The Young Turks - Lucky Number Three

Episode Date: August 2, 2023

Breaking: Donald Trump gets indicted by grand jury on 2020 election interference. Devon Archer told Congress he would be "shocked" if any $5 million payment was made to Hunter or Joe Biden, says Dan Goldman. DeSantis’ latest comments slammed by anti-abortion groups as "unacceptable." Chris Christie calls out big pharma's relentless boner pill ads, tells CNBC anchors "no offense to the way you guys make money." Biden shores up Democratic support, but faces a tight race against Trump. HOST: 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. Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we've got a massive show for you. But before we get to the stories that we worked hard to research and produce, we have some breaking news that literally just broke. Let's talk about it. Former President Donald Trump has been indicted for the third time. This time he has been indicted for his alleged role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020

presidential election. The two previous indictments had to do with his handling of classified documents and the alleged hush money payments he paid to Stormy Daniels and other adult film actresses. Now this indictment has to do again with his role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. And he has been charged by the Justice Department with four specific charges or four counts to be specific. So let me give you those counts right now. The first is a conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to obstruct the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election. And that is according to the special counsel's office.

This count carries a five year maximum sentence, although I don't think anyone should get their hopes up in regard to Trump ever seeing the inside of a prison cell. There's more, though. He has also been charged with a conspiracy to impede the January 6th congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the president. election are counted and certified. This count carries a 20 year maximum sentence. Also, a conspiracy against the right to vote and to have that vote counted, this count carries a 10 year maximum sentence. And finally, the last count, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct and impede the certification of the electoral vote, this count carries a 20 year

maximum sentence. Now, there are other interesting elements of the indictment, the filing, because in that indictment, we're also learning that there are six unnamed and unindicted co-conspirators. So we'll find out who those individuals are. I would be shocked if Trump's campaign lawyers, people like Rudy Giuliani weren't, you know, facing some charges in the future. We'll see how that all plays out. But Trump is expected to be arraigned tomorrow, which is Thursday, August 3rd. The judge overseeing the case is U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is an Obama appointee. And the White House so far has completely declined to comment on this case.

But I will say the fake elector scheme, there's a lot of evidence behind that. So that is not going to bode well for Trump in terms of, you know, this prosecution. The other thing that I think is important to remind you all of is, you know, while he had the fake elector scheme playing out, he was also hitting up secretaries of state to encourage them to essentially find votes to flip the state from voting for Biden to supporting Trump. In fact, here is the piece of evidence that we show you on this show quite often. Here is Trump calling Brad Raffensberger in Georgia, the secretary of state, in order to, you find some votes and help Trump out.

So look, 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. So we'll see how this all goes. Trump has mounting legal problems. Again, this is now the third indictment, and this is happening. in conjunction with the Georgia prosecutors who are also investigating Trump and his role in attempting to overturn their state's election results from Biden to Trump. Now, under the first count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, federal prosecutors

argue that once violence began at the Capitol on January 6th, Trump only inflamed the situation. And we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that he took a while to actually intervene and try to calm the situation down. He didn't want to do it. He enjoyed watching the chaos as it ensued. The indictment says that Trump continued to blast out claims of election fraud after the riot began unfolding. As violence ensued, the department and co-conspirators, I'm sorry, the defendant, not department. The defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince members of Congress, Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims prosecutors wrote in the indictment.

And so this story literally just broke. It is developing as we speak. Reporters are pouring through the 45 page indictment to figure out exactly what this means and what it entails. Not only for Trump, but those around him who repeated the election lies, who engaged in this fake elector scheme. And what's incredible about all of this is even if he is indicted, prosecuted, and convicted of these crimes, his base is not going to be convinced that he engaged in any wrongdoing. That is the frustrating part about all of this. There's about a third of the Republican base that is incredibly loyal to Trump. They will support him no matter what. And in fact, when you listen to the way the right wing side of our

media covers these types of stories. They tend to downplay it while simultaneously making a pretty big deal about Hunter Biden and the alleged schemes that he was involved in, right? But his alleged schemes really have nothing to do with trying to undercut our democratic process. Hunter Biden isn't even a member of our government. He isn't serving in the White House. Unlike Trump having his children serve as advisors, Hunter Biden is not an advisor to Joe Biden. And so far, the Republican party has failed to show a shred of evidence of Joe Biden engaged in any criminality or wrongdoing as it pertains to Hunter Biden and his, you know, foreign dealings. We'll get to that story a little later on the show. But this is what we know so far based on the reporting on

this indictment. Remember that Trump had received word weeks ago indicating that he was the target of this investigation. He knew that the indictment was going to come any day now, And today is that day. So we will fill you all in as we learn more about this story, but not looking good for Trump. And it's certainly not great for his campaign finances, considering they've already spent tens of millions of dollars on defending Trump when it comes to all these various investigations and indictments. So we'll fill you in as we learn more. But for now, let's move on to some other news. Do you believe that this is now officially the Joe Biden bribery allegation?

And do you believe that you will be able to prove that? Jim Comer. I sure hope so. I sure hope so. Well, Republican congressman James Comer doesn't sound so confident. Following the House Oversight Committee's interview with Hunter Biden's former business partner, that guy told you about earlier, Devin Archer. As we've reported, this interview was part of the GOP's ongoing investigation into the Bidens, in which House Republicans are attempting to implicate President Joe Biden in this corruption scandal.

So far, the GOP has failed to provide any solid evidence of Biden's wrongdoing, President Biden's wrongdoing. And Archer was supposed to tell them that Biden was involved in these foreign business deals. In fact, let's hear more from Comer and Representative Jim Jordan on the outcome of this interview, and I'll fill you in on more. And I do believe that there's a lot of smoke, and whether there's smoke, there's fire. We just heard testimony today that Joe Biden had lied to the American people. Jim Jordan, do you believe that? And do you believe the DOJ has been helping to cover it up? Well, it sure looks that way.

And I would tell you this, Joe Biden said he was not involved. There were two dinners at the Cafe Milano in D.C. One of them, as you pointed out, where Joe Biden was there for the entire dinner, both times. One of them had Mrs. Batarina, this Russian, the wealthiest woman in Russia. If Jim Jordan has to say about it is so important that Fox News of all places is literally playing music as he speaks to wrap up this embarrassing segment. Look, it appears that the only thing they have some evidence of at this point is that President Joe Biden might have lied about being present. while his son was speaking to foreign business partners. Okay, congratulations.

Okay, so let's fill in the blanks on what we know based on the reporting of this interview. And remember that a transcript of this interview hasn't even been released yet. The most groundbreaking thing that Archer told House investigators, though, was that President Biden met with and spoke to his son, Hunter, during his conversations with international business associates on a number of occasions. And this apparently happened over a decade as Hunter sought consulting deals. Now, some of these conversations occurred while Biden was still vice president. As the New York Times notes, Archer told lawmakers during the session that Hunter Biden had put

his father on speakerphone to talk to his business partners about 20 times over a decade, according to both Republicans and Democrats in the room. Great. Both parties on the House Oversight Committee both agree that that is what he said. All right, let's keep going. What else? What else did we learn from Archer here? Now, the interview was pretty much a letdown for Republicans hoping to catch the president

in a huge scandal. In nearly five hours of closed door testimony to the House Oversight Committee, Devin Archer, the former partner, of course, asserted that the elder Biden was not party to any of his son's business deals and that Hunter had tried to sell the illusion that he was providing access to his powerful father when he was not, according to Democrats on the panel. And look, Democrats are saying that. Republicans are trying to give the illusion of this groundbreaking interview. But notice how quiet they are in regard to providing evidence or implicating Joe Biden in actually being part of the deal making with Hunter Biden's foreign business partners. They haven't really been saying that this interview provided evidence of that. Now, Democratic congressman and oversight committee member Dan Goldman emphasized this during,

you know, a talk with reporters immediately following Archer's pretty lengthy interview with the House Oversight Committee. Let's watch. The witness indicated that Hunter spoke to his father every day. And approximately 20 times over the course of 10-year relationship, Hunter may have put his father on the phone with any number of different people. and they never once spoke about any business dealings, as he described it. It was all casual conversation, niceties, the weather, what's going on.

There wasn't a single conversation about any of the business dealings that Hunter had. Like many people, Hunter spoke with his father every day and would often put his father, occasionally would put his father on to say hello to whomever he happened to be caught at dinner. with and Mr. Archer clarified that was sometimes people that they were having, they were trying to do business with and it was sometimes friends or other social engagements. The witness was very, very consistent that none of those conversations ever had to do with any business dealings or transactions. They were purely what he called casual conversation. This is the groundbreaking witness? Look, making matters even more disappointing for Republicans spearheading this politically

motivated investigation. The New York Times also reports that Archer also said he had no knowledge about unverified allegations from an anonymous informant that President Biden and Hunter Biden had accepted millions of dollars in bribes undercutting a claim trumpeted by Republicans. Furthermore, according to Representative Goldman, Archer apparently told Congress that he's pretty shocked. He'd be shocked if any $5 million payment was made to Hunter or Joe Biden. He categorically said that he was unaware, had no knowledge of any $5 million payment made to either Hunter Biden or to Joe Biden and would be shocked. if that actually existed. And let's remember, he was on the Burisma board with Hunter Biden. So as a board member, he would have known if Burisma was paying a bribe to any of the Bidens.

So what now? If what Representative Goldman is saying here about Archer's testimony before the House Oversight Committee is in fact true, why are Republican lawmakers still actually? like they had a huge aha moment yesterday. In a statement following the interview, Congressman Comer, the very man leading this investigation, declared that Devin Archer's testimony today confirms Joe Biden lied to the American people when he said he had no knowledge about his son's business dealings and was not involved. Okay, but you guys still have not proved that he was involved in those business dealings. We haven't seen anything coming out of that interview.

We haven't seen a single statement coming out of that interview from Mr. Archer indicating that Joe Biden played a role in the business deals. Look, I'm not denying that there could be evidence presented later. We just haven't seen it. And I would argue that if Republicans had that evidence, they probably couldn't wait to show it to us, right? They probably couldn't wait to come out of that interview and do a press conference to tell us specifically what Archer said about how.

Biden was involved in foreign business deals, how there was a quid pro quo, how he was trading his influence for financial gain. Not a shred of evidence of that. Now, they might have caught President Biden in a lie. It's a scandal of epic proportions when a politician is caught in a lie, right? Okay, now, snark aside, even in this area, the evidence the GOP has provided it is weak because it hinges hinges on Biden repeatedly saying he had never discussed and had never spoken to Hunter Biden about his business dealings. That's what he said repeatedly in 2019. And I haven't seen any evidence indicating that he has ever spoken to Hunter about his business dealings. And to be fair, White House press secretary Corrine Jean-Pierre has kind

of tempered and changed her language recently to say that Biden was never in. in business with his son? There is evidence of one lie that President Biden told. And it's, in my opinion, pretty irrelevant. It's not like he lied under oath. During the 2020 presidential debate, Biden claimed that no one in his family had received money from China, when in fact, Hunter Biden and his business associates took in millions from a Chinese firm.

I mean, look, to be fair, that is a massive scandal. No one's lied on a debate stage before. And by the way, like, so did President Biden broker that deal? Did he sell his influence? Was there a quid pro quo involved? We don't know, because House Republicans have failed to, again, provide a shred of evidence. But this is apparently enough for some Republicans to call for impeachment proceedings that will surely go nowhere.

Look, take it for me. As someone who bought into the Russia investigations and the impeachments of Donald Trump, this is not going to play out well for you, Republicans. Don't embarrass yourselves like Democrats did. And no one howls more about this than Marjorie Green, who declared that, quote, when Congress moved toward impeachment with Bill Clinton, it was because they had proof that Bill Clinton had lied about sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Today, with Devin Archer's testimony, we have proof that Joe Biden has lied.

Now, Clinton's impeachment didn't play out so well electorally for Republicans. People started to feel sympathy for him, which led to backlash toward the GOP. And look, if Green wants to go in that direction, have at it, great. Please go ahead. But it reeks of the ineffectual leadership we saw from Democrats during the Trump administration. Speaking of Democrats, the Biden White House is taking Archer's interview as an opportunity to troll the GOP. And I commend them for that. White House spokesperson Ian Sams released a statement saying that it appears,

that House Republicans own much hyped witness today testified that he never heard of President Biden discussing business with his son or his son's associates or doing anything wrong. House Republicans keep promising bombshell evidence to support their ridiculous attacks against the president, but time after time they keep failing to produce any. In fact, even their own witnesses appear to be debunking their allegations. And look, part of the reason why these investigations and impeachments go nowhere, even when there is evidence of wrongdoing, like there was with Trump, is because Congress is divided and the American people are too. There's no way the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim

majority, will garner the 60 votes necessary to convict Biden, even if the House finds him guilty on impeachment charges. But aside from that, I just love the faux outrage over a possible corruption or even the appearance of corruption. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are corrupt as hell, trading legislative promises in return for massive campaign donations. Just because the Supreme Court legalized bribes by pretending like it's the same thing as speech protected by the First Amendment doesn't change that the nature of what it really is, is corruption.

Take a look at how much money, Congressman Comer has taken since. 2015. So that was the first time he ran for public office, for his house seat in Kentucky to be specific. In less than a decade, Comer has managed to raise more than $4.15 million for his campaign coffers. It's a lot of money. His top contributors include a tobacco company known as Altria. There's also Falconite Real Estate Holdings LLC, the National Association of Realtors. Now together, those top contributors alone have handed over more than $121,300 to the congressman. Those are just three contributors.

But honestly, that is nothing compared to the nearly $40 million Jim Jordan has taken in the form of legalized bribes. According to Open Secrets, Jordan has taken nearly 6.4 million from retiree groups, like a... On July 18th, get excited. This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants.

That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs, only the date is July 18th. RP, $680,000 for manufacturing and distribution companies, $672,000 from the health care industry, and another $608,700 from the real estate interests. But if you are sympathetic to the GOP's investigation into the Bidens, and do not think that domestic companies bribing our lawmakers is a big deal.

What about the closed door meetings lawmakers allegedly have with foreign leaders during the annual prayer breakfast? These breakout sessions where members of Congress meet with politicians from abroad? Like, what are they discussing? Are there deals being made? It sure does provide the appearance of corruption. Think tanks also serve as fronts for forward interests and lobby lawmakers on their behalf. I'm not minimizing these things. I think they should be banned and made illegal. But my guess is that the very GOP lawmakers investigating the Bidens right now wouldn't sign on to that. And look, the truth remains that Hunter Biden capitalized on who his dad is in order to bag a lucrative position on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma. But there's no indication

of criminal wrongdoing and I'd be pretty careful if Republicans want to start incriminating people over nepotism. I mean, Trump hired his own kids as advisors for God's sake. And I didn't hear Republicans utter a single word about this. Ivanka Trump once again faces questions about whether she is personally profiting from her White House role. The Associated Press reports the Chinese government granted her company three new trademarks on April 6th. Hours later, she dined with the Chinese president at her father's Mar-a-Lago Resort. There is no evidence that trademarks are part of any quid pro quo, but the potential for a conflict of interest is there,

according to George W. Bush's former chief ethics lawyer. Because our Constitution prohibits a United States government officeholder from accepting presence from foreign governments. So these trademarks are going to have to be looked at very carefully to make sure that they are routine trademarks. Spoiler alert, those trademarks were never properly investigated. Anyway, many of these politically motivated investigations, like the current probe into the Bidens, tend to be a waste of time and resources.

Like the only people who tend to benefit are the lawmakers conducting the investigation since they want to provide the illusion of working hard for their constituents. But come on, guys. In reality, they're doing anything but. Now we got to take a break. When we come back, we have more news for you, including an unexpected right wing group turning on Ron DeSantis. We'll tell you who they are and why they're upset with him when we return. What's up everyone? Welcome back to the show. Just want to give a special shout out to our member for two years, Moon Dragon, who gifted five TYT memberships. We appreciate you, Moon Dragon. Thank you for supporting the show and everything we do here at TYT. You are absolutely appreciated. We're grateful for all of our members and everyone who helps to keep us afloat and independent of corporate influence. With that said, let's talk a little bit about Ron DeSantis and a right wing group that is now turned on him.

You recently signed a six-week abortion ban in Florida. That is popular with Republican voters. The majority support that. But you haven't yet said whether you would support doing that at the federal level. Now, Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis's answer to Megan Kelly's question has upset an unexpected group on the right after he carried water for them in his own state of Florida. So let's hear what he said, and then I'll tell you how the extremist at his party don't think that he's extreme enough.

Let's watch. I really believe right now in our society, it's really a bottom up movement, and that's where we've had most success, Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, and I think you're going to continue to see a lot of good battles there. So you're not in support of a federal law? I'll always side, I'll always come down on the side of life, and I'm proud to be pro-life and I'll be a pro-life president. But if you do that, I mean, if you sign a federal law, you know, making a six-week standard,

the law across the country, aren't we just then going to get a Democrat administration with Democrat Congress that reverses it or that codifies row and back and forth? Why isn't it just a state's rights issue? Well, clearly the states have. I mean, I think the states have the primary jurisdiction of it. They do, but if there's a federal law, that's going to change. Well, I think there is. I think there is a federal interest.

But I think the reality is that, you know, the country's divided on it. you're not going to see Wisconsin mimic what Texas has. Clearly, right now, you are going to see different states go in different directions. And I understand that. Like, I would be irritated with Ron DeSantis if I were a Republican voter. Just say what you actually mean. Like, he's so weasly and inauthentic. But anyway, apparently DeSantis' lack of commitment to a federal 15-week abortion ban

has upset the anti-choice zealots over at Susan B. Anthony. Now, the president of that group, Marjorie Danenfelser, criticized the governor and other presidential contenders like Nikki Haley for, you know, understanding reality and the difficulty of accomplishing these federal bans. She stated that Governor DeSantis's dismissal of this task is unacceptable to pro-life voters. A consensus is already formed. Intensity for it is palpable and measurable. It is measurable and there isn't much support for it, but let me continue.

There are many pressing legislative issues for which Congress does not have the votes at the moment. Glad she realizes that, but that is not a reason, according to her, for a strong leader to back away from the fight. No, it's insane that this group is going after Ron DeSantis of all people. Like, don't make me defend Ron DeSantis against your attacks. Ron DeSantis is super extreme. Do I need to remind you that he signed a six-week abortion ban in the state of Florida? In fact, it's even more extreme and goes even further than what this group wants on a federal level, right? And that's the thing.

These are people who want to force the religious conservative will onto the rest of us, okay? In fact, the majority of conservatives want to keep abortions legal in the first trimester. So if anything, I mean, if you are a right wing group and you're thinking about, you know, electoral victory, you would probably be critical toward Ron DeSantis for banning abortions past six weeks. Now, according to an April NPR Marist poll, almost nine and ten Republicans and three quarters of independence want to see abortion restricted to three months or less. But a Gallup poll from July of this year, or just last month, shows that about two-thirds of Americans

say that it should be legal in the first trimester. 69% of them say that, while support does drop to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Many red states like Florida, again, have banned abortion before the first trimester is even over. Meanwhile, most blue states are sticking to keeping abortion legal up until the fetus is viable outside the womb, which is somewhere between 22 to 24 weeks gestation. And that's what infuriates anti-choice groups like Susan B. Anthony. They want to force the will of religious conservatives onto everyone in the country. Just like any group with extreme views, they're never satisfied. It's never good enough. They don't care about any of the political ramifications or consequences of what their

project is. And if they don't have their way, they whine and cry about it. And while this far right organization is starting with a 15 week federal abortion ban, please don't fool yourself into thinking they plan to stop there. So courting the extreme conservative wing of the Republican Party could be yet another problem for DeSantis, who is in fact attempting to galvanize support among evangelicals. But I suggest just, you know, ignoring these people. I mean, Trump did that when they urged him to pass a federal 15 week abortion ban. Despite Trump's appointments of conservative Supreme Court justices that paved the way for overturning Roe v. Wade last year, the former president has since kept a distance from the anti-abortion movement,

touting his work in the past, but suggesting that the issue is for states to decide. Now, Danenfelser in April, called Trump's position a morally indefensible position for a self-proclaimed pro-life presidential candidate to hold. Like, you got what you wanted with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and you're trashing the guy who got you there. I'm not defending Trump for doing that. It's one of the elements of Trump's administration that I hate the most. But they're never satisfied because they're extremists.

A few weeks later, however, Trump attended a meeting with her, Senator Lindsey Graham and family research council president Tony Perkins, after which she called the meeting terrific. But guess what? He ignored them after that. He didn't even try for a 15-week abortion ban. The only Republican presidential candidate who has committed to federal abortion bans is former vice president Mike Pence. And guess what? He's polling so low that he doesn't even qualify for the first Republican primary debate. My guess is that the GOP might have learned a valuable lesson during the 2022 midterm elections, when the Supreme Court's reversal of federal abortion protections through OV Wade prevented the red wave from ever happening. And that was the

red wave that the GOP was expecting. Look, sometimes playing the culture war, I'm happy to report, comes back to bite you in the ass. But there's an important lesson to be learned here for politicians on both sides. Just ignore the extremists. They don't speak for everyone. I get it. They're the loudest, but they don't speak for everyone and it's not even close. And they'll cost you elections. DeSantis, meanwhile, is going to keep trying to appease the anti-choice radicals. We signed the heartbeat bill in Florida, which I'm the only candidate running that is actually delivered pro-life protections and got those enacted. You know, a lot of the other people talk, A lot of that. And so as president, I'm pro life. I'll come down on the side of pro life.

But let's just be clear here about with all this. Some people talk, I act. All right, buddy. Just keep in mind that if Susan B. Anthony wanted to keep abortions safe and legal in the first trimester, if all they wanted was a 15 week abortion ban, wouldn't they be upset with Ron DeSantis being even more extreme in his state by banning abortion at six weeks? Could it be that they actually love the six week abortion ban? And just want to start with a 15 week federal abortion ban and then work their way, whittle it down to the point where it would effectively be illegal to obtain an abortion in this country.

Look, this is a health care issue. This is a decision that women should make, it's their body. if the fetus is not viable outside the womb, I would venture to say that the woman should have the right to make that choice. It's between her and her doctor and having the government involved, having the government have a say and essentially tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Not the way to go. And I think the majority of American people agree with that, which is why Republicans had a root awakening during the midterm elections. And by the way, right now as we speak, so is former vice president Mike Pence.

Again, didn't even qualify for the first GOP debate. Absolutely love it. Anyway, we got to take a break. When we come back, we've got more news for you all, including what are we going to talk about next? Ooh, Chris Christie shares some hard truths. And no, it's not about him trashing Donald Trump. It has to do with his comments on the pharmaceutical industry. That and more coming up.

Don't miss it. What's up, everyone, welcome back to the show. Quick comment from Carrie Photo, who's been a member for six months. I'm so mad that DeSantis is ruining Florida, it's truly a beautiful state. I will agree that Florida is truly a beautiful state. It really is. And it sucks that you have this, you know, politically motivated Republican governor with a super majority of Republicans in the state legislature passing these terrible laws. But you know, as someone who goes to Florida quite often to visit family, I speak to a lot of people there who at first were avid DeSantis supporters absolutely loved him. They loved him so much. They didn't want him to run for president because they don't want to lose him as governor. Now when I go back and I talk to those same people, they've turned on him. A lot of the women are pretty furious about the six-week abortion ban. I guess they didn't think it was going to happen to them.

Well, it happened to you. So hopefully people vote a little differently in that state. But I do agree, Florida is a beautiful state with lots of great people, despite what we hear about the politics there. 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. With that said, let's move on to the next story. I got to say the truth, I don't need another pharmaceutical television. commercial. No offense to the way you guys make money, but someone will buy those TV ads. But I got to tell you the truth, is there a man over 60 in America who needs like another Seattle's commercial? Like, we get it. We know it's available. It's all good, right? I mean, so American people look at that and they say, well, you're wasting your money on that.

GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie blasted pharmaceutical companies for, you know, spending an astronomical amount of money on advertising. The former New Jersey governor got pretty worked up as a CNBC host asked about what the role of government could be in making medications more affordable for those who need them. So get a load of the framing of our question here. Let's watch. Ask you about negotiations with the drug companies, with the government, that starts September 1st is when the negotiation is supposed to start. We had Merck CEO on earlier this morning talking about earnings, but talking about this too.

He says, look, it's not a negotiation. It's price fixing, but you do have Americans paying more than any other nation for their drugs that they are getting, or paying for the innovation of the world. You don't want to see the innovation cut off, but how do you deal with making sure that Americans aren't getting squeezed by it? Well, how about if the politicians really dealt with what are the cost drivers in this system, right? You do not hear any politician come on this air and talk about the PBMs, the pharmacy benefit managers. They are taking anywhere from 50 to 70% of the rebates that pharmaceutical companies mean to go to the customer. And they're taking them purely to be middlemen. It's not sexy, Becky. One of the drug companies just cut the list price then.

and cut out the need for a middleman in the whole thing. Well, I think they're going to need help from the government to be able to do that. Okay, I just love this line of thinking coming from the CNBC host. How could Congress allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of a handful of drugs? Okay, also let's pause for a second because she just regurgitated what the CEO of a pharmaceutical company, Merck, said during a earnings call with shareholders. where he allegedly said that it's not negotiating prices, it's price fixing. What? How is it price fix? Price fixing would be the government coming in and passing legislation

indicating that Merck is not allowed to sell this drug for any more than this much money per dose, period, end of story. There is no negotiation. But look, CNBC is all about, like, informing people about where invest their money in the stock market. And so they're concerned that, you know, allowing the Medicare system to negotiate drug prices on behalf of their patients, on behalf of their Medicaid, Medicare recipients is, you know, it's going to cut into their profits. And shareholders are concerned about that. And that's why pharmaceutical companies are fighting tooth and nail to do away with the watered down version of what the Biden administration allegedly wanted to pass in the first place, okay? What will be left over for these poor cash strap

drug companies, but I'm so, so sad about these poor pharmaceutical companies having their profits sacrificed allegedly by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. What CNBC is whining about here is, again, the watered down, build back better agenda that Democrats passed a few years ago. While the initial goal was to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, all drug prices, the end result of that provision in the Inflation Reduction Act was nothing close to its original iteration. According to Kaiser Family Foundation, under the new Medicare drug price negotiation program, the number of drugs subject to price negotiation will be limited to 10 Part D drugs for 2026, three years from now.

Another 15 part D drugs for 2027, another 15 part D and part B drugs for 2028, and another 20 part D and part B drugs for 29 and later years if, if, and it's a big if, Republicans don't overturn that law, which they most certainly will if they gain enough power. to do so because I'm telling you pharmaceutical companies have already launched a full-blown attack on this law. Now remember, this will only impact Medicare recipients and it does not cover all drugs. Also keep in mind that big pharma is working overtime to reverse the law and they seem to have plenty of time since again, it won't even go into effect for another three years. And when it comes to innovation, because she seems to be so concerned about that,

Let's not forget that American taxpayers foot the bill for research and development. Funding from the National Institutes of Health, NIH, was contributed to 354, of 356 drugs approved from 2010 to 2019, totaling $187 billion, billion with a B. Where do you think the NIH gets that money from? us. So this idea that we need to help pharmaceutical companies maximize their profits in the name of innovation is hilarious when we're funding their research and development. And then they turn around and price gouge us while their minions on corporate media regurgitate lies to provide cover for them.

In fact, let's give credit where credit is due because Christy went on to note that Big Pharma could make better use of their profits by, you know, invest. investing more of their resources in developing treatments and innovating. What the pharmaceutical companies that I've told them that should be talking about, much more is their innovation. And the fact that, by the way, Americans get access to the greatest medicines first. And part of the reason for that is the investment that our companies make in research and development here. I don't want to go the innovation. Trust me. I don't think so, you know, let's.

I mean, Ken Frazier at one point talked about how he tried to take this on when he, when he was CEO and he couldn't just do the list prices there's an entire system set up they like ends it and that's what I mean it's look you you you can't just do it that way and and nobody in the political world has wanted to take on the PBMs nobody's wanted to do it and we did it in New Jersey we the first state that wanted to do a reverse auction for those managers we cut our cost Becky just for state workers 500 million dollars a year by doing a reverse auction if if the government started involved in making sure that everybody in this system is treated fairly, we could reduce those prices without price fixing that will lead to a reduction in innovation.

No one is having a conversation about price fixing. No one. What are we talking about? Like, it is amazing to me that literally what they're complaining about is allowing for Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices. Do you know how the negotiation works? Okay, one party, has an opening offer, the other party says, no, here's where I'm willing to meet you. They go back and forth and eventually reach an agreement. That is what a negotiation is, which is different from the government price fixing things. Look, so let's go back to the advertising. How much does pharmaceutical, or how much do pharmaceutical companies spend on advertising?

Let's take a look at the numbers from last year alone. pharma companies forked out just under $8.1 billion on ad campaigns in 2021. And if you look at the numbers from previous years, you'll notice that the amount of money drug companies spend on advertising just keeps increasing year after year. These poor cash-strapped pharmaceutical companies, what could they do? According to a study published by Jama earlier this year, researchers estimate that pharma spent $6 billion on direct-to-consumer ads in 2016. And that figure grew significantly from 1996 when consumer ads budgeted 1.3 billion.

Now, promotional spending for prescription drugs varied wildly, the researcher said, with a median spend of $20.9 million per drug and a median of 13.5% of the promotional budget allocated to direct to consumer ads. I mean, they don't have the money for research and development. They don't have money for the innovations, but they sure do spend a lot of money advertising their penis pills to people watching CNN in the morning. Other findings from this study also determined that pharma companies tend to spend more money advertising drugs that have less health benefits for patients.

In fact, Forbes reported that the proportion of advertising spending allocated to direct-to-consumer ads was an average of 14.3 percentage points higher for drugs with a low added benefit compared to those with a high added benefit, according to the peer-reviewed analysis of the 150 best-selling branded prescription drugs in 2020. Manufacturers of the top six best-selling drugs spent the bulk of their promotional budgets more than 90% targeting consumers directly rather than clinicians for a range of treatment options for conditions including HIV, multiple sclerosis, and numerous cancers. Meanwhile, drugs that treat metabolic issues and digestive tract problems received a substantially low share of direct-to-consumer advertising compared to overall promotional budgets, according to the researchers in that study. So why are the pharma companies doing all this? Well, the findings could suggest pharma firms are aiming promotional dollars directly toward consumers rather than clinicians as part of a strategy to drive patient demand for drugs that clinicians would be less likely to prescribe. And that's according to the study's lead author, Michael DeStefano, a researcher at Johns Hopkins.

Now, most countries don't even allow drug companies to market their products directly to consumers. The United States and New Zealand are the only two in the world that do. Now, the World Health Organization believes direct-to-consumer marketing influences both patients and their doctors, and that it's harder for these, these ads make it harder to essentially make decisions based on evidence, what's actually best for the patient, what's right for the patient. These ads put ideas in people's heads and they think they need to take pharmaceutical drugs in order to alleviate whatever perceived ailment they have. In addition, the American Medical Association opposes the practice and alongside other health organizations is actually

pushing to outlaw it in the United States. Pharmaceutical firms laughably claim patients benefit from these commercials and that they have a right to know what options are available to them. I'd argue that they should get the appropriate info on options from their doctors, not a cheesy pharma ad while watching Vanderpump rules on Bravo. But we'll see where that attempt to outlaw these direct-to-consumer advertisements go. But I just really want to reiterate, when they're able to spend millions of dollars on advertising, every year for each drug, they've got the resources for innovation. So the next time you hear some corporate puppet argue that we can't negotiate lower drug

prices because they're not going to have the resources for innovation, I would flip them the bird because they're lying to you and they're insulting your intelligence. All right, we've got a few more minutes left. I want to get to, in the first hour, of course, but I do want to get to one more story for you. And this one has to do with, well, some new polling that should make the Biden administration uncomfortable to say the least, especially if he is in fact going to run for reelection. So let's talk about this.

If the presidential election would be held today between Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump, it would be a super close one. And that's according to a new poll done by the New York Times and Sienna College. In fact, take a look at this graphic that shows you, again, if the election were to be held today, Biden and Trump would tie at 43%. Only 14% of respondents in this poll do not know who they would vote for or don't like either candidate. So let's get into the details here because as the Times puts it perfectly, it might

have been reasonable to think that President Biden would have a clear advantage in a rematch against Donald Trump. Yet despite the stop the steel movement, the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the numerous investigations facing Trump, Biden and Trump are still tied. Look, I think that two things can be true. This does not speak well of people who just decide to downplay some of the behavior that Trump is engaged in, some of the potential criminality he engaged in. But more importantly, and I want to emphasize this more than anything, this does not speak well of President Joe Biden.

The fact that he's in a dead heat with someone who is now indicted in three separate criminal cases is very, very bad news for Biden. It speaks to his lack of leadership and his inability to connect with voters, his inability to inspire them and encourage them to want to support him. And there are more damning details here, because if you think the 14% that remains in this poll, the undecideds are winnable by Biden, you might be wrong. As the Times also reports, our Times Siena polls last fall, which were notably accurate, also showed a very close race in a possible presidential rematch, including a one-point lead for Trump among registered voters in our final October survey. And just 41% of registered voters say they have a favorable view of Donald Trump, while a majority believe he committed serious federal crimes and say his

conduct after the last election went so far that it threatened American democracy. So 41% of registered voters believe that. And according to this poll, Biden and Trump still tied. Still tied. In fact, Biden is doing worse today compared to the previous poll that the New York Times did last fall. Biden shows little strength of his own. His favorability rating is only two points higher than Trump's. And despite an improving economy, his approval rating is only 39% a mere two points higher than it was in our poll in October before the midterm election. And look, to make matters worse for Biden or Trump, depending on who you prefer, let's get to that remaining 14%. Because I think that's the important part. These are the individuals who end up

deciding elections. Things have become so polarized, so partisan that the undecided, they're the kingmakers. So who are they likely to go for? The 14% of voters who didn't back Biden or Trump consisted mostly of people who volunteered, even though it wasn't provided as an option in the poll that they would vote for someone else or simply wouldn't vote if those were the candidates. Not good news. So just imagine the scenario where Donald Trump ends up winning the Republican primaries. And he's up against Joe Biden. Biden, an incredibly unpopular president, and it's super close. Let's say Biden is able to eke out a win, eke out a tiny, tiny win.

You think Trump isn't going to contest that? I mean, we're going to have an endless cycle of election denialism, just complete chaos, probably worse than what we experienced on January 6th. Now, I'm just predicting this. I don't know if it's actually going to play out that way. But there's also a scenario in which Trump wins again. I mean, I can't say re-election. He didn't win in 2020.

But you get what I'm saying. There's that scenario as well. I think that Biden is really playing with fire. And what really concerns me is that the Democratic Party has not learned any lessons from what happened in 2016. The Biden camp is super excited about running against Trump because they've beat him before, why not beat him again? But things are a little different this time around. The stink of Trump's coronavirus handling has kind of faded. And the leadership that we've seen from Biden

is really fresh in our memories. So what is likely to happen among independent voters? Are they going to side with Trump or Biden? And more importantly, will these indictments and will criminal prosecution play any role in swaying them toward the Democratic candidate. I don't know. But my point here is that this news, these polls do not speak highly of Biden's leadership. And it's super frustrating to hear members of the Democratic Party gaslight us over and over again about what an effective president he's been. Please stop insulting our intelligence. We live in reality. We can see what's happening here. All right, we got to take a break. Francesca Furentini joins me for the second hour of the show, don't miss it.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen 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, Jan Huger, and I'll see you soon.