The Young Turks - Off the Cheney

Episode Date: July 23, 2021

Another blow to the working people during the pandemic: States snatching back tax refunds. What’s the price of an uncleaned hotel room? Liz Cheney calls Kevin McCarthy despicable, disgraceful, and should not be Speaker after the latest January 6th committee nonsense. The FBI said some of the 4,500 tips it received about Justice Brett Kavanaugh were given to the Trump White House, leading some Democrats to call the process a sham. Another anti-vaxxer dies, making his wife publicly plead for people to get vaccinated. Meet the young adults sneaking behind their parents’ backs to get vaccinated. Charlie Kirk engages in insane speculation that more than a million people have died from vaccines. The Matt Gaetz-Marjorie Taylor Greene fundraising tour is actually a cash fire. A homophobe’s vile Disney rant sees her kicked off a plane. A Detroit woman drags a man by his dreadlocks after tracking down a stolen Benz. 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, friends. You're watching The Young Turks. I'm Anna Casparean. Joining us for the show today is Dr. Rashad Richie, whose show, indisputable, has been picked up permanently by the network. And I'm super excited about it. Dr. Rashad, Richie, we've got your show airing every weekday at 11.30 p.m. Pacific time, 2.30 p.m. Eastern.

So everyone, make sure you check that out. It's after damage report every weekday. Really happy to have you on board. I'm happy to be here. And you all have been so amazing and inviting and authentic, an authentic approach accessible, giving me the guidance that I needed. So I'm thankful, the audience has been tremendous. The team, the producers, Brett, Judith, everybody.

It's just been a lovely, lovely combination. And I thank all of the sentiment you just shared, I shared that back to you, thank you. That's awesome. And I'm really excited to do the whole show with you today. We've got some pretty great topics. We're going to talk about the fact that a lot of people who lost their jobs during the pandemic are unlikely to get those jobs back. And it's because these corporations

are now starting to rely more and more on free labor. We'll get to that in a little bit. And then in the second hour, we'll discuss Charlie Kirk spreading some of the most outrageous disinformation in regard to the COVID vaccine, alleging that it's killed millions of people when there's absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. But we'll unpack that story and more. But as always, just wanted to encourage you guys to like and share the stream, help spread the word about TYT and the programming that we do here. And, you know, maybe even smash that join button if you're not a TYT member. Today's bonus episode will be a great one. I want to, you know, get to know Dr. Ritchie a little more.

And we also have a story about creepy behavior by the Catholic Church and essentially stalking, you know, one of their pastors to figure out whether or not. not, he's living the life that they approve of. So we'll get to that later for our members. You can become a member either by clicking on that join button or going to t.yt.com slash join. Now let's get to our first story. The hotel industry is thinking about essentially doing away with many of the jobs that were cut during the coronavirus shutdowns. Now they're realizing that, hey, you know what, maybe we can shift burdens onto our own customers and maybe cut some of our labor force, including people that we rely on to do the housekeeping in our establishments.

Now, nearly half of the more than one million jobs cut in the lodging industry during the pandemic have yet to be recovered. And that's according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the recovery has been uneven with resort markets bouncing back more quickly than cities. which rely on business travel and large conventions or conferences that have not yet returned. Now, what they're specifically looking at is kind of changing the business model from providing, you know, housekeeping on a daily basis to basically making the customers decide and opt in on those types of services. But it gets even worse than that. Now some hotels say they want to make

permanent changes that were instituted during the pandemic like offering daily house cleaning only upon request and adding options like mobile or contact list check-in. Guests, they say, don't miss the old ways and the changes would let them reduce costs. And, you know, the scariest part about all of this, other than the fact that workers are not going to be able to get their jobs back, is the fact that the hotel industry is now starting to think of lodging the same way that the airline industry thinks of flights. Oh, you want a little bit of comfort? Well, we're not going to give that to you. You need to opt in and we're going to charge you extra.

Chris Nassetta, who's the CEO of Hilton, said, quote, the work we're doing right now in every one of our brands is about creating more labor efficiencies. It's a nice euphemism there, particularly in the areas of housekeeping, food, and beverage, and other areas. When we get out of the crisis, those businesses will be higher margin and require less labor than they did pre-COVID. So they're shifting additional costs onto customers. They're cutting their labor force and essentially thinking about making people opt in for the services that were previously provided prior to the pandemic. And Dr. Rashad Ritchie, I'd love to hear what you think about this. Are you looking forward to hotels operating much like airlines do?

I'm looking forward to boycotting them. You see, there's a way to fight this, right? So naturally, capitalism is doing exactly what capitalism is designed to do. And that is to respect their bottom line more so than their human capital. So that's what's really happening. And there's a way to fight back through information. like what you're doing right now through connection to others who are in cahoots with them by saying we're not going to tolerate this, we will withdraw our support of these kinds of hotels engaged in this practice. I guarantee you they will snap back right if you have a massive enough movement. Now when you look at the human side of this, and that's one thing about policy. Policy should always lead with a human side first. You have individuals who have been working in the industry for 15 to 20 years.

They were laid off because of COVID. They expected to get their jobs back once the economy started to bounce back. And now they're being told no. They're being told that your services are no longer available. Well, those people are connected to families. Those individuals are connected to children. You see, it actually creates a more detrimental economic ecosystem when you calculate how much is lost. One calculation I think had it up to $180 million immediately would be lost because of this kind of mismanagement of human resources.

And so we see it happening. This is the beginning of it. And we have to respond in kind so that we can limit the fallout of real everyday hardworking people. Yeah, I mean, I absolutely agree with you. There are so many negative ramifications of the direction that's, the hotel industry is going in because one other thing that people should keep in mind is that the jobs that we're talking about here happen to be, believe it or not, well-paying unionized jobs. Many of the hotel workers, including those who do the housekeeping and house cleaning, are

unionized. They make far more than minimum wage. And what some of these workers are noticing, as they are, you know, some of them are being called back to work, is that they've lost their seniority and they're not being given full time work and they're not qualifying for the same benefits that they previously qualified for. And then at the same time, I do want to just quickly discuss the shift toward automation and self-service. Now this is coming from a personal opinion and it's going to be a little bit of a rant, but I'm tired of it. I'm tired of it. I actually want human connection. I don't want to check myself out. I don't want to check out my own groceries at a self-checkout area, I want to talk to a person when I call and I need help

with a billing issue, for instance. And all of these labor efficiencies, again, are meant to shift the burden from the corporations onto the consumer, right? On to Americans who need these services or use these services, just so these companies can cut their labor costs. So people lose their jobs, they lose the benefits that come along with those jobs, and a lot of that burden then gets shifted onto consumers who are getting far less for what they're paying for. I mean, it's just a lose-lose situation. And when you really think about, you know, you mentioned capitalism and this economic model, this is the natural way things are gonna go, right?

The whole point is to maximize profits, and the way you do that is by cutting costs. And labor costs happen to be the most expensive part of running a business. So if they can find a way to cut these people's jobs, of course they're gonna do it. And so we as consumers might have a little bit of power, but I'm actually really concerned because while we might have some antitrust regulations, I'm worried that we'll also experience the same thing that we have experienced with airline industries, which is the monopolies, not really giving you much of an option, you know? If you need to fly from one place to another, it's not like you've got a ton of options.

And most airlines now operate the same way. We could be seeing something very similar with the airline, with the hotel industry. Yeah, you know, the greatest threat to the American workforce is automation. But the powers that be, they want you to think it's our brown brothers and sisters who are seeking an opportunity for employment in the United States of America. And it is not, it is a great distraction to say let's blame these individuals and let's ignore the reality of automation and how many jobs automation eliminates every single year. Let me say something very clear. They don't need to make all that money. See, that's what it comes down to.

Are they able to still be profitable and rich and pay their bills without doing this? Yes, they can. They don't need to make all that money. But they feel like they are empowered to because when they start making these decisions that eliminate the human angle of what they do as a corporation, nobody challenges them. There's no policy to stop them. There's no massive boycott of their enterprise. They may get a small political or public relations black eye, but it's temporary.

They're not afraid of one negative story. They're afraid more so of you, people and people organized against them. And until we can figure out how to be a little more strategic and coordinated in how we approach these companies, they will continue to do it and they will hold their breath and wait for the negative story to pass and then continue to do this to real people every day. Yeah, absolutely. And just I think it's important to give you some actual numbers in regard to the unionized jobs that are being sacrificed here.

This is the last graphic. The New York Times reports that the median wage for housekeepers in the United States is $12.61 an hour. But a spokesperson for Unite here, the labor union representing hotel workers, said that the wages for many union housekeepers are far, far higher up to at least $27 per hour. He said many are making hundreds of dollars less per month on unemployment than they would if they were working. And that's an important point to really drill on. Because what we keep hearing over and over again in, you know, corporate media is that there's a labor shortage because

everyone is incredibly lazy. They're collecting unemployment and they refuse to go back to work. But in reality, especially when it comes to the hotel industry, people are itching to get back to work. They want to go back to work. The problem is they're not being offered the same position that they had prior to the pandemic. As I mentioned earlier, they're getting part-time shifts. They're not qualifying for the same benefits that they qualified before. And they're losing their seniority as if they're absolutely like just new employees at the hotel. It's absolutely shameful behavior.

But this is what the system does. This is the whole point, right? If they could find ways to cut labor costs, they're going to do it to maximize their profits. And you're right, we need to fight and we need to be organized. And we need to make sure that we can do what we can to help maintain what little labor power remains, right? We have unionized jobs now that are being destroyed as a result of this pandemic. And it's just really sad to see it. Yeah, and they're just using the pandemic as a pretext to do something they always wanted to do in the first place.

Totally. Yep, totally agree with you on that. All right, well, let's get to our next story because you would think that maybe states would not garnish tax refunds during the pandemic, but you'd be wrong. More and more states are willing to garnish the tax refunds of the poorest individuals in their states. This is a new story that was reported by the Center for Public Integrity. And what they looked at was just how many states have decided to garnish, meaning take out portions of people's tax returns if they owed the state money for things like, let's say, traffic violations, parking tickets, let's say they owed fees or fines to the courts. Well, this is an easy way to make sure that people pay for it. If they're getting a tax refund, why not just garnish that to ensure that people pay? Now, this is an issue because if you look at a lot of these fees as they stand, even without putting the pandemic into the equation, these are usually regressive taxes, right?

Oftentimes, states will make up for lost revenue because they refuse to ensure that wealthy people in their state pay their taxes by implementing all. all sorts of fees and fines, they'll put out more traffic tickets, more parking tickets, things like that. But during a pandemic, you would think, hey, maybe don't garnish people's tax returns. Because the people who get these tax returns oftentimes desperately need them in order to stay afloat. So as the Center for Public Integrity reports in virtually all states that levy a personal income tax, garnishments have been deployed on thousands of tax refunds, along with lottery winnings and stimulus checks, something that we covered earlier,

among others, during the pandemic driven recession. So I wanna just go to this graph that shows you the states that do this the most. California happens to be one of them, unfortunately. Michigan tends to garnish the tax returns of their residents at a much higher rate. But California, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

are certainly on that list. Illinois and California received so much backlash for this practice that they have decided to suspend garnishing tax returns until the end of the year. But I wanted to get your thoughts on this, Dr. Ritchie, because it just seems as though as we're experiencing this unequal, uneven economic recovery where the richest continue to get rich and the poorest continue to get poor, I mean, local governments have decided, no, we're going to keep doing these insane toxic practices that further victimized people who are struggling? Yeah, it shows you that being marginalized is expensive. And they are garnishing these

individuals who are waiting for a stimulus check. You got to think about how evil that is. We're in the middle of a pandemic. That stimulus check had a function, had a purpose. You mean to tell me you're going to garnish this money because you don't have the political fortitude to collect taxes from the rich influencers in your state. And let's be very clear, the reason why California and other states decided to do an about facing some other state comptrollers have decided to make a preemptive rule and not collect during this time is because it is a political issue. And if you have the political will, you can do the right thing. This is not an issue. that will determine the ability of the state to pay its bills.

You see, they're not in a scenario where they can't pay bills in the state that's doing this. So this is not a financial issue. This is not based on the economy. This is all based on the political leaders who are in power, who are in charge. And they are willing to dump on the poor to ignore the wealthy and to make this political decision. So big ups to others who have decided not to do this, and I'm thankful for states that decided to stop doing it, but it shows you the nature of it was never economic. It was all political. Yeah, I mean, in California specifically, you know, in 1978, there was a ballot initiative that unfortunately passed Prop 13.

And what it did was limit the property taxes to about 1% of the cash value of the home. And so what that did was it just defunded the education system, the LAUSD in particular in California. And we started to see this emergence or this increase in various fines and fees. I mean, when you look at some of the regressive taxes that are implemented in various states, I mean, in California you also have a sales tax, right? And sales taxes happen to be the same percentage regardless of what your income is. All of these regressive taxes end up hurting low income earners the most. And to add insult to injury, if they happen to get into any type of issue, whether it be

some sort of fine, right, for a violation, a parking violation, traffic violation, whatever it is, there should be another option, right, for people who might not have the means to pay for that kind of violation, whether it's community service or something like that, to give them an option to do, you know, what's right, to make their mistake right, I guess, for lack of a better word, but to force them to pay, I mean, in California, you get a speeding ticket, for instance. You're talking about $500 minimum out of pocket to deal with that speeding ticket. And that doesn't even include the trouble you're going to have to go through with car insurance, which is also going to go up with the premium as a result of that traffic

violation. But there was a significant increase in those types of fines and violations following the passage of Prop 13. And it's just, we're seeing it play out on a yearly basis, but during a pandemic, it's just particularly disgusting. It really is. Yeah. And another great irony is that some of these individuals under this garnishment order, they would literally have their license suspended if they did not pay the particular tax. So you got to think about the ridiculousness of that. You mean to tell me that a person who already cannot pay the fee, you are trying to garnish and you can't get the garnishment for the fee they may owe or the tax they may owe, your obligation now as a governmental entity is to suspend their means to even pay the bills that they have to pay right now by taking away their license. How is that a solution? How is that a remedy? That provides an additional problem for the person who's already suffering tremendously. Yeah, absolutely. A few other examples. So last year before California decided to suspend this practice, you had seven of the most populous states in the country, California, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, collecting more than $728 million combined from state tax refunds.

We've got Michigan, which collected $136.5 million in 2020. They had the highest garnishment rate of $13,546 per 1,000 residents, followed by Ohio, which collected $10,161 per 1,000 residents. So we're talking about garnishments that are crippling for low income earners. And if you look at the data that was provided by the Center for Public Integrity, Of course, the main targets happen to be people of color and those on the lowest end of the economic ladder. So luckily you have two states that have decided to suspend this practice, but like we've always mentioned in other fixes, it's like a band-aid on a gushing wound. I think the overall issue of not giving people another option to having to pay these fines is a real issue.

It was a real problem. So hopefully the future can have solutions other than just suspending something temporarily. Because once that suspension is lifted, we're back to the same problem again. All right, we got to take a- Yeah, go ahead. No, no, that was it. I'm just agreeing with you since the 100%. Awesome, okay. So we're gonna take a quick break.

When we come back, the investigation into the capital riots is so insanely politicized that honestly at this point all I can do. is roll my eyes at every single part of it, but we'll break it down for you. We'll give you the details when we return. I'm not going to lie. I'm getting pretty tired of this topic. It's brought up every single day, oh, we got us, you know, House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, unwilling to play along with what's necessary to form a committee to investigate the riots that took place in the nation's capital on January 6th. You've got the Democrats using this for political purposes as well. And to be quite honest, I just, I'm tired of this. I'm absolutely tired of the story. I can't stand

it. And there are no winners. Let me explain why. So it all starts off with the, efforts to investigate what happened in the nation's capital on January 6th with these insurrectionists storming the capital, causing all sorts of chaos. There have been hearings about it, but the House has been trying to form a committee to do these investigations. Well, the legislation that would allow for the formation of the committee was, of course, blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Then, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided, okay, then I'm going to unilaterally form what's referred to as a select committee, we wouldn't need to get this passed in the Senate, but I want to be fair,

I want this to be bipartisan. And so she named her appointees to this committee. Liz Cheney happened to be one of those appointees. Liz Cheney, a Republican who for the most part I can't stand, does in fact want to investigate what happened and finds Donald Trump's behavior unconscionable. So that's good news. But then Kevin McCarthy, who was given an opportunity to appoint his own members, Republican members to this select committee, first said he had no interest.

Now all of a sudden has some interest and decides to appoint, of course, what would you expect? The worst people. So Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she would actually reject two of the five Republican nominees to the panel. Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan, obviously Trump loyalists. Both are among the most staunch defenders of Donald Trump and deny his role in instigating the attack. And Pelosi, fueled by objections from within her caucus, accused the pair of threatening

the integrity of the coming investigation. So, of course, you know, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was upset about this and decided to take his ball and go home. He also spoke to the press about it. Let's hear what he had to say. Pelosi has created a sham process. Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republicans, we will not participate. But we think it's too important that those two questions, why were we ill-prepared?

Why did they know on December 14th? Why would they jeopardize the lives of the Capitol Police? We will run our own investigation. Dr. Ritchie, what does that even mean? We will run our own investigation. I mean, we're talking about people who have less interest in the insurrectionists and want to actually investigate Antifa and Black Lives Matter. That's where their focus is at. McCarthy is a clown and a half, number one.

Yes. But let's be very clear also about this whole process with the select committee. Both sides are playing politics here. Yes. And they will utilize the politics. for their own agenda rather than for the truth of what really went down. And it will be politicized. Now, just because something will be politicized does not mean it is inherently political.

The attack on the U.S. Capitol was not political or politicized it is, but it was not political in the sense of Democrats, Republicans. We know exactly what happened. Those were terrorists. They were domestic terrorists. Democrats should agree to that. Republicans should agree to that, but Republicans initially wanted to politicize it, blame it on other factors that weren't even responsible. And here's where we are now. They had an opportunity, Anna, they had a real opportunity for a bipartisan commission. McConnell said no. They said no to that. You don't get more bipartisan than what was on the table initially.

Still, it would be a bunch of corporate Democrats and good old boy Republicans part of that committee. but at least you had an opportunity to have this commission. This was McCarthy's plan from the beginning, but Pelosi knew this. Pelosi was well aware of the political creature he is also. He wanted to appoint a guy who may be a material witness. Who the hell does that? You want that person to be part of the committee and he's a material witness to what went down. And then another guy openly discredits the entire investigation.

And you want him to be in charge of it. So you already knew what was coming down. Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. And I think it's important to focus on how the very formation of the select committee has become so politicized that I feel like the very point of doing this is kind of lost in the back and forth. Now, Kevin McCarthy was also, you know, talking to his colleagues about how to proceed. And as I mentioned earlier, he's taken his ball and going home. But prior to making that decision, McCarthy called a private meeting with all five of his nominees of the select. committee emerging shortly after with an ultimatum to Pelosi. Keep Banks and Jordan on board, or all of the Republican picks would walk away. And guess what? Pelosi would not budge. And now the GOP is accusing her of insane things. So for instance, they, as I mentioned earlier, they want to investigate Black Lives Matter, they want to investigate Antifa. They want to deflect from the actual topic at hand, which is Trump supporters storming the nation's capital on

January 6th. That's what, they don't want to focus on that. And they know that it could be a potential political liability during the midterm elections. Pelosi also knows that it could be a liability for the GOP, which is why, you know, when we talk about her pursuing this as a political tactic, that's what I'm personally referring to, right? She knows that it could potentially hurt them, which is why the GOP is trying to deflect. Now, McCarthy also does not want to focus on his personal role in all of this, right?

Meaning the conversation he had with Donald Trump on the phone, on the phone, as the insurrection was taking place. In fact, reporters asked him about it during that press conference. Let's hear what he had to say. On May 20th in this room, I think you told us that you were prepared to testify about your conversation with President Trump on the afternoon of January 6th. Do you still stand by that? Are you still prepared to testify about your conversation? My phone call is out there. The question is, you make a phone call after people are in the

Capitol to advise the president of what's going on, doesn't get to the answer of why were we ill-prepared. That's really playing politics, and it really shows that that's the issue that they want to go to of where they want to drive. We want to get all the answer. No, no, they don't want to get all the answers. They have obstructed any effort in doing any type of decent investigation into this. They refuse to hold Donald Trump accountable for his own provocations and his own incitements prior to the capital rights taking place. And he says that his phone call is out there. No, there are allegations about what was said during that phone call, but the phone call is not out there. And I would love to hear him testify under oath

about what really transpired during that call. And it's also important to keep in mind that McCarthy himself has certainly changed his tone in regard to Donald Trump's actions, you know, from how he felt immediately after the riots to how he feels about it today. So let's just do a quick rewind. Here's House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy talking about Donald Trump and what transpired that day, you know, pretty soon after the Capitol riots. The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump.

Accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest, and ensure President-elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term. And the president's immediate action also deserves congressional action, which is why I think a fact-finding commission and a censure resolution would be prudent. Unfortunately, that is not where we are today. Dr. Ritchie, so what happened? Seems like there was some clarity there for Representative McCarthy. And now all of a sudden that clarity is gone. He seems pretty confused about Trump's responsibility and how serious it is to investigate what happened that day.

Once again, another politician defying medical science by standing upright with no backbone. So in that moment, in that precise moment, he believed that his party was on his side. Now remember, he is 100% a reflection of the political expression around him. That's all he is. He is not a leader. He is simply a reflection. He thought that given what had happened because of the extreme nature of it, that he was on the right side of the politics at that moment. And these are the leaders we don't need, ladies and gentlemen.

He thought he was on the right side of the political argument. He makes the argument and then he gets the blowback from the argument standing on truth, but not because it's truth. He's standing on truth because it is politically available and he thinks it is the political wind blowing in his favor. And as soon as it shifts on him, he shifts also. That's the kind of leader he is. So you see an individual who has no personal character, no core, no real value system, he is simply an expression. And these are some of the most dangerous people, Anna, because they're the ones that will give cover to white supremacy. They're the ones that will give cover to criminality inside of the U.S. Congress itself.

They're the ones who don't want us to see the connections between members of law enforcement who went to that insurrection, committed an act of domestic terrorism, and also maybe the congressional leaders who are involved or the funding apparatus that may be behind the scenes as well. They don't want those things investigated, and he's in a position of authority and power, and that's what makes him even more dangerous than many who stormed that capital. Yeah, you're absolutely right. And what I'm always pretty shocked by is how easily Donald Trump and his base, even at this point, when Trump is not in power, they'll still find a way to bully these Republican wanna be strong men into healing, into doing exactly as they demand, which is we don't hold the insurrectionist

accountable, don't do the investigation, deflect, blame it on Nancy Pelosi, who, to be sure, I have my issues with Nancy Pelosi, but now they're alleging that Nancy Pelosi, should be held responsible for the fact that Capitol police were ill prepared to deal with the insurrectionists that day. How is it Nancy Pelosi's job to do that? It's just, it's, this is what they do. They immediately shift the blame to the very people who want to do the investigation. They shift the blame to the opposing party, and they're masterful at that. They're so good at doing that. They're damn good at it. As a matter of fact, I would call it their ex-man strength. You know, when you talk about Republicans and their messaging, here's what they do.

Messaging is real simple. It's the repetition of the message. They repeat it. They stay on message. They have other surrogates repeated. They all say the same thing. And when you repeat a message enough, that message becomes a brand. This is basic marketing. And when you start to market yourself and it's called binary marketing. You start to market yourself in a way where you either 100% here and 0% there, you force people to make a decision because you are framing the marketing debate. And that's exactly what they've been able to do. And they continue to do it because the information that they're spewing is typically BS.

So when you know it's already BS, the only thing you have is the message. So you have to stay on message, and the surrogates have to stay on message. in order for at least summon their base to take hold of it. Remember, Trump did this before the election. He started talking about the election being rigged before the election was had. Hell, he did that when he ran for president the first time. He said if he lost, it was rigged. But if he won, it was not.

It was binary marketing. And they have now picked up on the cues of Trump, and they're utilizing the same methodology to their base. Yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean, that's part of the reason why you have the majority of Republican voters who genuinely believe, that the election was stolen from Donald Trump. I mean, we're living in two different realities, two different countries.

It's bananas. All right, well, we got to take a break, but when we come back, the second half of this story is the Republican on Republican crime. Liz Cheney versus Kevin McCarthy will give you those details and more. Stick around. What's up, everyone? with TYT, Anna Casparian and Dr. Rashad Ritchie here with you. If you don't know already, maybe you're tuning in late.

We've got some exciting news. Dr. Richie's show, Indisputable, has been picked up permanently by TYT Network, which means that you guys can watch every weekday at 1130 a.m. Pacific 2.30 p.m. Eastern. It airs right after damage report. We've got a network going on here, guys. We've got wonderful programming and it's so good to have Dr. Ritchie with us. So if you've enjoyed the show, you can enjoy it indefinitely on TYT.

All right, let's get to our next story, because there's a different wrinkle to this whole select committee thing that I want to talk about. Right wing on right wing crime tends to be an issue these days as Trump loyalist feud with people like Representative Liz Cheney who actually, shockingly, wants to do a thorough investigation into the capital rights that took. place on January 6th. Now, the latest update on this whole select committee thing is that Kevin McCarthy decided to choose two individuals, representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan, to serve on that bipartisan select committee. But the problem is those are two people who are Trump loyalists and two people who are not going to take this investigation as seriously as they should. So House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected them, Kevin McCarthy decided to take his ball and go home. And now, Representative Liz Cheney, who has all sorts of issues, of course,

has decided to go after McCarthy. Let's watch. We supported what would have been the very best option, which was a bipartisan, independent commission. The minority leader opposed that. He lobbied against it in the Senate, and the Senate blocked it. And at every opportunity, the minority leader has attempted to prevent the American people from understanding what happened to block this investigation. This investigation must go forward. The idea that anybody would be playing politics with an attack on the United States Capitol is despicable and is disgraceful. McCarthy, of course, wants to become Speaker next year. Do you think that he deserves to be Speaker in the aftermath of his actions here? I think that any person who would be third

in line to the presidency must demonstrate a commitment to the Constitution and a commitment to the rule of law. And minority leader McCarthy has not done that. Frasad, I don't know how to feel about Liz Cheney because I agree with everything she said there. I just, what is her play? Is it because she genuinely cares about the Constitution and wants to do the right thing? I mean, she's had a horrendous record. I've got no love for McCarthy either, but what do you think's going on here? Liz Cheney can kick rocks as far as I'm concerned. The policy that she has supported, the policies she has supported hurts people in communities that I love. So let me make that very clear. She happens to be right on this one issue.

Now, my dad would tell me a broke clock is right twice a day. That's all you see here. Now, she's obviously on the side of let's investigate what happened on January 6th, but she's not, you know, she's not for the policy change. She's not talking about systemic racism in the United States. She's not willing to support policy that creates equality or equity for all races or people in the United States. she's still very much so opposed to the real work of policy. Remember, and I know some people may disagree with me on this, but it's true. Investigation or no investigation, how does that change the policy dynamic of people suffering all across the United States of America? I want a real investigation. You're not going to get one from these people, just not going to happen.

I would like to see it. But you know what I would like to also see? I would like to see a policy shift. I would like to see a policy support of people who are disenfranchised. And Cheney's not going to give you this. So she gets to play the good guy for a minute. But the truth is, when you eliminate the reality of this investigation chaos, she is still opposed to progress for black and brown and disenfranchised people in the country. So I have no problem providing proper context to who she is politically, even if she agrees with one investigation that I agree should move forward as well. I mean, when you think about it, it's similar to everything that we've been experiencing

in American politics for decades now, which is rather than address the root cause of a problem, something that's happened, the focus is on finding a Band-Aid to hopefully stop the bleeding temporarily, but it doesn't really solve the root of the problem. And so when I think about Liz Cheney's behavior as a member of Congress, you know, she has not been willing to speak out against the right wing doing away with a unit within the Department of Homeland Security that was investigating right wing extremism in this country, beginning under the Obama administration. You know, they started noticing that there was a problem with sovereign citizens and right wing militias and right wing terrorists in the country. And rather

than allow for DHS, Department of Homeland Security, to do what it's supposed to do in keeping track of these things and investigating these things, they pressure the Obama administration to do away with that unit within the Department of Homeland Security. So there's that issue. But also, I think that you're so right, Rashad, in bringing up the disenfranchised communities and how this didn't come out of nowhere, right? The division in the country, the hatred that we're seeing among one another, that's been exacerbated by material conditions in the United States that isn't really being addressed by either party, at least not in a fundamental way. We do have some progressive members of Congress who do want to address those things in a fundamental way,

who do want to do more than just throw money at these issues. They actually want systemic change. They want fundamental change to our economic system, to the way that we think about things like healthcare, for instance, just things that would fundamentally and materially improve people's lives. I think that's the best bet in regard to uniting Americans. But we're not really having a robust debate or conversation about that. Most of our robust debates and conversations have to do with, you know, very clear political theater, in my opinion, right?

like what can these lawmakers do to posture and give people the illusion of governing and working on their behalf? And it's frustrating. I think that's part of the reason why this particular story really gets under my skin because it doesn't seem like this is really about an investigation or finding robust solutions to what we're experiencing in this country. It feels like this is all about political theater and posturing. That's all it is. And Anna, what you're feeling is the reality that this is all an ultimate game of one-upism. That's all it is. These individuals who are in charge of all of this rhetoric holding the press conferences

saying what will and will not happen, they are some extreme political creatures. Their actions are well calculated, well choreographed, and then they bring you the piece that they want you to listen to. And that is it. Once again, we're failing to address the assault on basic history in the United States of America. Where's the conversation nationally on that? We're having these conversations state by state, but state governments are passing legislation to literally eliminate a teacher's ability to teach about the racist core and the perverted history of this country as it relates to race relations.

Well, that's a conversation we need to have because it is part of the conversation of why the capital happened, why the insurrection happened. It is connected to the core of us giving a wink at a nod as a nation to white supremacy. Back in 2006, a report came out from the DOJ. It said, clearly, here's what's happening. You have white supremacists who are infiltrating law enforcement, and it is one of the greatest domestic threats in the United States. States of America. Did they pass laws to stop it? Did they increase transparency in reporting? Did they have a George Floyd policing and accountability act on the table back then? No, none of that was a national conversation, even though you had this damning report. So while we can

debate about the investigation, and like I said, I agree it needs to move forward, we're missing some of these other debates because of this shiny thing they've told us to pay attention to. Yes, absolutely. Couldn't agree more with you on that one. All right, well, let's move on to our next story because it's an update to something that did not sit well with me back then and certainly doesn't sit well with me now. But we've got more details about the investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, who at the time was not a Supreme Court justice. Unfortunately, he now is. So if you suspected that the FBI investigation into Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was a sham investigation, you'd be correct. Because,

New reporting by the New York Times indicates that the FBI and the whole process of the investigation was not only lacked the thorough nature necessary to do a real investigation, the important tips that came to the FBI were then transitioned over to the executive branch, which had no real interest in doing the investigation in the first place. So the FBI assistant director, Jill Tyson, said that the most relevant, Of the 4,500 tips that the agency received during an investigation into Kavanaugh's past were referred to White House lawyers in the Trump administration whose handling of them remains unclear.

Now this was a letter that the FBI assistant director sent to Democratic members of the Senate who wanted some clarity about what really transpired during that investigation. For those of you who were wondering, wait, what was that investigation again? It was after a former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh's, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward with allegations of attempted rape. In fact, she testified about that under oath, and I want to remind you all about what she said. Early in the evening, I went up a very narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom.

when I got to the top of the stairs I was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom I couldn't see who pushed me Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them there was music playing in the bedroom it was turned up louder

by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me he began running his hands over my body and grinding into me I yelled hoping that someone downstairs might hear me and I tried to get away from him but his weight was heavy Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes he had a hard time because he was very inebriated

and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. She managed to escape, but her testimony before the Senate Judiciary, committee was so compelling that a Republican senator, Jeff Flake, called for an investigation.

Watch. I think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to, but not more than one week, in order to let the FBI continue to do an investigation limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there and limit in time to no more than one week. And I will vote to advance the bill to the floor with that understanding. So what Senator Flake was calling for there wasn't even, in my opinion, enough, right? He was calling for a limited investigation one week long, which I'd argue isn't enough time to do an investigation. But the FBI wrapped it up within a week. It wasn't even a full week of investigation.

And now we're learning more details. For instance, the agency was conducting a background check rather than a criminal investigation, meaning that the authorities, policies, and procedures used to investigate criminal matters did not apply, and the investigation was fishy from the start. Here's more detail into it. The Trump White House carefully controlled the investigations into Kavanaugh's past. After Dr. Ford came forward, Trump's staff tried to limit the number of people the FBI interviewed as part of that probe. Only after an outcry from Democrats over

the president's approach, did the administration say the agency could conduct a more open investigation. But ultimately, ultimately, only 10 witnesses were interviewed by the FBI. Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh themselves were never interviewed by the FBI. And also in a recent interview with the author Michael Wolf, Trump put his handling of Justice Kavanaugh into stark terms, asking, where would he be without me? I saved his life. Yeah, he helped Kavanaugh get confirmed into the Supreme Court, even though there were credible allegations of attempted rape against him, which were not thoroughly investigated. It's just, Dr. Ritchie, I want to bring you in. I want to hear your thoughts on all.

of this, because it's just, it's a story that's like kind of haunted me ever since it all took place. And now we're learning more details. And of course it was a sham investigation. Yeah, I remember reporting on this on my radio show. Her testimony was so compelling. She has tons of credibility. She had so much to lose. Getting involved in something like that when you are a career professional, when you have significant connections to your profession and the community, and you know how they have already demonized others that would dare tell the truth. Here's the greatest example you will find of white privilege in the United States. a man is still a Supreme Court justice with credible allegations like this, it did not pause the Republicans.

They did it in record time. They did it in record time. How do you do that? And this is what I can't understand, Anna, and I really don't seek to understand it. I have a mama. I have aunties. I have sisters. I have a daughter. I don't care what my politics may be. If I hear this about someone who I'm in position to say they're going to become one of the most powerful people on the planet Earth, that has to give me pause just as a human being. But it gave them none. Yeah, I mean, I remember Lindsay Graham, you know, breaking out and complete spectacle in order to, you know, make it seem as though Brett Kavanaugh. was the real victim here.

I mean, it was just absolutely shameful. And look, when the right wing wants to accomplish something, they will stop at nothing. And in this case, there's been a decades-long project by right-wing organizations, funded by right-wing donors, to essentially skew every branch of government in favor of conservatives. Which is why Donald Trump succeeded in confirming not just three Supreme Court. justices, but hundreds, literally hundreds of federal judges. And we're going to be feeling the ramifications of that for the rest of our lives, really. And so when we talk about strategic voting or electoral politics, as I've said a million times on the show, it is not

the end-all be-all and organizing outside pressure. That's also an important part of this. Organized labor, that's an important part of this. But to pretend as though, electoral politics means nothing. Anyone who tries to convince you of that or persuade you of that wants your side to lose, period. These elections are important because while there are certainly many issues with the Democratic Party, I would argue I'd rather have a member of the Democratic Party nominating federal judges and Supreme Court justices, as opposed to right wingers who are doing so specifically to protect corporate interests and conservative values in this country. Yeah, I agree with you. And it's like this. Democrats don't do enough, but Republicans don't do a

damn thing. So if you're in a framework where you have to make a decision with one or the other, be strategic about your decision, obviously, while at the same time pushing the overall agenda in the right direction. But you're right, Anna, there's so many individuals who, who will say, well, I don't participate in electoral politics because they're all corrupt or none of them go far enough or none of them really hold my agenda. Well, remember, you have to continue to push the agenda. This is chess, not checkers. And here's what I mean when I say that. In checkers, you're used to making a move in order to win or to take a piece off the board. In chess, each move is to position yourself for the ultimate move.

And if we're not thinking in that context, if we're thinking that one move has to rule the board, rather than thinking that we are strategically moving various pieces at various times so that we can have the ultimate position in order to win this game, then we're failing at the game of politics. Absolutely. And you know, as much as I hate to admit it, right-wing group, have been playing chess, they have been thinking strategically, and that's the reason why they've been able to win the courts. And it's really scary stuff when you think about all the efforts and all the effort that needs to be put into various victories. Let's say something as important as Medicare for all, for instance.

Medicare for all could be struck down by a conservative Supreme Court. So even if, you know, we finally make headway on important policies that we want to accomplish, if the federal courts and the Supreme Court is taken over by right-wing judges, that policy is still incredibly vulnerable to getting, you know, struck down. So these are all things to think about as we end up with, you know, the inevitable debates about who to vote for and whether or not electoral politics matters. But when I think of Brett Kavanaugh, I remember why it is that it was so important to defeat Donald Trump in 2016, even if the person he was running against wasn't my favorite candidate by any stretch of the imagination. To know that we have someone like Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice right now is just a reality that I wish I didn't have to live with, but we do.

And now we know for sure that that investigation didn't even scratch the surface. It's just absolutely shameful. All right. Well, we got to end the first hour of the show, but stick around because when we come back for the second hour, we'll talk about a family that deeply regrets not getting the coronavirus vaccine. And my favorite story of the day is in the second hour. A woman whose car was stolen decided to do detective work on her own. She found the culprit and she took matters into her own hands. That story apparently is controversial. We'll give you those details in more. and we'll ask you to chime in on what you think. So stick around. We'll be back in just a few minutes. 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.