The Young Turks - Newsroom Raid

Episode Date: August 15, 2023

The Lahaina blaze is now the deadliest wildfire in modern U.S. history. Police stage "chilling" raid on Marion County newspaper by seizing computers, records and cellphones. More than 20 Ohio counties rejected Issue 1 last week. Most of them are suburban and exurban counties that voted for Donald Trump in 2020. Republicans wanted a special counsel investigation on Hunter Biden. Now many oppose it. Massachusetts passed a 4% millionaire's tax last year and now every public-school student is going to get free lunches. HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur) & 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 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. Woo! It's up! All right, welcome to the young church, Jake, you're Anna Kasparian, beating of a lovely new week.

And, you know, of course we have the normal, usual bad news like, you know, climate change affecting Hawaii and a lot of political madness, etc. But we also have some good news stuffed into this show, like a shocking turn of events on us, several pieces of good news coming out of Massachusetts, Montana. Any state that starts with a M, except Kansas or anything related to Kansas City, Missouri. So we'll get to that because that one's bad and Idaho's bad. So we make some good ones, we make some bad ones. Stick around for all of it. Casper. Well, why don't we begin with some updates on the fires in Hawaii, in Maui specifically, just all around bad news to report in that story, unfortunately. But let's give you those updates.

It is already the worst loss of life from a wildfire in modern U.S. history. Officials say only two of those victims have been identified so far. An estimated 1,000 people remain missing. The flames have destroyed most of the historic town of Lahaina. The deadly fires in Maui have already claimed the lives of 96 individuals as we share the story with you at this moment. However, that death toll is expected to rise, especially considering the fact that there are more than 1,000 people still missing. Now, the area in Maui, Lahaina, to be specific, has been completely charred about 2,170 acres in the Lahaina. Haina fire have been charred, and the fire at this moment is about 85% contained.

Roughly 2,200 structures have been destroyed, the vast majority of which are actually residential structures, meaning homes, and the physical damage, as it stands right now, is estimated to be about $6 billion. Now, the Maui police chief, John Pelletier, explains what the search for victims has been like. It has been absolutely devastating. And here he is describing it in his own words. So of the 89, so realize this, we, when we find these, you know, our family and our friends, the remains we're finding is through a fire that melted metal. We have to do rapid DNA to identify them. Every one of these 89 are John and John.

Jane Does. And so when you are asking us, and we know we've got to get, and I love the way our house representative, how she said it, she was so eloquent, we know we've got to go quick, but we've got to do it right. So when we pick up the remains and they fall apart, and so when you have 200 people running through the scene yesterday, and some of you, that's what you're stepping on. I don't know how much more you want me to describe it. That's what you're stepping on. Cadaver dogs have been flown in from the state of California in order to help search for victims who have perished as a result of these fires. But this is, in fact, the deadliest fire in U.S. history in over 100 years. So it's just been absolute devastation

in Maui. My heart goes out to them. I just want to share an image of what some of the scenes look like, just completely charred, cars completely burnt. You can see the structures in the background completely destroyed. And there are thousands of people who have been displaced and they're looking for shelter as we speak. Jane. Yeah, so I want to reiterate a couple of things from the last time we covered this. Then we'll get into how others are covering it. So first of all, why did it happen? So grasslands grew in former sugarcane farms, but then here comes the effects of climate change. So since 1990, precipitation in that area has dropped by 31% due to macro climate events, which is climate change. And then Hurricane Dora came in with

very powerful winds, even though it was very far off the coast. And so we'll get into culpability about what people should have done with that. But the winds are so extreme that they fan the flames and the flames went horizontal to the ground and were very hard to put out. And so climate change doesn't create a fire necessarily. But what it does is it makes things extreme. The extreme wind, extreme dryness,

even in a place like Hawaii, these are the things that take what would have been a small fire and make it into a disastrous, horrific fire. And another thing is that, you know, As he talks about those charred bodies and how they can't pick them up because they'll fall apart, I keep remembering that woman in the video that we showed you last week where they drove past her and she was on the side of the road. But they weren't an inferno and they all had to keep driving and that woman still haunts me. Yeah, same. Yeah. I totally agree. Now, there are other issues. As I mentioned, thousands of people have been displaced and many of them are looking at.

looking for shelter as we speak. Emergency managers in Maui as the Star Advertiser reports, we're searching for places to house people displaced from their homes. As many as 4,500 people are in need of shelter. Flyovers by the Civil Air Patrol found 1,692 structures destroyed, almost all of them residential. Earlier I shared that the number of structures destroyed is estimated to be much higher at 2,170, but still the majority of those structures are in fact residential homes.

And there are also some issues with getting supplies to people in need because of the fact that the post office and some of the businesses tasked with delivering packages to people have been burnt down as well. So that's also a disaster. The other thing that authorities are trying to message and get across to people in the areas that they need to be very careful about the water. So apparently Maui water officials warned Lahaina and Kula residents not to drink running water, which may be contaminated even after boiling and to only take short lukewarm showers in well-ventilated rooms to avoid possible chemical vapor exposure. So if anyone in the area happens to be watching this and you didn't get that message, just please make sure that you keep this in mind and just be really, really careful with the running water there. Now hundreds have also, as we've shared with you, in our previous coverage, gone so far as to flee into the ocean in order to avoid the wildfires

only to be saved later by the Coast Guard. And I do want to also just share another element or angle to this story that hasn't really gotten much coverage. And it has to do with a now class action lawsuit against the utility company in the area. So three law firms filed a class action suit on Saturday against Hawaiian Electric alleging that the destruction could have been avoided had the utility company de-energized its power lines ahead of the high wind weather. They argue that everyone knew that the hurricane was going to be a problem and that the utility company should have taken these efforts in order to prevent the fire from getting out of control as it was. Hawaiian Electric said power had been restored to 60% of customers who had been without

power since Thursday of last week, and crews are continuing to work to get about 5,000 other customers back online. But nonetheless, I think that these lawsuits point to an interesting accusation, especially as a Californian who has seen the utility company PG&E behave poorly to say the least in this state and exacerbate, not just exacerbate, but literally start some of the wildfires that devastated California and certainly the campfire is a perfect example of that. PG&E had refused to upgrade and update. It's old, you know, nearly 100 year old equipment and that faulty equipment sparked some of the deadliest fires in this state. So I am curious to see how this lawsuit against Hawaiian Electric is going to play out. Yeah, so this is actually

the deadliest natural disaster since the campfire and it is larger than that fire. So So they, one of the biggest natural disaster death tolls in modern American history. So unfortunately we tell you guys, there's these once in a lifetime events, and that's what the governor of Hawaii called this on the first day. But they are not once in a lifetime events, they are now yearly events. They just keep moving around like the mass shootings. So you got one in Houston, then you get one in the Northeast, now you got one in Hawaii. in their extreme tornadoes, extreme hurricanes, extreme fires.

I mean, just last week, we were talking about the rapid pace in which the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, Alaska is melting and how that led to devastating floods in the area. Yeah. Right? So it doesn't matter where you live. The, look, natural disasters have been around forever. They're being exacerbated by the impact of climate change. Yeah, and they're literally calling them 1,000-year storms, 500-year storms, et cetera,

because they're saying that was previously the probabilities of a storm like this happening. It would happen once every thousand years in recorded history. Now they're happening pretty much every single year. So look, when we talk about lawsuits, I think this lawsuit against the electric company is an interesting one. You know, it's hard to judge obviously without being on the jury and this is all just happening now. But it's potentially fruitful one if it's if that's what caused the fire. And here in California, as Anna pointed up, PG&E, refuse to bury their lines because it cost them more money.

And so we had fire after fire after fire. Tons of people died and then there were lawsuits after that. And of course they were feeding all the politicians, including Gavin Newsom, a ton of money. And so the politicians never made them do any of these. Texas is another case where Governor Greg Abbott totally bought by the electric companies, the energy companies, et cetera, and lets citizens freeze to death. burn to death, et cetera, while he just keeps collecting check after check. Lawsuits are a rare place where we have any kind of hope left.

And as you'll see later in today's show, some brave kids sued on the basis of climate change in Montana. I could argue that good people of Hawaii should sue on that too. It killed your relatives. And you know, you get all the downsides and the oil companies and the coal companies have made, unfortunately, a literal killing. And they're taking home all the profits. And look, one of the most important aspects of journalism is ensuring that the general public is aware of how things work, aware of the impact of climate change, why it is that these utility companies get away with murder.

You know, in the case of California and PG&E, there were lawsuits against PG&E. PG&E declared bankruptcy and Gavin Newsom decided to bail PG&E out. So it wasn't just the fact that you have government officials in the state of California providing cover for the utility companies that refuse to do what's necessary to upgrade their equipment. After the fires happen, after the lives are lost, after the homes are destroyed, you have government officials coming in and providing cover for them and bailing them out after they've been sued. So I want to just quickly talk about the media's treatment of this story, their coverage of this story. As many of you have probably seen, the press has covered this story extensively as they should, but the climate change angle is missing from the vast majority of reports. So media matters actually did an analysis of the press's coverage of the fires in Maui,

and here's what they found, that only 4% of national TV news segments about the catastrophic wildfires even mentioned climate change, national TV broadcasters, ABC, CBS, and NBC, and major cable news network, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News covered the Hawaii wildfires for 11 hours and 45 minutes across 209 segments. Only 4% of the 209 segments and weather casts about the Hawaii wildfires across national TV news mentioned the role of climate change in the wildfires. Again, I want to reiterate, it's not that the, it's not that climate change necessarily sparked the fire, okay, that needs to be investigated, they need to figure that out. It's that climate change creates the conditions in which the fires are exacerbated and uncontrollable, right?

Major cable news networks air 10 hours and 26 minutes of coverage across 174 segments or weather casts about the Hawaii wildfires. Only eight segments mentioned the connection between the wildfires and climate change. MSNBC mentioned it five times and CNN mentioned it three times. Obviously, Fox News mentioned it zero times. So ABC, CBS and NBC have primetime evening news. I say that because a lot of people have forgotten. But if you think it's irrelevant, it isn't. It's viewed by more people than cable news is.

It just happens that almost all those folks are 70 and above. But they're also the most high propensity voters in the country. And those folks have, you know how much, of course, how many seconds were talked about in regards to climate change with this story? Zero on those networks. Zero, never mentioned. And so if you think like, well, I mean, they get it, right? I mean, climate, we all know climate change is affecting these storms and making them more severe. No, they don't. Those folks that are still watching the evening news are the most hardcore TV viewers. They are not online. And they are also the most hardcore voters. And unfortunately, not because of them. It's not their fault. Because of television and television executives, they are literally the most ignorant people in the country. And I don't mean that as like they're unintelligent. No, they're perfectly intelligent, you're just like us, right? I mean it like literally they don't have any information. You're not informed on it.

Yeah, you're not informed. Yeah, you're not informed. Yeah, and so when they go to vote, they don't vote on climate change because they don't even realize it's a problem. Right. Because they're watching super old, super biased news. And of course, those are the same news outlets that say, we're the only ones who are non-biased.

Oh, get the F out of here, man. So why do they do this? Why do they not mention climate change when it is perfectly relevant in this story and so many other stories involving all of these extreme weather events as is constantly happening and we're breaking temperature record after temperature record both in air and in the ocean water? Because although those are factually correct, they are politically incorrect because then Republicans will yell at them and go, you're being biased against us. We're funded by fossil fuel companies and we love the fact that climate change is happening because it makes us rich. So you better not report it. And then they go, okay, okay, no way, no way. No, no, it's going to be biased.

It's going to be biased. We're not reporting it. No, what climate change? I don't see it. No, it just kind of randomly happened. Another thousand years storm, another thousand years storm. Another thousand years storm. They're all random because it would be politically incorrect to tell you the truth.

They're also fueled by their obsession with ratings. And look, it is a difficult balancing act. And I think we do a good job with it. But they don't want to engage in the balancing act, right? They look at climate change related stories. and they think our ratings are going to tank, we're not going to cover it. Let's just keep a real, Jake. Like, those stories don't perform well.

In the mix of a story about this devastating fire. It's a perfect opportunity to talk about the impact of change. Yeah, I mean, look, I get it. If you can tell a greedy media executive, hey, do stories that aren't going to do well, they're never going to do it. We're the only people that know, hey, those clips don't do well, those clips do well, but we're going to do the ones that don't do well because it's important to get you information that you need, right? So I'm not asking for that.

That's way too much to ask for. with the insatiable greed of almost everyone else in media. No, what I'm asking for is when you have this dramatic story you're covering anyway, can you give people the full story? And those executives are saying, hell no, under no circumstances, are we going to give them the full story? Because then Republicans would yell at us and oil companies would yell at us. And maybe we don't get as many advertisers.

Maybe some of their sponsors would pull out. Like, let's also keep that in mind, a lot of them. I mean, how many times have we seen BP ads in the context of a cable, news network, right? Yeah, and what are you going to do? You're going to buy more BP from a gas station near you? Well, maybe you have, well, maybe you don't. They're mainly doing it not so you buy from BP gas stations, but so that they can purchase ABC, NBC, and CBS, and make sure that they don't report the truth. So the people that tell you they're the most objective mainstream media are actually the most biased of all, and they'll do anything

for money. And if you remember, during the Trump years, when he was leading up to the Trump years, 2015, 2016, they all admitted it. Jeff Zucker, CNN, Les Movis, and CBS, and they said, yeah, Trump's terrible for the country, but he's great for ratings, so give us more Trump. And they did wall-to-wall coverage because they said, who cares? All I care about is money, money, money, money, but I'm objective. My ass, your objective. They're the most biased people in America.

Well, look, when we come back from the break, we have a positive climate-related story, believe it or not. So stick around. I can't wait to give you the details of this big win when we come back. All right on TYAT, Jank and Anna and Eelsha Craig, who just joined, but also Lore, and also John Mezzo. Amazing, Chris Birch and Cropo 47, thank you both for gifting five Young Turks Memberships on YouTube. You're all open-minded and open-hearted, and I love it.

And then I just want to read one comment about Hawaii. Tracy Ravenhawk wrote in, we're going to have to test the water. They want $450 for a test. What? Who is, no, I want more details about that. Yeah, so send us more details. So it's a YouTube member that wrote in about that. And, I mean, how often do you have to do the test?

I mean, it'll bankrupt you. That's insane. Hold on. Do they want the residents of Hawaii, Lahaina, too? That's insane. I want to know more details. Yeah. So look, when you guys report basically from the field to us,

because all of you live in every different area that we cover, it's helpful. And I love doing the show with you guys. So if you have more details on that, let us know. All right, let's go to the rest of the news. Well, let's get a little, a moment of positive news relief in this news cycle, because there is some fantastic news out of the state of Montana. and it involves teenagers actually getting some work done. So let's talk about it.

In a huge win in the fight against climate change, a Montana state judge has ruled in favor of over a dozen young plaintiffs who argue that these states fossil fuel projects actually ended up violating the state's constitution and it's guaranteed to a clean and healthful environment. So they look at the constitution, they see the actions of the fossil fuel. companies and these teenagers are like, we're going to go ahead and sue. And so here's what happened. We're going to tell you about the decision by the judge and what it potentially means. I think it's really important to get to know these teenagers. First, starting with this wonderful woman,

Serial Sandoval. So she is one of the plaintiffs and she says that the huckleberries that her family turns into syrups and jams are smaller and harder to find every year as a result of the impact of climate change. You also have Kean Tanner. Kean Tanner is an avid fly fisher, but over the years, he's had several fishing trips canceled thanks to wildfires. He worries that the rising freshwater temperatures and droughts are killing off Montana's fish. And he has good reason for that. There is evidence to show that climate change leads to the warming water and has a negative impact on the marine life as a result of that. You also have badge and lander bus. I just love how young they are and how aware they are of what's going on with our planet

and with their state's constitution. So badge and lander bus are avid hunters, but they fear that climate change is hollowing out the populations of the Montana wildlife. So I like that they attack this from both the financial impact it's having on their families, but also the impact it's having on their personal lives and their interest in nature and their activities, their hobbies, Now, props to these kids because they're fighting not just for themselves, but they're fighting for everyone in the state of Montana, and if this, you know, expands into something bigger, which I hope it does, they're fighting for future generations to come. Now, these teenagers were represented by an organization known as Our Children's Trust.

It's a nonprofit that has taken up legal action on behalf of young people in all 50 states. I like their strategy here. As we mentioned earlier, the case in Montana hinged on a specific clause in the state's Constitution. Montana's Constitution includes rights to a clean and healthful environment for residents and future generations. The plaintiffs sought to force the state to drop a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act that barred officials from considering the consequences of climate change when permitting new energy projects saying that it violated those constitutional rights. The case, which was argued in a Montana state court, was expected

to be a battle over the reality of climate change. However, a little twisty twist here. In a surprising twist, the state of Montana began and ended its defense in just one day. They barely even fought this, which is fascinating, arguing that the legislature should be the one to make changes to the law, as opposed to the judiciary. They also pointed out that even if Montana completely stopped using fossil fuels, it would have a minuscule effect on the global sum of carbon emissions. That's a fair point, but apparently not big enough of a point to persuade the judge to rule against the plaintiffs here. So Michael Girard, the founder of Columbia's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law said everyone expected them, meaning the state, to put on a more vigorous

defense. And they may have concluded that the underlying science of climate change was so strong that they didn't want to contest it. And today, district court judge Kathy Seeley ruled that the contested provision, the contested provision, I'm sorry, the contested provision to be constitutional, unconstitutional, I should say. Here's what will happen next. Thanks to this ruling, the decision today says that the state must either one have discretion to deny permits for fossil fuel activities when the activities would result in GHG emissions

that, you know, global, you know, I'm guessing that it stands for global, I don't know, anyway, GHG emissions that cause unconstitutional degradation and depletion of Montana's environment and natural resources or infringement of the constitutional rights of Montana's children and youth or two, the permitting statutes themselves to be unconstitutional. Yeah, okay, so look, I love this story. I love that young people brought it forward. I love how creative it was and maybe the precedent that it sets. But okay, let's do notes of caution and then I'll open up another possibility.

So number one, it's definitely going to get appealed. And I think that part of the reason that they didn't mount much of a defense is they're like, look, some court is like along the way, either this first court or the one after that or the one after that or if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, they're definitely going to rule in our favor. corporations own all these courts. They are packed with people who worked as corporate lawyers. They have group think. They're chosen by politicians who are all funded by fossil fuel interests.

So they must have thought, this is a layup. We don't even have to present a case because the courts are already so corrupt. They would never allow us like what? It's unconstitutional for us to make money from our greed? No way, no way, right? So they got a rude awakening, at least in this first trial. Let's hope it continues on appeal and let's hope they keep not presenting any defense. And of course, look, the science of it is 1,000% settled.

Putting on a science defense is absurd. They'd have to put in a bunch of quacks, you know, et cetera. And that's not going to be persuasive. No, they have to put on a defense basically saying, I don't care. I just want the money, Lubowski, right? And yeah, at some point some set of judges will go, oh, yeah, of course. Who cares about the planet? Who cares that it's in your constitution?

burn it to the ground as long as the politicians are making money from these donors. So that being said, Montana, and look, this is both good news and bad news. Montana's Constitution is pretty clear about this. It's in the Constitution. So the good news part of that is that they're just going to have to flat out lie to loot for the state to win this case at some point. And some judges have to go, plain meaning of the words, nah, did we say that as concerned? murders our whole lives? Nah, who cares? Words don't have any meaning. Just make money. I don't care. Make money. Burn it, burn it. So will they probably? Okay. So, but they're going to have to

ignore obvious plain reading of the Montana Constitution. Okay. Now, the bad news out of that is that other state constitutions don't have that language. Right. Right? Because they're talking about a clean and healthful environment and it's guaranteed. So yet, and so how do you know this particular law violated that. Well, one of the things that the plaintiffs put forward was in Montana, the number of fossil fossil fossil fossil fossil fuels companies that have been rejected for a permit is zero. They are never rejected, never. Burn it to the ground, take the money, give us a small percentage for all the government crooks, the politicians, et cetera. And then let's just run, The run and let Montana burn, let everything else burn, who cares?

So that's what's happening in that regard. And other states maybe have denied a permit or two, right? But in Montana, they're brazen. The crooks that run Montana say, give them all. Just take everything out. We don't give a goddamn about climate change. We don't give a goddamn about anything, okay? And then I have an idea for how to fight back related to this, but Anna.

So look, considering the fact that the state didn't really even try to defend themselves, I don't think that they're going to appeal it. I could be wrong. No, they're definitely going to appeal. But like, okay, how are they going to defend, you know, the permitting of fossil fuel companies drilling and fracking and all of that when that would literally require them to say that these activities are not harmful to the environment and do not go against the state's constant. I'm curious to say, look, I think there's some chance they never present a defense in any of these trials. And it goes all the way up to wherever it goes. And some courts go, no, I don't, we don't care. We don't care. We're

just making political decisions here. Okay, they're all activist judges. Look, so we're speculating about the future of this. So who knows how it's going to play out. We'll update you as we learn more. But my point of me even bringing that up is to say, if this ruling stands, even if other states don't have this awesome provision like in their constitution, the good news is this sets a precedent, right? There is now record of the acceptance that climate change does not, I'm sorry, you know, fossil fuels are contributing to climate change and does not, and that does not lead to a clean, safe, healthful environment. Yeah, no, no. So that's the good news about this. Yeah, the precedent is great. And that's going to lead to my idea here in a second. I'm sorry that I'm being bumbug about

I know, and thank you to the judge that ruled this way, the courts that ruled this way. Thank you to the people who brought it out, I would bet any amount of money that they lose at some point on appeal. The justice system in this country is way too crooked to let the people win. It just, it almost never happens. You know how they were saying with climate change, a thousand year storm, a thousand year storm and it's happening every year. The court's going all the way through and ruling on behalf of the people, that would be a

a thousand year decision, like the first time in a thousand years. Anyways, but look, here's one way we can win in the long run, partly based on this precedent. I think small businesses should do mass action, mass tort lawsuit, class action lawsuit against larger businesses, the fossil fuel businesses. This is against the state. Now, doing it against the fossil fuel companies is in some ways harder, right? But the reason why I say small businesses, because the average American doesn't count for anything in this country anymore. So if you're an average American and you sued, this is the reason we're flipping out over this is because it's nearly unprecedented that an average person would have

win in America in the court system. But businesses win all the time. So you have to put business versus business for the courts to even pay attention 99 out of 100 times. So I think that it's opened up an interesting avenue to pursue here through the court system, even as corrupt as it is. Let's get into it. Dramatic new surveillance video of a small town Kansas police force raiding the newsroom of the Marion County record.

Now the heart of a battle over the First Amendment. Officers reading a reporter her rights, snapping photographs and taking away computers. It's everything you've ever heard in the third world. It really is like we're living in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany or Vladimir Putin's Russia. Police seized computers, cell phones, and other reporting materials from the Marion County Record Newspapers Office and even raided the publisher's home in an unprecedented raid. This is not something that is supposed to happen. We're talking about journalists being targeted and rated. Eric Meyer, who is the owner and publisher of the newspaper, said that police were motivated by a confidential source who leaked sensitive documents to the newspaper. And the message was clear, according to him, mind your own business or we're going to step on you, he says.

Now, the raid followed news stories about a restaurant owner who kicked reporters out of a meeting just last week. It was a meeting that was attended by U.S. Representative Jake LaTurner. And there were also some revelations about the restaurant owner's lack of a driver's license and how she allegedly drove her vehicle with the suspended license as a result of that DUI. that that would have implications for her business because she is applying for a liquor license for her restaurant. More details on that in the next clip. At issue, Meyer says is a tip one of his reporters received about a local business owner accused of driving illegally. They decided not to publish the story. We notified the police that they told us this.

They never responded. The person who was the target of this then falsely accused, the us of illegally. obtaining the information. That prompted a search warrant, though federal laws protect journalists from search and seizures and instead require a subpoena. But the chief of the Marion Police Department says in a statement, there are exceptions, like, quote, when there is reason to believe the journalist is taking part in the underlying wrongdoing.

The paper denies any wrongdoing and says it won't be deterred. If they think I'm going to give up because they've made it difficult for us to put out a newspaper for one week, they've got another thing coming. I love his spirit. Okay, so we're going to get back to the police in just a moment. The police defending what they've done. They claim that there's a loophole in the law that allows them to do what they did. There's another element to this story involving the police that I think is relevant. But just to reiterate the element having to do with that restaurant owner, let's go to graphic two here. So a reporter with the Marion record used a state website

to verify the information provided by this anonymous source. But Meyer, the publisher and owner, of the paper suspected that the source was relaying information from Newell's husband who had filed for divorce. So Meyer decided not to even publish a story about the information and he alerted the police to the situation. We thought we were being set up, he said. Okay, police though notified the restaurant owner, Newell, who then complained at a city council meeting that the newspaper had illegally obtained and disseminated sensitive documents, which isn't true. Her public comments prompted to newspaper to set the record straight in a story published on Thursday. After that, the police conducted the raid. And Newell is a character herself, which we'll get to

in just a moment. But there's one other thing that's really important to kind of suss out here. And I think that this needs to be investigated. Because apparently the newspaper, according to Meyer was examining Marion police chief Gideon Cody's past work with the Kansas City, Missouri police as well. Cody said Sunday that the raid was legal and tied to an investigation. So he's saying, no, no, no, the paper is reporting on me. Their investigation to me has nothing to do with this. It has to do with a completely different investigation, alluding to the whole thing with the restaurant owner, Newell. Okay, let me be clear. I don't believe the police chief at all, Not 1%, I think he's totally utterly lying.

And look, this raid didn't make any sense except for one part of it, right? They were in the restaurant reporting on not the owner, like the owner, like unless the owner is like somehow deeply connected to the police chief, they're not going to do that even for a business owner, right? Especially if it's a small business, et cetera, right? So I'm like, there's something wrong in this story. And then I'm like, okay, look, there was a Republican parliament. politician in the restaurant and it was a fundraiser or something so people can catch feelings over that and they feel like, who cares? It's just steamroll the press. We do, you know, Republicans do it all the time now and there won't be any consequences. But even then it's

a little surprising. But then when I read the part about they were also doing investigation on the police chief, I was like, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Okay, they better preserve everything that was in those computers, okay? Because if there's anything missing, that police chief should not only be fired, but arrested for trying to get rid of evidence potentially about himself. So this is deeply illegal what they did. It's illegal in three different ways. It's unconstitutional. Yeah, it's unconstitutional and illegal. So I'll kick it back over to Anna and then I'll explain more why this is the biggest outrage at a long time in terms of freedom of the press. There's so many angles to the story. So let's just quickly

talk a little bit about the search warrant itself. So the police did present a search warrant, and that search warrant alleges identity theft and unlawful use of a computer. Okay, so the two-page search warrant signed by a local judge, Liz Newell, that's the restaurant owner, as the victim of alleged crimes by the newspaper. Now, when the paper asked for a copy of the probable cause affidavit required by law to issue a search warrant, the district court issued a signed statement saying no such affidavit was on file. So, Jake, what does that mean exactly? Okay, so look, so here's two giant violations here. Normally for press organizations, because there's freedom of the press in the constitution, you don't just get a normal warrant, you have to get a subpoena.

So did they get a subpoena? No, they didn't even try to get a subpoena. No one is claiming they got a subpoena. So already it's out of the gate, totally unconstitutional, even if they got a legitimate warrant, because the press has a different standard. It's not arguable. It's an open and shut case, right? So now they go, well, at least I have a warrant. And then it turns out, no, they don't. Right. Okay, so now look, we'll see. This is the first day of the story. You know, was there an administrative screw up, et cetera? But if this story holds, and they didn't even have a warrant, that's just going into somebody's house as a gang. breaking into their place, remember, because it's their office they broke into and also the home, right?

Where the 98-year-old co-owner... We didn't even get to that. I know, hold on, wait until you see what happened to her. Anyways, so they break into both, and if you don't have a warrant or a subpoena, and you're doing this to the press, that is as illegal a search as you could possibly imagine in America. So basically the police, by the way, this is a small, town with a tiny police department of literally five deputies. All deputies engaged in the raid. And the raid took place both at the newspaper's office and also the publisher's home.

And I just want to say one more thing to it before you go on in it. Guys, remember, this is over the allegation about a story they didn't publish. Exactly. Exactly. And it was like minor. Somebody has a DUI and they were going to apply for a permit and they were driving. Even though they had the DUI, these are minuscule stories. It is, and you did a- And you did- To me that police would agree to rating a newspaper's office over that issue. It's just, it seems inconceivable to me.

We could be proven wrong, but I do think that the, like, can the reporters please investigate the police angle to this, right? The paper investigating the police chief and whether that played a role? because there's been much to do about Carrie Newell, the restaurant owner, right? Again, I just find it inconceivable that the police would agree to raiding a newspaper's office and the publisher's home over that issue, over a story that was never even published about the restaurant owner. By the way, so let's just talk really quickly about the raid that happened in the publisher's home. So as the raid was happening in the newspaper's offices, the publisher's home is also being raided. The publisher actually co-owns the newspaper with his mother, who was 98 years old when the raid happened.

A day later, after the raid, something terrible happened to his mother because of the stress of the raid. So without giving too much away, let's go to the next video. Eric Meyer co-owns the paper with his 98-year-old mother, whose home of 70 years, he says, was also raided Friday. He tells ABC News she died on Saturday, one day after the raid. saying she was too stressed to sleep or eat. She spent eight hours a week working for us, putting together a column of memories. How dare they take the last day of her life

and make her filled with fear and anger? So his mother passed away a day after the raid. He says she was totally fine, but the stress of the raid led to her death. I mean, just awful story all around. Carrie Newell, the restaurant owner, like popped off on Facebook over this and made it seem like, no, it's the press's fault. The press is like, you know, a lot of enemy of the people type lingo.

We can get to that in just a moment. But Jank, thoughts on the raid in his home. So look, first thing I thought is, look, 98 year old dies after the thing. But was she on life support or something? No, turns out according to all accounts, she was as good at health as a 98 year old could be. And so, you know, it's impossible to tell if this was the proximate cause of her death. But if I was the son and I was the family member, I would be livid, livid over it. And I think you all would be too.

And then I want to note that this Carrie Newell that's just crying and crying all over social media about like how she's the victim. First of all, she's admitted now to driving, even though she's not allowed to drive. She said, well, I had to get to my restaurant where I'm applying for an alcohol permit. I'm not allowed to apply for because I had to because I want to make money and et cetera. She has not been arrested. So she has admitted to at least the crime of driving when she shouldn't be. But she's fine. She does Republican fundraisers or whatever she does at a restaurant and kicks out reporters.

But meanwhile, the people who didn't even report on her but got information about her have been raided, all their stuff taken. God knows when they're going to get it back. And this could destroy a business, right? And they do it willy-nilly. Meanwhile, Carrie Newell's acting like, it's such a right-wing mentality. On the one who breaks the law, the government cheats on my behalf, but I'm the victim. So let me give you her statement. So she's done a few interviews, but this is what she posted on her Facebook page.

So Newell, writing Friday under a changed name on a personal Facebook account, said she foolishly, Okay, so this is where she makes the admission. Foolishly received a DUI in 2008 and knowingly operated a vehicle without a license out of necessity. Out of necessity for what? What you think to other people? See, that's such a right wing mentality. Like, no, other people should be arrested for that. Me, but I had to do it.

Yeah, they all had to do it too. But so that's not how the law works. And then she writes this. Quote, journalists have become the dirty politicians of today twisting narrative for bias agendas. full of muddied half truths, we rarely get facts that aren't baited with misleading insinuations. But, okay, Carrie, you're the bad guy in this story. You just admitted to driving on a suspended license because you had made the decision to get drunk and then get behind the wheel.

And there are consequences to that. To then deflect and blame journalists for her issues is ridiculous. She says the entire debacle was brought forth in an attempt to smear my name, but you just admitted to driving with a suspended license. And they didn't print it, you're the one smearing your own name. Yeah, she continues, jeopardize my licensing through the state alcoholic beverage control division, harm my business, seek retaliation, and for personal leverage in an ongoing domestic court battle, she claims.

So that's the crying that you're referring to, Jank. Listen, the real victims here are those who actually believe in freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Journalists should not be raided. Let's say that this story, if you take it at face value, the raid was over. Poor, poor Carrie Newell, who didn't have a negative story printed about her but got mad about it anyway. By the way, that is not a reason to raid journalists. That is insane, absolutely insane. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, no, look, and I want to be clear about this.

It's not like they didn't print the story because their equipment got taken during the raid. No, they had chosen not to print the story, even though they were right earlier because they weren't sure about the person who gave them the information. They were concerned that the information was obtained improperly, and they did not want to print improperly obtained information. Like, these people are genuine journalists. These are real journalists. By the way, they have every right to print even improperly obtained information. They do, they do, that's true. But they chose to be overly careful before knowing that any raid was going to happen,

that there was any police issue at all. They were as careful as they could possibly be. And I would argue like they should have printed the story, but didn't. But they raided him anyway. Right. And so the idea that the Newells and the police chiefs are the victims is laughable. It's a, forget Newell, who cares? She's just a civilian, right?

The question here is police versus the press. and the police have massively abused their authority. Guys, this is very important. If there aren't significant consequences to this, it'll be a green light. And then any time, I mean, theoretically it could be left wingers, but I haven't ever seen the left be powerful enough, strong enough, et cetera.

And I wouldn't want it in any way, shape, or form, do this, right? But for the right wing, you give them that green light and they're going to abuse the living hell out of it, and they're going to raid tons of press organizations. Guys, for once in our lives, can we just not make a story part of, like a partisan issue? This is not a partisan issue. Freedom of the press, freedom of speech needs to be protected, period. Without actual journalism, and that's what these people are, okay?

We don't have a democracy, actual factual information doesn't get to the public. So if you want to turn this into a partisan thing, like, oh, I don't know, are these lefty journalists or are these right-wing journalists? Who cares? Who cares? They're journalists who got raided by police for no reason at all, other than potentially hurt feelings by the police. And it's not just hurt feelings. I mean, if they were going to expose something the police chief did, that would be a lot more than hurt feelings. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we've got more for you, including some pretty humorous updates on the investigation into the Bidens.

All right back on TYT, Jankana with you guys. Just want to say John Ida Rola and his wife have welcomed a beautiful baby girl into the world. And we just want to say congratulations to both of them. And he's going to be an amazing father. Arlie's going to be an amazing mother, super happy for them. Yeah, congrats to both of you guys. And look, I've known John a long time now. He's going to be a great dad.

Oh, God, totally. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, with that said, let's move on to Republican lawmakers getting real mad that they got exactly what they wanted. Let's do it. This appointment of David Weiss stinks. David Weiss is someone who sat on his hands for years, allowed multiple alleged

crimes, their statute of limitations to expire out. David Weiss is someone who signed off on the sweetheart deal for Hunter that fell apart, the plea deal. And so I don't know, look, maybe it'll be another four or five years until Weiss actually comes forward with something. We don't know. Trump advisor, Jason Miller isn't the only Republican who's big mad over attorney general Merrick Garland doing exactly what the Republican Party kept urging him to do over and over again. special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden and potentially link Hunter Biden's foreign business deals to Joe Biden and a potential quid pro quo, right? That's the whole point of this investigation.

It's not just about Hunter Biden, it's about implicating his father, Joe Biden for political reasons. Now even though Republican senators like Marsha Blackburn specifically wanted Merrick Garland to appoint David Weiss, now all of a sudden Republicans are upset that Merrick Garland did just that. Now, let's get to the details here. Why are they so upset? After Garland elevated Weiss, David Weiss, to special counsel status, Republicans in Congress reacted with outrage. Quote, David Weiss can't be trusted. And this is just a new way to whitewash the Biden family's corruption, end quote, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee wrote on Twitter. It's Twitter. Let's just call Twitter, move on with our lives. Okay. Now, Republican Jason Smith, who chairs the House

Ways and Weans Committee, complained that the reality is this appointment is meant to distract from and slow down our investigations. No, no, Jason, the whole point of the investigation is to be a distraction. It's politically motivated. The Republican investigation into Hunter Biden has failed to implicate Joe Biden, but they keep moving forward with it because they're looking for something comparable to the indictments that Donald Trump is dealing with in order to, in their minds, I think. Even the playing field for the 2024 presidential election, even Lindsay Graham cried about this.

Senator Lindsey Graham slammed the appointment despite signing the letter last fall. This is a political, and by the way, the letter was to urge Mayor Garland to appoint special counsel Weiss. Okay, of course. Okay. This is a political decision by the Biden administration to fix their political problem. I think they poured gasoline on a political fire, Graham told News Nation. Yeah, whatever. I've got a lot more to get into on this story, but it's just hilarious to me. They demand something, they get what they want. Merrick Garland finally relents, gives them exactly what they've been wanting.

And now they're like, no, this is terrible. Weiss is this and whyce is that? Look, at the end of the day, even appointing a special counsel for this like sham investigation really does end up helping the Republican Party, in my opinion. Yeah, okay, look, guys, I told you about this last week, and they've just kicked into overdrive now, where they're complaining that they got exactly what they wanted. But at the national level, almost every Republican politician is a notorious liar. Like, just no brakes in that car at all.

I mean, and this is a perfect example of it. So when I say things like that, I want you to remember this story, let alone hundreds of other stories, where they literally say, if you don't have a special counsel, and it has to be this Weiss guy. And then they're like, okay, fine, you get it. You get Weiss who's the special counsel. They're like, I can't believe you appointed the special counsel, Weiss. And both of them showed the fact that you didn't appoint him. And the fact that you did appoint him, both show you how crooked you are. And they know, they know, he knows he signed the letter. They all know that they wanted this exact thing that happened before. They're brazen liars.

Like, ridiculous, psychopathic liars. And so, what does mainstream media do? I can't tell, 50, 50. Come on, 50, 50 with these guys, come on. Okay, so let's get into why they might have supported the appointment of David Weiss initially, including last fall when they signed this letter, versus how they feel about David Weiss now. Apparently they have soured on Weiss because of a plea deal that he worked out in the prosecution of Hunter Biden. Let's give you the details on that.

Since Weiss announced a proposed plea deal in June with Biden, meaning Hunter Biden, an agreement that would have allowed him to avoid jail time on tax and gun charges, but has since fallen apart, Republicans in Congress have sharply criticized the government, accusing the Justice Department of leniency with the president's son as they conduct their own investigations in an effort to tie his overseas business dealings to the president, something they have so far failed to do. Now, Hunter Biden has broken laws, tax laws, and he obtained a weapon, a gun when he wasn't supposed to. So having in his possession an illegal gun is part of what he is being prosecuted for.

And Republicans are mad that David Weiss worked out a plea deal that would have allowed Hunter Biden to avoid seeing the inside of a prison cell. Yeah. So look, you can get come up with a bunch of excuses. So here's another one. Well, before we wanted to prosecute, But now it's at an inconvenient time because golly gee, we were just about to show the evidence and then now because of this we can't continue our hearings, etc., which we're going to get to in a second, right? But guys, if they were against appointing a special counsel, like they changed their minds, right? It could happen, people change their minds. They would have said it earlier. They would have said, now, don't you dare appoint a special counsel because we're about to release this evidence.

And we definitely don't want it to be David Wise. They didn't do any of that stuff. They just said, give us David Weiss, give us special counsel. And then as soon as they got it, they're like, we don't want it. We don't want it. No, it's amazing. It is amazing. And I told you on that day that we covered this story the first time.

I think it was on Friday, they're going to now say like, oh, we were going to give you the evidence. It's like my sister. I've told this story a hundred times. I love my sister. We're great friends now. But we were tiny kids, we got this chocolate bunny, the infamous chocolate bunny story. And she says, she ate it, not just hers, but mine, okay? And then I said, well, where am my chocolate bunny?

Well, I was going to give it to you, but you did this and whatever it was, like some infraction. Yeah, rationalizing the bad deed. That's why I had to eat your chocolate bunny. Yeah. And so you're about to see James Comer do exactly. Okay, but I got to give you more context, right? Because apparently the, there are like multiple investigations into the Biden's happening

simultaneously, right? So James Comer chairs the House Oversight Committee, and apparently they were planning on or had already subpoenaed David Weiss to testify before the committee. David Weiss apparently verbally agreed to testifying before the House committee. And now Comer, along with other Republicans, are arguing, well, now that he's the special counsel, he could reject our calls for him to testify before us. In fact, here's Comer making that argument on Newsmax. Here we on the Oversight Committee, for all practical purposes, have been the special counsel for the past six months. We've produced more evidence than anyone that's supposedly investigating this criminal activity by the Biden family. And right as we get to the point to where

we've traced it to Joe Biden, and we're at a position where we can win in court to fight their attorneys and get their actual personal bank records, he comes out with this. This is another attempt to try to obstruct. They're going to try to use this in court when they say, no, we can't give the oversight committee our bank records because there's an ongoing investigation by David Wynne. Then why did you want a special counsel? Why did they want a special counsel? Why did they want it? Why did you want it? I don't get it. I don't get it. I don't get it. Why did you want it? And if you changed your mind and you no longer wanted it because you guys in the House

Oversight Committee were acting as special counsel in the investigation, why didn't you hit up Merrick Garland and be like, yo, homie, we don't need the special counsel anymore. We're doing our own investigation. He didn't do that though, did he? Yeah. Come on. Okay, look, guys, I mean, it's so 1984, he's being prosecuted, and Comer's calling the prosecution an obstruction. Come on!

Like, you wanted him prosecuted, and now the, the Biden administration makes a big deal out of work, prosecuting the president's son. And they're like, you're obstruction justice. And the call for him to be the special counsel was just a little while ago. So if it was just a little while ago, you didn't think, hey, if we get the special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden like we want, then we won't be able to get his bank records and we won't be able to get this or that. That just occurred to you right after he was appointed?

It didn't occur to you before he was appointed? And then you were calling for his appointment? I mean, Calmer doesn't strike me as the brightest, you know, brightest person on the plan. So maybe, I don't know. No, look, the thing that drives me crazy, I got to be honest, and this is a great example of it, is that we have debates with liars. And so it makes the truth in the line look like a 50-50 proposition, right? Even if they're, this is such a great case of them being outrageous liars, right?

Like, give me X. I can't believe you gave me X. Right? And so but then even when you debate it and it becomes an issue, they're going to win over at least minimum 25% of the country because they're not going to hear all the details or they're just going to hear the Republican side at a minimum 25%. 100%. Absolutely. So lying works. It pays off for these guys. Let me give you another element of the story that's going to blow your mind. Okay. So apparently, remember, there are There were these two IRS whistleblowers who are arguing that, you know, there's a two-tier justice system. Hunter Biden getting away with a lot, getting away with dodging his taxes, failing to pay his taxes, failing to report the income that he had as a result of these foreign business deals.

And so those two IRS whistleblowers, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, even testified before Congress about this issue, right? Now get a load of this, the appointment of David Weiss actually ends up debunking or at least responding to some of the allegations by these IRS whistleblowers. One allegation made by the IRS agents was that Weiss had sought to bring charges against Hunter Biden in Washington and California, but had been rebuffed by prosecutors in those jurisdictions who declined to partner with him. Now the order appointing Weiss to special counsel authorizes him to bring charges in any

jurisdiction. So in other words, other prosecutors were like, this is a garbage case, okay? And so I'm not going to help you with your totally nonsensical case that has barely has any evidence, okay? And the Biden administration basically cheats on behalf of the Republicans and says, I don't care. We're going to bring the case anyway. And then the Republicans cry anyway. They just cry and lie, cry and lie. That's their only pattern. Lie and cry and cry and lie. That's the only tool that they have in their arsenal. You're crazy if you believe a Republican politician, crazy. Now finally, I want to go back to Jason Miller, okay, the Trump loyalist, Trump advisor, because when he went on Newsmax, he gave the whole game away. He said the quiet

part out loud. Because while they're crying about this publicly, in reality, they love this And they will, in fact, use this to their advantage for the 2024 presidential elections, assuming that Joe Biden does in fact run as the Democratic candidate. Let's watch. The fact that a special counsel has now been appointed is a direct acknowledgement that Hunter Biden did something wrong. Why does this matter? Because Joe Biden stood on that debate stage, said, my son Hunter, did nothing wrong. We now know that Joe Biden lied about that.

He lied about the meetings. He's lied about everything. And as this special counsel moves forward, it's acknowledgement, no, Joe Biden, you're lying, did something wrong. In fact, this special counsel, I think, is going to stick to the Biden's like a kick-me sign all the way through the 2024 election. Another thing with this special counsel, a social council appointment, you never quite know whether it's a special counsel or independent council where they're going to end up. The Durham report basically was a tree falling in a forest. Nothing happened. Years went by.

It was pretty minimal. But you take, say, Ken Starr, who is the independent council, that started off on the mysterious death of Vince Foster and ended up with Monica Lewinsky. Once they start pulling at the strings on this, especially with Hunter and Joe and Frank and James, who knows where this thing goes. In other words, this is the perfect fishing expedition that we want to go on. It's completely politically motivated in order to impact the results of the 2024 election. That's what this is about.

By the way, O'Dorm went nowhere. That was Trump's appointment. And it was because you guys were lying and you made up something, but then Durham had to go into a court of law. And he's like, oh, yeah, I got nothing. But, bow, they're terrible, terrible. Weiss under Trump originally. So what are you guys complaining about?

And look, he just admits it. Jason Miller was like, remember when we did Ken Starr? And by the way, that was again, we tricked the idiot Democrats into letting us investigate them, morons that they are, because they have a permanent kick me sign on them. And it doesn't matter what they do, we're going to kick them anyway. Have you ever seen the Republicans go, oh, no, no, Democrats are all right on this one?

Never. I've never, like in the last 20 years, the Republican politicians saying, oh, let's be fair to Democrats, unless they're agreeing to some sort of corporate, giant corporate giveaway, right? So he's like, yeah, but when we got the morons to appoint Kenneth Starr, we went on a fishing expedition, like Hannah said. And we started on something that we knew wasn't true because we're goddamn liars. We lie all the time and then we wound up with a sex thing. We got them, right?

And I want to do that again. Oh, and what was his examples of lies from the Biden team? Biden said his son didn't do anything wrong. On the debate stage, which is made for politicians lying, by the way. What did you think he was going to say? Like, okay, like, oh, no, I investigated my own son and I've decided that he did this wrong and he didn't hand in his homework in third grade. No, he's going to say my son didn't do anything wrong.

That's your big evidence? You guys are so weak. Okay, and by the way, last thing, because we're the fairest show in America. I want a speedy trial for Hunter Biden, just like I want it for Donald Trump. I don't want this thing dragging out. And if they don't, if the special counsel doesn't do anything until all the way through the 2024 election and they do it afterwards, then I'll join the Republicans in criticism and say, what are we waiting for?

Why did you wait a year and a half to prosecute the guy? They should prosecute him right away and they should resolve it right away. Right or like, meaning guilty or not guilty, let's go, let's go. Try them if you're going to try them on your gun charges, and I'd like to set that precedent, because then I could charge probably 98% of the Republican Party on those same gun charges. Tax charges, these minuscule tax charges, because I could charge 98% of Republican politicians on those same charges. You guys want to set that president. Set it already.

Let's go. Speedy trial. Let's go. Let's go. Let's go. Because we don't give a rat's ass about Hunter Biden. I don't care. I don't care if you've got all the evidence in the world. I don't care if you lock him up for 200 years.

I'm not Joe Biden. I don't care. And watch, you'll see this. If Joe Biden drops out of the race, they'll instantly stop caring about Hunter Biden. Of course, of course. Right. Oh, this is about justice, is it? Watch, what they'll do is, if Biden drops out, let's say whoever the leader is, Gavin Newsom, then all of a sudden they're like, Gavin Newsom's aunt.

Did you know that she bought Girl Scott cookies, but did not share them with just girls? Okay. No, but by the way, Jank, let's be fair to Republican lawmakers who really do care deeply about individuals failing to pay their taxes, which is why they have fought tooth and nail to defund the IRS. And their leader is Donald Trump, who cheated legendarily at his taxes and bragged about it. Yep. Bragged about it.

If you bring those same charges against Donald Trump, who did it about 100 times more than Hunter Biden, they'd be like, persecution, deep state, deep state, our beloved, Dear leader, he's allowed to cheat hundreds of millions of dollars. Hunter Biden, that was five bucks. Go get him. No, let's be fair. It wasn't just five bucks, and he did break the law, okay? But let's just acknowledge the reality of how little the Republican Party actually cares about his crimes. It's all, this is all political and we know it. Look, guys, I'm being hyperbolic. I, again, I don't care about Hunter Biden. If he broke the law and the taxes and the gun charges, go get him, okay? And we all know he's not a Ukrainian gas expert. and then one of the best artists in the country at the same time.

We all know that. That's not the question. The question is, do you have any evidence tying him to Joe Biden and Comer, Brian Kilmead, all of these guys are. There's smoke, there's smoke. You created the smoke out of your ass. It doesn't mean, there's got to be a fire. Show me the goddamn fire.

Where's the fire? Oh, zero evidence, as always, because you're professional liars. All right, when we come back from the break, we're going to talk a little bit about how Massachusetts is killing the game When it comes to wealth taxes and the positive outcomes of those wealth taxes, that and more coming up. Don't miss it. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to 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.