The Young Turks - Mental Declassification

Episode Date: September 22, 2022

In an interview with 60 Minutes, Joe Biden says that America will defend Taiwan against China. A federal appeals court ruled that the DOJ can once again have access to the documents taken from Mar-A-Lago. Donald Trump claims he can declassify files with his mind. Sandy Hook parents say Alex Jones followers stalked their children’s grave sites. AOC’s rival’s family was busted for guns and drugs. Host: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur 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 the young Turks today. Jake, you're Anna Kusbearing with you guys. We've got all the news for you guys, and we can do it just by thinking. We're just doing the news by thinking. We're just thinking, we could just sit here and think about the news and you'll be informed.

That's it, it already happened. It already happened. We're done. Thought about it. Okay, you're gonna see what that's about in a second, if you haven't already. But here's the interesting part of today's show. Casper versus Prager, 7.30 p.m. Eastern half an hour debate in the live show. Damn. We're going to ask that he stay with us for the member's only bonus episode as well, where Jank will be joining in on the conversation. I just felt that since I had challenged him to a debate on the show, I had to debate him solo, and then we'll have Jank to come in and share his thoughts. Yeah, if Dennis wants to stay on for the members only.

So we'll see how that goes. Guys, it's gonna be super fun. So stay right here, share the stream, tell everybody you know. Dennis Prager on the Young Turks later today. Okay, Casper, let's take it away. Well, we begin with some foreign policy, a story that you're unlikely to have seen anywhere other than some independent outlets because it's apparently not important to know that we're inching closer and closer to potential war with China.

So let's discuss. The actions of the federal government are basically getting us closer to a potential hot war with China. And one thing that most people aren't aware of is recently, just last week in fact, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a bill that's titled the Taiwan Policy. Act. Now what is this? It passed through the committee. The Senate will vote on it. The House will vote on it. And it's a bipartisan effort. I have no doubt that this will pass. Well, the bill basically moves the United States away from supporting the one China policy. Meaning we're creating more tension

with China in essentially budding in on the issue with Taiwan. Now, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved this legislation by a 17 to 5 vote, and it was very much bipartisan. The new bill's headline provisions entail a change in U.S. policy to treat Taiwan as a major non-NATO ally. And to that end, authorize $6.5 billion worth of military aid for training, equipment and weapons, as well as prepare a suite of sanctions should a Chinese attack on the country materialize. Now that tactic is very similar to what we're engaging in currently with Ukraine. We have funneled $15 billion of military aid to Ukraine. I'm sure there will be more in the future. And we had made security promises to Ukraine back in the 1990s when we urged

them to do away with their nuclear weapons. They did that and we're keeping up our side of the bargain, although I would argue where's the line? How much in military aid are we sending? And is it because we're genuinely trying to help Ukraine or is there a profit motive involved with these military contractors? Now, to do this in addition to, to do that with Ukraine and then add on a potential conflict with China and Taiwan is kind of disastrous, to say the least. So lawmakers had already agreed, by the way, to appropriate about $4.5 billion in military aid to Taiwan. But this new legislation adds an additional $2 billion, making the total amount $6.5 billion. Now, rather than being designated a major non-NATO ally, as the bill's text

first put it, Taiwan will now be treated as though it were designated. The label, and there's no longer a direction to change the name of what is effectively Taiwan's U.S. Embassy, but rather a recommendation. So again, it's a stronger stance on, like, moving away from this one China policy. And of course, that infuriates China. And there are huge risks associated with this, which I'll explain in just a moment, Jank. Yeah. So this is a terrible idea, but it does explain why Nancy Pelosi went to Taiwan. So when she went, I was like, what in the world is she doing?

Why are you randomly going to Taiwan? And I thought, and I might have even called Anna and said, because I was off that week and said, I think that either her or her husband has got some contracts here, right? Like this is so weirdly agitating China for no reason. And look at this, $6.5 billion shakes out of the tree. So I don't know that has anything new with her husband, but it does have to do with defense contractors that handsomely bribe every one of those politicians. So hey, look at that.

It's bipartisan when the bribes are flowing in from defense contractors. So number one, you already have the billions of dollars that are going right now out the door to those same companies. Number two, if you start further hostilities and China builds up more, perfect. Then you don't do six and a half billion, you do 60 billion. And all the corrupt politicians get rich all the way from Lindsey Grant to Nancy Pelosi. And yes, if you're working mainstream media, Nancy Pelosi is just as corrupt. I know that hurts your feelings.

Try being a reporter. And her actions are provocative. They all are. You're going to see a Mitt Romney quote about it in a second. But one more thing I want to explain for you guys. One, China policy is confusing, but it's purposely confusing. Let me explain it's super simple. There's three parts to it.

One is, hey, China is sovereign over all of China. Number two is, yes, but we're not saying that they have Taiwan. We have no opinion on whether Taiwan has sovereignty over itself, okay? So we punt on that issue. There's a reason one. Yeah. Kind of like Switzerland. And then the third part is, but if China attacks Taiwan,

then we will defend Taiwan, okay? So what that does is it splits the baby, and that's what you do in diplomacy sometimes. Hey, China, do not attack Taiwan, and we'll say you kind of have it, so you can tell your domestic audience that you have it, you have it. And we can tell the international audience, not really, okay? So that preserves Taiwan's independence and prevents war. Perfect, that's what diplomacy is. So now the Democrats, along with the war hawks, neocons, and the right wing, Republican Party,

are both joining forces to say, yeah, let's start more provocation and more work because our donors aren't rich enough. I mean, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley also took a visit to Taiwan, right? Further inflaming the Chinese government in regard to this whole conflict. And so let's talk about what could go wrong and what will likely go wrong as we continue to fan the flames unnecessarily. So number one, if there's genuinely concern that China is planning some sort of invasion or attack into Taiwan, well, announcing that you will appropriate billions of dollars in military aid to Taiwan will probably make them want to speed up that effort. Speed up that effort and make a move prior to them getting that military aid. So it could accidentally goad the Chinese

government into starting this war. And you know who actually agrees with that perspective, but still voted in favor of this legislation? Senator Mitt Romney. So as Jacobin writes, even one of the yes votes on the Senate committee, Senator Mitt Romney, explicitly acknowledged this risk. We're doing something that's highly provocative and bellicose, he said. And I should also So note, if you think that this is, if you don't care, right, if you're like, I don't care about foreign policy, I mean, yeah, it sucks that all this money is being funneled to defense contractors, it causes conflict in other countries and other regions of the world, it's terrible, but doesn't really affect us.

No, you guys don't understand, China, because of our actions with globalization and all of that, is essential to the global economy, essential. So any of the supply chain issues that anyone has complained about in the past as a result of COVID, just understand that is nothing compared to destroying what relationship we have with China, goading China into a full-blown hot war with Taiwan, it would be a disaster. But are we even thinking about that disaster? I mean, we are. But is the Senate thinking about it?

Are these lawmakers who are corrupt and bribed, legally bribed by these defense contractors thinking about the huge potential downsides of this? No, they're not. What's amazing about Romney's quote is, he said, we are being high. And then he voted yes. Yeah. So they're not even hiding it. They're like, well, we're trying to provoke trouble.

Because remember in Ukraine, Russia had put in like over 100,000 troops on the border. I think it was like 175, right? So you could say, well, man, they're on the border and they've got a 40-mile line of tanks ready to go. China has nothing like that now. Yeah, from every once in a while they'll put out statements, etc. But they've not surrounded the island, there's no military building. military buildup that's headed towards island right now, we're on the border or anything along those lines. So we come in and go, hey, why don't we agitate you? Oh yeah? Yeah, we're going to

spend more money to build weapons pointed at you. What are you going to do about it, huh? It's so obvious we're trying to pick a fight. 100%. And guys, Anna's statement's not even close. It's if you thought the Russia thing was a problem with high gas prices, et cetera, my God, China controls a giant part of the world economy. It'll be an epic disaster, let alone the lives lost, let alone the fact that they also have nukes. What do you try to start World War III? For your infinite greed, these politicians are the worst people on earth, except for the

reporters who kiss their ass and don't tell you about it. All right, well, let's move on to some other news, including this. I've said on truth social number of times you did declassified yes okay is there a process what was your process to do it doesn't have to be a process as I understand it you know there's different people say different things but as I understand there doesn't have to be if you're you're the president of the United States, you can declassified just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it, because you're sending it to Mara Lago or to wherever you're sending it. And there doesn't have to be a process, there can be a process, but there doesn't have to be.

Ah, you can declassified documents just by thinking about it, Donald Trump said, during this interview with Sean Hannity. And of course, he is really stretching to find any defense to you know, provide an excuse for what he did and taking top secret and classified documents from the White House to Marlago, an unsecure area. And then, by the way, refusing to return the documents when he had multiple opportunities to do so. But we do have an update, a pretty interesting appeal ruling regarding the review of those documents, which I'll get to in just a moment. Jank. Yeah, I just wanted to say two fun things. First, as I understand it, but you already took home hundreds of classified documents, didn't you bother to understand it well before you did

that? Didn't you bother to understand how classified documents worked while you were president for four freaking years? As I understand it about handling classified documents. I mean, I never bothered learning, okay? And he's like, now you could just look at them and they're declassified, or you can think about it. I just, I just did it in my head, declassified. Reminds me of Ronnie Chang if you've ever seen his comedy. He's like, oh, Asians are so smart. We do math and I did it in my head. Four plus three, seven. Just did it in my head. Okay. And he just disclassified all of her nuclear secrets in his head. Oh no. Right wing, do you even want them declassified? Who cares? Me like Trump, declassify everything. Let enemies get it. Real world

does not matter. Okay, now here comes the real world, which is the court system. So, by the way, as we know, Trump fought pretty aggressively, his legal team fought aggressively to implement what's known as a special master to review those documents and determine whether any of those documents are protected under attorney-client privilege. However, when that special master reached out to Trump's legal team and asked for, you know, an elaborate explanation of this declassification defense, they're like, uh, we don't, we, we would rather not answer that question because he didn't declassify the documents. I've got to say one thing about that.

He didn't declassify the documents. You guys know that, right? Like they know that. Of course. So the special master was like, okay, look guys, he's telling the Trump team. You're telling me, you don't want to tell me if you declassified them. But then how do I rule on whether they're personal to you? Because that's what the special master is for.

Hey, government, don't look at that. That's Trump's private letters and documents, et cetera. But okay, so which ones are the private documents? We're not going to tell you. Didn't what did you ask for the special master? That's my job is to say okay, that's Trump's documents. Now it's called, by the way, he said, you said it's classified and then, but it's your private documents. But there are no classified documents that are private.

So why are we even having this conversation? Remember, Trump picked this judge, okay, and you want to know why he picked him? This is so funny. He had actually ruled against Trump, again, in the Carter Page FISA warrant. But Trump had heard through the grapevine that he was very sorry about that and regretted it and thought, okay, I shouldn't have done that. So we're going to pick him? No, he's just a normal judge who's like, yeah. No, you have to present legal arguments in court.

You say, I lasered it over to you with my eyes is not a legal argument. Oh my God. I just, but look, to be fair to Trump, so many right. politician said terrible things about him in 2016 during the Republican primaries, and then turned around, got on their knees and kissed his ass. Maybe he thought he was one of those. Yeah, 100%. Why wouldn't he think that? Well, let's get to this appeals court ruling because it's another major blow to Donald Trump

and this investigation, well, his part in this investigation. So the appeals court also pointedly noted that Trump had presented no evidence that he had declassified the sensitive records, interesting, as he maintained as recently as Wednesday and rejected the possibility that Trump could have an individual interest in or need for the roughly 100 documents with classification markings that were seized by the FBI in its August 8th search of his Palm Beach property. Now, I want to also get to the great decision that will allow the DOJ to finally review those documents. Remember, because of the implementation of the special master, the DOJ wasn't able to review the documents until the special master goes through them and determines whether

or not anything is protected under attorney-client privilege. Well, the appeals court is like, no, we disagree with that. The DOJ can actually go ahead and review the documents now. So just to give you a little bit of background, the initial ruling was by Judge Cannon, who's a Trump appointee had said the hold would remain in place pending a separate review by an independent arbiter. She had appointed at the Trump team's request to review the records. The appeals panel agreed with the Justice Department's concerns. Now, in their ruling, the three judges on the panel identified more than a dozen legal errors in Judge Cannon's decisions and said that she abused her discretion. And by the way, they're not the only ones. Legal experts

agree with that. Bill Barr, okay, Trump's former attorney general, he agreed with what the three judge panel is saying here. And here's what they wrote of the documents. Quote, it is self-evident that the public has a strong interest in ensuring that the storage of the classified records did not result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security. Assertaining that necessarily involves reviewing the documents, determining who had access to them and when, and deciding which if any sources or methods are compromised. And an injunction that delayed or prevented the criminal investigation from using classified materials, risks imposing real and significant harm on the United States and the public they wrote. Yeah, so in that portion, what they're saying

is, look, the government is saying we have to look through these documents and trace back all of the sources that we have in other words potentially spies and who knows about these documents and how they might have been compromised because at some point we might have to pull from the field because their lives might be in danger and Trump counters with yes but I thought about declassifying it so they're not declassified and the judges are like is this like an S&L skit what one side presents no evidence and we're not even they don't even tell us what which documents we're talking about. The other side has a rock solid case that is inarguable. Why are we having this conversation? That's why they're mad at the the Trump appointed judge because they're

like, this is clownish. This is your endangering national security with no justifiable reason. Final thing I'll say is imagine sitting in front of the man who says verbatim, you can declassify it just by thinking about it. And not challenging that notion. That's Sean Hannity, sat there, didn't challenge it, just sat there and accepted it. Yeah, if Bernie was on this show and he was president, he told us, I declassified the documents, guys.

I did it by just looking at it, I thought about it. I'd be like, Bernie, are you serious? You're okay, let's take a break, this guy's not okay. That's crazy. All right, last thing, special master, Judge, I love this guy. He's like, you can't have your cake and eat it too. So he says, the classified, you're saying, Trump is saying, the classified documents are mine.

And I'm saying, okay, which one? And you say, I don't want to tell it. It's ridiculous. What do you want me to do? You're not telling me which documents are your personal property. And my job as a special master is to figure out what's your personal property to make sure the government doesn't look at it, right? Not going to tell you, but I am thinking about it. Well, okay, hey, right wing, enjoy, man, enjoy.

Hey, that's your leader. God bless. I'm very happy about it. Go ahead. Well, there's more on this story, including the fact that Trump further incriminated himself during this interview. We'll tell you the details on that when we come back from the break. All right, back on T.I.T. Jank and Anna and Celeste Rays, Meredith Block, and Anna's new favorite member, get to the point. Now all joining us because they hit that joke button below on YouTube. Come and join us wherever you are, t.wit.com slash join. All right, Casper. Let's do it. I did declassify, yes.

Okay. Is there a process? What was your process to declassify? It doesn't have to be a process, as I understand it. You know, there's different people say different things. But as I understand, there doesn't have to be. If you're the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it. Because you're sending it to Mar-a-Lago or to wherever you're sending it. You just watched the moment where Trump incriminated himself during his interview with Sean Hannity. As many of you all know, Trump is being investigated for taking top secret and classified documents home with him from the white. Stop.

how fast you were going. I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Neeson. Buy your tickets now. I get a free chili dog. Chilly dog, not included. The naked gun. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. It housed to Mar-a-Lago, and when he had multiple opportunities to hand those documents back to the federal government, he refused to do so. So in that interview, he said, declassify them before sending them to Mar-a-Lago or wherever you're sending them. That's an important line to focus on here. As Maggie Haberman over at New York Times pointed to, the focus is understandably on

Trump's claim of mental declassifications from his Hannity interview, but he appeared to indicate he intentionally sent the documents to Mar-a-Lago, which, and she's right about this, cuts against the, it was an accident claims, okay? Yeah. And she also made sure to highlight the part of the transcript that's relevant here. if you're the president of the United States, Trump said, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it, because you're sending it to Mar-a-Lago or to wherever you're sending it. By the way, where else have you sent those classified documents?

100%. All right, so here we go again with Trump's nonsensical excuses. He's like, well, you know, they might have planted those documents over there. Hey, I didn't leave him in that mess. I looked through all of them and left him in much better shape. You made it look like a mess when you put them on the floor. Oops, there goes that defensive. They planted it. You just admitted that you put them there.

Then he said, I don't boxes. I've never packed boxes. I don't know about boxes. The GSA must have sent those boxes. Okay. Now he's like, now remember when I sent them over to Mar-a-Lago, they were already declassified. No, it's amazing. It's amazing. I totally understand why Donald Trump and Alex Jones have the kind of friendly relationship they have. They're both the same person, okay? They're both crazy and they love to incriminate themselves on live television or whatever content they're producing in the case of Alex Jones. I mean, he's facing another trial as we speak and can't stop saying things about the judge presiding over that trial that keeps getting him into trouble. And Trump can't stop himself. from incriminating himself while he's in the process of being investigated.

And this is just one of the investigations. I mean, you could find examples in the other investigations that he's facing as well. When you're being sued or if you're dealing with a trial, lawyers urge their clients to shut up. Don't release any statements. Don't talk to the press because the last thing you want to do is say something that could be determined as defamatory that adds another charge or another issue in a trial. or you don't want to say something that's contradictory, that contradicts your claims. But Trump, he's above the law, so he just throws anything out there to see what sticks.

Yeah. So now he's put both his legal team and his allies in a very difficult place. Because now the legal team already went to court and the special master and the appellate judges all asked. By the way, two out of the three appellate judges, Trump appointed. Okay. And they ruled against them definitively, right? And they come into court and they go, okay, Trump magically declassified documents. He might have declassified them through magic. And they're like, yeah, that's not how courts work. So did he, forget the evidence for now, just did he declassify them or didn't?

We're not going to tell you. That's not a thing in court where you don't tell me. This is not a Sean Hannity interview where you can say whatever you want, right? So you lose. We're moving on, right? Now, so how about his allies? Well, now all of the Republican senators are being asked, can you declassified documents by just thinking about it?

Because that would allow Biden to declassified documents by just thinking about it. That would allow Hillary to declassify documents. If she ever looked at him, she'd go, no, she wasn't president. To be fair, Ms. Oh, that's right, he did say president. You're right, you're right. So, and look and think about that, guys. He took Nixon's line to the next level.

Nixon once got a massive trouble for saying, if the president does it, then it cannot be illegal. That was when America had standards. Yeah, and he got thrown out of office because of that's right, because America had standards. Right. Now, Trump says, hey, Nixon, hold my beer. Okay, if the president thinks it, it cannot be illegal. Well, okay, are we going to apply that to Biden, Obama, everybody else? Of course you can't say yes. As sitting United States senator, I mean, maybe they'll do it, but they can't say.

Yes, you could, there's magic in the world and there is no process, even though we know there's a process. And you could just match, only Republican presidents can magically declassify things just by looking at them. So what a thing? One other portion of the interview that I think is worth discussing is the unhinged speculation he engaged in regarding why the FBI conducted the raid in the first place. Just throwing some ideas out there. And here's, in my opinion, one of the craziest. There's also a lot of speculation because of what they did, the severity of the FBI coming and raiding Mar-a-Lago. Were they looking for the Hillary Clinton emails that were deleted, but they are around someplace?

Were they looking for the- Well, wait, you're gonna say you had it? No, no, they may be saying they may have thought that it was in there. And a lot of people said the only thing that would give the kind of severity that they showed by actually coming in and raiding with many, many people, is the Hillary Clinton deal, the Russia, Russia, Russia stuff? Or, I mean, there are a number of things, the spying on Trump's campaign. I don't even know what any of that means.

Okay, there's so many wonderfully irrationalities in just that simple clip. Can I just throw one theory out there? Because I'm trying to decode what he's trying to get at, right? Is he alleging that there's speculation that he was behind the Hillary Clinton campaign email leaks? And so they're, okay, then I don't understand. No, none of it makes sense. You're trying to make sense for a moron. I just, yeah.

Okay, he just told you, they might have ridded my house to find Hillary's emails. No, you don't have to try to analyze that. The guy's an idiot. He's a lunatic. Yes, that's the thing, it's cognitive dissonance, because especially, reporters in DC they think well 30% of the country can't be nuts but yet Trump appears to be nuts and they love him right so I I'm gonna resolve it by saying Trump is not nuts Trump is smart and has strategy we just can't

understand no no the actual explanation is yes 30% of the country is unbalanced they look at things like then they're like oh yeah that makes sense man you if you really want to get Hillary you go to Mara Lago okay and then you go and invade Trump to get Hillary, okay? So is it, is he happy about it then? But guys, Jehanity accidentally asked a good question. He didn't mean to. Before, when Trump was talking about how he just thinks and things get declassified,

Jahadianian challenging about all. But on this one, he's like, wait, did you have Hillary's emails? Why would you have Hillary's emails? Did you take them? And then the last part of the irrationality, he's like, some people are saying that they might be Russia, Russia. that information and how they spied on my case. So the FBI might be trying to unlock how he was spied upon and how the Russia thing was a hoax

and they would do that with the documents that he had. Great. Then we don't have a controversy at all. Give it to them and let them look at it and see what they are. Why don't you help them if they're going after Hillary and they're trying to prove you that you're right? Why don't you help them? Why are you fighting them?

That's so weird that you're fighting them when they're trying to help you. But with the right wing, they just don't care. They're like, sure, of course, whatever you say, please sleep with my wife. Oh, my God. They would, I swear to God, if he did it on national TV, they would definitely be like, oh, yes, yes. He slept with my wife to protect Hillary's emails. All right, I'll let you guys just, I'll give you some time to absorb that, okay? Let's take a break. When we come back, we'll talk about the Alex Jones trial.

There's a lot to catch up on it in that regard. So stick around. All right, back on TYT, Jake Anna and PJ, and PJ Tran just joined. So we appreciate it. If you're watching on YouTube, it's super easy. The button below is called Join. All right, Casper. Let's talk about Alex Jones and the recent updates from his trial. I showed you a video where you were describing not just one parent, but a bunch of parents coming up and doing the fake crying and the laugh.

Do you remember that video? No, no. If you've got a school of 100 kids and then nobody can find them, and you've got parents laughing on ha ha ha, ha, ha, and they won't go. over some camera, I mean, not just one, but a bunch of parents doing this. They think we're so dumb that it's really hidden in right view. Does that refresh your recollection about referring to not just one parent, but a bunch of parents doing the fake crime in the laughing? This does.

Today, Alex Jones took the stand to testify in order to essentially determine damages. He owes to the defamed families of Sandy Hook. victims. This is the second of the three trials that he will be facing to determine damages. Now, this particular day of testimony was, well, as unhinged as you can imagine, the families are trying to make the case that while they suffered from the conspiracy theories that he spewed about them, Jones profited heavily from it. And his coverage of the Sandy Hook shooting, the lies that he told about the victims and the families. That was incredibly lucrative for them. Christopher Mate, or Mati, the lawyer for the families, delved into Jones's business

model, selling diet supplements and other merchandise on his conspiracy-laden broadcast. This is key to the case. It's already been established that Jones violated Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act by using lies to sell products. There's no limit on damages under the act, and this is the damages trial. Now last week, their lawyers spent several days showing how traffic to info wars, its website, surged as Jones would speak about Sandy Hook and spew these conspiracy theories about the victims and their families. And while today was the first day we saw Jones in court, he's been attacking the judge, which is a really great idea, by the way. While you're standing trial, attacking

the judge is just fantastic. But it does give you a sense of the sense of entitlement they have where they think they could just, first of all, talk about the trial outside of court, which they're not supposed to do. And he thinks he could say whatever he wants about the judge with no ramifications whatsoever. So Joan said this. This is a travesty of justice. And this judge is a tyrant. The judge is ordering me to say that I'm guilty and to say that I'm a liar. None of that is true. I was not working. I'm sorry. I was not wrong about Sandy Hook on purpose. I questioned it. That was his argument against the judge and defense of himself, Jank. Yeah, well, the judge is telling you that you can't say you didn't do it because we already

adjudicated you guilty. That part of the trial is already over. He's a gal, but I didn't do it. Yeah, but no, you can't say that. We're in the damages part of the trial, right? So if you wanted to say that, you had all the opportunity in the world. You were supposed to show up and you were supposed to do discovery. You were supposed to hand over documents and we're supposed to have a normal trial.

And you refuse to do that. Now you come back and cry about how, oh, well, I wasn't guilty. No, that's not how it works. So look, I think he's basically given up. There's something in those discovery documents that he thinks are worth over $100 million. Because he's going to, he lost about $50 million in the first case. He's got two cases left to go. And he surrendered in all three cases because he didn't want to turn over the documents.

So that's why we're only doing the damages parts here, right? So, Jesus, what's in those documents that makes him think it's worth that much? So he's basically saying here, I don't give a damn about the law, about the judge, and I'm just going to try to hide the money. And so nobody doesn't care about losing $50 million. That's not a thing, okay? And so that means he thinks, I think I can outsmart you. I think I can hide the money.

So I don't mind losing $100 million or more. because you're never going to get it. I mean, you might be right about that, and we'll see how that plays out. He was trying to file for bankruptcy. I don't think that has gone through. But his statements about the judge did catch the judge's attention, and she talked about it in court. So let's see how she addressed the situation. You've called this judge a tyrant, correct?

Yes. One way that you've been conveying to your audience that Judge Bellis has been act like a tyrant is by showing her with lasers coming out of her eyes, right? You know, you did that? I didn't direct that first time I saw it was in court. I'm barred from saying why I said it. I didn't ask you why. This is the tyrant you've been telling your audience about, right?

I don't know. I thought the laser eyes were a good thing. Yeah, first of all, do the boomers in that courtroom know that it's, you know, what would be dark bellis. Right, right, right. And that that would mean she's a badass. But I don't think Alex Jones team meant it complimentary. Yeah, yeah. He also had a hard time keeping it together throughout today's testimony. Several lines of questioning from the lawyer representing the families prompted outbursts from Jones in violation of court rules, which require him to answer questions in a yes or no fashion. By the way, this was going on in the first trial as well.

It was incredibly frustrating, listening to his testimony. The judge, Bellis, repeatedly reminded Jones to just obey the rules. And by the way, in the first trial, there were all sorts of issues. I just, the reason why these guys have a sense of entitlement is because they're not judged by the same rules that all of us are judged by, right? I remember serving on a jury years ago back in 2008 or 2009. And the judge was so strict that she told all of us that if we show up to court dressed in appropriately. If the women come in with a sleeveless top or dress, she will hold you

in contempt of court. And the idea that you would talk crap about the judge and then come to trial, testify, and not be held in contempt is pretty amazing. It really is. Anyway, he lashed out at the family's lawyer saying that he won't apologize to him. So let's take a look at that. You have families in this courtroom here that lost children, sisters, wives, moms. This is a struggle session? Are we in China? I've already said I'm sorry hundreds of times. And I'm done saying I'm sorry. I didn't pregenerate this.

It was the first person to say it. American governors didn't like being blamed for this as the left did. So we rejected it mentally and said it must not be true. But I legitimately thought it might have been staged. And I stand by that and I don't apologize for it. And don't apologize, Mr. Jones. Please don't apologize. No, I've already apologized to the parents over and over here.

Because we know, you're not an objection. Don't apologize to you. So I don't think the lawyer was asking for a personal apology, but it is what it is. Of course. Yes. He's trying to misdirect there. So look, I think the court, the most important part of all of this is how are they going to get the money? So once they have the orders and it guys, I didn't grow,

up an entitlement, and I bet you a lot of you didn't, right? So you're probably having trouble understanding Alex Jones and Donald Trump. Like, I have trouble understanding them. How do they, like if I broke a law or if I broke even a rule, the world would come down on me. So I'm worried about those things. There are consequences in all of our lives, right? But for them, they've never been held accountable. So their mind is not like ours. They think, no, I don't, I can break any law I like. And I don't ever have to pay my victims. I don't have. to. It's hard for us to comprehend it. So we should show them. No, the law actually applies to everybody. That's the core of this country. Are we equal or are we not? So the court should

seize everything. His house, his cars. If he's on one of those little mopeds, come get the moped from underneath him. He's having a burger. You go, what a burger. Just take the burger. Just have somebody at bailiff or someone. Follow him around. Are you going to go shopping? No, I'm taking those shoes. Whatever you buy is those parents. Okay, because are we going to have rule of law in this country or aren't we? By the way, if you saw those parents testifying, oh, it's heartbreaking Jesus Christ at their lowest moment when their little first graders killed,

this son of a bitch sends over fans to yell at them and to threaten them. And they're just like, what in the world is happening? And they're like, you're a liar, you're an actor, your son never existed. Man, I can't believe they didn't go to the wrong house. They are super lucky that they got away with that kind of psychological terrorism. All right, we've got one more story to do in this hour, and it is a doozy. So if you haven't been paying attention to the House race involving Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you should be because it is fascinating.

Believe it or not, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is facing a Republican challenger, a woman by the name of Tina Forte, and she has called AOC out for enabling the crime surge in the district. Now, of course, there's a crime spike all throughout the country, especially in major cities, and Republicans have chosen to run on that issue. Forte is a good example of that. Here's a portion of her campaign video where she calls out AOC directly. AOC and her radical leftist comrades promote defunding our police. AOC wants to slash police budgets for us, but hire private security for herself. Even after seeing crime surging here in New York City, AOC continues to support defunding our police,

and I'll call it what it is, crazy. AOC is out of touch because she's more concerned with scoring political points with radical Marxists than she is with keeping our family safe. We need more police, not less. We need to end the mandates, end bail reform, reinstate qualified immunity, pay police what they deserve, and fire these loony district attorneys. who refuse to prosecute criminals. New York City is experiencing higher crime because of liberal soft on crime policies. When I'm elected, I'll end the reign of their terror and protect our

families. Things have to change, and it starts with firing America's most radical member of Congress, and that's AOC. You know, I got to say, I feel really good watching that Because it's good to know that Carmelo survived that shooting. You know, we finally have an answer to that ending to Sopranos. Look, I'm from Jersey, so I can see, listen, this is what we're going to do, okay? We can't stand this AOC anymore, so we're going to keep it honest. Are you? Because get a load of the rest of the story.

So it turns out that her family has had some issues with crime. Of course. But small things, small things, not like serious crimes, just small things like drug trafficking, legal guns, that kind of stuff. So I'm actually going to fast forward to that. Now, of course, she hangs out with criminals as well, like Enrique Atario. Here's a picture of them in 2020. And just to remind you, he was arrested in charge with conspiracy for his role in the January 6th attack. But I want to fast forward to the crime that Forte's family was specifically involved.

in, okay? So she had mentioned that her family had a beverage distribution company, right? And she bragged about this on her official campaign website, Forteated. And it said this. AOC and her socialist allies have pushed for defunding our police and the disastrous bail reform policies which have caused crime to skyrocket in New York. Tina and her husband, remember her husband, he's very important, started with a soda delivery route and went on to build their own beverage distribution company. Now they're not only creating jobs, but empowering others to create their own businesses. What a hero, queen. Okay, except it turns out that that beverage distribution company was the location of a drug and gun bust by the FBI, not 10 years ago,

but just a few years ago in 2019. Yeah. Yeah. I love this part of this story. Okay, so hold on, I'm not done. Okay. Her husband was involved. Her husband, Joseph, Joey Snapple, Galdieri.

No, he has a nickname, and it's Joey Snapple. No, I'm into it, though. It's a great nickname. Hey, Joey Snapple's got a beverage distribution business. That's what Joey Snapple's doing. We do sanitation on the side. Yeah. Okay, so get a little of this.

So she's like, well, you know, my son ran into a little bit of trouble, no big deal, okay? It was just a minor marijuana bust. And, you know, his, and his father's such a goodhearted man, he didn't know. But, you know, he winds up trying to help the son to stay out of trouble, and then he gets wrap up. And he said, oh, well, you know, it could happen. People smoke weed. It's not that big a deal. The bus was for $150,000 worth of marijuana.

They brought it in a truck. It's a lot of pot. Yeah. Okay. And they made the arrangements over the phone, not like burner phones. Like the kind of phone where you can definitely track what people are talking about. Yeah. Where you can hear what criminals are talking about.

So they're like, oh, but the dad, Joey Snapple, he's a small part of it, right? They have tape. He's the one, this hands over a giant envelope of cash. He's in there the whole time. He's got an unmarked. They took off the serial number of the gun. He's got it. It's all on tape.

They call them dumps, big dumps. Okay, so I mean, they were running a major criminal enterprise. And apparently they're both felons, they've been busted over and over again for assault, distribution, but not of Snapple. Where's the law in order, Jank? Where's the law in order? You know, AOC, she's a real problem. She likes the crime, but she doesn't do it right.

Okay, we do it right, $150,000. If you want, come over to Joey Snapple. We got more product left. So again, as Jenk had mentioned, I just want to be clear in that search of the location, they did find a semi-automatic pistol where they had basically gotten rid of the serial number. Both are convicted felons. I want to give you the details on that. So pleading to a single count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, the elder, So her husband received a sentence last fall and time of time served, plus two years probation and a $20,000 forfeiture of his proceeds from the scheme. Junior, meanwhile, meaning her son, cop to a gun charge and received 18 months in federal prison, followed by two years of supervised release. Efforts to get him sprung early this June failed,

with the judge noting he persisted in criminal conduct even while on pretrial release by continuing to deal marijuana. Now, Forte has since noted on her website that we really need to do something to reform our criminal justice system. She doesn't think that people should go to prison for marijuana. This experience has given me insights to the reforms we desperately need, including decriminalization of marijuana, expungement of marijuana violations, and restoring rights for nonviolent offenders.

Now, look, I agree with that take. But how she arrived at that conclusion, at that opinion is everything. Because it isn't until a right winger is personally affected by the injustices within our system, that they finally decide, oh, we should really do something about this. Yeah, except this was not at all an injustice. That's right. He was not a licensed dealer of marijuana at all. It was a totally illicit drug transaction, including weapons.

And by the way, you want to know why they do it. Look at the story here. She says, I'm so mad that AOC's letting people out of prison without serving any time. Her husband did a $150,000 drug deal, had to pay a $20,000 fine, so he kept most of the money, and he walked out on probation. So it didn't serve any time. It literally happened to her husband that he walked out of jail without serving a larger sentence. He just did probation. And she's like, it's terrible for everyone else, but we should be allowed to do it.

And that is the right wing mind. I know it's hard for us to adjust to it. But they genuinely believe law and order does not apply to us. What they really are saying is we want more black people in jail. Period. Decode that and that you understand the right wing completely. All right, we got to take a break. We'll be back with the second hour of the show, which includes an update on Central Park, Karen,

and in the second half, I'll be debating Dennis Prager. Don't miss it. The Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.