The Young Turks - Mitching & Moaning

Episode Date: February 29, 2024

Supreme Court agrees to take up Trump's presidential immunity case. McConnell will step down as the Senate Republican leader in November after a record run in the job. Biden wins Michigan primary but faces notable showing by ""uncommitted."" Alabama State Senate and House propose bills to protect IVF medical providers. Americans paid $11 billion to make the ten drugs that drugmakers say shouldn't face medicare price negotiations." 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. Woo! It's up! Damn right, it's Wednesday. Maybe my favorite day of the work week, I got to be honest with you guys. Welcome. You're watching TYT. I'm your host Anna Kasparian. We have such a good show ahead for you guys today. I didn't appreciate the news cycle breaking two news stories late in the day,

and then we have to scramble to figure out how we're going to get it produced for you all so we can talk about it on the show. But we did it. The main show team, freaking rock stars, okay? They get after it and they succeed. That's what I like to see. So we've got a great show. We're going to give you some updates on some leadership changes in the United States Senate.

Big news about Senator Mitch McConnell, who is definitely up there in age. for sure, but that's a bigger problem in the Democratic Party, as we all know. So we'll get to that later on. We're also going to take a close look at the state of Michigan, an important swing state for the general election. How did Biden perform there? And more importantly, did the Arab and Muslim community in Michigan make their voices heard through their protest votes?

I'm going to give you all the details on that. in the second hour, we're going to talk about a mean-spirited individual who encroached on the private property of his neighbor to literally cut down a ton of mature trees just so he can get a better view of Manhattan. I mean, he's a bad dude, okay? He's corn pop was a bad dude. He ran around with a bunch of bad boys. So we're going to talk about that. And then in our members-only section, bonus episode, of course. I'm gonna share a personal video with you all. My husband and I have been taking salsa classes. Yesterday, we learned a move that I've been wanting to learn. So we're getting a little personal, we're gonna have a little bit of fun. Of course, John Iderolla

will be here for the second hour and the bonus episode. But our members get not only the perk of the bonus episode, access to the archives of the show, and all sorts of other actual tangible perks. They also help to keep us afloat in an incredibly difficult media. landscape where a ton of people are losing their jobs, they're getting laid off, companies are going under. So thank you to everyone who has supported us by becoming members. And if you are interested in becoming one, you can just hit that join button, or you can go to t-y-t.com slash join and become a member that way. All right, with that all out of the way, let's get to our first story. The Supreme Court has decided that it will, in fact, hear the case involving Trump

claiming that presidential immunity prevents him from being prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith in the election interference case. Now, this is a big win for Trump already, and I'll explain why. But just to get you caught up on what's been transpiring, Trump's defense, a big argument we've heard from him and his legal team, is that he should not be prosecuted for his involvement in January 6th, for his involvement in the fake elector scheme, because he was president after all, and presidents enjoy immunity. Now, I personally disagree with that interpretation because presidential immunity pertains to duties that are performed in the White House as president of the United States. That type of protection should not also extend to a presidential

candidate who engages in potentially illegal behavior while seeking re-election or seeking the office of the presidency. So that's my interpretation. Obviously, I'm not a legal scholar. It was also the interpretation of the lower courts. And now, because of the Trump legal team essentially appealing this case all the way to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will now hear it and make their determination. Now look, the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump in the past. So while I get that it's incredibly tempting to kind of get nihilistic about this and just assume the worst is going to happen with their decision, I would just hold on that and wait and see how it plays out. But even if, even if the Supreme Court rules against Donald Trump

and says, no, no, no, presidential immunity does not provide protection prosecutorally for Donald Trump, the fact of the matter is, this is already a major, major win for Trump. So, Number one, I should note that the court has agreed to expedite the case and hear arguments on the week of April 22nd, so that's well before the presidential election. But keep in mind that now the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case, that means that the trial is very, very likely going to be postponed even further. In fact, it might be postponed until after the election. And should Donald Trump win the general election and become president again, it's just going to

from the federal case. Remember, we're talking about the federal case, not the Georgia state case, which you would not be able to pardon himself from. But in this particular case, he would be since it is a federal trial. Now, with that said, the decision is a significant win for Trump for at least two different reasons. He will now be able to argue for sweeping presidential immunity that, if granted, could undermine the bevy of legal challenges that he faces and he will be able to push off a trial likely for several several weeks at least. At least. Now, had the justices rejected Trump's emergency request to pause the case, special counsel Jack Smith would have been able to move more quickly, virtually guaranteeing

that there would be a trial in the election interference case prior to the general election taking place. Now, the court, weirdly, had waited two weeks before making their decision to hear this case. And I don't know if I want to make too much of that. I don't know what the genuine reasons were for taking so long to make a decision about whether or not they would hear the case. But Steve Vladik, who is a CNN Supreme Court analyst and also a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, has an interesting theory. He says that the surprise is, is that it took the court the better part of two weeks to reach this result from which no justice has publicly dissented, meaning it does appear, at least for now, that unanimously these

judges, Supreme Court justices, I should say, wanted to hear this case. The justices couldn't reach consensus on a way to resolve the matter without giving it full briefing and argument. So they're not going to rush this, they've decided to really hear Trump out on this. And so this is the way they intend to go forward. It's hard to read any tea leaves into whether that makes the court more likely to side with former President Trump when it finally resolves this immunity claim. But it certainly means that even in the worst case scenario for Trump, the January 6th prosecution will be delayed for at least another three to five months. That's a pretty big win for Trump, even if he ends up losing this case. And Vladik also says that, you know,

It did take two weeks, we don't really know why, but ultimately it does appear that the Supreme Court and the justices within it felt that this was important enough to take up rather than just simply upholding the decisions that did not grant Trump presidential immunity in the lower courts. Now again, the lower courts didn't side with Trump. There was a unanimous 57 page opinion from the DC Circuit earlier this month. that rejected the immunity claims. Trump and Smith filed dueling briefs for the Supreme Court or at the Supreme Court

over whether the decision should be put on hold. And so Smith countered in his own filing on Valentine's Day, February 14th, that Trump wasn't close to meeting the standard required to pause proceedings. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkin postponed the first trial date originally set for March 4th. Obviously, we have that date coming up real soon next week. which appeals courts wrestled with Trump's claims while appeals courts wrestled with Trump's claims of immunity. Given the delays already, however, trial likely wouldn't begin until May at the very earliest. And that's assuming that the Supreme Court makes its decision about

immunity immediately, quickly after they hear the arguments. We'll see how it plays out. But I do agree with the analysis here that this is already a pretty big win for Trump. He has a genuine interest in delaying, delaying, delaying as much as humanly possible, especially as he's very likely looking at the polling coming out in regard to the general election, which unfortunately makes it very clear that Trump is likely going to beat Biden. And I'm not saying that based on one standout poll. I say that based on several polls now that show Trump leading Biden, both nationally and also in the swing states. Swing states are incredibly important to win in an electoral system where we rely on the electoral college.

So things aren't really looking great for Biden to begin with. And for anyone who hopes that justice will be served in regard to Trump's behavior with the election interference case, well, he might not suffer any consequences in the end. If this case is delayed to the point where he becomes president and the trial begins or should begin after he becomes president, you just dismiss it. And so we'll see. We'll see what happens. But that's the big update in regard to the election interference federal case. Let's move on to some other news because we've got some big leadership updates in the United States Senate, starting with this.

One of life's most underappreciated talents is to know when it's time to move on to life's next chapter. So I stand before you today, Mr. President and my colleagues to say this will be my last term as Republican leader of the Senate. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. I mean, he's 82 years old. He's going to go somewhere pretty soon. But for now, he's going to remain in the United States Senate, even though, as you just heard from Senator Mitch McConnell, he is in fact stepping down from his leadership role within the Senate. Now he was previously Senate Majority Leader.

Now the Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate. The Senate Majority Leader, of course, is Chuck Schumer. Mitch McConnell is the Senate Minority Leader. But again, as you heard him say in that clip, he does not plan to resign before his term is up. And his term ends January of 2027 when he'll be 85 years old. Like let that sink in. He's already 82 years old. Just take a load off, brother. Like enjoy your life.

Like I can't imagine loving the Senate and all of its dysfunction so much that at 82 years old, you refuse to just resign and go live your life. Anyway, the person who might be saddest about this news might just be the president of the United States, Joe Biden, a Democrat. Here's what he said after hearing about the news. He, meaning McConnell and I, have trust. We've got a great relationship. We fight like hell, but he never, never, never misrepresented anything.

I'm sorry to hear he's stepping down. What a bromance. Look, I don't know what it is about McConnell that Democrats seem to be. pretty enamored with because if you can remember during Trump's presidency, current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer struck a deal with McConnell to essentially allow for the confirmation of hundreds of conservative federal judges. Like, why would you do that? Okay, well, he did.

And again, you know, you see on the surface these like drag out fights between Democrats, and Republicans usually plays out in corporate media. But behind the scenes, they're striking all sorts of shady deals. And you have President Joe Biden talking about what a wonderful guy Mitch McConnell is. Okay, sure. Now, Representative Matt Gates, singing a different tune today because he's in a celebratory mood after hearing news that McConnell is no longer going to serve as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate. He said, we've now 86th McCarthy, meaning Kevin McCarthy, the former House Speaker, McDale and McConnell. Better days are ahead for the Republican Party.

And for anyone who might not know, 86 means to basically take something out or to do away with something. Now, the House Freedom Caucus also posted a similar sentiment on X, formerly known as Twitter. This is the far right wing of the Democratic Party, I'm sorry, of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives. they write, our thoughts are with our Democrat colleagues in the Senate on the retirement of their co-majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Democrat from Ukraine, they allege. Obviously, McConnell is not a Democrat from Ukraine. He's deeply, deeply conservative, but he's a neocon, which is basically in disagreement with the modern-day Republican Party, the party of MAGA, which is certainly more isolationists.

and doesn't really favor neocons like McConnell. No need to wait till November, they write, Senate Republicans should immediately elect a Republican minority leader. Now, McConnell holds the record for the longest serving Senate leader in history, having won the position back in 2006. Over the years, he has seen the Republican Party transition from the Bush era neoconservatism that has now unfortunately infiltrated the Democratic Party. and he saw that, all right, now we're dealing with isolationists and, you know, the faux populace

that typically make up the lawmakers who serve MAGA voters, and he doesn't really agree with them. He kind of seems out of place in this new era of the Republican Party. McConnell stated during his resignation speech, quote, believe me, I know the politics within my party at this particular moment in time, I have many faults, misunderstanding politics is not one of them. And look, I'm going to be honest with you. McConnell very clearly is not a proponent of Donald Trump, does not agree with Donald Trump's policies, and is probably not looking forward to the possibility of Trump getting elected for another term. And then having to be the Senate minority or majority leader who would have to basically deal with two wings of the

Republican Party that are in complete disagreement on some major policy issues, including foreign policy. So stepping down from the leadership role, I do think makes a lot of sense. Not only because he's 82 years old, but also because all of that contention and all of that battling among the Republican Party can't be good for him. And I'm sure he's not looking forward to that. The senator has thus far refused to endorse Trump for the 2024 election, even though he will clearly be the party's nominee. He handily won Michigan last night in the Republican primary, but don't worry, Nikki Haley is still in the race, okay? McConnell also failed to stand up to Trump when it may have mattered the most in the aftermath of the January 6th Capitol

riots. Now McConnell voted to acquit Donald Trump of the impeachment charges, that the house had voted on and agreed upon. He did this even though he had forcefully criticized the former president, right before he decided to acquit him. Now McConnell was also happy to work with Trump to confirm three new Supreme Court justices. That doesn't surprise me at all. I know that McConnell cares deeply about giving lifetime roles to conservative judges and justices, so of course he did that. He also confirmed hundreds of federal judges after striking a deal with Democrat, Chuck Schumer. And he also successfully passed Trump's sweeping tax cuts, of which he was in complete agreement of. He absolutely loves tax cuts. He would like the

government to tax as little as possible. And he also attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, though he and the Republican Party failed miserably in that effort. Now, he also notoriously blocked Obama's attempt to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. And that's just the start of his legacy. That's just the tip of the iceberg. He has worked relentlessly to legalize money in politics and bribery. The way McConnell ended up making his name was decidedly unglomerous, blocking campaign finance reform. McConnell helped take the quest to kill restraints on spending all the way to the Supreme Court. In public, McConnell says one thing. McConnell claims that his advocacy for more money in politics is all about defending free

speech. But behind closed doors, he reportedly told other senators that it is actually about winning elections, much to the detriment of the American people, considering that corruption obviously has a big impact on how our lawmakers legislate. McConnell has also legislated on behalf of his wealthy donors. So let's get into that. In 2014, for instance, Shortly before Republicans took the Senate, McConnell appeared as an honored guest at one of the Coke's semi-annual fundraising summits. He thanked Charles and David, adding, quote, I don't know where we would be without you, end quote. Soon after he was sworn in as the Senate Majority Leader, he hired a former lobbyist for Coke Industries as his policy chief. That's how the

sausage is made, folks. But there's more. In the 2020 election cycle alone, McConnell raised more than $250,000 from 37 different Fortune 500 CEOs, which happened to be more than any other candidate in a competitive race. So he loves that money in politics. And by the way, that same election cycle, in that same election cycle, less than 8% of donations to his campaign actually came from his home state. So again, let this really sink in. This is how politics really works. is the way McConnell has wanted it to be. He fought tooth and nail to ensure that legalized bribery is part and parcel of the American political system. Now, enough about the past, what lies in store for Senate Republicans? McConnell's planned exit will set up a tough fight to

succeed him, likely among the so-called three Johns, minority whip John Thune, former whip John Cornyn and Republican conference chair, John Barrasso. So I'm really curious to see how this is all going to play out, because as we saw in the House of Representatives in the battle for the speakership role, you have the two conflicting wings of the Republican Party going to battle. The Senate is a little more cordial. I've noticed that the Senate is definitely different from what you experience in the House of Representatives, where it's not really the place where you will likely see the,

the kinds of knock down, drag out fights that you saw in the House between people like, let's say, Representative Matt Gates and Representative Max Miller, right? You don't see that kind of stuff really going down in the Senate. But we'll see, for instance, Senator Tom Cotton, who is close to McConnell, is considering running for a leadership position in the GOP, amid the coming leadership shuffle and is being encouraged to look at a bid, said a person familiar with Cotton's thinking. So look, one thing I know about politicians in general and certainly of the Republican party is they love power.

And so there will be a battle for that speakership role. I don't know if it's going to be as gruesome as it was in the House of Representatives. And by the way, that wasted a ton of time when these lawmakers should have been legislating and doing their jobs. But I do know that there's going to be a battle of some sort. So I guess that's something we can look forward to. For now though, we're gonna take a quick break. And when we come back, we've got more news.

for you, including, well, some updates on what happened in the primary elections in Michigan yesterday. And then later, I want to talk about some dirty tricks that the state legislature in Alabama is playing in order to avoid any political consequences for destroying the reproductive rights of women, including their right to have in vitro fertilization treatments in order to get pregnant. Insane. We've got that story and more. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. The poll. Read the polls, Jack. Welcome back to TY. I'm your host, Anna Kaspari.

And a quick comment from Scupa Dragon about Mitch McConnell's decision to step down from his leadership role. You must assume that the position of senator in the U.S. Congress is such a cushy job. It is that these guys are perfectly happy with dying in office instead of retiring and enjoying life outside of work. 100%. How many freaking recesses do they get? They're always on recess. I want recess. When do I get recess?

Jake doesn't give us any recess, okay? I mean, we get PTO, but, you know, not as much as the Senate does or the House of Representatives. But anyway, the rest of the comment is, it's either supremely easy, immensely enriching, or highly lucrative, or all of the above. I would go with supremely easy and highly lucrative. Remember, they're allowed to trade stocks based on insider information. When anyone else, any normal civilian in the United States would get prosecuted to the full extent of the law and very likely would serve time in prison for doing so.

In fact, there was a story this week about a man in Texas who had overheard his wife during her work meetings, you know, she's working remotely, and apparently he was privy to some information that he then traded stocks on. They're prosecuting him, because of course they are. This is like something that runs rampant in Congress, and there are no consequences for politicians. And by the way, it's indicative of what happens in both parties. It's Democrats and Republicans.

It's just so sick. Anyway, let's get to our next story because I did want to give you all an update on the Michigan primary, which I covered a little bit yesterday. But the protest vote among Arab Americans and Muslim Americans was fascinating to say the least. And I do see a little bit of panic from Democratic pundits about what transpired yesterday in Michigan. So let's get to the details. Michigan voters, 100,000 of a Michigan Democrat sent a message to the Biden campaign. said, we are not happy with you. That's a problem. And both of these candidates can lose to each other. And they're the only candidates potentially that could lose to each other. That's a problem

for both of these campaigns. And it's why there's a lot of angst and hand-rigging that's still going on within the parties. While President Joe Biden handily won Michigan's Democratic primary, I mean, there isn't much of a Democratic primary to begin with. Around 100,000 Arab and Muslim voters in the state chose to abandon the president and Mark uncommitted on their ballots instead. Now take a look at this chart of the Democratic primary results in the state. Biden did receive 81.1% of the vote and locked down 115 delegates. But he lost two delegates to uncommitted, which represented 13.3% of the vote. The protest vote was meant to send a strong message to Biden. about their displeasure toward the president's support for Israel's brutal war in Gaza.

But it wasn't just Arab American voters who made their views on Biden crystal clear. So did young voters. It was also the college counties like around Ann Arbor that you had high numbers of people voting uncommitted. What can President Biden do in terms of outreach to younger voters that he hasn't done already? I mean, he's already forgiven all the student debt that he can. He's already showing up on Seth Meyer as in TikTok. How does he reach the younger crowd?

He's, he went on Seth Meyer's show and he's on TikTok. What's wrong with these young people? Look, it's hilarious how befuddled the CNN host is here. But what about Biden's means tested student debt relief? These voters are clearly in, look, these voters are pretty clear in what they want from Biden, and they have been for months. So how about you listen to them? How about some accountability for the far right government of Israel, which openly states its desire for ethnic cleansing in Gaza? Those who casted protest votes yesterday want a permanent ceasefire. They want the president

to stop sending bombs to Israel at the very least. But the president is clearly willing to commit political suicide just to demonstrate his unwavering devotion to Benjamin Netanyahu, a man Biden doesn't even like and has accused of engaging in indiscriminate bombing in Gaza. So CNN is either playing dumb or they're so out of touch that they'll routinely humiliate themselves on national television with their brain debt analysis. Yes, student debt relief is a good thing that Biden has accomplished. With a ton of caveats, by the way. His program only applies to federal loans and borrowers who have made payments for a decade. Only the politically challenged would think that alone would be enough to motivate young voters to support him

despite his cozy relations with Israel's genocidal government. Even when smart people lay out the dynamics of this battle to CNN hosts, they get shut down. Nina Turner experienced that last night while talking to Anderson Cooper. While this president was in the ice cream shop saying, I think there's going to be a ceasefire, 30,000 people have been slothed. People are living in famine. They can't get medical care. So it can't come soon enough for them. And that was really the weight

that I picked up on when I was in Dearborn. So we get to be comfortable and talk about this, like these people are widgets, when they are in fact suffering. And I am young enough to remember colleagues when Congresswoman Rashida Talib and also Congresswoman Corey Bush called for a ceasefire very early on.

very early on, they were called abhorrent. Now fast forward to all of these bodies laying in the wake and people who are living through this every single day. By the way, there's also been slaughter in Israel as well. I was going to say, I don't know a lot of pain on both sides. No, I'm not, I'm not. Lecture on the problem. But I'm talking about the politics of this tonight. Anderson Cooper doesn't need a lecture, okay? So how about you tell us why voters are upset with Biden without explaining why voters are upset with Biden.

Cooper is clearly a Democrat himself, but when it comes to Israel, he's obviously willing to support a far-right government, which includes extremists like Itimar Ben-Gavir and Basilel Smotrich. That contradiction is apparently embarrassing for him because he later tried to shut Turner down when she accurately described the political makeup of Israel's parliament. To you would be a victory as somebody was calling for this uncommitted vote. What to you would be a victory tonight to get that message across? I'm not denying that pain.

All I'm saying that at a certain point after October the 7th, it becomes clear. I mean, you have a right wing prime minister. We don't need to read the issue. But you understand, I'm not denying anybody's pain. How does one expect to provide political analysis to their audience when they themselves seem completely disinterested in the truth? truth or lack the intellectual curiosity necessary to do their job adequately. Cooper should consider those questions. But anyway, let's move off this media critique and get back to the election.

Now, if Biden can't secure votes from the Arab and Muslim community in addition to young voters in Michigan, he's very likely going to lose the state in the general election. And if he loses the state, it's very likely he's going to lose the general election in November. Remember, several polls show Biden trailing Trump in every single swing state at the moment. He won Michigan in 2020 by a little more than 150,000 votes. But more than 100,000 people who typically would have voted for him actually voted against him in this primary. Just take a look at what happened in Dearborn alone yesterday. These are the unofficial results from the city of Dearborn, but on city letterhead, this is what Joe Biden received.

Again, forgive me, 1,1141 votes. Dean Phillips, 54 votes. And uncommitted, make sure I get this right. 3,703 votes. So that's a wow. If you look at it this way, this is 23%. And this is 75%. And so this is just the city of Dearborn, but that is where the biggest pocket of the Muslim American, the Arab American population.

This is a place President Biden carried big time in 2020. I mean, he did carry it in 2020, but not big time. 150,000 votes isn't that big of a deal, especially when you consider the fact that more than 100,000 voters voted against him in the Democratic primary in Michigan just yesterday. Now, the Democratic Party is hoping that the war in Gaza won't be a problem for Biden or the Democrats in the general because it will likely end between now and November. By then, Americans will shift their focus to other things. Maybe they're right. But it is also true that Benjamin Netanyahu does not want to end the war because once he does, he has to contend with corruption charges and an Israeli public that increasingly wants to oust him. from power. And he doesn't want to go away. He likes power. In other words, Bebe and Biden have conflicting interests here. But even if the war does end soon and Americans forget about the

carnage that Biden signed off on in Gaza, there's also the migrant crisis and, you know, sticky inflation impacting the cost of groceries. These aren't easy issues either. Biden might attempt to enact an executive order at the nation's southern border, but he's sure to get challenged in court if he does, and he'll be sure to draw the ire of progressives who don't even believe that there's a migrant crisis in the first place. Sometimes we have, as Democrats, have to grow a little bit of a spine around here. And part of that means defending immigration as a core value of the United States of America. Yes, on a moral and on an identity basis, but on a nuts and bolts basis, the United States, our culture, our population, our economy needs immigration like lungs need oxygen.

And when you cut it off, we will start to die. Wow, that was some pretty extreme language. But to be quite frank, I do overall agree with AOC that immigration is an important part of our country. immigrants are an important part of our economy. That is all true. But it's also true that there is a lack of control at our southern border and that major cities, including New York City, has been completely overwhelmed with migrants who need to be sheltered. And the federal government has failed to provide the resources necessary to these cities for them to respond to the crisis adequately. And look, I mean, just yesterday. Just yesterday, Gallup released its latest poll

showing that illegal immigration is the top concern among American voters. Only 20% of voters said that immigration was the most important problem facing the country in January. But this month, the month of February, that percentage jumped up to 28%. I'm not sure denying that there's a problem is all that politically tactful. But okay, look, AOC has already publicly endorsed Biden, so I doubt she'll change her mind if he uses executive orders to shut the border down. But progressive voters might not be on board. Finally, there's nothing Biden can do about his age. Homeboy's old. It's just the truth. And honestly, I find myself bracing for impact every time that man makes a public appearance.

Truth is, there's an iceberg straight ahead for Democrats and for anyone concerned about Trump winning and dismantling our democratic process. No one in the Democratic Party seems concerned that we're barreling toward that iceberg. Their actions and providing cover for an incredibly vulnerable and weak presidential candidate really does say it all. Anyway, we're out of time. We should take our break. So we're going to take one more break in the first hour.

When we come back, we've got more news for you, including something pretty gross taking place in Alabama in response to that Supreme Court ruling in the state that has effectively now banned IVF treatments for families looking to get pregnant. So that and more coming up, don't miss it. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Just want to read a few more comments real quick so we don't forget about them, since they have to do with stories I just covered. Let's go to Peter Hamby with the super chat. I think this is a poem, the chase on hunter, tables turn on accusers, they become hunted. I think that might be my favorite one, Hamby. The second poem, Life Hands You Lemon, Bad news paid from its network.

Lemonade is made. I like that one too, but I think I like the first one more. It's like a celebratory poem. Frank Rockefeller says that the president is the third branch of the president is the third branch of government in a Democratic Republic under the U.S. Constitution, quite clear, actually, for immunity. It is if the president's actions were taken in the service of the presidency, but his actions were taken in the service of Donald Trump in his campaign as a candidate.

So there's a difference there, which will get adjudicated in the Supreme Court. We'll see what the Supreme Court decides. Sticky Soul says they should hear Trump's case right into the trash can. On a better topic, can't wait to see some snazzy moves from the Caslow household. Caspaz, please, but Caslo sounds good too, sounds good too. Rick Bungle says, Jank, I consider you one of the, he's not here, so we're just not going to read that. I'm kidding, I'm kidding, I'll read it. Jank, I consider you one of the greatest men that has ever lived.

You have brought millions to the progressive movement. Thank you for all your work. I wish he was here to hear that. I know he would appreciate it, so I'll relay the message to Jank. For now, though, let's get to Alabama for some updates on, well, the bad behavior taking place there with their state legislature. I just came back from Alabama. I talked to one woman. She's on her last embryo transfer. It was scheduled for tomorrow. And now she has to start all over. Is that acceptable to you? Well, not really. Now, I want everybody that wants kids. They can't have it. And that's the only way they can have it. I won't be able to use that.

So is this the wrong move by the Alabama? Supreme Court. That panicky lawmaker you just witnessed is Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville from Alabama. And I say panicky, it is subtle because the Supreme Court in his state carried out a theology-ridden ruling that effectively banned in vitro fertilization because the court thinks an embryo in a petri dish is the same thing as a viable baby outside the womb. The court said embryos, whether they're within or out of a uterus, are children and would be protected under Alabama's wrongful death of a minor act.

The court, in its majority opinion, nodded to a 2018 amendment to the Alabama Constitution, which provides protections for the rights of the unborn child, including the right to life. Now, Republicans have already suffered some pretty significant political consequences following the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the abortion rights that came along with the previous ruling in 1973. And the latest news out of Alabama during a general election year is a serious political vulnerability. Tubberville might look and, you know, sound like a moron. but even he knows the GOP is staring down more backlash as red states continue their assault on reproductive rights, including for women who want to have children, have difficulty

doing so, and are willing to undergo time consuming and costly treatments to make it happen. And I'm not the only one with this take. Take a look at conservative Sean Hannity airing his worries on Fox News just last night. Stephen, let me follow up on that because I would argue 22, the reason the big quote wave didn't happen, I would argue in large part it had to do with abortion. You mentioned Pennsylvania. You had a top of the ticket Democrat, Doug Mastriano, nice guy, but he didn't even have exceptions for rape incest of the mother's life. He lost by 15, 16 points. And I think this is a cautionary tale for every Republican. You see the reaction of the left in this country on the issue of IVF in vitro fertilization, the Alabama court decision, and clearly Republicans better message that in New York District

3. Almost every ad was about abortion. Great job with that panel, Hannity. Real lookers you've got there. And look, even Voldemort himself is aware of the reality, of the political liability of basically attacking. women's reproductive rights. Let's watch them cry about it on Fox. Absolutely. It hurt the Republican Party in the midterms to be portrayed as the party that doesn't even support exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. It is also true that Democrats have mastered the art form of hammering that message to a specific demographic of female voters aggressively, relentlessly, with hundreds of millions of dollars in spend, and then

sending workers union workers to their house, sending teachers unions to their house, sending campuses to their house to collect that mail and ballot. It's the combination of that hyper-focused messaging on specific issues to specific subsets of voters with the ballot harvesting operation that made them so effective in 2022. Oh my god. Are Democrats engaging in politics? Ah yes, Democrats, obviously they need to make it harder to vote and they should totally stop informing women about the deeply unpopular politics and policies Republican support. This guy is just totally delusional. And for our audio audience, that was Stephen Miller. It wasn't literally Voldemort, although he kind of looks like him.

Following Alabama's Supreme Court decision, Donald Trump released a statement distancing himself from the terrible policies that were made possible by the three conservative justices. He nominated to the United States Supreme Court, who of course overturned abortion rights through the reversal of Roe, which led the way for state legislators, by the way, to do the harm that we're seeing in Alabama. He said that I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby. Under my leadership, the Republican Party will always support the creation of strong, thriving, healthy American families. We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder.

And look, this might be the one time I genuinely trust what Trump is saying. I mean, he loves babies so much that he had many of them with three different women. Now, will Republicans protect women's rights to in vitro fertilization treatments? To find out, let's get back to Tuberville, and what he claims is happening in his state of Alabama. The state's getting ready to pass a law in Alabama that it's going to be okay. They're going to pass it. That it's going to be positive. But still, there are women that are left in the balance.

I just came back from Alabama. I talked to one woman. She's on her last embryo transfer. It was scheduled for tomorrow. And now she has to start all over. Is that acceptable to you? Well, not really. No, I want everybody that want kids. They can't have it. And that's the only way they can have it. I won't be able to use that. So is this the wrong move by the Alabama Supreme Court? And that's the reason the state legislature is going to go back and pass a law where it's legal.

So to be clear, you believe it's the wrong move? Wrong move by the Supreme Court. Yes. It's true that Alabama's legislature is looking to pass a bill that would protect IVF treatments for women. but there are major politically motivated caveats in how they want to carry it out, which we will dive into in just a moment. But first, let's actually get into the language of their proposals. Introduced by Republican State Senator Tim Melson, Senate Bill 159 would provide civil and criminal immunity to persons providing goods

and services related to in vitro fertilization except acts of omission that are intentional and not arising from or related to IVF services. Hours after the Senate bill's introduction, the House in Alabama introduced its own bill aiming to safeguard IVF providers. Sponsored by Republican Terry Collins, House Bill 237, mirroring SB 159, would provide civil and criminal immunity to persons providing goods and services related to in vitro fertilization except acts of omission that are intentional and not arising from or related to IVF services. But the Senate bill doesn't address when exactly an embryo should be considered an

unborn child, which is a major problem in something that needs to be cleared up through the law. And to top that off, both bills would only offer temporary protections for IVF treatments until the elections are over. H.B. 237 is retroactive and would automatically repeal on June 1st, 2025, while SB 159 would automatically repeal on April 1st, 2025. Additionally, Alabama's Democratic legislators had already proposed a bill of their own last week, which Republicans in the state had largely ignored before putting out proposals of their own, which again would expire. after the elections are over. House Democrats introduced House Bill 225 that would

declare any fertilized human egg or human embryo that exists outside of a human uterus as not considered an unborn child or human being for any purposes under state law. In other words, the language of the Democratic proposal is clearly stronger in protecting IVF treatments in the state indefinitely, while Republicans want their policy to expire in 2025 after the elections are over. What makes this so sick is how little the lives of Americans matter to the very people who were supposed to be looking out for them and serving them as public servants. They make calculations and policy decisions that have, in some cases, devastating impacts

on people's lives solely based on their self-interest. They want power, so they'll pull a disgusting stunt that, again, temporarily legalizes IVF just so they can collect enough votes from unwitting Americans who might not know that these protections will, in fact, expire next year. Congress has an insanely low approval rating because none of these people are at all concerned with actually serving the American people. They just seek to serve themselves and they'll stop at nothing to maintain their power. you some information about how you as an American citizen have funded the research and

development of the very drugs that you're now being price gouged on and have been price gouged on for a very long time. Life-saving medications are prohibitively expensive for far too many Americans. Further compounding that problem is the fact that while patients in the U.S. get price gouged by pharmaceutical companies, they're also using tax money to develop those same pharmaceutical drugs. In fact, Americans shelled out billions for the research and development of the 10 drugs that Medicare will soon be negotiating the prices of. How many billions exactly? Not a big deal, just $12 billion on 10 drugs. That's according to a new report from the Center for integration of science and industry at Bentley University, which might actually be a pretty

pricey institution with a name like that. I don't really know for sure, but anyway, that's a tangent, let's move on. That $12 billion wasn't just for the research of the drugs themselves, which is known as applied research. It also includes the cost of basic research, which Lever reporter Helen Santaro describes as the key foundational research that identifies a biological target like a protein or gene that may be linked to a disease and is the first step in drug development. Researchers examined 28 significant medicines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 1985 and 2009 and found that 80% of them could be traced back to basic research that sought to understand a biological process or disease. And I want to just really

quickly reiterate again, that basic science, that basic research is research that the U.S. taxpayer funded, along with the research and development of specific pharmaceutical drugs. Now, here are nine of the 10 drugs that soon will be facing negotiations, as well as how much Americans spent on their development. Okay, so you saw that list, there's a lot of wording there. I'm going to do my best to avoid struggling through some of the names here, but these are the drugs that we're talking about. You have Stellara, developed by Johnson and Johnson and Johnson and Johnson Innovative Medicine. Americans spent $6.5 billion on the development of that drug. Enbrel, developed by Immunex Corporation. American spent $2.6 billion on that. And Tresto, developed by Novartist, $901 million on the research and development of that, and the basic science needed to develop that drug.

Elyquist developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, $791 million. Zarelto, developed by Bayer and Johnson and Johnson, innovative medicine, $764 million. Then you have Imbruvica developed by Johnson and Johnson Innovative Medicine and Pharmaccyclists. They spent, we've spent, $56 million, and the list goes on and on. I'm gonna pause so you can read the rest of that graphic, so I don't have to do it on your behalf because I'm pretty sure you know how to read. But you see the numbers there and they're jarring, $437 million, $434 million, $228 million. In other words, these pharmaceutical companies would fail to develop the very drugs that they profit from if it weren't for the research and development that we as American taxpayers have been providing them with, okay? the money and the funds and the resources they need.

Now, the 10th drug is called Novalog, and it treats type 1 and type 2 diabetes. It was not included on the list because basic research on insulin occurred many, many years ago, so it's not known just how much the government spent on it. But if you thought those numbers were infuriating, get a load of this. In 2022 alone, the 10 medicines netted their manufacturers more than 70 billion. dollars in total revenue according to a lever analysis. Now the seven billion dollars in revenue is not their net profit. It's important to keep that in mind, but it doesn't matter.

These drugs have made them $70 billion. So the medicines also put tremendous strain on both Medicare patients and the Medicare system itself. In 2022, Medicare patients spent $3.4 billion out of pocket on these medications. a number that increased by 116% over a four year span. Total Medicare spending to pay for enrollees use of these vital drugs more than doubled from about $20 billion in 2018 to $50.5 billion in 2023. Paying for these particular drugs accounted for roughly 20% of all Medicare spending on

prescription drugs between the summer of 2023 and the spring of 2020, I'm sorry, the summer of 2022 and the spring of 2023. So over that one year span. Now, the average annual out of pocket cost for Stellara, an injectable drug that treats autoimmune conditions, rose the most from just a measly $709 per enrollee to a whopping $2,058. By the way, both figures are outraged. A 2019 report found that the regular price of Stellara was $16,600 per dose in the United States compared to $2,900 per dose in the United Kingdom, where they're free to negotiate their drug prices. We're not allowed to do that here in the United States. Salara received by far the most taxpayer funding for its research.

This story helps to explain why so many Americans struggle with getting proper medical care. More than 5 million Medicare beneficiaries struggle to afford their prescriptions, particularly those who do not receive a low income subsidy that lowers out of pocket spending. Racial income disparities also play a role here because black and Latino enrollees report affordability problems at 1.5 to 2 times the rate of their white counterparts. Big Pharma loves raking in these ill-gotten gains. So the industry also lobbied ferociously to prevent the inflation reduction act from permitting Medicare to negotiate the drug prices of all drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was the top bill targeted in federal lobbying efforts across all industries in 2022 with 1,647 organizations reporting lobbying it. And that's according to an analysis done by open secrets. Remember, initially the bill, the Inflation Reduction Act was supposed to include a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of all pharmaceutical drugs. But that provision was whittled down to just 10 drugs following intense lobbying efforts. The top lobbyists were from the health sector. There are currently 1,834 registered lobbyists working for pharmaceutical and health products,

Meaning the industry has more than three lobbyists for each member of Congress. Over half of these lobbyists are so-called revolving door hires who previously served in government positions before joining the private sector. What really highlights how profitable it is for these drug companies to price gouge Americans is how much they're willing to invest in preventing laws that would allow for price negotiations. So in 2022 alone, for instance, the drug companies spent over $375 million to lobby Congress. That's in one year. And guess what?

That's actually chump change when you consider their profits. So legalized bribes are a smart investment for the industry. Pharmaceutical companies also get a staggering return on their investments. Between 2012 and 2021, the 14 largest publicly traded pharmaceutical companies, spent $747 billion on stock buybacks and dividends for their shareholders. Substantially more than the $660 billion they spent on research and development. Well, I mean, they don't really spend as much as the American people do on the research and development of those very drugs that they then price gouge us on. If that's not injustice, I don't know what is.

We got to take a break. When we come back, John Ida Rola will join me for the second hour of the show. We've got updates on the efforts to go after the Biden family. It's been falling flat. It's fun to watch. So we'll get to that and more in the second hour. Don't miss it.