The Young Turks - Nuclear Secrets

Episode Date: September 7, 2022

 The FBI reveals that Donald Trump’s Mar-A-Lago held foreign nuclear codes. Minnesota GOP candidate backpedals his abortion stance once he realized it wasn’t popular. Joe Manchin calls out Biden���s student debt cancellation recipients, “ You should Have to earn it.” Children in Fort Bragg are suffering from an overdose crisis. There are hundreds of elected officials and police officers on a leaked “Oath Keepers” list. Host: Ana Kasparian *** The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist ▶ https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey ▶ https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt Unbossed with Sen. Nina Turner ▶ https://www.youtube.com/unbossedtyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. Welcome to D.Y.D. I'm your host Anna Kasparian. And today we have a great show ahead for you. We're in California. We're dealing with a crippling heat wave. That means our energy grid is overwhelmed. And it also leads to rolling blackouts across the county, which is why we're working. remotely today. Our studio, unfortunately, was a victim of the blackouts that are currently taking place in California. But luckily, I'm here at my home, able to do the show because I have not experienced a blackout yet. Hopefully, I won't during the show. But I am looking forward to sharing the news with you today. John Iderola will be joining me in the second hour,

where we will try to lighten things up a little bit. We will be talking about an act of solidarity among workers in California in order to ensure that farm workers have the ability to organize and unionize. That's a story I'm really excited to share with you all. Later in the second hour, we'll also talk about how Tucker Carlson got caught red-handed promoting diversity. But did he? Twist and turns with that story. You don't want to miss it. In the first hour, we will go after Senator Joe Manchin for speaking out against debt relief for student loan borrowers. And we'll also give you the details on the latest investigation details in regard to Donald Trump and the classified documents that he had in his possession at Mar-a-Lago. Every day, there's a big update on that

story. So I'll share those details with you as well. But as always, just wanted to remind you to like and share the stream. If you're watching us on YouTube, it's an easy way to get the message out there and to help support the show. And if you're not a member, you should become one because we have, I don't know, the bonus episode for our members today. is out of this world. It's chaos. A lot of unacceptable things happening in the world. And it will evoke emotions that you probably want evoked. Okay? So become a member at t.yt.com slash join or click on that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. Without further ado, let's get to our first story. You said the other day that basically, you know, you thought it was

egregious that the documents were taken. You said, you know, you can't take these classified documents and put them at a country club, and you felt that the Trump team had jerked around the Department of Justice. But you just touched on something that for me is so central here. What's in them, and why didn't he want to return those particular documents? You know what, Martha? That is a great question. There's Martha McCollin speaking to Trump's former Attorney General, William Barr.

We'll get back to the rest of that discussion in just a moment. But since she asked the question about what was in those documents that Donald Trump took home with him to Mara Lago from the White House and then proceeded to lie to the DOJ and the National Archives about his possession of those documents, well, we've got this story from the Washington Post, indicating that, yes, there were classified documents, top secret documents pertaining to nuclear weapons. Now, we don't have the amount of specificity that I would like in this story, but what we do know based on this report from the Washington Post, that the documents contained information about the military capabilities and the nuclear capabilities

of a foreign country. It's unclear which foreign country the documents are referring to, but here's what we know based on the reporting in the Washington Post. Documents about such highly classified operations require special clearances on a need-to-know basis, just top secret clearance. Some special access programs can have as few as a couple dozen government personnel authorized to know of an operation's existence. Records that deal with such programs are kept under lock and key almost always in a secure compartmented information facility, meaning a secure government facility with a designed control officer to keep careful tabs on their location. So as you can

imagine, when it comes to the sensitive nature of these documents, it is advised to avoid storing said documents in, you know, a country club, in an unsecure environment like Donald Trump's office. But for some reason, because of the filter bubbles that we all exist in, because of the fact that we're served up confirmation bias on a daily basis, there is a portion of this country who genuinely believes that the investigation to Donald Trump's possession of these sensitive documents is no big deal. It's just a politicized investigation and he did nothing wrong. Now, if the shoe were on the other foot and we were talking about a Democratic president, I have no doubt that the feelings and the commentary and analysis that we have seen from right-wing media would be very

different. But make no mistake about it. The documents that we're talking about here aren't recipes for Carbonara, okay? We're talking about highly sensitive documents, documents that are so sensitive in nature that they can only be viewed in a government facility. So Donald Trump was, in fact, according to sources who are close to the investigation, who leaked this information to the Washington Post, was in possession of classified documents describing a foreign government's military defenses, including nuclear capabilities. And some of the seized documents detail top secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that even senior intelligence officials are kept in the dark about them. Now, such documents again should not be stored at Marlago, but they were

with uncertain security. More than 18 months after Trump left the White House, they were finally seized by the FBI thanks to the search that was conducted. That search was done, of course, after a federal judge signed off on the warrant necessary to conduct the search. And just a little reminder about how many documents Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago from the White House. After months of trying, literally months of trying, according to government court filings, the FBI has recovered more than 300 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago this year, 184 in a set of 15 boxes sent to the National Archives and Records Administration in January, 38 more handed over by a Trump lawyer to investigators in June, and more than 100 additional

documents unearthed in a court-approved search on August 8th. And we should be clear that not all of the documents seized are highly classified or top secret, but many of them are. And there was reason for government officials to be concerned about Trump's possession of some of these documents. Investigators, for instance, grew alarmed, according to one person familiar with the as they began to review documents retrieved from the club's storage closet. Okay, can we pause for a second? The club's storage closet, which I think is like a little bit different, just a little bit different from a secure government facility, just a little bit.

Okay. Especially when you consider the fact that you have a former president who was selling memberships to members of foreign governments to Maralago when he was president. They wanted access to him. So you have all of these foreign government

officials running around Mara Lago where for the past 18 months there were top secret, highly classified documents just stored in the storage closet. No big deal. No big deal. Like when it comes to people like Edward Snowden, when it comes to the insane treatment

of Julian Assange. When it comes to the past commentary we've heard, from government officials, from the press in regard to the sensitive nature of classified documents, it is incredible to see them all of a sudden treat Donald Trump so differently when he very clearly mishandled classified documents. But let me continue with that graphic I was reading to you because there's more information there that I think is relevant for you to know about. So a team soon came upon records that are extremely restricted, so much so, that even some of the senior most national security officials in the Biden administration weren't authorized to view them.

It's really important to understand the sensitivity of the documents, right? Because, again, we're not talking about recipes. We're not talking about, you know, sometimes the government tends to classify documents that I don't think really need to be classified. However, what we're talking about here, military capabilities, plans for some sort of government mission, information about a foreign government's nuclear capabilities, like these are actual sensitive documents. And so it was the last batch of documents that were seized where this information was contained

about the foreign government and its nuclear defense capabilities, which, by the way, raises the question, the same question that Martha McCollum asked in the beginning of the story. What was it about those documents that made Donald Trump want to hold on to them so badly? And more importantly, what was it about those documents? What did he intend to do with those highly sensitive documents where he had his lawyer lie on his behalf and tell the DOJ that Trump no longer had possession of any more documents from the White House? You know, I mean, you could really only speculate at this point.

Was he planning on using those documents against the country? in some way? I don't know. Was he planning on selling those documents? I don't know. What I do know is Donald Trump is definitely willing to sell out the country for profit. He used his office of the presidency to enrich himself and funnel taxpayer money to his personal businesses. We saw it happen over and over and over again. So was there a profit motive in mind? Maybe. But it is a little questionable when you look at the sensitivity of the documents and his unwillingness to turn it over, to the point where the FBI had to conduct a raid to find the documents and seize the documents. Now, speaking of Trump's lawyers, by the way, one of them refused to address these relevant questions

and instead decided to make a big deal about the fact that the leaks exist in the first place. So Christopher Kies, one of his lawyers, says, leaks about the case continue with no respect for the process nor any regard for the real truth. This does not serve well the interests of justice. And look, some might argue, and I, in some ways, I do agree that these leaks are not good. You know, it's not good to have people close to the investigation leaking this kind of stuff to the press. At the same time, I do think it's in the public's interest to know about the genuine sensitivity of these documents. Because fact of the matter is, Trump has been investigated plenty of times.

those investigations, even with some damning evidence associated with them, did not yield any real prosecution. William Barr, who's actually very critical of Donald Trump in this particular instance, is under the impression that there will never be any prosecution of Donald Trump. And we'll get to that in just a moment. But Trump has denied that he was ever in possession of any documents pertaining to nuclear capabilities. He responded by getting pretty angry about it. But here's something you should also know about. The subpoena issued to Trump's custodian of records listed more than two dozen subclassifications of documents, including S slash FRD, an abbreviation for formally restricted data, which is reserved for information

that relates primarily to the military use of nuclear weapons. And this is important to keep in mind, despite the formerly in the title, the term does not mean the information is no longer classified. In other words, the documents were still very much classified, so much so that even members of Biden's team would not be able to view them. Now, what makes this investigation even more shaky at this point, is that the federal judge, a story that we talked about yesterday, has granted Donald Trump this so-called special master to review all of the documents that were seized from Trump to determine whether any of those documents are protected under either executive privilege or attorney-client privilege. Now, the reason why that's happening,

the reason why the Trump team wants that to happen is because it's going to delay this investigation. And he is honestly an expert at delaying investigations, as we've learned when it comes to obtaining his tax documents. And so that's the whole point of this. William Barr, his former attorney general, has said as much. And the special master has yet to be appointed. Like, the entire process of appointing a special master is likely to take some time. And then determining which documents are protected under privilege will take some time. Determining whether or not privilege even makes sense, executive privilege even makes sense in this context when Donald Trump is no longer president of the United States, that part is going to take some time.

But what I found interesting is what William Barr had to say about this federal judges ruling on granting Trump a special master. He disagrees with it. He finds that whole ruling inherently flawed. Let's watch. The question presented here is one she doesn't even address, but it's the only issue really in dispute, which is can a former president say that this document and executive privilege precludes executive branch agents who are looking into whether a crime was committed from reviewing those documents. It's too early to say that they're going to try to put those documents before a grand jury. There's no contemplation right now or a proposal to put it outside the executive branch. So her decision is premature, and the dispute isn't over

whether this document is executive, potentially executive privilege, and this one isn't. That's not the dispute. The dispute is whether the president, even if it is executive, privilege, can the president bar DOJ from reviewing the documents? And the answer to that, I think, is clearly no. So let me decode the argument he's making there. And I actually completely agree with him. I'm no legal expert. But what he's saying makes a lot of sense. I never thought in a million years I would say that about William Barr. Okay. But what he's saying makes sense. Because his argument is the DOJ should be able to review all the documents, even if, some of those documents are allegedly protected under privilege, right, attorney-client privilege

or executive privilege? It's an entirely different case when you're talking about presenting those documents before a grand jury, right? When you're presenting documents before a grand jury as part of the evidence against Donald Trump, well, then you can hash out whether or not the documents you want to present as evidence are protected under attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. What he's arguing here is that the judge made a premature ruling pertaining to whether or not the DOJ can review those documents before they're even presented before a grand jury. And as we all know, the judge's ruling, again, prevents the DOJ from doing that. A little more from his statement here that just kind of helps to elaborate the point he's making.

Even if it is executive privilege, can the president bar DOJ from reviewing the documents? And the answer to that, I think, is clearly no. So you're saying that that only comes into play if you're going to put those documents before a grand jury. Right. So that in this venue, this period of this investigation, within the executive branch, there's no ability for the president to say, I brought these with me. They're my papers. every right to keep them at the house, if I want to keep them at the house. And you can't look at them, Department of Justice. Totally, totally wrong. Totally wrong. Totally wrong. Now look, I don't know

what motivates William Barr. I can't help but think back to when he intentionally misrepresented the Mueller report to the public. And it seems as though, you know, when he's in the good graces of Donald Trump or whoever he's serving, he has no problem lying on their behalf or twisting his legal expertise to fit a narrative that supports his favored president. And as we know, Donald Trump and William Barr are not on good terms because to William Barr's credit, I feel a little disgusting saying it, but to his credit, he refused to carry out Trump's nonsense about overturning the election after he had lost to Joe Biden. So they had a falling out and it could be the case that William Barr is now giving actual enlightened legal expertise in commenting

on this story. But I will say that was an interview on Fox News. I don't know if the commentary he provided there, the legal analysis he provided there, has any impact on conservatives who happen to support Trump no matter what. But as I've said before, and I'll say again, the most important thing to keep in mind here is that this is not, and it should not be, a partisan issue. We should not create a system in which a president can break whatever law he wants with absolutely no consequences. Again, for me personally, don't care that he was a Republican president. Don't care that I disliked him. If it were Barack Obama who did this, I would want him to be investigated to the fullest extent. If an ordinary U.S. citizen had stolen

classified documents and stored it in their storage closet, there would be no discussion about whether or not that individual's rights are being violated in the process of an investigation into what they had done. The idea that Donald Trump will not be prosecuted, and that is what William Barr thinks, is insane to me. I think William Barr is probably right. I think that we should lower our expectations, if we have any expectations that Trump will ultimately pay the price for what he has done. But what I'm worried about is what impunity for people in positions of power or for the elite means for the future. Because what Trump tried to pull after the 2020 election, his attempts at overturning the will of the people in this country

and essentially just stealing the election, declaring himself a winner, the reason why he thought he could do that and all his lackeys thought they could do that is because they thought there won't be any consequences at all. Why not try it? What could go wrong? It's not like we're going to be punished for it. Now, some of his lackeys are dealing with some punishment, some investigations. Trump is being investigated. But again, when there are no consequences, when an administration does something like, let's say, commit war crimes, for instance, or engage in warrantless wiretapping of Americans, if they don't suffer consequences for that, it sends a message that people in the executive branch can do whatever they want,

regardless of how it dismantles our democracy or our civil liberties with impunity. And they should try whatever it is that they want to try. No consequences, right? And I think that is a scary country to live in. And I don't want to support that kind of two-tier justice system where all of us get crushed with laws that people in positions of power get to get away with. Anyway, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll switch gears a little bit and talk about more Republicans running

away from their anti-abortion position. I love it, but we need to hold them accountable for who they really are. Come right back. What up, everyone? Just a reminder to like and share the stream if you're watching us live. It helps to support the show. It's super quick and easy to do it and it helps to get the message out there. Without further ado, let's get to our next story. In Minnesota, it's a protected constitutional right, and no governor can change that. Ah, Scott Jensen, a candidate for governor in Minnesota, who's, of course, using a baby.

as a prop in his political ad. But that's not the reason why I want to talk about it. I want to talk about the fact that he has done a complete 180 on his anti-abortion messaging after he realized, oh, it turns out that big government control of women's bodies is not so popular. Even in some red states, by the way. I mean, we've talked about Kansas, overwhelmingly voting down a ballot initiative that would amend their state constitution. to do away with reproductive rights? Kansas, not exactly a blue utopia. But nonetheless, Scott Jensen did change his tune after some polling indicated that the voters he's trying

to attract, the voters he wants to vote for him to be the next governor of Minnesota, not in favor of his messaging on abortion. So previously he had said this, quote, I would try to ban abortion, Jensen vowed, in a March interview with Minnesota Public Radio. In the past, he has also said he would work to ban it without exceptions for rape and incest unless the mother's life is in danger. Fascinating. Now, with voters outraged at that message, and with a pretty significant dip in the polls, he decided to do a 180 and put out this ad. And Tim Walls is weaponizing the issue. In Minnesota, it's a protected constitutional right,

and no governor can change that. And I'm not running to do that. I'm running because we need safe streets, excellent schools, parental rights, and more money in the family budget. That's what I'll fight for. Let's focus on the issues that matter. Is that what you'll fight for?

Is that what you'll fight for? But honestly, it's unclear what you would fight for, because much like other Republican candidates and lawmakers in this country, he had no problem using women and babies as props for his political mission, for his personal political ambitions. That's who this guy is. But he's a dime a dozen. And that's what I really want to focus on here. Because these are not individuals who have principles.

These are not individuals who genuinely believed that abortion is an issue dealing with life and death. They saw it as a wedge issue that they could exploit for their own power accumulation, for their own political ambitions with absolutely no regard for the impact that it would have on people's lives. You know, everything that we've heard from Republicans about how they believe life begins at the moment of conception, all life is precious. We already knew they were lying about that. We can see it in the policies that they support, policies that usually involve austerity, cutting funding to social services that help keep children fed, clothed, sheltered, alive. They're the ones who want to cut funding to those programs. They're the ones who want to dismantle public education. They're the ones who don't even want to help a damn person who can't afford higher education have the funding necessary to get higher education. That's who these people are.

They have shown us time and time again that they don't care about people's lives at all. You have people in prisons across this country right now getting raped on a regular basis, getting murdered on a regular basis. if they care about human lives so much, interesting, curious, that they never bring up those issues, they never want to deal with those issues. They have been hypocrites on the issue of life and death. I mean, as long as I've been alive, as long as I've known Republican politics. And look at how easy it was for him to turn around and do a complete 180 on an issue that he claimed to care so much about, an issue that he demagogued, an issue that has a huge

impact, economic impact, by the way, on people's lives, women's lives. Now, just how badly was he destroyed in the polling after he had come out with his anti-abortion messaging? Well, Jensen, who trailed the incumbent governor, Tim Walts, by five points in the spring, is now down by 18 points. And that's according to the latest poll from KSTP slash Survey USA. And, you know, Credits all the people out there who put together these wonderful ads attacking Jensen for who he claimed to be, for the comments he had previously made about banning abortion. I want to give you one example. Here is an ad from Wrong for Minnesota.

If you were governor, would you try to impose new restrictions on abortion or would you try to ban it outright? I would try to ban abortion. I don't even know where to start with that. That's awful. It makes me furious. No politician should make decisions like that for me. It is incredibly dangerous to ban abortion. A woman should not be criminalized for having an abortion. It's very alarming. Scott Jensen is extreme. Incredibly extreme. Scott Jensen's plan is too extreme for Minnesota. Damn right. I love that ad. And Democrats need to put out more ads like that. They need to stay on this message because clearly, Americans, including many conservatives in this country, do not want the government determining

what someone can or cannot do with their own body. People understand that. People understand that this is government overreach. And one other thing that's important about putting out these types of messages is it seems to have fired women up to register to vote. They're becoming more politically engaged, and that is a good thing. So, for instance, if you look at voter registration in some of these red states that have either already restricted abortion, banned abortion, or are planning to do so, you can see that there is a gender gap in voter registration with women registering much more than men in these states. So for instance, you have Kansas. I talked about Kansas earlier and how they voted down that ridiculous ballot initiative

that would have done away with reproductive rights in their state's constitution. There's 40% gender gap in new voter registration in the state of Kansas. You also have Idaho, 18% gender gap. Obviously, 18% more women registering to vote in that state than men. In Wisconsin, it's 17%, Louisiana, 13%, Arkansas, 12%, Pennsylvania, 12%, Ohio, 11%. People are motivated, they're engaged. And it's actually kind of miraculous because we went from thinking not too long ago that Democrats don't stand a chance. They're definitely going to lose Congress after the midterms. Now it's really up in the air. I don't want to get too confident about it, but it seems as though with all this new voter registration, with all these people fired up about their rights

being stripped away from them, Democrats could stand a chance here. And finally, I want to leave you with this. We've shared so many polls indicating that Americans are against restricting reproductive rights. Well, here's another one. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll last month found that while economics remained a prime motivating factor, interest in abortion is rising with the percentage of voters who call abortion access very important, up nine points since February. And you can understand why. You know, it's easy to take rights for granted. Once they're taken away from you, you understand the gravity of no longer being able to make decisions about your own life and your own body. So I love to see all these clowns run away from what they campaigned on, but don't let them

lie to you and make themselves appear as though they're these wonderful moderates. The fact of the matter is we don't know what they stand for, because all they seem to really care about is their own political careers and they'll say and do anything necessary to succeed in their political careers, even knowing that it would hurt Americans' lives. We don't need more of those clowns in Congress or in, you know, governorships across this country. We need actual leaders who do the right thing and actually protect the rights and freedoms of Americans. Speaking of clowns, let's go to Joe Manchin. A lot of clown behavior from that guy.

Senator Joe Manchin has decided that while Democrats seem to be on a pretty good streak legislatively, he's going to go ahead and rain on that parade and specifically go out after the most powerful people in the country, student loan borrowers. Yeah. So in a recent interview with reporters, Mansion, a conservative pro-corporate Democrat in the Senate said, quote, I just thought that it was excessive, meaning Biden's very modest student loan forgiveness. I just respectfully disagree on that. Oh, do you? He respectfully disagrees on that. The guy who collects half a million dollars a year from a coal company that he's invested in thinks that it's excessive to cancel 10 to 20,000 dollars of student loan debt in a country that is grappling with

$1.6 trillion of outstanding student loan debt. Okay, well, let's hear a little more from Joe Mansion here. He says, when people were calling me from back in West Virginia, I would give them all the options they had that would reduce their loan by going to work in the federal government. You have to earn it. Yeah, a lawmaker in the Senate who has done nothing but stand in the way of important legislation, who has been a massive obstacle to the Democrats agenda, including Joe Biden's agenda, has some thoughts about earning things. The guy who literally sits on his ass maybe works half the year.

and collects money from his investments, doing absolutely nothing, just collecting the money from these investments. He wants to tell you, you need to earn it. And what I want to focus on in this story, in this context, is how student loan debt and making higher education unattainable for people doesn't just screw over the individuals who want to better their lives. To be sure, it does screw over the people who want to better their lives. It also screws over the country, because take a look around you right now. Take a look at the incompetence, the unwillingness to engage or use any critical thinking, maybe the inability to use critical thinking.

There was a reason why this country used to invest far more in public colleges to make them affordable for people. It's because it actually benefited the country. For every dollar that was invested in funding public, higher, education, the country got $7 back, okay? Because these are people who get the education, they go out there, and what do they do? They become productive members of society. They innovate. They're creators. I mean, there was a reason why FDR focused on that. And there's a reason why, you know, there were budget cuts when it came to funding public colleges,

community colleges, which used to be free at one point in this country, and at one point, after not being free anymore, they were at least affordable. Now not so much. And there's a very real reason for that. Robert Reich put together a pretty great video. It's a little old, but I thought that it was telling. Like, what sparked austerity associated with higher education in this country? Let's watch. You start out in 1954 by saying, by 1968, you can't say that hurts or backfires. So you say stuff like force, busing, states rights and all that stuff. And you're getting so abstract now.

You're talking about cutting taxes and all of these things you're talking about are totally economic things. And the byproduct of the mayor is blacks get hurt worse than white. We want to cut this and we want as much more abstract than even the bus. and a hell lot more abstract than . And as we've scared whites about integrated public education, we've built support for politics that says cut public funding to public schools,

to public colleges, and indeed to just about everything public. Over the course of one generation, states have cut about a quarter out of every dollar they used to spend on funding public college. college. What's made up the difference, a tripling of tuition, and an average of almost $30,000 in student debt. So in the beginning of that clip, you hear from a Ronald Reagan strategist, Lee Atwater, about how, listen, it's not so popular to be overt in our racism anymore. So we need to practice our racism in a much more abstract way. And the best way to do that is cutting funding

to programs that tend to benefit, yes, it benefits poor white people, but overall mostly benefit people of color. We want to punish them. We don't want them to have those opportunities. We want to practice our racism in an abstract way. They want to be a little more covert about it. And so that's when you start seeing these cuts in public colleges. And as was stated perfectly in that video, what makes up the difference? I mean, the colleges need to be funded somehow. They end up getting funded by making up the difference by charging higher tuition. And everyone ends up getting hurt by that, obviously. But the root issue in the very beginning of that, the thinking that led to all of these cuts is the same garbage discrimination and racism that we've seen in this

country. And for all the people who aren't black, who have been victimized by this system that makes higher education unaffordable, understand that issues of discrimination and racism affect all of us, every single one of us. The other thing I wanted to talk about is how Mansion is not the only Democrat who spoke out against forgiving a modest amount of student loan debt. You also have Tim Ryan, another Democrat, because he's seeking re-election and he is so delusional that he thinks providing economic relief for people actually hurts his chances of getting reelected. Like, what kind of clown thinks that? Think about how Republicans reacted

to Biden's executive order, his announcement on forgiving student loan debt. They panicked because they knew it was going to help Biden and the Democrats in the polling. And guess what? It did. It did. But these corporate Democrats are so stupid that they're like, oh, no, no, no, no, no, it's too much. It's too much. I'm going to run away from a popular policy. Okay, so here's what he said. This is Tim Ryan. As someone who's paying off my own family's student loans, I know the costs of higher education are too high. And while there's no doubt that a college education should be about opening opportunities, waiving debt for those already on a trajectory to financial security sends the wrong message. Let me just remind you that the debt for giving

was means tested. So for all the people out there who are making $125,000 or more per year, they don't qualify for any debt forgiveness. It's means tested. But Tim Ryan and all the other corporate politicians out there intentionally leave that information out of their argument. Because look, when they claim they want the means testing, it's not really about the means testing. They just don't want the policy, okay? Because even when you implement the means testing, that they purport to want, they pretend like it doesn't exist because they don't want the policy. And for everyone out there who thinks, oh, well, the government's going to lose money now for forgiving a modest amount of student loan debt, are they? Have you taken a look at how much

these students have paid the federal government in interest every single year in these federal student loans? As much as $70 billion a year in interest? I think they've paid enough, okay? A little bit of relief for ordinary people in this country is long overdue. And for all the corporate Democrats out there who are needlessly hurting themselves by speaking out against economic relief for people, you don't deserve to get reelected.

You just don't. Anyway, let's move on. We've got another break to get to. When we come back though, we've got more news, including a pretty devastating study that was done into deaths at 4. Bragg, soldiers who have died from terrible reasons, overdoses, suicides. It's a sad story, but it's important to know what's going on here, because unless we recognize

that this is a problem, there will never be solutions. So come right back. I've got that story and more. What's up, everyone? Welcome back to the show, Anna Casparian with you. And we have a block dedicated to some pretty terrible stuff that's happening in the country. But it's important for you to know about it, especially this next story, because I think this is something that resonates with communities all across the country. And it has to do with people needlessly dying from overdoses and also from taking their own lives.

So let's talk about Fort Bragg. There is a quiet epidemic of overdoses at the Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina with as many as 30 drug overdoses since 2020. And neither the Army nor the media really seem to be paying any attention to it. And I also want to be clear, drug overdoses in the United States have not gone away. they're still extremely prevalent, and it is a crisis that needs to be dealt with. And I just don't think that our congressional lawmakers are really paying attention to it the way they should.

But let's get to what we know about these tragic stories happening in Fort Bragg. A staggering total of 109 soldiers assigned to Fort Bragg, active and reserve, lost their lives in 2020 and 2021, casualty reports obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show. Only four of the deaths occurred in overseas combat operations. And the rest took place stateside. Fewer than 20 were from natural causes. So think about that. Think about all of those unnecessary deaths among our soldiers who aren't even in combat, who are at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. And so 41 Fort Bragg soldiers took their own lives in 2020 and 2021, making suicide the leading cause of death. A spokesman for the army, Matthew Leonard, confirmed that no other

base has ever recorded a higher two-year suicide toll. I want to pause for a second because my best friend's brother was in the military and he actually really enjoyed being in the military. it gave him structure. Obviously, the military is not for everyone, but he felt like he had purpose. He was kicked out because he was caught with marijuana. Okay. And that, luckily, he found another passion of his. He's working as a firefighter now. But the reason why I bring that up is because how did we go from literally kicking people out of the military if they were caught with possession of marijuana to now just ignoring the fact that there are people, within the military at Fort Bragg using drugs that are leading to causing suicides. I'm sorry, overdoses. And obviously suicides are a problem not only at Fort Bragg among our soldiers, but overall, if you look at suicide rates among our veterans and active military, it is also an issue because they're dealing with some pretty grisly, terrible things that they're not getting the appropriate mental health care for. So let's go to the shocking number of soldier on soldier

violence, which could also be associated with mental health issues. So since mid 2020, 11 Fort Bragg soldiers have been murdered or charged with murder, including one murder suicide. Five Fort Bragg soldiers were shot to death and one was beheaded. Whatever happened to supporting our troops? Like, does that only matter to politicians when they're trying to rally support for another unnecessary war? Is that the only time it matters for them? It seems like it, because when it comes to the pay for soldiers, when it comes to the treatment of our veterans, many of whom don't even have homes and are living on the streets,

all of a sudden, supporting soldiers doesn't matter so much, does it? So aside from suicide, accidental overdoses are the leading cause of death at Fort Bragg. So one of the soldiers, this piece highlights is a 20-year-old by the name of Matthew Disney who was found dead in his barracks after buying what he thought was Percocet, but it ended up actually being laced with fentanyl. So it turned out to be a counterfeit pill laced with fentanyl. This is a huge problem right now across the country where street drugs, illicit street drugs are being laced with fentanyl and people are dying from fentanyl overdoses.

So unfortunately, Fort Bragg is also dealing with this issue, as we now know with 20-year-old Matthew Disney. Many Fort Bragg soldiers have died recently under similar circumstances quietly in their barracks, in their bunks, in a parked car, or somewhere off post from no outwardly apparent cause. According to a set of casualty reports obtained by Rolling Stone through the Freedom of Information Act, at least 14 and as many as 30 Fort Bragg soldiers have died. this way since the start of 2020. And Rolling Stone also obtained reports from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command,

not Fort Bragg, where officials have lied about these numbers. So there's clearly some sort of cover up going on, which adds insult to injury. A spokesperson for the base, for instance, said that the number of deaths in 2020 was 45. But according to the reports, it was 56. Another spokesman, a captain, stated in writing that the 2021 death toll was 38. In fact, it was 53. The same captain also said that the number of opioid overdoses last year was four. In reality, it was at least six and probably 11, if you count all of the deaths that were

likely drug-related. And they were confronted with these facts. And what was their reaction? Well, as Rolling Stone reports, when confirmed, confronted with these facts, Fort Bragg officials deflect blame and point to trends in the general population. Quote, we do not see this as an isolated issue that only plagues Fort Bragg, end quote, Captain Matt Visor, said in an email. He pointed to the proximity of Interstate 95, the highway from Miami to New York, a notorious drug trafficking corridor, which increases

the accessibility of substances to Fort Bragg soldiers. And really, we need to discuss and figure out what the appropriate solution is. Obviously, I mean, I hope I've made myself clear on the show through years of covering these types of stories. People who have issues with addiction should not be criminalized. They should not be thrown in prison. That is not a solution. And we know that's not a solution because the opioid epidemic occurred as we were still, you know, tough on crime and engaged in the war on drugs. So that's not the solution. But there needs to be a discussion on how to appropriately

target the traffickers who are supplying these drugs. And more importantly, look, it's one thing, and I think this is bad on its own. But if you have people trafficking fentanyl and their customers know they're buying fentanyl, that's terrible enough, right? But it's even worse when there are individuals buying street drugs, thinking that it's percocet, thinking that it might be, I don't know, MDMA or something else. And it turns out that that drug is laced with fentanyl, which is an incredibly potent drug, and then they die from an overdose as a result. And I don't know. This is something that I think I need to think about more. I need to research more and understand more. But in the state of California, recently the state legislature voted down

a proposed bill that would essentially punish drug traffickers who are drug traffickers specifically, who are intentionally lacing the street drugs they're selling with fentanyl. And the way that this legislation is written, they would get a warning the first time. Like, please don't sell these drugs. Like, don't do it. You will be prosecuted for it. And then if they're caught doing it again, they'll be prosecuted for, I believe it was unintentional manslaughter. And I don't know why the legislature voted that down because there is a problem with traffickers

trafficking these incredibly dangerous drugs. People are overdosing from them. They're dying as a result. And there needs to be some solution. But obviously the other root cause here is what is persuading people, like what causes people to get addicted to these drugs in the first place? We need to provide better support for people. We definitely need to provide better support for our soldiers.

and our veterans who are expected to do repeated tours to war zones across the globe, and then they come back with absolutely no support. That's insane. But to see all of these Americans die, not just within the military, not just at Fort Bragg, but across this country, I mean, we have more than 100,000 drug overdoses in this country every year, and fentanyl overdoses are overrepresented in this epidemic. Fentanyl is a classic example of the reliable tendency of drug and alcohol prohibitions to produce new substances that are ever more potent, compact, cheap to manufacture, and toxic

to users. Unlike heroin, fentanyl can be synthesized in a lab with no need to grow poppy plants. It is so highly concentrated that it can be distributed efficiently through the mail. And if you look at the number of synthetic opioid deaths, they have unfortunately gone up. So let's go to Graphic 10 here. Back in 2020, the number of fentanyl overdoses were overdose deaths, I should say, 57,834. By 2021, that number jumped up to 71,238. And clearly, we're in 2022. We don't have the full year's numbers yet. But we're not doing well. it is insane that for the second year in a row, we have seen the life expectancy of Americans decline. This is a failure of our lawmakers. This is a failure of legislative leadership.

And there's no attention being paid to this. Very little conversation about this. The only time I really hear politicians talk about it is when they're campaigning. And when they're campaigning to win votes in areas that have been ravaged by the opioid epidemic. So this is where we're at. I thought it was important to share the story with you all. I know it's sad. I know it's depressing, but we have to acknowledge that this problem exists. We have to help each other out, and we need to demand more from our legislative leaders. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, John Adirola joins me. We've got a story about who's in the Oathkeepers, which I'm going to guess isn't going to shock you, but it's bad.

It's real bad. So we've got that and more coming right up. 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.