The Young Turks - Michael Cohen Going Away For A LONG Time And Mueller Disagrees?

Episode Date: December 8, 2018

Michael Cohen is in a tight spot. Mueller disagrees with jail time for Cohen. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS 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. Drop it. All right, awesome show for you guys. Friday Power Panel, John Ilo, Jane Cougar. Nick Hanh is here, everybody.

Nick, great to have you here, brother. Okay, Nick's a fascinating cat. I'm gonna tell you more about him in the next break, but he has founded or financed 30 companies. True Patriot is a bestseller, Gardens of Democracy is another book. He has championed a $15 an hour minimum wage. back when it was called, quote, near insane. Yes. Okay.

And his group is called Civic Ventures. And get a little of this now, Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer. That's a podcast, and you can get it on the TYT network. We've got mugs for it. It's lovely. We're going to talk more about it in the second segment, and we've got a ton of stories for you guys, including Donald Trump's panic and his new appointments. We've got a new attorney general nominee, et cetera.

So, so much news, but we gotta get to the breaking news right away because Michael Cohen, well, the prosecutors have come out with information with what they're going to charge. So John Idaho, I'll take it away. Yeah, it looks like it's a bad day to be Michael Cohen and whoever it is that's individual one. They're screwed. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about it. Today, both federal prosecutors in New York State and Robert Mueller release their sentencing guidelines memos for Michael Cohen, the former lawyer, to Donald Trump.

There's a lot in these. Some areas of overlap between these two different offices, some areas where they disagree, including, I would say, fairly significant ones. But the most important part is the recommended sentence, of course. And what I'm going to read you is coming from the New York version of this. So this is not Robert Mueller's suggestion, but what the New York prosecutors say is the applicable United States sentencing guidelines range is 51 to 63 months' imprisonment. This range reflects Cohen's extensive, deliberate, and serious criminal conduct.

While the office agrees that Cohen should receive credit for his assistance in the SEO investigation, that's a special counsel's office, that credit should not approximate the credit a traditional cooperating witness would receive, given, among other reasons, Cohen's affirmative decision not to become one. So there are two interesting things. One, he's looking at potentially years in jail. The second, that he is not a cooperating witness, at least with that investigation. So bear that in mind.

They go on to say, the office respectfully requests that this court impose a substantial term of imprisonment, one that reflects a modest downward variance from the applicable guidelines range. So, despite his seeming assurance that his assistance will result in little or no time in jail, he's apparently going to spend some time there, at least if they get their way. Yeah, that is fascinating. I did not expect that. I thought that it appeared on the surface that he had given substantial help to prosecutors.

and I didn't think that he was going to get no jail time as he was looking for, but they would come out much lighter than they did. Particularly given the Flynn context. Yeah, right? Right. That Mueller basically let Flynn off, right? I'm surprised. Yeah, I think that there are a couple possibilities here.

One is that Cohen's cooperation is not as much as it appears. in public. Another is that the federal prosecutors disagree with the special counsel. So they say, okay, hey, Mueller, that's his investigation and bless his heart. But in our investigation, they didn't cooperate that much. I'll give him some credit for cooperating with Mueller, but that's a separate investigation. And then the other one that is certain, but how much of a factor each three of these things is, of course, an open question.

The last one that's certain is, his crimes are worse than Flint. Exactly, far worse than we may know. Yeah, and worse than we may know, right. Yeah. Yeah. And a lot of what you've said is going to be borne out when we look at sections from both of these different documents. First, though, I'm not going to read the whole thing.

It's still kind of long, even though this is cut down. They really lay into Michael Cohen. Like, more than I would imagine they would in something like a sentencing guideline. They really attack his character, why he committed the crimes that he did, his arrogance and things like that. Here's a small section that gets into some of that. Again, this is from the New York prosecutor saying Cohen, an attorney. An Iranian businessman committed four distinct federal crimes over a period of several years.

He was motivated to do so by personal greed and repeatedly used his power and influence for deceptive ends. Now he seeks extraordinary leniency, a sentence of no jail time, based principally on his rose-colored view of the seriousness of the crimes, his claims to a sympathetic personal history, and his provision of certain information to law enforcement. But the crimes committed by Cohen were more serious than his submission allows, and were marked by a pattern of deception that permeated his professional life. They go on to say a pattern of deception that he also used on friends and family. Yeah, well, go ahead.

I mean, you know, for sure, this is a group of people who made lying their business strategy, right? Maybe taking advantage of other people, their business strategy. And this is, you know, this has been a practice for decades in these guys' lives. Yeah, and we've been saying throughout, look, don't think that Michael Cohen was always a good guy and waiting to spring the trap on Donald Trump. No, he was a willing conspirator of Donald Trump all the way to the end when he got indisputably caught. Remember why he turned evidence in the first place. It's not like he grew up conscience. They raided his office, his hotel room, and his house.

And in that raid, they found damning evidence. So he was screwed. He had kept the tapes. He had kept a lot of the documents. So, and yes, his whole career was based on being a hatchet man for Donald Trump. So now both things are true. And now they're fighting, right? And Donald Trump says, oh, he's a liar.

Yeah, I know that's why you hired him. That's right, because you're a liar. Right. So I think the only things that Michael Cohen's ever said that are true are the ones that are backed up by the documents would show that Donald Trump and him were lying together, right? And so, now, nonetheless, we're surprised because we thought his, because the way prosecutors work is, is that the stuff that John read to you, is that surprising when they're going to sentencing?

If the person has not cooperated with law enforcement, it's not at all surprising. They say, yeah, this guy's a terrible guy and greed and lying, et cetera, let's throw the book at him. That's what a prosecutor does. When they cooperate, they go, yeah, he's a greedy, lying bastard, but he did give us a some good evidence, so go halfway. But this doesn't sound like that, which is what's weird. Well, actually, why don't we turn to that?

The extent of his cooperation, again, not with Robert Mueller, but with the prosecutors in New York. They said Cohen repeatedly declined to provide full information about the scope of any additional criminal conduct in which he may have engaged or had knowledge. Cohen only met with the office about the participation of others in the campaign finance crimes, to which Cohen had already pleaded guilty. Cohen specifically declined to be debriefed on other uncharged criminal conduct, if any, in his past. So there it is.

There it is. And they knew he had done a ton of dirty stuff that extended beyond what they knew about. They expected or hoped that he would come clean. He clearly declined. So they were like, okay, fine. Throw the book out. Yeah. And so there's one other element to this, right?

So am I surprised that Michael Cohen did not automatically admit to crime? They did not have documentation on? No, of course, I'm not surprised by that, right? And so could he have admitted to more crimes? My guess is dozens more, right? Lots. So now, but those crimes break into two different categories, which leads to the last part of the, I think, what is a really interesting possibility here.

So one is personal crimes, like the taxi cabs that he ran, apparently illegally, et cetera. We haven't even gotten into that yet, so he did not reveal that information about his personal crimes, not surprised and not that relevant to anything else, but the second set of crimes about what he did with Donald Trump that we don't know about. So we know about the campaign finance violations, the payments of Stormy Daniels. In the documents that they seized were recordings of Trump and Michael Cohen talking about paying off Stormy Daniels and the others and how they were going to move the money around. So he was toast on that stuff.

But he apparently did not give him information on other things they might. have done together. And remember, they ran a ton of scams. I mean, Trump University is a tip of the iceberg. He already had to pay $25 million in a civil suit for that. Donald Trump did. Total scam. Almost every operation he ran had some criminal part to it. He had the same lawyers as the mob did. He'd use undocumented workers, which has now come up again today. And but to me, the mother load that I've talked to you guys for about two years straight here is money laundering. Yeah, and Russian money laundering, exactly, because they were the only ones who were willing to let him borrow money, but at what cost and for what reason, et cetera.

Now, so that leads us to the important possibility. That prosecutor is saying, hey, okay, you gave us the things we had and we appreciate that, and so we're not gonna throw the entire book at you. But if you thought you were not gonna get any prison, still keeping the other secrets, you're very wrong. So if you'd like to actually get no prison, we'd like to know about the money laundering. Right. And I say money laundering, but it could be, I don't know their secrets.

That's my best guess based on publicly available evidence. But the prosecutors probably have more. And they're like, give me more. We know you have it. Otherwise, you are going to prison. Yeah. And I guess, so you sort of got into this, but I feel like we should make this really clear what is in this document.

I know not a reason I read it through. One was 40 pages, the other was at least seven pages, it's all legalese and everything. But one part is summed up in a tweet by Kyle Griffin. They say Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election by committing campaign finance crimes. Cohen himself is now admitted with respect to both payments. He acted in coordination with and at the direction of individual one. This is a person that we've like long known was Donald Trump.

It's very clear in these documents that it's Donald Trump. And they're not charging Donald Trump with a crime there, but they are saying that it was a coordinated thing specifically to influence the election. They didn't do this and it turned out that they broke the law. They knew they were breaking the law. They broke the law specifically to influence the election in the closing days of the election. So while they are not charging Donald Trump with a crime, they are saying that the president committed a felony and coordinated another person to commit a felony.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, now his campaign manager has pled guilty, let alone been indicted. personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, his national security advisor, and several other campaign officials, and we've got over 50 indictments. And then add to that what we just found out today, we all suspected, but it is confirmed that, yeah, it was the president who committed the felony along with Michael Cohen. Yeah. Well, here we are, now begins the question of, are we going to do anything about it.

Yeah. And bear in mind with both this and what we're going to get into with the Robert Mueller sentencing memo, like we have all of this because, even though those are New York prosecutors, we have all of this because of the special counsel's investigation. He handed off components of this investigation to state investigators as well. The right wingers that did not want this to be set up in the first place and have attacked us whenever we talk about it since then. We wouldn't have had any of this stuff if not for that original investigation, so thank

God it proceeded. But why don't we move on to Robert Mueller's memo? Okay. Robert Mueller apparently disagreeing to some extent with the prosecutors in New York about the extent of Michael Cohen's cooperation. Now understand that what Robert Mueller appears to be focused on in the memo which we're gonna talk about now isn't necessarily just the campaign finance violations that the federal prosecutors are talking about. So in terms of cooperation, he said this. Michael Cohen also has gone to significant lengths to assist the special counsel's investigation.

He has met with the SCO on seven occasions, voluntarily provided the SCO with information about his own kind of conduct and that of others on core topics under investigation by the SEO and committed to continuing to assist the SEO's investigation. The information he has provided has been credible and consistent with other evidence obtained in the SEO's ongoing investigation. And so look, that's pretty vague, although they do use the term core topics, and so we can imagine what some of those might be. They do give some specific examples as well.

And part of this ties back to a topic that came up about a week or two ago, and that was the Moscow Tower project for Donald Trump. And Mueller says this, the fact that Cohen continued to work on the Trump Tower Moscow project and discuss it with individual one well into the campaign was material to the ongoing congressional and SEO investigations, particularly because it occurred at a time of sustained efforts by the Russian government to interfere with the U.S. presidential election. And so that is apparently one of their core concerns. It came up just a couple of weeks ago, but it is something that they have apparently

been talking about. And it's interesting, they point out in pretty stark detail how originally when Michael Cohen was working with that office, he lied about it, not just publicly, but also to the SEO. It was only after some evidence was presented that he had been lying, that he switched up his story and began to say things that turned out to be credible and consistent with other sources of information. Yeah, so now let's look at analyzing what Mueller is saying, as opposed to the federal prosecutors, because Michael Cohen charged by both, okay? So the federal prosecutor is not happy with his cooperation overall. Mueller, more happy about how he cooperated with the core investigation.

Now, what does that mean? My sense of it, based on the overall context is, Mueller views the core investigation to be related to the election. So if you're talking to the Russians about the Trump Tower in Moscow during the election, that's related to the election. If you were having meetings with the Russians and then lying about it as Michael Flynn did, that is related to the elections. If you colluded in getting emails from stolen emails from the Russians, that is related to the election.

If you had other crimes, which Cohen and Trump have done, it appears, based on publicly available evidence for decades, well, that's the federal prosecutors in New York, and that would be their business and not Robert Mueller's business as a special counsel. Now, and that is why he handed off some of those stuff to other prosecutors. Now, among those crimes might be, as I've been saying all along, money laundering for the Russians. Now, I think that that would be related to the investigation if it turns out he owes them money or he's done favors for them or they've done favors for him. But this indicates, and so the not great news, if you ask me, is that Mueller did not perceive

his mandate to be anything beyond this specific election. So if Trump was in bed with the Russians before the election, he apparently, it's, I might be overanalyzing, but based on this information, it appears that he thought that was outside of his mandate. Not that you shouldn't do anything about it, but he handed it off to federal prosecutors in New York where those crimes might have been committed. Do you think that there's anything to the difference between the, the, the approach of New York, in the approach of Mueller, in the three-dimensional chess game of

pardons that's going on, too. Yeah, there's three layers to that. It's a great, great point, Nick. So one is political, which is, hey, Trump's constantly been attacking the so-called witch hunt of the special counsel, trying to fire the special counsel. Well, you can't, it's much harder to fire federal prosecutors in New York and elsewhere. and he hasn't done as much propaganda against them that he hasn't laid the field, et cetera. Then there's the secondary issue, which is who can receive pardons and who can't from the president.

Yes. People at the federal level can receive pardons from the president, but not at the state level. So if they wanted to make it fully pardon proof, they would then hand it off to not federal, but state prosecutors. So, and there are plenty of crimes that Michael Cohen might have committed and Donald Trump might have committed. And Paul Manafort. And certainly Paul Manafort at the state level.

So then they could not get a pardon under any circumstance for those. But that some of those investigations have begun, but they're a little bit earlier in the process than these federal investigations. Right. I want to read one more section just because I like a bit of terminology used by Robert Mueller in the sentencing memo. This is again about the Trump Tower Moscow project. And Mueller says, in or around November 2015, Cohen received.

the contact information for and spoke with a Russian national who claimed to be a, quote, trusted person in the Russian Federation who could offer the campaign, quote, political synergy and, quote, synergy on a government level. The defendant recalled that this person repeatedly proposed a meeting between individual one and the president of Russia. The person told Cohen that such a meeting could have a phenomenal impact not only in political, but in a business dimension as well, referring to the Moscow project, because there is, quote, no bigger warranty in any project than consent of the president of Russia.

Cohen, however, did not follow up on this invitation. And so I just note the inclusion of political synergy, because you are likely to hear no collusion was mentioned in the document. I believe that that's about the same thing. Maybe. Let's look up the word collusion. Exactly. But political synergy might be a pretty close synonym.

But importantly, and what we've been leading up to is, as I've been saying this whole time, there does seem to be disagreement between the federal prosecutors and Robert Mueller in terms of what sentence he should serve, at least subtly. And so skipping ahead a bit to the control room, Mueller concludes by saying the government respectfully submits that the court should give due consideration to the defendant's efforts set forth above and that it would be appropriate to allow the defendant to serve any sentence imposed in this case concurrently with any sentence imposed in the United States v. Cohen. So hypothetically, I don't know how long that sentence is, but that could take. some time off of his full sentence. Right. So they're recommending that it not be served back to back, but at the same time, which of course greatly reduces his sentence.

And so that difference between the federal prosecutors in New York and Mueller's office is very important. Because Mueller is saying, as to the core issues that I am investigated, which is the election, Cohen has been fairly forthcoming and very helpful. And the federal prosecutors are saying, when it comes to the other crimes, not. so much, and hence the difference in how they're treating him. Yeah. And you might have read earlier today when people were talking about what the Mueller team

was likely to come out with, we were expecting both these memos about Michael Cohen, but also information about Paul Manafort. How is it that he actually breached his agreement with the SEO? And according to Jake Tapper, he reported that Robert Mueller's team will file its description of how Paul Manafort breached his cooperation agreement largely under seal. So unless something has changed since we went live, it is likely that for the time being, we won't know exactly why. And I mean, there are a couple of reasons why they might want to hide that information, but

it's probably not good for Paul Manafort that they needed to be hidden still. Yeah. Yeah. I think that if Cohen was expecting no jail time and all of a sudden got this, does he give up more information? Does he then say, okay, what do you need? What do you need for me to serve no prison time? Do you need, you know, evidence on crime X, and he'll probably offer a lower one, right?

And they'll go, right? Well, you know, again, look, we can't know with certainty if Trump did money laundering. But there's so much available evidence. He buys properties and sells them at much higher rates to the Russians, which makes no economic sense except for it's money laundering 101. He works with the same exact banks as the Russians. He puts his money in Deutsche Bank, what was called the global laundromat, okay, that's how much money laundering that the Russians did through Deutsche Bank.

And Trump was in the same bucket. By the way, Deutsche Bank information is now in Mueller's hands. So a lot of that is out there. And if Cohen is privy to that, and he might not be privy to it, right? Then he certainly has that chip in his pocket. And if he does, this is probably the time he's going to want to use it. First break. All right, let's do a break when we come back.

There's, as I promised you, a ton of news today, including what is the new nominee for Attorney General. He seems to be part of the establishment. Does that mean he's going to uphold the rule of law? Hold. It doesn't mean that at all, unfortunately. So we'll explain how bad this nominee is when we come back. All right, back on a Young Turks. Let me give you an update on Amplify all the wonderful people who are amplifying our progressive message by sending Young Tourist membership to journalism students and members of the media and political and social figures as well.

So Sherry Bonham from Alberta, 150 bucks. That's three memberships to journalism students. Plus, you get the Young Turks T-shirt specific to this campaign. you can participate by going to t yt.com slash amplify Dennis Rosen from Monterey California 150 David Rosado from New York 150 Hannah Witt from we need to talk about a relatively new show called the republic or UNFTR as a young Turks fan you already know that the government the media and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful but now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies

debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer

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

Hastings, Nebraska. Okay, yes, that took me a second. Thank you, Hannah. 150 bucks. Douglas Ferrarelli from Petaluma, California. 500. Oh, thank you, Douglas. You go on the Young Turks honor roll as well as all the others. That's 10 memberships for a journalism students. Nikesh Patel from California as well, 150. Alina E. from Raleigh, North Carolina, 150. And Josh Deekman from Akron, Ohio. A thousand bucks to get Jim Carrey and his staff, Young Turks membership.

Oh, the Carrey. All right. Okay. God bless. There's many out there left. You've got C-SPAN. Other folks in the media, Schumer, Pelosi, I think they might need it the most. Get them the progressive message that you get through the Young Turks membership. I would love for their staff to have it too. That would be huge. So that's why we offer more through those. And then one more, Tim Bergastoun from Norway. 150 bucks, thank you.

Well, now you're gonna make us send that shirt all the way to Norway. Bless your heart. Okay. I'll bring it the next time I go. Now a couple of tweets that you guys sent in using Hatchez- TYOTLive, Mandy Blizzard-Born, which is a super fun handle, says, hey, y'all, give friends and family the gift of TYT Network membership, trust me, it's worth it. Well, that's a very nice message. By the way, you don't have to just do Amplify.

You could give gifts to people, you know. That's t.com slash gift. Hey, I like John. I'm going to give him a gift of membership, Nick, et cetera, right? And last one, Tofer Reisner says, happy 90th birthday, Noam Chomsky. Yeah. Oh, well, thank you for pointing that out and continues to say, super excited to see Nick Hanauer joined the power panel.

All right, there you go. So let's talk about Nick for a second. There's a little bit more breaking news. So Nick is doing a podcast called Pitchfork Economics that's going to be on the TYT network. His organization is called Civic Ventures. And Nick is a wonderful progressive who's been fighting to raise wages for everybody. Now, you helped finance and found 30 different companies. 37, but...

Okay, 10.7, whatever. Who's counting? Who's counting? So, but why don't you just build moats and just keep it and not worry about wages for other people? Now you're asking a deep psychological question that only my mom could answer. I don't know. It just didn't seem like the right thing to do. And to be clear, you know, if the...

If the economy and the democracy collapse, it won't be that fun to be rich either. Yeah, yeah, I quote you on that all the time. And we're definitely headed that way. That, you know, we've created a set of policies that basically have turned the economy into this death spiral of falling demand, which both harms businesses long term, but also leads to, you know, the kind of insane polarization that we have in our politics. and just generally makes it a bummer to be an American. Yeah.

And, you know, I just feel really strongly that we have to get the country back on track. And the core of that is to make sure that every American who has a job gets paid enough to live a dignified life without having to rely on food stamps. Right. So Pittsburgh Economics gets released Tuesday, December 11th. That's when it begins. So for the folks at home, what do you do on the podcast? So what we wanted to do was do a podcast that was solely devoted to issues around economics and political economy. And to highlight the ways in which our, you know, all of the conversation around economics in our country, both on the right and left, has been hijacked by a bunch of terrible neoliberal ideas, you know, classical economic and neoliberal ideas.

And the simple truth is that a lot of what passes for economic orthodoxy is simply nonsense. A story rich people tell poor people. You can think of neoliberalism really as a protection racket. You know, when somebody like Paul Ryan says, raising wages kills jobs, it sounds like a claim on objective reality. What it really is is an intimidation tactic masquerading as economic theory. There's no empirical evidence that raising wages kills jobs, but if you scare the heck out of working people that it will, it's a great way to keep profits high and wages low. And the problem is that even a bunch of economists on our side still believe those things, that they grew up with neoclassical economics, the idea of equilibrium, homo-economics, all these old bad ideas. And if you take those ideas seriously, the claim raising wages kills jobs seems intuitive

and true. It just turns out that on planet Earth that doesn't obtain. And so somebody needs to confront those terrible ideas, disaggregate the lot of them, and knock them down one by one, and give people both the awareness that they're being told the lie, but also the confidence to push back against those terrible ideas and advocate for policy that actually will benefit, you know, working in middle class people in America. Yeah, and if you watch this show frequently, you'll hear me quote Nick from time to time, because he's got a great way of framing things.

And so I love what he just said there about how it's going to cost you your job. It's really an intimidation tactic. Yeah. That's why they do it. It's not a real economic principle, or certainly not backed up by the facts. It's just the way to- It's a negotiating strategy. Yeah.

You ask for a raise? I threaten to fire you. Yeah. Yeah, this is the oldest. Exactly. And it's, but the way that Paul Ryan and the Republicans do it, it's writ large. Yes. Like on a macro level, exactly.

We're gonna threaten to fire all of you. Exactly. So you ask for raise, I threaten to fire you is the oldest trick in the business person's wage suppression handbook, right? It's just that when Paul Ryan says, raising wages kills jobs, he spares people like me from having to have the pesky one-on-one conversations, right? It's just a way of instantiating a lie and a narrative that keeps working people poor and very rich people rich. And the thing is, is that people need to hear it that way.

And Jake, what we have to do and what you do that's so useful is you're turning fear into anger. And that's the way you create change. When people stop being afraid and they start being angry, that's where change comes from. And that's why this is so important. I hear you, brother, and that's why being angry on the left is actually useful for a change. We only get it from the right, usually. So that's going to start on Tuesday. Obviously, my guess, a lot of you liked what Nick just said.

You're going to get a lot more of that on the podcast. So please check it out wherever podcasts are available. By the way, his books are also The True Patriot and Gardens of Democracy. And I think you'll love those two. All right, more breaking news, John. Yes, actually tied right back to what you're talking about before the break. It has now been revealed what it is that Paul Manafort is alleged to have lied about that broke his cooperating agreement with the Mueller investigation.

Mueller has released a memo. We have the text of it here saying that he told multiple discernible lies. These were not instances of mere memory lapses, they say, and that he was apparently lying to prosecutors about his contacts with an associate who has Russian intelligence. ties and his contacts with the White House while he was under investigation. Shocking. Shocking. So I had thought that we weren't going to get access to this.

There had been some indication earlier today that we would not. We did sort of, I would love to give you more specific information about what he lied about, but as you can see, it is going to be difficult to discern much when it's all redacted. The interesting thing about redaction though, and this is where you get into, we're going to do a little bit more digging, is when you redact a paragraph, I mean, you can put anything in there. You can put a paragraph from Harry Potter and you wouldn't know if it fits or not. But there are some places where they're only redacting one word. And this is just my gut. But there's a sentence, after being told of such evidence, Manafort conceded that he and Kalimnik

discussed or may have discussed at each meeting. And it sure looks like individual one is going to fit in that block. I'll have to mess around once I'm back at my computer. Get a ruler out. Exactly. Exactly. We started doing that in earlier redactions and saw that Donald J. Trump fit. Yeah, this one looks more like individual one. I'm not sure.

But anyway, we don't know anything more about the actual nature of the lies. We do know that apparently in these cases, they had evidence independent of Paul Manafort that they were able to use to get him to finally concede that he had in fact been lying. So, and apparently he was also lying about $125,000 transfer of funds. Now, the reason we're not making a bigger deal out of it is because this is a giant, of course. Plus $125,000 that barely gets you an ostrich vest. Surprise.

Yeah, and I got news for you. The person he was lying about was Donald Trump. Okay, and when that comes out, that's not going to be the least surprising news you've ever seen. So it's not like, oh my God, we took out the redacting thing, and it was Bob Dole, right? No, but I'm saying, the reason I'm saying, the reason I think is. point that out is a lot of people believe that Paul Manafort so far, all the crimes are just independent. It's just about him. It's about his business activities. Doesn't have any connection with Donald Trump. Right. So that's a great point, yes. Okay, with that, why don't we move on to other

political news? Today, Donald Trump nominated William Barr to be the next attorney general of the United States. He was, of course, an attorney general quite a while ago under former president George H. W. Bush. And so look, there's interesting information that really comes in two categories that I'd like to talk about in this video. There's going to be why it is that Donald Trump chose William Barr, a guy who has got to qualify as an establishment figure. He's supposed to be drained the swamp after all. So why did he actually choose him? And then what do we know about what sort of AG he might be based on what he did while he was AG the last time around? So we know a little bit about what he did in the interim.

After the Bush administration, he spent most of his post-government career as the top lawyer for the telecommunications company that became Verizon, from which he retired in 2008. He later joined the Kirkland and Ellis law firm. There is some initial discussion online that I've seen about some of the activities between Verizon and the NSA that would have taken place during that time, that as their chief lawyer, he would have had to have been familiar with. So, that is interesting. If you're worried about privacy, government, you know, like intruding into your privacy, it looks like he might have an interesting history in that regard, but some of this is still

in the early stages. So in the beginning, it actually sounds pretty good when you just look at the beginning of his resume, and I'll tell you why. So he's establishment through and through. Now, do the young Turks like the establishment and defend them? No. Not remotely. But given the choice between, like, sane people who we fight against, you know, their

neo-conservative and neoliberal policies and the insanity in over the top personal corruption of Donald Trump, the establishment at least gives you a sense of some degree of sanity, right? So Kirk Lonellas, establishment through and through one of the top law firms in Washington, deeply connected to everybody else in Washington, Verizon, obviously a giant corporation. This guy's not obviously a criminal, so that's something. Right, it's not like, hey, we found this thug off the street, and he, you know, and, but he says he's loyal to me, so I like that, right? So, and working for George E.W. Bush, which we all, you know, not us, but the mainstream media just went on this huge thing of, like, oh, what a wonderful, kind, gentle, gentleman, wonderful person.

We gave him more nuanced description. He did have positive sides and also negative sides. One of one was the wrong contra, which is going to relate to this in a second. It is. Yes, but once you get past that surface, oh boy, it turns out, man, there's a very good reason why Donald Trump picked him. And as John tells you that, don't get too distracted by the fact that in our particular way that we have framed this shot, and it was unintentional, it appears that William Barr finds John delicious. Let's take a look at his salon shot. Oh, my God.

It's always hard to know which way to go. Okay, so I'm going to try to keep a straight face as I tell you about his political history. Just like, there he is. Blooming. Okay. Okay, so I've never felt more like a snack. Okay, so last night, New York Times had a report out where we already thought that it might be William Barr at that point.

The name had been floated, and apparently they had sources inside of the White House that had been in this process when his name was being floated as well as multiple others. And apparently, one qualification kept coming up in the discussion while various names were being bandied about. In some of those conversations, Mr. Trump has also repeatedly asked whether the next pick would recuse himself from overseeing the special counsel investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russia and its interference in the 2016 election. Mr. Sessions recused himself early in his tenure, souring his relationship with Mr. Trump, who wanted a lawyer. loyalist managing the inquiry. So again, that wouldn't necessarily be at the top of your qualifications list if you were a truly

innocent man who wasn't worried about what was going to be found. But an alternative hypothesis is that that would be very important to you. And I don't know enough about William Barr to say whether or not there had been strong evidence of that. We're going to go through some of it. But that apparently was at least on the mind of Donald Trump as he was considering him. Yeah, all right, well, let's begin. Okay.

You want to get into some of the specifics of what he's talked about? Yes, absolutely. Because there's two different problems with William Barr. One is specific to policy. He is horrible on criminal justice reform, the war on drugs, et cetera. If you thought Sessions was bad wait till you get a load of William Barr. It was a low bar, if you will, and he couldn't clear it. But as it relates to Trump, potentially even more disturbing.

So it's a twofer. So let's go through a little bit of this. Back in November 2017, Barr told the New York Times that there was actually more basis to investigate Hillary Clinton for the uranium one deal, then there is to investigate Trump for potential collusion with Russia. He went so far as to say the Justice Department was wrong to give Clinton a pass. And he also talked about how he doesn't find it particularly worrying for Donald Trump to be continually accusing his former political opponents of various crimes without evidence.

So there he's echoing some right-wing conspiracy theories, as well as saying that Hillary Clinton, hypothetically, if he becomes the AG, could be investigated. He's not against it. Yeah. Having read a little bit more details of what he wrote, he writes it far more eloquently than Donald Trump does. It's more nuanced. Yeah.

And it's a positive thing that it's more nuanced. But it's a slight negative that he could put a better veneer on it. Like Trump is too stupid to intellectualize arresting your political opponents. That's why you bring in William Barr, right? And he puts it in legal terms and goes, well, I suppose, or it's, you certainly don't think that, but enough Republican senators could think that to be able to justify it. It's a figling. And somewhat related to this investigation that he would be in charge of.

In Washington Post op-ed, Barr said Trump not only did nothing wrong in firing James Comey, but that he actually, quote, made the right call. And of course, at that point, he knew that Donald Trump had already revealed what was on his mind when he fired him. I mean, look, he says, like, if you just look at the qualifications, the ability of the president to choose who serves him, is it actually wrong for him to have fired him? And hypothetically, no, the president does get to decide, you know, those sorts of things. But he is being investigated at that point. And he said to Lester Holt that it was this rusher thing that was on his mind.

Once he said that, you can't pretend that this was a concern about his qualifications. Right. And that's what you bring William Barr into do, pretend. Because this bar really believed, remember the actual justification for firing Comey was that he was too hard on Hillary Clinton. That's what the memo that Rod Rosenstein wrote that Trump theoretically initially relied on it. So, well, I mean, he shouldn't have done that press conference announcing that Hillary Clinton had done terrible things, even though he was not going to recommend prosecution, because that's normally the Attorney General who would handle that and not the FBI director. So he was out of bounds and that's why we're firing him.

That is a technical reason why you could fire him, but no one on the planet actually believes that's why Trump fired him. And besides which we're not having that conversation anymore, because the knucklehead on national TV said, oh, I fired him because he was looking into me. Oh, yeah, yeah, about the Russia investigation. So, but Barr with a straight face goes, yes, I think he was right to fire Comey. That's a dangerous guy. Yeah, yeah.

Well, we shouldn't be surprised that he's picked a right-wing tool to be the attorney general, right? I mean, I'm trying to go through in my head what a case is that we would prefer. Yeah, but I'll tell you, it was surprisingly crafty, but this is a, and it's a country of 330 million people. So I say like, you know, Ted Cruz is a slimy guy and he's unbelievably unprincipled in how he takes donor money and pretends to be freedom. I mean, we've gone through, but you know what, it's a big country, you could

find a Ted Cruz, right? And it turns out you could find the one guy who appears to have establishment credentials enough for Republican senators to confirm him while actually being totally maniacally pro-Trump, pro-partons, and as bad as Jeff Sessions on the actual policy. I mean, this guy is near perfect for Trump. And related to that, we should mention that with the Iran-Contra incident, he got involved with the special counsel investigation at that point. that was looking into the pardons that were given, and he effectively stopped the prosecutor from

having any teeth, basically, to do an investigation of those pardons. Yeah, and so, look, I want to talk about Iran country just a little bit more, because I think that's maybe even a more important reason that Trump picked him than him saying, oh, yeah, he should have fired Comey, you should look into Hillary Clinton, et cetera. And he also said that he was right to fire Sally Yates from the Justice Department, the just department, he would now lead. So George H.W. Bush, during the Reagan administration, had participated in Iran contra. Let's keep it real.

That's what happened. He might have had other good parts to his tenure, and that is where they sold weapons to Iran, okay, to the Ayatollah Khomeini, because they wanted to fund right-wing paramilitary groups in Latin America. I mean, it was a disaster. Negotiating with terrorists, selling them weapons. That's Reagan and Bush. And then they turned around and said, oh, the Democrats would like to do that.

No, no, no, you guys did that. That's a fact, okay? Now, another guy that would participate in that and was critical in it was Reagan's Defense Secretary, Casper Weinberger. So H.W. Bush gets in off and he's like, should I pardon the people that were involved with me in the Iran-Contra affair? Hmm. And who does he bring in? He brings in William Barr. And William Barr says, well, of course you should.

You should not only pardoned Caspar Weinberger, but you should also pardon these five other guys so nobody ever catches any of you. So that's what William Barr is famous for. And so Donald Trump says, should I pardon people? William Barr is gonna be like, ooh, ooh, ooh, I've got the answer. The answer is always yes. Now let's turn to the policy because man, this is, William Barr is in a sense. exactly what's wrong with Washington and the elite.

He says, for everyone else, lock them up, lock them up, lock them up. For the elite, pardon, pardon, pardon, never lock them up, no matter what crimes they committed, but for the rest of you, jail sentences. So he wanted to, and did escalate the war on drugs back in the 1990s. He said, even though we have record-breaking imprisonment in this country, 2.1 million people by far the worst rate per capita of any country in the world. He says we don't imprison people enough. He said that back in the 1990s.

He recently wrote an op-ed saying it again, saying that we should imprison more people for low-level crimes like drug possession. So should we have arrested George W. Bush, who also did drugs or Obama or Clinton or any of those? No, no, no, no, no, no. Not my buddies that pay me money, okay? But you guys, you smoke or join, and William Barr is going to come for you. He enthusiastically supported sessions.

He went further than sessions. So he's going to take criminal justice reform terribly backwards while at the same time shredding rule of law when it comes to the elites. So he, I just, I didn't know enough about William Barr before the selection, but every single thing that I have read so far seems to indicate he is the worst possible pick in the country for the attorney general position, and hence why Trump picked him, the best one for Trump to further his corruption. Can I give you a couple of the worst examples, at least from my point of view that I gathered?

First of all, in 1992, he signed off on a book by the Department of Justice titled The Case for More Incarceration. Just, yeah, we should just have more of it. Yeah. Just, yeah. And so on drugs in 1992, asked about racial disparities in prisons by LA Times reporter Ronald Ostrow, he argued that, quote, our system is fair, it does not treat people differently, and then he went on to defend

laws that made prison sentences for crack cocaine much harsher than prison sentences for powder cocaine. So he knows full well that it's unfair, it's unfair by design, and he defended that while pretending that it didn't actually exist. He also, by the way, supported, if you're interested in a wall, Bar rolled out a multi-million dollar plan to beef up security in the San Diego area where crossings were then concentrated, one component of that plan building a steel fence with the assistance of the Department of Defense. So I guess he was ahead of the curve when it came to that stuff. It's almost like he was invented in a laboratory specifically for Donald Trump.

I have one more. Okay. He hired more than 100 immigration and naturalization service investigators to go after, quote, criminal aliens involved in street gangs. We don't know if they're in Long Island, but yeah, he's very well suited to serve Donald Trump. Well, like you said, there's 330 million people, right? Yeah, get one. I don't know that he could have picked a better one for him, man.

Well, last one for me, on the idea that there were victims of the criminal justice system that were wrongly imprisoned, he said that that is simply a myth. Really, there's no one, no one in prison that's unjustly imprisoned. No, we got it 100% right. What are the people of the Innocence Project doing all day? By the way, to be fair to William Barr, even he doesn't believe that. Because he thought, if you imprison the people who did the Iran contrary affair, then that would have been a terrible injustice. And then anyone who's in the executive branch who's committed crimes should of course go nowhere near prison.

Yeah. Okay. We've got to take another break, guys, believe it or not. And we've got a lot more for you guys when we return because the news does not end here. It's been a tremendous news day. We've got a lot more on shakeups in the Trump White House and crossfire between progressives and conservatives as well. Come right back. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks.

If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. All right, back on a young Turks. Real quick, Amplify program, Kellan from Indianapolis, $150, all of these are getting a t-shirt. Thank you, Kellan. Justin from Toronto, Lane Shubla from Ramsey, Minnesota, Scott Stanton from Florida. Thank you to all of you. And then these two comments are too good to pass up.

Alexa Jones says if Trump wanted Hillary locked up. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals. And it's also easy to install.

A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash T-Y-T, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. He should have put her on his cabinet.

That might have happened. Nice job, Alexa. Resistance is fruitful, writes in, I'm thrilled to say that I just became a TYT member. Nice. And the host I chose to join through is redacted. Is it individual one? Oh, so very funny. Thank you.

And by the way, I just saw the numbers. I'm pulling away from John and Anna while on vacation continues to pull away from me. You can sign up a membership through one of the host names, Nick. and Anna's just sitting somewhere crushing us. Apparently, she's pretty popular. I'm so sorry. So are we. All right, what's nice, John?

We should also be careful because she might be watching. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Let's move on. Donald Trump has a surprising pick to become the new UN ambassador. Here is part of his announcement. Heather Noward, somebody that we know very well, who's done a great job at the,

as working with Mike Pompeo and others over at the State Department, Heather Nowert will be nominated. She's going to work with Nikki Haley to replace Nikki at the United Nations. She'll be ambassador to the United Nations. She's very talented, very smart, very quick, and I think she's going to be respected by all. So he says that he knows her well, and he should, she was a host on Foxx. friends, and that might explain why he's familiar with her. Of course, she has been working with the State Department.

So while she doesn't have any direct foreign policy expertise in statements about her, they've talked about her years of talking about politics on the news, which means that we're all qualified to be ambassadors, I suppose. That's why I'm not going to argue against her. I think she is eminently qualified. There you go. Why wouldn't someone talking about politics be qualified for important positions in the government? In addition, she oversaw public diplomacy, the roughly 275 U.S. embassies while in a position,

communications position, also helmed the Global Engagement Center that combats extremist messaging. So over the past year or so, she has been doing the sort of work that potentially sets you up for something like this. No, at least at the State Department, I guess. Well, that's my point. Let's be clear, this is just another great example of Donald Trump choosing a loyalist for a key position. rather than a capable public servant. And it's super, super sad. Yes, and Nick, as usual, he backs you up accidentally by admitting it.

Here's another quote from Trump. He said, she's excellent. She's been a supporter for a long time. But that's not a, that's not a qualification for UN ambassador, right? I mean, you're not, like, even if you thought that, you're not supposed to say it out loud. That's your, that's your interior, that's your insight. Your interior voice. Yeah.

It's better than John Bolton. Yes. Well, that's true, and that's what George W. Bush did. Look, a lot of people like to whitewash the bushes and other people that were part of the establishment. Bush, to this day, still worse. Iraq war, 2008 crash. And Hurricane Katrina. Now, Trump might have tied him on dealing with the hurricanes, okay?

And if you looked at the stock market this week, trying to catch him on the 2008 crash, but has not started a war that's killed hundreds of thousand people. Bush had six years on him. Yeah, to be fair, that's true. Screw-ups per minute, Trump probably is winning. Yeah. The Hurricane Maria response is just awful. I mean, thousands of people died, so, yeah.

Yeah. Pretty bad. And then, of course, the other news is that John Kelly looks like he's going to leave in a couple of days. he's the chief of staff for Donald Trump. I think that one is far more important than this one. I mean, him putting a fox and friend person into a super important role. Like, we've gotten used to the madness. Like, it's like, you know, what's the famous thing that people say, like, about Trump,

you know, if you build a circus, you shouldn't surprise that a clown showed up, or you hire a clown, and of course you're going to get a circus, right? So we're in the circus. Everybody knows that, right? But John Kelly's chief of staff was supposed to be. a ringmaster that kept things under control so the lions wouldn't eat people at the circus. And look, I got a lot of issues with John Kelly, and he went along with a thousand things that Donald Trump did while supposedly controlling him.

So I don't think that he comes out of this looking good at all. No. But if you take him away and you put another incompetent loyalist in, ooh, man, race for impact. I mean, both for the country in terms of more disastrous decisions being made, but also for the Trump administration, which I suppose is a good thing. I mean, they're going to veer, they're already out of control, but this is going to be completely out of control and perhaps off the cliff. Maybe you can bring Corey Lindowski back.

Well, I mean, they're considering Nick Gehires, who's a loyalist, vice-presidency, but they were, they were considered Lewandowski. Yeah. Yeah. And Lewandowski is a glorified thug, right? And so to us, that's a problem. For Trump, that's the solution. Yeah.

So when that shoe drops, it'll be interesting to see. Yikers. Yeah, yeah. Apparently, one super last thing on it, John Kelly, apparently the reason Trump has not been able to fire him yet is because since it's his chief of staff, he has to do it. Normally he just has the chief of staff. He's afraid. He's afraid.

He is. Literally, inside reports saying he's a four-star general from the military, so Trump's intimidated and afraid to do it personally. Oh, he's such a little child, such a sad, sad little child. Yeah. Okay. What's next, John? Okay, we're going on?

I think so. Why? Do you do it? Okay, no, we'll do. Donald Trump Jr. decided to sign up to be the latest Republican to be dunked on by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when he shared an offensive meme about her on Instagram. If we could bring this up, this is what the son of the president put up, quote attributed to Alexandria Casa Cortez, why are you so afraid of a socialist economy?

Trump's saying, because Americans want to walk their dogs, not eat them. Of course, she didn't say that, and he didn't say that. None of it makes any sense, but Donald Trump Jr. is apparently contractually obligated to be no smarter than his stupidest fan, and that's what he put up there. So, look, we can respond to that, and we will. But thankfully, she also did too, saying, I have noticed that. Jr. here is a habit of posting nonsense about me whenever the Mueller investigation heats up. Please keep it coming, Jr. It's definitely a quote, very, very large brain idea to troll a member

of a body that will have subpoena power in a month. Have fun. She's too good. He's too good. So there are very credible reports that Donald Trump Jr. might be indicted that was being discussed on Fox News, as Judge Napolitano was talking about it. Then he said, well, Donald Trump Jr. says he's not going to be. So I guess I take him out his word, which to me meant he didn't know what he's talking about. And so, but do I know for sure that he's going to be indicted?

I definitely don't know that. So we'll see, we'll see the prosecutors know what we don't know. But certainly that possibility exists. And even if he's not indicted, the House has subpoena powers. And they could bring him in front of the House and ask him tough questions about his previous lies while under oath, and that, the lies are crystal clear. So he could be in a world of trouble. And I hear from Republicans that lying under oath is an impeachable offense.

Now, Donald Trump Jr. is not going to be impeached as a political office, but it's still a crime and apparently a very serious crime if you listen to the Republicans. So not a good idea to stir with that hornist. That's not the first time junior hasn't had a good idea. Yeah, now supposedly Republicans like counterpunchers, that's what I hear over and over for the past two years, but they didn't like AOC going after him. So they attacked her. She responded by saying, for the GOP crying that this is a threat, I don't have power to subpoena anybody. Congress as a body, GOP included, has the power. No individual member can issue a subpoena unless they're a chair, which as a freshman, I can assure you I will not be, also must be under purview. So look, clearly she was joking. Now, it seems more like a credible joke. because he has committed crimes that could conceivably see him be indicted, which is really more of his fault than hers. But she was attacked by it, and some of the attacks, by the way, were particularly vicious.

One conservative journalist, Michael Motes, tweeted, there is a new standard in Congress, bees will subpoena you if you troll them. So he said that. She responded, saying, wow, a Republican journalist calling me the B word as he deliberately misinterprets my statement, awesome job, how many female leaders have you covered in your career. I'm sure your coverage was very fair and not subconsciously biased at all. But what's interesting is that that name was familiar to me when I saw it actually. It turns out he's been in the news a couple of time, this Michael Motes. And actually recently for using the B word

in regard to a person that we're very familiar with. So you might recall Nomiki Const was on Tucker Carlson's show and clashed with him, made him look bad. Conservatives did not like that. He actually tweeted this at her. Something tells me you're a liberal bee. She stood up for herself. She was opinionated, so he attacked her. No, but let's focus on that one for a second. Because in the Casio-Cortez one, you could make, and I'm sure the right wing will make

this excuse, of like, nah, he's using, you know, colloquial vernacular. Sorry, the right wing couldn't possibly say those words. But like, oh, he's, you know, being hip, and he doesn't mean in a reference to, the fact that she's a female. Well, in the Nomeiki tweet, there's no other interpretation. It's not a reference to any rap. It's not anything hip. It's just like, I don't like you.

I don't know why we're saying, can we not say, I think we can say it. Can we say it? I think we can't. I just feel uncomfortable. You feel uncomfortable saying it? No, but I want to give it the power that he intended it with it. I mean, he said, something tells me you're a liberal bitch. What, where's the fun?

Where's the joke? Where's what? Like, no. No, you hate women. I mean, what an unbelievably weird thing to say. There's not a lot of irony there, I don't think. Yeah, there's no winking, there's no irony, there's no nothing, right? Yeah.

Yeah, the issue with him, though, isn't just that he's now called two of these women who are opinioned. It's weird, that's the women, they get him hiled up like that, that he's called them bitches, or I'll say it. It's that he is drawing attention to himself, and usually if you're a conservative journalist, you want that. Any attention is good attention, unless it gets you in legal trouble. And the thing is, Michael Mote's actually has a questionable past, not just around slang, but about other things he said. He was in the news a couple of months ago, back in October, headline teenage women allege that Michael Mote sent them inappropriate messages.

And that was reported by Jared Holt, who's actually been on the damage report. And if you go and if you read that article, there were a number of women who communicated with Jared Holt and showed conversations they had with Michael Mote's where he, full well-knowing that they were underage, was attempting to proposition them. So, hypothetically, he may not be a good thing for him that he's drawing a lot of attention back to himself right now. Maybe that's what's making him bitter, right? Like, he's like, what, now I'm not allowed to see with underage girls?

Yeah, yeah, that's right. Okay. By the way, this is like the big guy, it's like throwing the B word around really strong. I tweeted like a short response to one of his things, he blocked me instantly. Strong man there, strong man. You know what they say, fragile masculinity, right? Exactly. Yeah, exactly.

Those are the Trump voters. Yeah. Actually, there was a great study on that in the Washington Post. I know. On the David Report this week, I interviewed the lead researcher on it. I know. Fascinating. Yeah, and one more thing along the lines of what Nick was saying.

I mean, get a load of how easily the conservatives are triggered. So Donald Trump Jr. does this outrageous thing about eating dogs and theoretical reference of Venezuela. But in reality, of course, Ocasio-Cortez, to the substance of the issue, is in favor of socialism, visitist practice, for example, in Northern Europe. I don't believe they're eating dogs in Norway. No. Right?

But they never mention that because that's white people and they want to scare you with, oh, scary brown people in Venezuela, right? And so he does this outrageous attack and they're like, yeah, we're like, yeah, right? And she then claps back, right, and says it, how could you? That's not fair, that's not fair. She's being unfair. She's being unfair. Daddy, I need a safe space.

Yeah. Oh, God, you guys are so tough and you prove it every day. I think the fragile masculinity thesis is very, very strong. A lot of explanatory power there. Robust. Yeah, by the way, yes, that's us laughing. All right. Nick Hattower, everybody, pitchfork economics, it starts on Tuesday.

And as you can tell from his commentary here, I think you're going to absolutely love it. Thank you for being part of the TOT network. And thank you for coming in today. Appreciate it. And John, everybody, check out Damage Report. That's our morning show. All the members can watch it live, you can watch the video, you can get the podcast. We got a great hour coming up for you guys.

The Bundys are back, but with the biggest twist, I did not see this coming, okay? So wait till you see the Cliven Bundy, Eam and Bundy, the bad guys in Oregon and Nevada, and a huge surprise twist in that story. And Nomi Prince will be joining us as well, so we'll be right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.