The Young Turks - Michael Cohen Bombshells

Episode Date: May 14, 2024

""FULL OF CRAP!"" Lindsey Graham snaps at Kristen Welker in heated exchange over Biden’s threat to withhold arms from Israel. From being Trump's ""attack dog"" to star witness: Michael Cohen set to testify in hush money trial. Gen Z sinks deeper into debt: Inflation drives many to credit cards to cover costs and leave them with bigger balances. The DNA scandal that threatens thousands of criminal cases." 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 ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. Sleep, sleep, sleep. Looks like a walking corpse. Begha! Live from the Polymarket studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks.

Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparean, and we have a massive show ahead for you all today. In the first hour, we're going to talk a little bit about Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's epic meltdown on cable television over the weekend. Can't wait to share that with you. We'll also talk a little bit about a DNA scandal, DNA testing scandal in Colorado that has jeopardized literally thousands of criminal convictions. We'll give you the details on that story. And in the second hour, James Carville will be joining me to talk, did I say James Carville? I mean, Wozni Lombray will be joining me to talk. about a whole host of topics, including James Carville, a video of his from a few months ago

actually went viral recently because of the fact that he was whining about people not listening to him and the fact that the presidential election based on an average of the polls indicate that Trump and Biden remain neck in neck. So we'll talk about that and lighten things up a little later in the second hour as well. As always, just want to encourage you all to like can share the stream if you guys are watching us live. You can also help to support the show by becoming a member, t-y-t.com slash join to become a member, or you can hit that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. So let's talk a little bit about the meltdown that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham had

while speaking to Kirsten Welker over the weekend. I mean, this guy loves the theater, he loves to engage in performative politics. We saw it during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, you're about to see it again today. So Israel do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state. Senator, again, military officials say the technology has changed. But let me ask you about how all of this could impact. Yeah, these military officials that you're talking about are full of crap. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham saying military officials are full of crap.

I mean, if there were any group of people in this country that Lindsay Graham seemed to have an affinity for, it would be military people. But nonetheless, Senator Lindsey Graham had a bit of a tantrum on national television over the weekend. The South Carolina senator lost his temper while faced with somewhat challenging questions about Israel's conduct in Gaza and whether President Biden should withhold weapons to our Middle East ally. So American bombs aren't being used in war crimes or the slaughter of innocent people. As you know, former President Ronald Reagan on multiple occasions withheld weapons to impact Israel's military. military actions, did President Reagan show that using U.S. military aid as leverage can actually be an effective way to rein in and impact Israel's policy? Okay, before we get to Graham's answer, I do want to dive into what Welker just laid out in

her question. It is true that former president saw withholding arms transfers as using their leverage in order to reign in Israel. Eisenhower did it. In the 80s, Israel was at war with Palestinian fighters in Lebanon. And in fact, after former President Ronald Reagan was shown an image of a small baby with an arm blown off, he demanded that his aides get the Israeli prime minister on the phone. The conversation Reagan had with the prime minister that day, August 12th, and it was with Mechahim Began, would be one of the few times.

aides ever heard the usually mild-mannered president so exercised, quote, it is a Holocaust Reagan told Began angrily. Now Began felt insulted by Reagan's statements, considering his parents and brother were killed by Nazis during the Holocaust. But clearly Reagan didn't care how offended he was and said that the shelling needed to stop. 20 minutes later, the prime minister called back and told Reagan that he had ordered a halt to the shelling. Now, that wasn't the only time, believe it or not, that Reagan reigned in Israel by using weapons as leverage. For instance, in June of 1981, less than five months after Reagan took

office, Israel used U.S. made F-16 warplanes to bomb the Osirak nuclear plant in Iraq. Reagan agreed to vote to condemn Israel at the United Nations Security Council and to delay the delivery of four F-16s do that summer. Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon was the final straw for Reagan. After it was determined that Israel was using cluster munitions on civilian targets, Reagan banned the transfer of the bombs for literally several years. All right, so with that in mind, with that historical context in mind, Let's get back to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. Remember, Reagan was a Republican president, and see how Graham addresses Welker's question. Given the totality of the damage that's been done to children, women, men, it was reasonable to assess that in certain instances, Israel acted in ways that are not consistent with internationally Mediterranean law.

Most of the population from Gaza displaced from them. As you know, former President Ronald Reagan on multiple occasions withheld weapons to impact Israel's military actions. When you're telling the world, you're going to restrict weapons delivery to the Jewish state who is fighting a three-front war for their survival. It emboldens Iran. It emboldens Hamas. Sinwar is probably juiced up on the idea there's daylight between the United States and Israel. The hostage deal is harder. This is the worst decision in the history of the U.S. Israel relationship to deny weapons at a time the Jewish state could be destroyed. He just said that this is the worst decision in the history of the U.S. Israel relationship, as if Biden is somehow extreme in his punitive actions against Israel, which of course is laughable, to say the least.

Now remember, Biden has gone around Congress nearly 100 times to ship weapons to Israel. Since October 7th, the Biden administration has reportedly made more than 100 military aid transfers to Israel. Only two, totaling about $250 million, have met the congressional review threshold and been made public. So out of that hundred, only two of them went through Congress, or at least two of them Congress knew about. Biden transferred weapons to Israel after learning that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

propped up and funded Hamas. Bombs were sent to Israel after the IDF bombed hospitals, refugee camps, churches, and mosques in Gaza. The U.S. kept shipping weapons for Israel's war after hundreds of journalists were killed in Gaza, after the IDF mistakenly killed three shirtless Israeli hostages begging for help, and after humanitarian aid workers with the World Central Kitchen were killed in three back-to-back drone strikes. The only reason why the president is halting weapon shipments to Israel right now is because more than a million displaced Palestinians are crammed into Rafa, a tiny piece of land that Israel wants to conduct a deadly ground invasion in, and to be sure they're already bombing. The already astronomical

civilian death toll is hurting Biden electorally, and the Palestinian body count will undeniably explode with Israel's assault on Rafa. The Biden administration has been extremely clear that they just want to see a detailed plan on how the Israeli defense forces plan to protect civilians in Rafa ahead of a planned ground invasion, something that Anthony Blinken has mentioned multiple times, including over the weekend. And guess what? As you're about to hear Blinken say, Israel did not deliver on that. Given the totality of the damage that's been done to children, women, men, it was reasonable to assess that in certain instances, Israel acted in ways that are not consistent with internationally mandatory law. Most of the population from Gaza, displaced

from the north and from central Gaza, has gone to Rafa. There are about 1.4 million people there. And we said to Israel that we cannot, will not support an operation in Rafa, a major military operation, in the absence of a credible plan to protect civilians. We haven't delivered it. As we look at Rafa, they may go in and have some initial success, but potentially at an incredibly high cost to civilians. But one that is not durable, one that's not sustainable. Mr. Secretary, your national security memorandum that you signed says Israeli civilian harm mitigation efforts are, quote, inconsistent, in effective and inadequate.

Does the U.S. share the Israeli assessment that more civilians have been killed than actual terrorists? Yes, we do. And I think the report makes clear that while Israel has processes, procedures, rules, regulations to try to minimize civilian harm, given the impact that this operation, this war in Gaza's had on the civilian population. And yet you're still surging weapons to Israel. Those have not been applied consistently and effectively there's a gap between the stated

intent and some of the result we've seen. I mean, Congress did just approve tens of billions of dollars of additional military funding to Israel. I mean, it's nice to hear Anthony Blinken for the first time use these types of. of harsh critiques of how Israel has carried out this war in Gaza. Now obviously it took far less for former President Reagan to pump the brakes. And Welker pushed back on Graham, which led to the epic tantrum you're about to see. Well, historians would say, why is it okay for Reagan to do it and not President Biden?

But let me ask you about the big deal. Can I say this? Why is it okay for America to not to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end their existential threat war. Why was it okay for us to do that? I thought it was okay. To Israel do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state? Senator, again, military officials say, the technology has changed. But let me ask you about how all of this could impact. Yeah, these military officials that you're talking about are full or crap. It is amazing how effortlessly some of these politicians will throw America under the bus in order to justify war crimes. being committed by Israel and to be sure dropping nuclear bombs in Japan is not a bright

spot in America's history. Invoking nuclear weapons as something Israel would be justified in using in Gaza, a strip of land that's 25 miles long and five miles wide is pretty insane, especially when we're talking about the heavily armed and U.S.-backed IDF. While Hamas can certainly do damage with its assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades, and anti-tank weapons, those weapons are nothing compared to the 2000. pound bombs Israel has been dropping on Gazans. Obviously, we're dealing with an asymmetrical war in terms of offensive and defensive capabilities. But for some reason, our government is pretending like that's not the case. Gaza doesn't have the Iron Dome either, which is why the

death toll among civilians in Gaza is so disproportionate. And comparing the tens of thousands of Hamas members to millions of well-armed soldiers in the imperial Japanese army during World War is beyond stupid, besides which the bloodshed during that war was so horrible that the international community established rules of war or international laws that Israel has completely disregarded with the help of the United States. But the real question is, why the hell is the United States? A country literally drowning in, you know, financial issues, debt due to its federal government running a deficit every year since 2001. Funding weapons. for Israel. I mean, Israel's doing well, financially speaking, economically speaking. In

2022, the government's revenues rose 4.8% and exceeded the total expenditure, creating a surplus for the first time since 1987, the ministry said, 2020 was characterized by an exceedingly high increase in state revenues, adding to the exceptional growth in 2021 following an impressive recovery of the economy from the coronavirus crisis, the ministry said in its report. Must be nice because, you know, Americans haven't experienced their economy recover from COVID like that. Of course, due to the ongoing war in Gaza, Israel has managed to reverse its surplus and the country's budget deficit soared to 4.2% of gross domestic product last year. But the point remains if Israel was better positioned economically than the United States before the war began, why are American citizens, American taxpayers paying for the bombs, Israel is dropping in Gaza.

Aside from the surge of military funding, the United States has provided to Israel during the current war in Gaza. The U.S. provides $4 billion in aid to Israel annually every single year. Most of the aid, approximately $3.3 billion a year, is provided as grants under the foreign military financing program, funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services. In other words, the United States is engaging in the redistribution of wealth from hardworking, taxpaying American citizens to weapons manufacturers.

And if anyone has the audacity to gently express concern for the loss of innocent human lives like Biden is kind of doing now, corrupt lawmakers like Lindsey Graham lose their minds. And we all know why. I mean, you think Graham is pandering to Jewish voters in his state who make up a whopping 0.3% of the 5 million residents there? Or could it be that his top donors are weapons manufacturers? I don't know, why don't we take a look? Because the last time Graham won re-election was in 2020 and he had quite a campaign war chest. Open Secrets has a list of his top donors. And at the very top is the Republican Jewish coalition, which is a pro-Israel lobby, of course. You have

Lockheed Martin that donated $81,033 in just one election cycle in 2020. U.S. Department of Defense, its employees donated $41,982 to Lindsey Graham in just one election cycle. And then you have Boeing, which donated $41,863. Those weapons manufacturers love Lindsey Graham's performative crap on cable news. They paid for the theater and the senator was more than willing to get. them a show this weekend. We got to take a break when we come back. We're going to talk a little bit about the hush money trial, Michael Cohen. Trump's former fix it attorney was testifying in court today. We'll tell you whether that testimony was helpful, how he did, and where we think

this case is going to head to next. Come right back. Last week in the Trump hush money trial, I have to be honest, I felt that the reporting on the Stormy Daniels testimony did not bode well for the prosecution, especially because Donald Trump, of course, is dealing with charges having to do with him allegedly falsifying records and documents in order to cover up the crime of campaign finance violations, which was, of course, Michael Cohen paying hush money to Stormy Daniels. Stormy Daniels knows nothing about the falsifying documents portion of this case, which is why I didn't think that her testimony was necessarily helpful. However, today might have been a little bit of a change, and I wanted to talk about that. I am being indicted for you. Over the weekend, former President Donald Trump rallied supporters in New Jersey as the coming testimony of his former fixer and now critic becomes the focus of his

criminal trial. I'm kind of looking forward to it because again, can't be finished with something unless you start it. Michael Cohen is at the center of the prosecution's case, having handled the payment of $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump back in 2006, which he denies. And today, Trump's former fix-it lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified in the criminal hush money case, in which former President Donald Trump has been charged with allegedly falsifying documents in order to cover up that crime. Now, this is a big deal because there's been a lot of speculation as to whether or not Michael Cohen's testimony would be helpful. Unfortunately, we don't have cameras inside the courtroom, so I can't judge his testimony based on what I hear and see with my own eyes.

and ears. I have to go based on the reporting from those who were in the courtroom. Based on what they're saying, his testimony was in fact damning and could be incredibly helpful for the prosecution. Now, of course, the testimony by Michael Cohen has been highly anticipated with Cohen serving as the prosecution star witness. Back in 2018, he did in fact plead guilty to making a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Under Trump's direction, that is what he alleged, for the principal purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election, which of course is a violation of federal campaign finance laws. New York prosecutors alleged that Trump illegally disguised reimbursements related to the Daniels Hush money payment as a monthly retainer for legal services, leading to 34 false entries in New York business records.

New York law states that falsifying business records rises to a felony when an individual's intent to defraud. includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Now, during Michael Cohen's testimony today, he made it clear that he absolutely idolized Trump when he did serve as his fixed attorney and was proud at the time to be working with him so closely. Cohen did everything from talking with the media to renegotiating bills on Trump's behalf, including outstanding invoices from 50 vendors of Trump's failed Trump University project. By the way, Trump was sued for that and he had to pay pretty big settlement, tens of millions of dollars. The praise he got from Trump afterward made Michael Cohen feel like he was on top of the world, he told jurors.

Quote, the only thing that was on my mind was to accomplish the task and make him happy, end quote. Cohen said, referring to Trump. So he also, according to his testimony, said that he lied and bullied on Trump's behalf. This is super relevant. He said part of his job included reaching out to reporters whose stories upset Trump, asking them to make changes or take them down, and sometimes threatening legal action. Asked if he had done so in a strong and threatening manner, Cohen said he did. So a lot of damning confessions that made Michael Cohen himself look pretty bad during the time that he was serving as Trump's fix-it lawyer.

He also portrayed Trump, and this is really important in the testimony, considering what Trump has been charged with. Cohen alleged or portrayed Donald Trump as very much hands-on, like a hands-on boss who wanted updates about everything. So this is relevant to the case because, of course, Trump has denied knowing about the. the hush money payments even though he's been on national television admitting that he knew about the hush money payments. We've shown you that video nonetheless. Cohen repeatedly also told the jury that he was in the know about everything going on, meaning Trump was in the know about everything going on, and was in fact ordering Michael Cohen to make the payments. Now during Cohen's testimony, he walked the jury through an audio recording dating back to 2016

that reveals that Trump knew about a separate $150,000 hush money payment. Well, it wasn't really a hush money payment, but it was a $150,000 payment to kill a story about his alleged 2006 affair with a playboy model named Karen McDougal. In it, Cohen, you can hear Cohen telling Trump about his plan to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights from American media, which publishes the National Enquirer. Let's take a look. I've spoken to Alan Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with funding. Yes. And it's all the stuff, all the stuff, because you never know where that company, never know what he's going to be. Correct.

So I'm all over that. And I spoke to Alan about it when it comes time for the financing, which will be- What finance? We'll have to pay you. me, so no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I got no, no, no, check. Guys, I mean, look, I don't know how many people watching this are full-blown Trump supporters who think he did nothing wrong. But like, he, his, his signature is on the checks, the reimbursement checks that he gave to Michael Cohen. You just heard the audio recording in which Donald Trump

is discussing, you know, the money paid to kill the Karen McDougal story. I mean, like, there There is evidence of wrongdoing, it's pretty damning. And as I said earlier, Trump himself talked about knowing about the hush money payments while appearing on cable news. And look, I do think, I was worried about the Cohen testimony, I gotta be honest, because there is a downside, a potential vulnerability to Michael Cohen's testimony. And what I mean by that is Cohen very clearly despises Donald Trump and is holding a grudge against him.

And to be sure, I personally would hold a grudge against Donald Trump if, I ended up serving time behind bars as Michael Cohen did for the hush money payments and Trump has been able to basically skirt any and all responsibility or consequences for it. But that personal grudge might, you know, taint the jury's view of Michael Cohen and maybe might lead to them distrusting him a little bit. But what I will say is that Cohen speaking to the evidence that would help prove that Trump had falsified documents is helpful. It's very different from the testimony we got from Stormy Daniels last week that was really irrelevant to the charges that Donald Trump is facing, but the prosecution was able to bring

her on the witness stand and ask her questions because of the fact that Donald Trump is denied ever even having a sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels. That allowed for the opportunity for the prosecution to ask Stormy Daniels all sorts of questions about their sexual affair. And by doing that, I think that it actually could potentially hurt the prosecution because it could give this, I guess this air of, oh, this case is really just a hatchet job against Donald Trump. Here's this woman, you know, sharing every tiny, minor embarrassing detail about what it was like to have sex with Donald Trump. How is this relevant to the charges he's facing? But maybe that doesn't matter as much if you have better testimony from others.

Others within the Trump organization who are more familiar with how things are managed within the organization, Michael Cohen's testimony about how in the no Trump was about the wheeling and dealing going on when it came to killing the stories and the hush money payments. So I do think that potentially based on how this has been reported, today's testimony could be helpful for the prosecution. There's other stuff that was talked about in court today, having to do with Trump's relationship with Melania that kind of grossed me out. I'm not going to lie, and made me feel terrible for Melania considering what was said about her and how Trump feels about their marriage. Remember, this is based on Michael Cohen's testimony. So some might take it

with a grain of assault. I think that there might be some truth behind it. So let's get to the details of what he said. Now, Melania wasn't in the courtroom and that's a good thing. A Especially today, because apparently Donald Trump, based on Cohen's testimony, doesn't seem to care too much about Melania's feelings and wasn't really all that interested in killing, you know, the Karen McDougal story or paying the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels because he was worried that Melania would be mad that he cheated on her. No, no, he was worried about his presidential campaign. That was what he was concerned about. So Cohen said that Trump was mad at him when he was informed about the Stormy Daniels story. Cohen continued recounting from Trump, women are going to hate me. Guys may think it's cool, but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign.

Right, so obviously he's worried about the campaign. He said to me, this is a disaster, a total disaster. Cohen testified, he told me to work with David, meaning David Pecker, to get control over the story. And so Trump apparently said at the time, according to Michael Cohen, quote, I want you to just push it out as long as you can just get past the election because if I win it, if I win, it will have no relevance because I'm president. And if I lose, I don't even care. So remember, that is what Donald Trump allegedly told Michael Cohen, according to what Michael Cohen testified under oath in the hush money trial today. Cohen also said that he raised the issue of Melania to Trump while discussing the Stormy Daniels deal. He says, don't worry, Donald Trump did. How long do you think I'll be on the market for?

Not long, you know, Trump's a real catch, he's not worried about losing Melania and remaining single. He wasn't thinking about Melania. This was all about the campaign, Cohen said. Prompting Trump to smirk and shake his head in the courtroom. Yikes. Yikes. Now, the general consensus was that Michael Cohen did a good job on the stand today. Last week, again, there were some critiques in regard to Stormy Daniels, but based on what the

reporting says about what happened in court today, Cohen did a good job. He is known to be emotionally volatile, but managed to stay calm during the questioning today. And it remains to be seen, however, how he'll hold up during cross-examination, because that hasn't happened yet. So the defense attorneys have not been able to ask him questions. The prosecution brought him to the stand as their star witness and asked the questions today. And they will try, by the way. The defense will try to erode Cohen's credibility, which, look, of course they're going to try to do that. That is what their job is, right? So I'm not at all surprised that they're going to try to destroy his credibility. But to do so, Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche,

is expected to go through a presentation that includes the following. Clips from Cohen's podcast. See, this is what I'm talking about when I say Cohen's testimony could help or it could hurt if the jurors view him as someone who's just going after Trump over a personal grudge. But that's what the defense wants to lean into. They're going to play clips from Cohen's podcast, excerpts from his book, and his many interviews over the past six years where he has attacked Donald Trump. And unsurprisingly, Republican lawmakers are having all sorts of meltdowns over Cohen's testimony and the trial overall, just one example that I want to play for you all. Here's Senator Tommy Tuberville, who attended the trial today.

Here's what I'm seeing too. It is depressing. That courtroom is depressing. This is New York city, the icon of our country, and we got a courtroom that's the most depressing thing I've ever been in. Mental anguish is trying to be pushed on Republican candidate for the president for the President of the United States this year. It was depressing for who? Depressing for the Republican Party maybe, but calling the trial depressing is kind of hilarious. But he also mentioned being bitter that Trump was being referred to in the courtroom as Mr. Trump rather than former President Donald Trump. I remember when Republicans were dunking on Dr. Jill Biden for wanting to be called Dr. Jill Biden.

Look, I have to be honest with you, I hate all of it. I just, I want to call her first lady Biden, like doctor is like, really you're going to get on people's cases about that. So it didn't really bother me that people were dunking on her for that. But I'm going to go ahead and dunk on Tommy Tuberville for getting his feelings hurt that during the court proceedings, they don't refer to him as former President Donald Trump over and over again. Come on, I think, I think we've got bigger fish the fry, all right?

The title obsession, the credential obsession, not really something I'm concerned about. But anyway, that's what happened in court today. We'll see how it plays out probably tomorrow when cross-examination happens, and we'll see whether the defense can effectively demolish Michael Cohen's credibility, especially since he really is a star witness in knowing the details about the charges that Trump is facing, falsifying documents. If anyone can speak to that, it would be Michael Cohen considering he was so intertwined in that entire process of killing stories. that made Trump look bad or paying the hush money payment to Karen, to Stormy Daniels. And I feel like there hasn't been much attention paid to the real financial struggles that Americans are facing right now. And there was an interesting analysis into the amount of debt that Gen Z has been taking

out. And I want to give you the details on that. Well, at this stage of their lives, Gen Z has managed to rack up more debt than the generations prior. And unfortunately, that financial burden could have longstanding and devastating long-term effects for their financial well-being. Now, inflation has a lot to do with this. Remember, there's a massive surge in food prices, housing prices, and more and more Americans are turning to credit cards in order to make ends meet, which is just devastating all around. Now,

the average credit card balance, though, for 22 to 24-year-olds was $2,834 in the last quarter of 23 compared with the average inflation adjusted balance of $2,248 in the same period in 2013, according to new data from credit reporting agency TransUnion. Now for some, that might not seem like that big of a deal. It really depends on where you are in life. And if you're in your peak earning years, you know, a few hundred dollars increase in debt for Gen Z, not that big of a deal. Except you also have to keep in mind that they also have student loan debt, to deal with, rising prices for basic essentials, they're going to continue having to deal with. And consumer debt in the United States overall is at a record high. So seeing younger

generations start off with an even bigger hole than previous generations doesn't really give me peace of mind here. Now younger people in debt are more likely to default as well. And a higher debt balance also means that debtors will hold off on all sorts of life milestones, including marriage, having kids. The median annual wage for recent college graduates was $60,000 in 2023. Little change from the 80, I'm sorry, a little change from the $58,858 in 2020 according to the Federal Reserve of New York.

And so when you consider that the, you know, wages haven't really increased that much and their debt has increased a little bit already, then keep in mind, you know, what, uh, rent is like, what inflation is like. For instance, the median rent in the United States was $1,987 as of January, which was a 22% increase over the past four years, according to research from rent. It's an online rental marketplace, so they're able to kind of keep track on how much rent has increased in recent years or recent months.

And so the fundamentals of the economy are just not great for younger people. their salary isn't keeping up with inflation at all, their wages aren't keeping up with inflation. But further compounding the debt problem is the fact that qualifying for credit cards and loans is easier than ever. It really is. And I'm sure a lot of you have noticed it if you ever shop online and there's usually a baked in layaway program, right, where you can just apply for payments for something you're buying online, well, that has led to an explosion in debt among consumers, but it's also led to an increase in defaults because of the ease in which people are getting qualified for these loans. And look, at the same time, I feel terrible because

people aren't making enough money to afford the essentials, the basics, food and housing, for instance. And so it's not like you have like a group of people who are being super irresponsible, it's that people are unable to keep up with inflation. And it's going to be more pronounced with younger people who are just entering the job market and aren't in their peak earning years. So let's take a look at this graph. This graph was shared by the Wall Street Journal, and it kind of shows you the difference between millennials, which are represented by the orange line and Gen Z, which are represented by the green line. So in 2021, credit companies loosen the qualifications for those who, you know, could get credit cards and more people ended up

opening credit card accounts as a result. And Gen Z ended up opening up credit cards at a faster rate than other generations during the pandemic, including millennials, as you can see by that orange line representing them. The green represents Gen Z and nearly 5% of consumers, 27 or younger, had opened at least one new credit card account in March of 2020, according to Vantage score, which is keeping track of this, in August of 2025.46% of Gen Z opened new credit cards, while 2.95% of millennials did. And that trend has unfortunately translated to a greater use of credit overall. Gen Z benefited in the beginning from this. So, you know, at first, they notice that their credit scores increase because the way credit scores are calculated is kind of messed up.

Like you have to have credit cards, you have to have a line of credit, and you have to use your credit and pay off those credit cards or make payments, you know, dutifully in order to increase your credit score. So in the beginning, Gen Z started like reaping the benefits of that, okay, they have, you know, credit, they're using their credit. In the beginning, they were able to pay off their credit cards relatively easily because, you know, You know, there were, you know, businesses closed at the time. Remember, this is March of 2020. Coronavirus hits the global economy, businesses shut down. You have nowhere to really spend your money, and you're also getting some bolstered unemployment from the federal government.

Obviously that was limited, but that was a nice chunk of change, some stimulus from the multiple economic stimulus packages that were passed during the coronavirus pandemic. So in the very beginning, it was okay. But then things kind of started to fall apart, especially when high interest rates started to kick in. The drop was most drastic for millennials with credit scores between 660 and 719, whose scores ended up falling by 26 point. Now, Gen Z wasn't far behind.

The average credit score change for Gen Z with credit scores above 720 fell 24 points during that time period, according to credit karma. Now, this might be part of the reason why we're noticing a shift in the youth vote in America. So if you're noticing that polls indicate that Biden and Trump are splitting the youth vote, those are voters between 18 and 34 years old, it might have to do with how they're feeling about the economy.

And if younger voters are racking up more and more debt because their salaries or their wages aren't keeping up with inflation, and at the same time, you're hearing from the Biden administration over and over again that his economy is incredible. It's something to brag about. It's something that no one should be complaining about. Well, that's going to lead to some resentment among voters, especially if they do not feel that the economy is serving them in the best possible way. And so this is something to keep an eye out for, not only when it comes to Gen Z, but consumer

debt overall is exploding right now. And I'm worried about what that means for people's financial health, what it means for what they're able to provide for their families, how they're able to scrape by. And these are the kinds of issues that I don't think the Biden administration is paying enough attention to. Why has consumer debt exploded if the economy is doing so well? I don't see a lot of Americans running around wasting money on nonsense. I see a lot of Americans struggling to pay for gas, for groceries, for housing. These are issues that need to be dealt with. And if they're not, yeah, there are political consequences to pay for it. And I think we're seeing it with that 50-50

split among the youth vote. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we have more news for you, including a massive DNA scandal playing out in Colorado that could jeopardize literally thousands of criminal convictions. Come right back. Hello everyone, I'm your host Anna Kasparian and we're joined by our lovely, wonderful audience, including Miss Midwest Jana, who wanted to respond to Tommy Tuberville, who felt that the Trump hush money trial today was depressing. You kept repeating how depressing it was. Well, Midwest Jana says, is court supposed to be a party? I don't think so. Although I will say,

I really did enjoy being a juror once. It wasn't a party, but anyone who says that you should try to skirt your responsibility as a juror is giving you bad advice. It's actually a fascinating process. I really enjoyed it. I enjoyed learning about how it all works, but more importantly, you know, I think seeing a trial play out can be really interesting and I see it as part of our duty, right, as Americans to serve on a jury when we're called to to serve. So if you have the ability to do it, I know a lot of people unfortunately work at

places where their employer does not pay them to go beyond a jury. But if your employer does, take the jury, dude. You get a little break from work and you get to, you know, serve your country, serve the criminal justice system, and learn about the process. I think it's great. Anyway, with that said, let's move on to a DNA scandal out of Colorado. Forensic scientists who worked on multiple high-profile cases like Kobe Bryant's sexual assault investigation could be forcing thousands of retrials. Colorado investigators say some of Yvonne Woods DNA analysis over nearly three decades may have included altered data. You may remember Kobe's case was dropped back in 2004 and Woods' work led to the conviction of Alex Ewing. Remember

that? The so-called hammer killer for murdering four people in 1984 in Colorado. I don't remember the hammer killer, but I'm certainly familiar with him. now because there are some questions about whether the DNA evidence used to convict him is DNA evidence that had some missing, you know, let's just say missing details or some faulty elements to it that could end potentially lead to a retrial or the case being thrown out. Like I don't know for sure how it's going to play out and to be sure this is a developing story. It's been developing for several months now, but I do want to give you the details about about this DNA scandal in Colorado that will threaten to throw out possibly thousands

of criminal convictions in the state. Now the scandal revolves around a forensic scientist by the name of Yvonne Missy Woods. Now she tested DNA evidence in Colorado's worst criminal cases for nearly three decades. And her work was also considered the gold standard by colleagues and put away literally thousands of violent criminals. But suddenly, she resigned late last year, last November to be exact, and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation said that it had found what it referred to as anomalies in her work during an internal review.

Now the CBI, Colorado Bureau of Investigation is launching a criminal investigation into Woods. Now the unfolding scandal is throwing Colorado's criminal justice system into chaos. The state said it would need to review and retest approximately 3,000 DNA samples that Woods handled. Public defenders estimate thousands of cases could be affected. Now, in November, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, notified prosecutors that DNA testing conducted by Woods in one specific case was in fact missing data. And I think this is what sparked the whole scandal, or at least knowledge of the scandal. what led to her sudden resignation in November. Now, what did the case have to do with?

It had to do with a suspect by the name of Garrett Coughlin, who stands accused of killing three people. Now, his trial is set for April, and this likely spurred the investigation into Woods and the way that she conducts her work. In a December 5th email to district attorneys across the state, the lab director of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation said Woods had,

In some cases, altered data and in others analyze samples several times, but reported only one result. So they thought that that was a problem. And so I'm gonna pause for a second and just give us all the time, give us some time to actually like absorb how disastrous this could be. So they're thinking about retesting as many as 3,000 criminal convictions, meaning that if this is in fact the kind of scandal that it appears to be, there could be who knows how many people who were wrongfully convicted based on faulty DNA evidence. There are people who might have

even not been convicted because of faulty DNA evidence. That we don't know because they're going to retest, you know, people who fall under the 3000 criminal convictions. But it would be disastrous if even a small percentage of those people were wrongfully convicted using faulty DNA testing that was conducted by Woods. Now, we don't know. We don't know what the results are going to be, but what we do know is that her behavior is costing the taxpayers in Colorado. State lawmakers recently allocated nearly $7.5 million for possible retrials and case reviews along with the retesting. And as of December 5th of last year, the Colorado Bureau of investigation, you know, they had already begun testing or retesting some of the DNA evidence

in these cases. And as of December 5th of last year, luckily they did not find any evidence of her DNA test to be inaccurate. But they had only scratched the surface. There's still, you know, 90% of the cases that they have to look into to make sure that there weren't any inaccuracies or mistakes made. But she is also on top of all of this, facing a federal suit related to her work on a case that put a man by the name of James Hunter behind bars. Now Hunter was arrested back in 2002 after a woman and her five-year-old daughter were sexually assaulted by a man who had a sock over his face. Now the victim said that the perpetrator sounded like Hunter. They accused Hunter of being the perpetrator. And according to the Wall

Street Journal, Woods conducted a microscopic hair comparison that said she placed Hunter at the scene of the crime according to the suit. But at the request of defense attorneys, hairs were then tested by an outside lab, which determined they belonged to the victim. When the error was revealed, Woods told the judge that it was a blow to her ego according to the suit. The case was dismissed. Yeah, maybe that wasn't the right reaction, you know. I mean, shouldn't the appropriate reaction to the independent test showing that Woods was wrong? Shouldn't it be remorse? Shouldn't she be apologetic? I mean, faulty DNA testing could have put an innocent man in prison, right? Now, the case didn't end there. The DNA testing didn't end there. So then 10 months later,

detective said that they had located another hair. Woods tested it and found it contained DNA from Hunter. He was arrested again and eventually convicted of sexual assault and burglary. He is still in prison today. I just, I need to understand why the same woman who got it wrong in the same case the first time was asked to test the DNA evidence again the second time. What? But Ryan Brackley, the lawyer representing Wood, says that she is cooperating with the investigation to her credit. He says that she continues to stand by the reliability and integrity of her work on matters that were filed in court and particularly in cases in which she testified in court under oath.

And the problems with DNA evidence in Colorado might even go beyond Woods herself, which is even more concerning. Issues, according to the Wall Street Journal, are popping up elsewhere in the state. On March 1st, the sheriff's office in Weld County, Colorado said it fired a veteran DNA. analysts and will pursue criminal charges against her after anomalies in her work were discovered during the Woods investigation. And I think one of the bigger takeaways from all of this is, you know, I think a lot of people have in their minds, including myself for a long time. I just felt that DNA evidence is the end all be all. But there's definitely room for error when it comes to DNA evidence. It isn't the end all be all. And I am worried that, you know, this is going to be a chaotic

costly, an awful process for the criminal justice system in Colorado, but more importantly, an awful situation for anyone who might have been wrongfully convicted of a crime that they did not commit over the last 30 years. Remember, she's in Colorado doing the DNA testing in criminal cases for nearly three decades. So I want to stay on this story and find out how it develops, but it is potentially devastating. And I'm glad. that the anomalies were caught. We'll fill you in as we learn more details about the investigation, but it isn't looking so great right now.

All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll show you a crying James Carville and Wazni Lombre will be joining us to join in on the fun. We'll be right back.