The Young Turks - Nancy Pelosi Getting IMPEACHED For Trump's Crimes?

Episode Date: May 20, 2019

Is Nancy Pelosi enabling Trump? Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too.

When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. hormone harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves.

A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT Network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five-star rating. Thank you.

All right, welcome the Young Turks. Jake, Hugh Granite Kisparin with you guys. We've got a fun show ahead. A Republican turns on Donald Trump and says we should do impeachment, heads explode. So that'll be later in the program. Also later in today's program, Rachel Lear is the director of Knocked Down the House. That's the movie about AOC and the Just Democrats is we're going to show you that interview. I did that recently and we will rear it for you guys because we had done on a Friday.

And then tomorrow, another presidential candidate on the program, Ben Glebe is going to join us again. He was on the panel on Friday, but this time we'll talk about his presidential aspirations. And then we're also going to do and ask me anything on tomorrow night, so don't miss that. We've got Beto O'Rourke Town Hall we're going to cover tomorrow night, so tomorrow is very, very busy, always tyt.com, and don't forget, I'm going to Iowa. I forgot already. Yeah, well, boom, that's why I reminded you, okay.

June 8th, Des Moines, Iowa, be there for history, okay, and when we start something fun and exciting. You know, Glenn Beck is selling something as being there for history. Oh, that's right. We're gonna talk about it later on today's show. Well, that, what he's getting you to sign up for is historical pain, trapped in a limited space with him and Bill O'Reilly, okay, that is not what we're going to do. Anyway, come join me, register for it at t-y-t.com slash rally, t-y-t.com slash rally.

All right, Anna, lots of stories, let's do it. All right. Donald Trump has some dirty laundry, or at least it appears that there could possibly be some dirty laundering happening. At least, that's according to some who previously worked at Deutsche Bank. And an explosive New York Times piece over the weekend indicates that Deutsche Bank, that Deutsche Bank, the one bank that was willing to do business with Donald Trump following the number of bankruptcies that he's had, had actually contacted federal investigators both

in 2016 and 2017 over possible criminal activity in his accounts and Jared Kushner's accounts. So let me give you the details on what the Times is reporting. Executives at Deutsche Bank, which had lent billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees advice when these employees flagged the accounts. The reporters or the reports were never filed with the government. Okay, so I just want to clarify two things here. First is, so it never got to the federal government, it should have, but those employees now five of them talking to the New York Times saying there was suspicious activity.

And guess, you're never going to guess which government it was linked to. Morocco, obviously. No, kidding. Russia. Wow, another wild coincidence, I'm sure it's no evidence at all. Anyway, we'll get into that in a second. But I might, my second point clarification here is, I might revive, tick, tick, tick. No, please don't, please don't, please don't.

Here it is, we told you, Deutsche Bank was the only bank that was willing to do business with Trump of the major banks in the world other than Russian banks. In fact, he was elected- He was elected in talking about. office owing Deutsche Bank a whopping $300 million. Yes, but also know that, and very relevant to this story, Deutsche Bank has been sanctioned many times by America and Europe for doing money laundering. You'll never guess with which country? Tunisia.

No kidding, Russia. Okay, so now let's give you the rest of this details on this story. So let me be clear in noting that the Times spoke to 10 different employees. employees, former employees and employees at Deutsche Bank. One of those former employees did go on the record. Her name is Tammy McFadden, and she's a former Deutsche Bank anti-money laundering specialist. And she was the one who kept flagging these accounts and going to higher ups and telling them, hey, we need to report this to the Treasury Department.

And apparently not only were these issues not reported to the Treasury Department, but she She was later, according to her, retaliated against, demoted, and then eventually she decided to leave Deutsche Bank. Now, let me give you what Tammy McFadden tells the Times. You present them with everything, meaning you present the higher-ups at Deutsche Bank with this evidence, and you give them a recommendation and nothing happens. It's the Deutsche Bank way they're prone to discounting everything. Now McFadden, a long-time anti-money laundering specialist with Deutsche Bank said she reviewed

the transactions and found that money had moved from Kushner companies to Russian individuals. She concluded that the transaction should be reported to the government, in part because federal regulators had ordered Deutsche Bank, which had been caught laundering billions of dollars for Russians, to toughen its scrutiny of potentially illegal transactions. So she was doing the right thing. She's like, yo, we got caught before, we're supposed to be doing the right thing now. So I'm doing the right thing, and I'm drawing attention to these accounts, which could be involved in criminal activity, and apparently nothing happened.

And let me be clear about one other thing. We don't know for sure if money laundering was occurring. The Times piece didn't go so far as to claim that. What we do know is that a proper investigation wasn't done because these accounts were never reported. What we do know is tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, okay, so. We do not know about that. Let me explain a couple of things. So when she said, hey, Kushner's account is doing these suspicious.

activities with Russian accounts. That was in the summer of 2016, right in the middle of the election. At that point, Trump knows he's the Republican nominee, but doesn't yet know whether he's going to win or not, and there's money going from Kushner's account to Russians. Now, this is Anna's right, suspicious activity does not mean that you necessarily did any crime. It just means you should be flagged and investigated. But what Deutsche Bank apparently did it on a regular basis, which got them massive hundreds of millions of dollars in fines before.

Think about that, let that sink in. Hundreds of millions of dollars in fines because they regularly do not report suspicious activity that needs to be reported. Why? Because they make a lot of money letting people money launder through Deutsche Bank. And so, and that's not speculation that they've confessed to that. They have been sanctioned for that, they've paid giant fines for that. And they said that they put things into place to make sure it doesn't happen again.

And now here are five employees from Deutsche Bank going, no, they don't do that. Okay, they don't do that as a regular practice and they especially don't do it with Trump and his family and Russian accounts. So for God's sake, somebody get the Deutsche Bank account, somebody get them. And I have an update on that as well in a second, but I want to be clear also on the employees and what happened with them. So McFadden reports this stuff to her superiors, because I have to them. Because that's literally her job.

Her job is to flag suspicious activity. She says, okay, I flagged it for you guys. And under every normal procedure, according to two other managers that talked to the New York Times, they said, yes, it was definitely suspicious activity. She was right, and management buried it. Then they buried her. Not only did they take her off that team, because they're like, she's doing her job. We got to remove her from this part of the company.

They eventually terminated her, and it was an incredibly flimsy excuse. She's right to pursue legal remedies in that. But another person who was in that similar line of work at Deutsche Bank, and these are all managers, so it's not like, hey, they got the bank teller or anything like that, these are executives. She was not terminated. She resigned in protest saying, you guys are not following the government orders and you will not report these suspicious activities that are significantly suspicious.

And there's a lot of them, there's a high quantity of them, and Deutsche Bank's just not reporting them. So that is why this is a really interesting story. Why is that money going back and forth, and will we ever find out what it was for? So of course, federal investigators are looking into this. There has been a subpoena for the documents pertaining to the loans that, and accounts that Donald Trump took out with Deutsche Bank. And look, Donald Trump keeps doing things that make him appear to be even more suspicious.

So I'll give you an example. When it comes to this particular story, just note that Trump and his family sued Deutsche Bank back in April, seeking to block it from complying with the congressional subpoena. And the update today is that a federal court has upheld the subpoena for these financial documents. So just to be clear, the House Oversight Committee has. had asked for financial documents from Donald Trump on a number of issues, including from Mazars, which is a company that has some of his financial accounts with them.

And so the judge in this case, U.S. District Judge Emmet Mehta just ruled that Trump cannot block Mazars from handing over information to Congress. And he was very clear about it. He said, Congress has a legitimate purpose. They are looking to strengthen ethics and disclosure laws. They're concerned about the foreign emoluments clause. These are what he calls facially valid legislative purposes. So that's Congress being facially valid.

Trump has never been facially valid. And he said, on the other hand, Trump's team for denying the information is pretty much non-existent. So you have to, when you're in a courtroom, you actually have to make a case. You have to present reasonable arguments. Trump never does, and neither did his legal team, and that's why they lost. This is what I've said from day one. What I'm most concerned about, anybody who watches the Young Turks can tell you, is money laundering.

And for God's sake, somebody get a hold of his accounts, any other person, as even a Republican congressman now says, if they had these kind of suspicions around them, they would have had your financial transactions a million years ago. We'd been in prison already. Your bank account would all be in prison by now if you did any of this stuff. And I'll give you one more piece of context. When they want to target someone, they go even deeper than they're supposed to on suspicious activities.

For example, when financial interests were targeting Elliot Spitzer when he was the governor of New York, they asked the bank to go above and beyond in finding his activities suspicious. Even though he actually did not qualify for that at all, they're like, yeah, but who cares? Let's go get the guy, okay? So they found him taking out a number that was totally normal and reasonable. It should not have been flagged. And then they trace it back to prostitutes, et cetera, because they had targeted him. So that was an actual witch hunt.

Now this, in this case, you have the exact opposite. Trump's and Kushner's red flags are all over the place. And they're like, no, ignore it, ignore it, do not turn it over to the government. So that's what Deutsche Bank is doing. And they have a record of doing this over and over and over again. Why do you think Trump went to them? Why do you think they're the only ones who made a deal with Trump? Trump, no other legitimate bank across the world would touch Donald Trump with a 10-foot

pole because he has six bankruptcies. He writes books about how he brags about how he rips off his creditors. Which creditor in their right mind would give this guy $300 million? You know, over 20 years that he's been working with Deutsche Bank, they lent him in different transactions, two and a half billion dollars. Everybody else that's lent him that kind of money has lost it, and then he would, like I said, around and brag, like, you were so stupid to lend me money. I did a smart business move where I ripped you off and didn't pay you back.

Right. Right. So there is something incredibly suspicious about what Deutsche Bank continues to do to this day. And they gotta get real prosecutors in there and get into those records and find out what the hell they're doing with the Russians. Now, David K. Johnston has done a great job in reporting and following Donald Trump's financial issues. And he actually brought up a few issues in a recent interview on, I believe, MSNBC.

It helps to contextualize the story a little more. So let's take a quick look at that. We know for a fact that Donald Trump has been involved in money laundering in the past. He's been fined for it. We know that Deutsche Bank has been fined over $600 million just for laundering money for Russian oligarchs, which is to say Vladimir Putin's criminal gang. And we know that the statements from Deutsche Bank and the Trump organization that you just read, Richard, are non-denials denials. The Trump organization says, we never heard of this. Why would you?

It was locked up in the bank. And the bank says we didn't stop anybody from pushing it upwards. Well, the story makes it clear. Tammy McFadden pushed it upward. And then her career began to go badly after that. So in addition, the Times has a very pregnant line in it. It says that there are other, quote, politically connected people, end quote, who also were swept up. And it's It's clear that David Enrich, a very good reporter at the New York Times, has seen these documents. So there are other people whose suspicion of money laundering activities were also apparently quashed by the people at the private banking unit of Deutsche Bank in New York. This is for Donald Trump a really serious problem.

Okay, so I look, I don't mean to be a defeatist, but this is going to sound defeatist. I know that this is serious. I'm happy that members of Congress are taking it seriously, and I'm happy that a federal court has upheld the subpoena in order to get more information on what's going on. At the same time, let's keep it real. Trump is above the law. Trump is above the law. First of all, if they had reported this to the Treasury Department, which was the right course

of action, what, Steve Mnuchin was going to investigate this? Come on, man, he's above the law, plain and simple. are weak, they're not doing enough when it comes to the obstruction of justice issue, right? You think that they're actually going to do something once they look into this issue and adjudicate it and figure out that he, let's say, there is evidence that he was laundering money. What are they gonna do? What are they gonna do?

Yeah. So it's so frustrating to talk about these stories when there are no consequences for this guy ever. Yeah, no, I remain hopeful, and I'll tell you, look, I get your reasoning, which is a Democrat are pathetic. So if he'd kill someone on Fifth Avenue, not only his supporters would let him get away with it, Nancy Pelosi would let him get away with it. And not only that, I mean, look, I'm being harsh toward Democrats for obvious reasons, but what about Republicans? I mean, Republicans, you know, tuck tail and they do everything that Trump wants them to do. If anyone has the

audacity to speak out against Trump, the entire Republican Party reigns hell on him or her. And so This is the reason why I just really don't have much faith in Congress in regard to actually doing something once they have the evidence necessary. But that's why I've been focused on money laundering from the start, because one, there's ample evidence publicly. It's not like I know something that no one else knows that he has been doing money laundering for a long time with the Russians through Deutsche Bank. This is just a 28th confirmation of it.

And number two, that is a very serious crime. So if, I mean, if Nancy Pelosi gets evidence of money laundering with the Russians and still does nothing, I think she should be impeached. And I'm gonna say something unbelievable, I think she probably will be. Like not literally impeached, but like there will be a democratic uprising like they've never seen before. I mean, if they just say, okay, yeah, the president is an obvious brazen criminal on numerous unbelievable felonies that other people are going to prison for, which by the way, half of that

is already true, then people say no, then what is she doing? She was supposed to be resistance. And so she's now actively, actively helping Donald Trump. And they keep telling us that they're on our team. I've yet to see it. I've yet to see Nancy Pelosi on my team. I've been looking for a long time. But look, back to the heart of the issue on McFadden in the New York Times reports, her

superiors told her to stop raising questions, according to Ms. McFadden and the two former managers. I mean, it doesn't get any cleaner. That's two other managers saying, yeah, she brings up suspicious activity between Trump, Kushner, and the Russians, and he goes, stop doing that, okay? What else do you need? Get in there. Let's go, let's go.

Mueller's number one problem was that he did not look into Trump's business activities. Well, why the hell do you think he's obstructing justice? So, and then number two, and then here's the last quote, two former employees said that they had raised concerns about transactions involving companies linked to prominent Russians. I need the financial information from Mazar's, that's his accountants basically, I need the tax returns, and we need the Deutsche Bank account. We have obvious, brazen, suspicious activity with the one country we are concerned he is colluding with.

Not investigating that is unbelievable negligence. Now the Democrats claim they're trying to do that, and they are to some degree doing that. They better get that information. The judges are, any decent judge would cooperate with this because this is clearly suspicious. And when you have a legitimate subpoena from Congress, you must hand over the information. Now to Anna's point, if the judges say yes, you must hand over the information. And the executive branch doesn't, you know, there's a lot of talk about constitutional crisis.

And it really isn't until the executive branch will not follow an order from the judicial branch. And so when the judiciary says you must hand over the records, and if Trump doesn't, then they all got to go to jail. And impeachment proceedings have to start immediately. Otherwise, we don't have rule of law in this country. Because then the executive branch can say, I don't care about a legislative branch or the judiciary. I've now effectively destroyed your system of government. I'm now above the law.

So if once you've got a valid court order, if they do not comply with it, they must start impeachment immediately, there is no excuse left, otherwise the Democrats should immediately remove Nancy Pelosi from being Speaker of the House, because she is then at that point colluding with Donald Trump to protect his criminal actions. TYT.com slash impeach, get on there, let's get that to a giant number, and let's make them do it, because you know Democrats, they're never going to take any action unless you make them. Well, there's a lot going on when it comes to the topic of impeachment, and we're actually

going to continue that conversation when we come back from the break. It turns out that it took a Republican in Congress to speak out in favor of impeachment for this issue to become real. So we'll tell you who said what and the backlash he's facing when we return. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The Republic or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government. 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 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. All right, back on the Young Turks. Let me read a bunch of tweets for you guys. Admiral Marsden says, you can say tick, tick, tick all you want, but there's just another report of possible Trump crimes that Dems will do zilch about.

How many times have we seen evidence of his obvious crimes, including the 10 counts of obstruction in the report, and the Dems did nothing. So that is backing up what Anna said, and you're gonna see that there's actually a Republican that says we should do something. Our own J.R. Jackson tweets in, don't forget this information from last year. Retiring Scotus Justice Kennedy's son worked for Deutsche Bank's real estate division when it loaned him $1 billion when no one else would. the same justice that left to allow Trump to nominate Kavanaugh.

So I read into the details of that. And it doesn't seem directly connected to these latest rounds of potential money laundering. But he did lend Trump a billion dollars when no one else would. He's somewhat connected that. It's certainly interesting enough to pursue, although I don't know how that's going to end. And then last one is Eddie O'Donnelly says, Jenk, she's not the resistance. Since now, she's the hashtag assistance. Ooh.

That's a good one, Eddie. Okay, so hashtag the assistance might start to trend a little bit, referring to Nancy Pelosi. Okay. Anna, what's next? Aspiration is next. So aspiration takes 10% of what they make and they put it toward charity. And they do not invest your money in questionable companies or industries like the fossil fuel industry, and they pay you 2% interest on your account.

So go to aspiration.com slash t-y-t, check it out. As Jenks says, you don't have to put all your money there. You could do a little bit, try it, see if you like it. And if you do, then you can move your money there, all of it. Yes, it's nice to have peace of mind and better returns. So that's why we chose them as a partner because it makes sense for you guys or for us. Aspiration.com slash t-y-t.

All right, Anna, what's next? Republican representative Justin Amash appears to be calling for impeachment proceedings toward Donald Trump. Now, this was the conclusion he came up with after reading the entirety of the Mueller report. And here's what he tweeted. Now, it was a lengthy Twitter thread, I chose the tweets that I think are the most relevant. Let me share them with you. He says, here are my principal considerations or conclusions.

Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller's report. Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct, partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances, and few members of Congress have read the report, which I think is pretty clear, right? On number four, I would say, of course, probably if two other members of Congress read the entire report, I'd be surprised, and there's 535 of them. So he continues to tweet, in comparing Barr's principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller's report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public

about special counsel Robert Mueller's analysis and findings. Under our constitution, the president, quote, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. While high crimes and misdemeanors is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust. Contrary to Barr's portrayal, Mueller's report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that met the threshold for impeachment. Now this led to fire and fury, right?

So the Republican Party is angry about this. Donald Trump, of course, immediately tweeted in response to this. And I want to share his tweets with you in just a second. He says, never a fan of Justin Amash. Really? You never really tweeted about him before. A total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy, if he actually read

the Bias Muller report composed by 18 angry Dems who hated Trump, he would see that it was nevertheless strong on no collusion and ultimately no obstruction, blah, blah, blah, blah, you guys get the point. I don't know if anyone in the Republican Party, apparently there's one, Justin Amash, has any logic left, how can you keep saying that it's 18 angry Democrats who proved I was completely innocent? In a witch hunt they conducted of me, which completely exonerated me. That doesn't make any sense, that doesn't make any goddamn sense.

And they're like, oh, absolutely, that's right, it was a witch hunt by 18 angry Democrats. And that's why they showed that Trump is totally innocent. What? Right? They've just, we're not talking the same language anymore. We've just detached themselves from logic. But I'm heartened to find one Republican in the land who says, yeah, no, your eyes aren't lying to you.

The report had over 10 instances of clear obstruction of justice, a clear felony, and our job is to impeach a president who has committed felonies. This is not complicated, and he's probably scratching his head going, why aren't the Democrats doing anything about this? And that's another fundamental misunderstanding that almost everybody in Washington has about current day politics, because the Democrats are paid to lose. So they don't do anything because their donors want them to be weak, selected them ahead of time to be weak, and not to be aggressive and fight back against the Republican Party.

So Amash is looking around as the Democrats on the verge of victory have surrendered going, I don't get it, but I vote impeachment. So my mind always goes back to what you say on this show, Jen. which is, people like Nancy Pelosi have used Donald Trump as a fundraising tool. So the fearmongering about Trump isn't meant to garner support for impeachment proceedings. It's meant to fearmonger, and it's meant to help them in their efforts to raise money. At the same time, I mean, we say Democrats, and it's a bit of a blanket statement, but in reality, there are some Democrats who want to fight and have been fighting aggressively.

It's just that they're not part of the Democratic leadership. They're usually freshman Democrats like Rashida Taleb, who's fighting pretty aggressively for impeachment proceedings. But nonetheless, Nancy Pelosi thinks, no, this is a fundraising tool, I'm gonna use it to my advantage. This is what I refer to when I talk about how successful I am in the party, and then let's call it a day. But they continuously underestimate how damaging this is to the country, right? Like I get it, you wanna raise money, but in your efforts to raise money, but in your efforts to raise

money, you are essentially telling the country that the executive branch is above the law, and that is unacceptable. Yeah, so now let's go to Amash's motives, because I'm not naive, of course I look for ulterior motives, especially when it's a right winger and a Republican. And by the way, Amash is more right wing than most of, almost all of Congress, actually. He's a Tea Party guy. Yeah, he's Tea Party through and through, which means he's the most extreme right winger. But sometimes when you go that far right, you'll find principle.

It doesn't happen often. So anyway, there's speculation that he, oh, he might run against Trump on the libertarian ticket. So let's think that one through. Who thinks that the libertarian ticket is going to win in this election? Almost no one. Now, so what's the real political dynamic for Justin Amash? Is this his district? Well, his district is very Republican.

One of the counties in this district voted for Trump by 30 points. So nine out of ten Republicans in a recent poll still backed Trump completely on the issue of impeachment and just about everything else. So if you're a Republican Party official, there is an excellent chance that you will be punished severely for opposing Donald Trump. And he did it anyway. So if you're Justin Amash, the correct political calculation, if that's all you care about is do not oppose Trump under any circumstance.

And in fact, of course, he had a primary opponent within hours. So if you're saying, of course, one of the critiques from the right is, oh, he's just a turncoat looking for attention. Looking for attention in a deeply red district? I mean, the attention you're gonna get is a primary opponent, a lot of money spent against you and maybe driven out of Congress. Why to hell would a politician look for that kind of attention? He's been coasting along in that district comfortably being an expert.

extreme right winger. So it does appear to be an actual act of principle. I know for a Republican elected to national office, that seems near impossible. For a politician period, right? Yes. But we have one, it looks like we've got one. So by the way, I'll say now in hindsight, all the things that I massively disagree with Amarshan, and we've talked about some of them on the show, I'll give him respect in

hindsight that he might actually believe those things as opposed to being paid to believe those things like every other Republican and 80% of Democrats. So let's talk about the reaction to Amash, because that part of the story I think is fascinating, and you're absolutely right in that he's being punished by the Republican Party. Following news that Representative Justin Amash, a Tea Party Republican out of Michigan, is supportive of impeachment proceedings toward Donald Trump, a number of right wingers came out against him, including a state representative by the name of Jim Lower, who is now Now saying that he will challenge him in a primary.

So that's the first issue. Secondly, there are a number of right wingers who have gone on television. And even if they've been a little critical of Trump in the past, they're essentially saying, this isn't a good idea. Mitt Romney happens to be one of them, let's take a look. My own view is that Justin Amash has reached a different conclusion that I have. I respect him, I think it's a courageous statement. But I believe that to make a case for obstruction of justice, you just don't have the elements

that are evidenced in this document. And I also believe that an impeachment call is not only something that relates to the law, but also considers practicality and politics. And the American people just aren't there. And I think those that are considering impeachment have to look also at the jury, which would be the Senate. The senator is certainly not there either. So Mitt Romney is reek, and he will always be reek, that's a reference to Game of Thrones.

But what's also fascinating is how apparently behind the scenes, other right-wing Republicans are saying things privately that they're unwilling to say publicly. And Chris Coons revealed that in a recent interview. Let's take a look at that. Were you surprised to see a Republican, Justin Amash, saying that the president, I mean, saying so overtly that the president didn't in impeachable conduct? I was surprised to see a Republican congressman saying publicly what I think many are thinking privately, which is those who have read the Mueller report, cannot avoid the conclusion

that the president and some of his absolutely core advisors engaged in profoundly disappointing, reprehensible conduct, conduct that would rise to the level of an obstruction of justice charge if he were anyone other than President of the Einstein. But you don't think that Republicans are thinking that privately, do you? Yes. What makes you say that? Conversations. So it's not so private?

There are very few who would be willing to say publicly that this conduct is reprehensible for a president. But you have spoken to Republicans who have shared with you that they think that it's also impeachable. There's a big difference between thinking that the Mueller report reveals conduct that is deeply disappointing, inappropriate, even borderline or actually illegal, and saying they would vote to remove the president. I have not spoken to a single Republican senator who would vote to remove the president. Many privately expressed concerns about what was in the Mueller report, in part because of the gap between what Attorney General Barr characterized as being in the Mueller report and what was actually in the Mueller report for those who've taken the time

to read through it. So this whole situation makes it pretty clear that we have all these spineless lawmakers sitting in Congress who are unwilling to do the right thing. Yeah. So look, That's why I respect Amos more. And look, I'm annoyed by Democrats who say you should never agree with the Republicans on anything. Well, God damn it, it depends. I'm also greatly annoyed by the opposite where they say, well, bipartisan compromises by definition a good thing.

God damn it depends. What are we agreeing to? If we're agreeing to taxes for the rich, no. If we're agreeing to impeaching Trump, yes. Take yes for an answer. So, but, and when you compare a Mosh to the two guys you just saw, it's a stark contrast. Mitt Romney, you could tell, you know it already, but you can tell even in that interview, thinks that Trump did it, that it's illegal.

And he's like, well, you know, does, I don't know if it rises to the level and I don't know if there's enough evidence in that document. You know there's enough evidence in that document. And you're using political speak. And you're saying, hey, I don't think we could, we have the votes in the Senate to do it. Well, first of all, you're a vote in the Senate. You're a United States Senator. And so, and even if you thought, well, I'll vote this way, but the other Republicans

won't, that shouldn't preclude you from giving you the real opinion you have to your voters, which it's super obvious you're not. Everyone knows that Mitt Romney thinks that Donald Trump did it and that it's a crime. But he comes out there, be, me, me, me, me, be, me, me, we're not there yet, eh, because he's a slimy, slimy, greasy politician. And then Coons comes out and he's like, Well, you know, the Republicans know it, but I'm not saying that they're there for impeachment and blah, blah, blah, blah, just say it. God damn it, Democrats talk in such political speak.

No actually human being talks like that. The new BMO, V.I. Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks, more points, more flights, more of all the things you want in a travel rewards card, and then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter Mastercard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply, visit bemo.com slash ViPorter to learn more. As Chris Coons, I'd say, look, I can't betray the confidence of my Republican colleagues who confided in me that they think that it's impeachment worthy. No, I don't think they're going to vote for it. You know why?

They're politicians. That's why they're not going to vote for it. But is it impeachable? Well, hell, yes, it's impeachable. Instead, he couching and, oh, but it's offensive material in the Mueller report. But I, you know, whether it rises to the level, just God damn it, man. So when you have a Republican guy who stands up and goes, look, man, I read it, I understand the English language, I understand the law, Mueller clearly said he broke the law in all these

different instances. So you can say all you like, but I know that if I was a, you know, if I was a, you know, you You know, on the shoe on the other foot, I'd vote to impeach, so I'm gonna impeach here. And he's totally right, the Democrats and the Republicans flip-flop, depending on who's the president, on issues of what's impeachable, on issues of character, et cetera. And we point that out all the time. And every other issue too, Schumer and McConnell will flip positions depending on who's on the majority and who's in the minority.

And they do it so brazenly, we're all sick the death of it. So when you have not only a politician but a Republican acting as seeming principle, I know it's so shocking that it's nearly impossible to believe, but it stands in a stark contrast to all of the weasels in Washington. And so, by the way, how are the Republicans reacting? Of course, they're going ballistic. They're all, a lot of the voters, the people online, et cetera. They're going to help Amasha's primary opponent.

His primary opponent, appropriate name that his last name is lower. So he goes a little lower, and he changed his Facebook picture to him standing in front of a Trump 2020 banner. It's so sad. I mean, it's like literally planting the flag going, I will bow my head to Donald J. Trump. I am a little monkey in the service of the big ape. That's who lower is, okay? Very appropriately named.

I'm a big, beautiful ape. Yeah, and it's so sad, it's so pathetic. And those Republicans think they're being strong by being a little white. weasel to a criminal like Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Amash's Facebook page's background is a quote from President George Washington about the baneful effects of party loyalty delivered in his farewell address in 1796. And that's how a man of principal acts. And finally, you got one more thing.

So Republicans are also now attacking Amash because apparently his family is Palestinian, But they're Palestinian Christians. But nonetheless, they think that his Palestinian background is what's informing his attacks toward Trump. No, it's just he's someone who has some common sense and actually read the Mueller report and finds it deeply troubling and thinks that no one should be above the law in this country, including a Republican president. So Amash's father is a Palestinian Christian, his mom is a Syrian Christian.

And back when he agreed with the Republican Party and went even further right wing than them, they were like, oh, it's okay, no Palestinian, it doesn't matter. Did he say tax cuts for the rich? Yes, we love Justin too much. Go on Fox News, tell everybody he had tax cuts for the rich, right? Now the minute he doesn't agree 100%, all of a sudden, goddamn Palestinian, you see how that works? So they use you for their own purposes. Does that mean they like you?

Does that mean that they relate to you, that you're one of them? No, no, no, no. You're a useful tool. But the minute you cause any kind of ruckus at all, all of a sudden, you turn back into a brown person. You turn back into an Arab or someone who's black or someone who's gay or a woman, et cetera. And they throw you on to that bus so quick. And that's what's happening to Justin Amash.

And that's the true face of the Republican Party. The exception proves the rule. When we come back, we're going to give you an update on Iran and show you what Trump had to say during a recent interview on Fox News on this very topic. 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 and selling 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 be able to more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. 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 TYT, 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.

We'll be 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-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. All right, you got a tweet for us? I have a tweet. It's from Monica for Democracy.

Okay. And she writes in and says, jank, your claim of continued optimism made me think of Anna Casparian's comparison of you to John Snow in last night's review of Game of Thrones. You're being very John Snow right now. You are. Okay, but when you need, well, I know, I'm not going to do spoilers. Okay, but look, I'll take any comparison to John Snow, I appreciate it. Okay, let's put it that way.

All right, let me go to Twitter here. Iqbal Faiser says, I love to hashtag TYIT live, but I find that iguana or whatever that lizard mascot thing is gross and scary. At least it's not a snake, I hate snakes. How dare you? Okay, that's our bannerman. That's cold-blooded. I know science. Oh, yeah.

Sort of. Okay, I know science. Anna, the science woman, sort of. Anyway, eclectic miscellaneous, eclectic miscellaneous says, I think the mystery's been solved. Cofefefe is Russian for money laundering. I was wearing my cofe shirt the other day, which you can get on shoptyt.com. No way, says, say what you want, if this was Democratic president and Democratic-controlled House and Senate, the president would be impeached.

The Dems would impeach their own in this situation. That actually, look, God, that's devastating. I had not thought of it that way. Do I think there's a higher chance that Democrats would help the Republicans impeach a Democratic President under a similar situation? Probably, yeah. So I don't mean all of them, and I get it, they'd go into partisan lines, and they didn't help impeach Bill Clinton.

But Bill Clinton, I mean, that was almost nothing at all. But in a situation where a Democratic president had committed multiple felonies, an obstruction of justice and there was a special counsel that said he definitely did it and Congress should act, they'd probably say, it's a distraction, let's just get the vice president in there, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, it's a distraction. The Republicans won't let us do anything. And by the way, hey, Democrats, if you don't try impeachment, maybe you'll never find those Republicans who are actually think he should be impeached.

But if you made a giant trial out of it, maybe they would come out of the woodworks and go, oh, this is really embarrassing, I vote yes. But as usual, the Democrats, they won't bother trying because they don't want to accomplish anything. And whenever I say Democrats, I always mean democratic leadership. Obviously, now there's some wonderful Democrats in office. Yeah. All right.

I'd like to know where coming out of the woodwork comes from. Like, where did that originate? Anyway. Probably out of science, which I'm surprised you don't know. A, I'm not surprised, I don't know. And B, I don't think it has anything to do with science. Like woodworking, that's what it's referencing, right? Probably it's an animal like a termite coming out of the woodworks.

But anyway, we'll look it up. But I will tell you this on another random note, since we're talking about impeachment. If Trump goes down for money laundering, the victory lap I will take will be stunning. I know. It will be record breaking. It'll be so unbearable but well deserved, okay, I'll give you that. But I don't think you're going to see that day, so we'll see. Well, as are you would say not today, but maybe another day.

Look, Squarespace is insane because they're still giving you guys a 10% discount. So if you're looking to build a website, go to Squarespace. You get 10% off if you go to Squarespace.com slash TYT. All right, now let's talk about Iran. Donald Trump recently gave an interview to Fox News and he is giving us some mixed signals as to whether or not he plans on invading Iran, does he want to escalate tensions, does You want war. I don't know, why don't you watch the video and you can decide for yourselves.

Take a look. I ended the Iran nuclear deal. And actually, I must tell you, I had no idea it was going to be as strong as it was. It totally, the country is devastated from the standpoint of the economy. But now you see, the thing that I think a lot of people are worried about is that they heard what you said in 2016 and liked it when you said no more stupid wars. And then they hear these stories about troops and so on. just don't want them to have nuclear weapons and they can't be threatening us and you know with

all of everything that's going on and i'm not one that believes you know i'm not somebody that wants to go into war because war hurts economies war kills people most importantly by far most importantly if you do have a group and they call it the military industrial complex they never want to leave they always want to fight no i don't want to fight but you do have situations like Iran. You can't let them have nuclear weapons. You just can't let that happen. But why is he so dumb? Like, okay, so I don't want nuclear weapons. But that's what the Iran nuclear deal did. It prevented them from developing nuclear weapons. In fact, they had shipped the enriched uranium out of their country as part of the nuclear deal. There were actual

safeguards there. There was a way of making sure that they were following and complying with that nuclear deal. And even as Trump pulled the United States out of that deal, Iran continued to comply. It wasn't until Trump threatened the European country still doing business with Iran, that Iran decided, all right, well, what is the point of complying at this point, right? There's really no point. So look, if you want Iran to remain, you know, without nuclear weapons, then continue on with the Iran nuclear deal.

He did the opposite. And then in the end, he talks about the military. Industrial Complex, which I love, I love that talk. That is the talk that I'm in favor of, but he's saying two conflicting things in the same interview. So this is the problem with the electing president that's both arrogant and unintelligent. So the arrogance comes into, like it's okay, I'm just gonna threaten them and they won't do anything in return.

And I don't have to read their Iran nuclear deal, I know that Obama did it, so I'm opposed to it. So what is it you want to accomplish? I wanna make sure they don't have uranium in the country. But that's what the deal did. So it would have been great if you read it instead of being an arrogant jackass, okay? And then look, I don't want the stupid wars, you know, I'm against that. Then why did you hire John Bolton?

Yes. Whose whole job is to create stupid wars. Exactly. And why are you sitting around getting tricked by him? Because John Bolton towards him, he goes, oh, you know, I know you're against wars. But Iran, they might get nooks because of the deal that I told you to tear up early. earlier, which you didn't bother to read or investigate because you're stupid and I took advantage of your stupidity.

So why don't you, hey, do you don't want to seem weak? Oh, triggered, triggered, Trump gets triggered. Oh, I'm not weak, I'm not weak, I'll threaten nuclear war, I'll threaten war, we'll obliterate them. So easy to manipulate because he's one of the dumbest guys in the country. So he also tweeted, and his tweet seems to push for war. He said, quote, if Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran, never threaten the United States again, but you're the one threatening Iran

constantly, incessantly. John Bolton continues to do that. And you know, interestingly enough, if you listen to the officials from Iran, the moderates who do not want war, and they're very clear in not wanting war, I mean, you get a completely different picture compared to what John Bolton and the war mongers from the Trump administration are telling you. So let's go to the next video. This is actually an interview that the foreign minister of Iran did with Chris Wallace. It was on April 28th, so it's a little older, but it kind of gives you a sense of where they're coming from. Take a look. So you think it's Israel, Bolton, Saudi Arabia, Samans, and United Arab Emirates.

All trying to exercise regime change? At least. At least. They want, they have all shown an interesting. in dragging the United States into a conflict. I do not believe that President Trump wants to do that. I believe President Trump ran on a campaign promise of not bringing the United States into another war. But I believe President Trump's intention to put pressure, the policy of maximum pressure, on Iran,

in order to bring Iran to its knees so that we would succumb to pressure, is doomed to failure. And I think these four individuals know this. So that's 100% correct. That doesn't mean Iran's correct about everything they're incorrect about many, many things, including how they treat their own people. But does Israel, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and the New York Conservatives in this country want to push us into a war with Iran for regime change?

Yes, how do I know that? They've said it publicly multiple times. And they continue to say it. So it's not a state secret. John Bolton can be caught on TV any day saying that he wants regime change. He said it before he got in the Trump White House and he's been pushing for it ever since. So yeah, is there a plot to attack Iran? Absolutely.

So we always like say, oh my God, at some point Iran has chanted bad things about America. Well, our president just said that it'll be the end of Iran. If Iran had said that about us, we will end America. We're like, let's go to war. We gotta go to war. I can't believe Iran said that. We say it, and oh, no big deal, of course, we're allowed to bully anyone we like. We're allowed to say we're gonna annihilate them, destroyed them, terminate them, end them.

Because hypocrisy, who cares, we're number one. And they say, oh, Iran is now, has declared our troops a terrorist. Yeah, important context to that would be, that's because we declared their troops terrorists. If you leave that part out, then you've told a terribly misleading story. Iran is being potentially hostile in attacking ships, although we have absolutely no evidence of it. We just brought in a carrier group into the Persian Gulf to threaten Iran. Exactly, yeah.

So the United States keeps provoking Iran. Iran actually has been very restrained, considering. And the whole idea is, well, the second they fire back, that will give the Trump administration And goons like Bolton, the ability to attack Iran militarily and then try to justify it by saying, well, look at what Iran did. But again, you're right, look at the context, look at what the United States has done to provoke them. And the foreign minister had more to say.

And this next video kind of talks to or speaks to the geopolitical ramifications of what Trump did with this Iran nuclear deal. Take a look. Engagement is not producing results. Iran. President Trump has made sure that the people of Iran would not believe in engagement. We approached the international community in good faith. We reached an agreement with the international community, with the United States, six other powers. President Trump, just because he disliked President Obama, just left that agreement without having read it. And people of Iran started

to feel and started to see that engagement does not have dividends. That's a very bad message, not only that you're sending to the people of Iran, but you're sending to the rest of the world. That they should not rely on the signature of a president of the United States. So I thought that was an important video to share with you because remember, while this is all happening, Trump is still pretending as if he's going to get North Korea. Korea to unilaterally disarm, but why would North Korea unilaterally disarm? Especially when you're pushing for regime change in Venezuela, you're pushing for regime

change in Iran, you have pulled out of a nuclear deal that the United States had previously agreed to. I mean, these are all signs and signals to other countries that we're trying to pursue diplomatically. And I love the fact that he raised that issue because, I mean, look, is the Trump administration going to listen to that? Of course not. But I think it's important for voters to know how much harm this is doing when it comes

to other foreign relations issues. I think Trump might be jealous that Bush is still considered a worst president by some. And he likes to win. And so, especially at failing, no one beats them at failing, six bankruptcies and counting. The best failure. No one fails as big as me. No one knows this, but it's the best business strategy to go bankrupt. It's really smart business.

That's why I've done it so many times. And so it's a sore spot for him that Bush invaded Iraq and killed nearly a million civilians and cost ourselves this country trillions of dollars. He's like, he's so desperately wants to say, hold my beer, I can screw this up worse than you can. And the Republicans, bless their hearts, they found someone dumber than Bush, which seemed previously unimaginable. So Dick Cheney tricked Bush into Iraq war fairly easily.

Now Bolton's like, hey, Dick, hold my beer. Watch how easy it is to manipulate this orange buffoon. He doesn't even know that I'm the biggest war monger in the country. He ran on getting us out of interventionist wars and then hired me. What an idiot. Now speaking of Bolton, Chris Wallace also interviewed him right after he interviewed Iran's foreign minister. And I just want to show you the type of intellect someone like Bolton has on complex foreign policy issues. Ambassador, as you just heard, Foreign Minister Zerif says you're part of

the B team, a small group of leaders, you in the U.S., others in the Middle East, Bibi Netanyahu, bin Salman, bin Zaid, who are working to try to steer President Trump into a conflict with Iran. Your response. Well, he also said in another interview, he wished he were working with the A team. You know, in the past few days, the North Koreans have also called me dim-sighted. The Cubans have said I'm a pathological liar. I'd say I've had a pretty good week. All right, well, good to know that he is Trump's national security advisor. Being called stupid is a good week for him. Yeah, maybe Trump will look at that and be like, oh, that's my kind of guy. I mean, I got past the mustache. Thank God for that. This guy's even dumber than I am. Makes me feel great.

Yeah, no, those are not compliments. I don't know if you know that. And so, but in John Bolton's tiny little mind, which to be fair is vastly greater than Trump's, he thinks, well, if I've got bad guys looking in his mind, and in reality, especially with the North Koreans, et cetera, saying bad things about me, great, we're close to war. I say bad things about them, I go to Trump into saying bad things about them, about how we're gonna end their entire existence. That could be a two-for, because not only that could that start a war with Iran, but then

North Korea gets the message, hey, if you don't have nukes, America will betray the deal that they made with you, and then come and end your regime. If you're North Korea or anyone else, you know what that would make you do, immediately try to get nukes, because that's the only way to protect yourself. So that's the message John Bolton is sending to the world. help us all. When we come back from the break, Trump gets into a catfight with Buttigieg and Fox News. We'll be 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.