is real. And I know it in the polling, right? And especially when you get to younger Republicans, they believe that climate change is real and manmade and that we should do something about it, almost at the levels of young progressives. So, and why? Because they are on social media rather than television.

Television is old school media, right wing media like Newsmax O-A-N, Fox News, and it's lie after lie, after lie, after lie. And so why? Because Big Tobacco invented this, then now Big Oil is using it. You don't have to win the debate. You just have to manufacture doubt so no one does anything while you raking trillions of dollars and profits. And later when the world is burned, not later, right now.

Right now. The world is burning and flooding and there's catastrophe after catastrophe. You go, oh, golly, gee, nobody could have seen that coming. You guys pay the cost. And you're going to take your trillions and you're going to run. That's exactly what they're going to do. And that's what they're doing right now. So if you're mad, you should be mad and vote out all the goddamn bums.

And if there are Democrats taking money from fossil fuel companies, don't listen to any crap from mainstream media. They're the only ones who could win. They're the ones who are the status goes great. Corporate politicians are terrific. Oh, when they take money from fossil fuel companies, they're angels. They're not like the Republicans. No, they're not angels.

They're bought. They're corrupt. And so that's a huge percentage of the Democratic Party. That's part of why we don't get anything done, including, by the way, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden. They all bragged, Obama bragged about nobody's done more drilling than me. We've got more oil now because of me than anyone else. Biden bragged about it. Now, having said that, nearly 100% of Republican politicians are corrupt.

They all take these donor money from fossil fuel companies, and they don't give a damn that you can't get insurance for your house or that it fell in the river. As long as they're cashing those checks, they're going to screw you over every time. All right, that does it for the first hour. When we come back for the second hour of the show, we'll talk about a Twitch streamer whose PlayStation 5 giveaways led to major riots in New York. And later in the show, we might lighten things up. But before we do that, we'll also give you an update on some labor-related news, including how much money Amazon spent last year alone in trying to crush unionization efforts. That and more coming up in the next hour. Don't miss it.

by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.