The Young Turks - Pardon Me?

Episode Date: September 16, 2023

GM CEO Mary Barra defends her multi-million dollar salary after the UAW goes on strike. Trump says he will PROBABLY not pardon himself if he is re-elected in 2024. A Fox executive has been fired after he reportedly stalked and harassed a woman. Right wing media blames the spike in child poverty on Biden. HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur), Michael Shure (@michaelshure), and Jackson White SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Woo! It's up! Bigotee! Bigotee! Bigotee!

Bigotee! Drop it! B-R-B-D, B-H-B-B-B-D. Power panel. Okay, and also a video that'll come up in a second. All right, Jake Hugo, Michael Shore, snacks and white. We got it here. It's official now.

Yeah, it's a little bit official. And the tank top seals it. So, it's just my last clean shirt. That's all it is. By the way. It looks like I'm trying to be fancy. It was almost really embarrassing because I came this close to wearing a tank top here. Less likely with Michael.

Likely with Michael, less likely, with me enormously unlikely, but it looks good on you, Jackson. Well, thank you, because it's my last clean shirt for right now. I gotta go to launching that later. All right, now that we had a little fun with that, we have a ton of news for you guys. So there's a strike going on. Isn't there always these days? Kind of an interesting development in the world. We got news on Biden, we got news on Trump.

We got so much for you. So, Michael, take it away. Jake, the UAW went on strike. Let's take a look at this. You've seen a 34% pay increase in your salary. You make almost $30 million. Why should your workers not get the same type of pay increases that you're getting, leading the company? Well, if you look at compensation, my compensation, 92% of it is based on performance of the company.

When the company does well, everyone does well. When the company does well, everyone does well. Well, last night at midnight, the workers of the United Auto Workers Union went on strike. They began their strike against the three big automakers, which of course are GM Ford, and I didn't know this about a week ago, Stalantis. I definitely would have said Chrysler, but it's called Stalantis for failing to meet their demands. That's why they're on strike. For some reason, Mary Barra, who we just listened to the CEO of General Motors,

thought it would be a great idea to go out and talk about the millions of dollars she makes in compensation as they walk the picket line. In fact, the UAW has pointed to that massive wage inequality as a major reason why they themselves are demanding higher wages. They're demanding an approximately 36% raise over the life of their four-year contract. The auto companies have jank plenty of money to pay the workers. According to the United Auto Workers, this is their research. The big three made 21 billion in profits in just the first six months of this year alone. And that's why one of the UAW slogans is record profits, record contracts, right? So the profits are there, the contracts. Let's see, let's take a look. The big three

CEOs have on average received a 40% pay raise over the last four years. Auto worker pay only went up about 6% during that time. So theirs went up, you know, 40% to 6%. for auto workers. So you look at that record profits, record contrast. Since 2003, auto workers have seen their average hourly wage declined by 30%. And here, guys, is what each of the big three CEOs made in 2021. In 2021, that's two years ago. GM CEO Mary Barra made over $29 million. Ford CEO James Farley, almost 23 million. And embarrassingly, Carlos Tavares at Stalantis, shaking his head, holding it down. He only made about $21 million.

Cenk? Yeah, so now they've gone on strike, but I don't want people to get the wrong idea. Not all 150,000 walked off the job. About 13,000 did they're doing something really interesting, different, and strategic, where they're walking out of certain plants in Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, et cetera. And they're plants that make some of the most profitable trucks and cars for those. three companies. Fain has had, that's the union leader, has had a much more aggressive stance against the companies. Now look, it's a function of two different things. So when the companies

were struggling, the union leaders made some compromises with management, and there's some logic to that, right? But then it feels like not just in the car industry, but in a lot of industries, the union leaders got very comfortable with management. And there wasn't a lot of movement for the labor movement and now they've elected some new leaders and Fain was elected just this year and he promised that he was going to take a much tougher stance on management

and he has and it's led to this and I think that he's right to do that and I think one of the upsides of the strike is that for the first time people are hearing about the enormous profits that these companies are making while feigning poverty

so that's why that CEO interview is awkward And look, she can say, hey, my conversation based on is based on how well we do. Okay, and you could say, hey, maybe that's even fair. Maybe she's killing it and she deserves that money. And no problem, I get it, it's capitalism. On the other hand, your workers also deserve that money. And if you guys are killing it and you say, but I only want to kill it for me and not you guys, well, that's not going to fly with new stronger union leaders.

And so that's a great thing. And they're standing up for the average American. Look, we're going to get to Biden and Trump's reaction in a second. But overall, the country kind of loves this. And I know, as we explained on the last couple of shows, the presses giving it questionable coverage, where they almost always frame it as the workers are demanding this. The workers are going to cause this shutdown.

The workers might cause price of cars to go up. No, it's the intransigence of companies that have made. made, and this is an incredible number, a quarter of a trillion dollars in profits in the last decade saying, yeah, I want the quarter of a trillion dollars only for our executives and only for our shareholders, and we're not going to share it with the employees. And if your price of your cars go up because of the strike, that's who you should blame, not who the mainstream press is telling you to blame. But overall, it's at least getting it in the news and people can at least see the facts. And when they see those numbers, no matter how, corporate media is framing it, what they're seeing is go get them, UAW, and fight for yourselves and fight for the rest of us. Jacks. Yeah, definitely the way corporate media frames these things is, you know, kind of like how a multi-level marketing salesperson wants you to sign up tomorrow, you know what I'm saying, like when can our next meeting be tomorrow, except whatever little you can.

But obviously, you know, they're striking because they're not getting the pay that they want. And for the last decade, they've been making compromises because, and this is why it's important that we just looked at the profits because, you know, we have to save money so that we can invest into this and that. So the workers are always at the expense. But the reason why she couldn't justify that she's making $30 million a year based on, you know, how well the company's doing. Well, if everybody's making $30 million, then ain't nobody making $30 million. So if your workers are getting paid well, then this strike wouldn't be going on. And what they're asking for is I think a 32% pay increase. The companies are offering a 20% increase.

They're asking for a 32 hour work week for 40 hours of pay. So they're asking for relatively general things that make sense that are pretty pragmatic, that are very practical. But this really is the best way for the middle class to remain the middle class. This is the best way that we have to, you know, show the managerial class that y'all need us and you can't really do anything without us. So, you know, let's encourage people to continue to strike as much as we can. And, you know, this strike itself, let's look at it. I mean, it is unique. It's the first time

they've ever struck all three auto workers at the same time. You guys both talked about what they're doing and how they're doing it. They can disrupt the entire supply chain by just striking at a few plants. And it's estimated that this could impact the economy at a rate of $5 billion in just 10 days of striking. So the United Auto Workers have a stranglehold in a way that is different than many other unions that are striking. And we'll get into that later when we talk about Biden's reaction to it. But here's Sean Fane, who is the UAW president, talking about the uniqueness of their strategy. We are using a new strategy, the stand-up strike.

We will call on select facilities, locals or units, to stand up and go on strike. The locals that are not yet called to join the stand-up strike will continue working under an expired agreement. No contract extensions. This strategy will keep the company's guessing. It will give our national negotiators maximum leverage and flexibility in bargaining. And if we need to go all out, we will. Everything is on the table. And Jake, you alluded to the fact that the people are behind this strike.

Well, according to a morning console, poll Americans do in fact stand with the workers. If you look at that, all U.S. adults, it looks like 51%, somewhat, at least somewhat support 23, strongly 28, somewhat. 26 don't know, which is great. And then only 23% oppose or strongly oppose this strike. It's shocking that they could strongly oppose a strike where you have CEOs making $29 million and workers just asking for a fair piece. But that's the history of strikes in America. The rich and powerful, not happy about the workers standing up for their rights. In fact, Elon Musk, who we know does not like unions one damn bit, said, you know, was,

was part, you know, he owns X now, which we all still call Twitter. When the UAW went on strike, their Twitter account lost its verified status, which is pretty funny. It then came back on later on, and they said that it was just a coincidence that it happened that way. And Donald Trump, you'll recall, he was the last president. He has his own opinion on the strike, not a fan siding with the rich. Here's Donald Trump. My question for you, Mr. President, whose side are you on in this? I'm on the side of making our country grade.

The auto workers are being sold down the river by their leadership, and their leadership should endorse Trump. The reason is, you've got to have choice. Like in school, I want school choice. I also want choice for cars. If somebody wants gasoline, if somebody wants all electric, they can do whatever they want. But they're destroying the consumer, and they're destroying the auto workers. the auto workers will not have any jobs, Kristen, because all of these cars are going to be made in China. The auto workers will not have any jobs, he says. You know, politically, guys, it's a curious position for Trump to take because while Biden's a union guide, the auto workers is a different kind of union.

His relationship with the union, the auto workers union has changed drastically because of his advocacy for electric cars. And the unions think that that is going to take jobs away because it doesn't require. as many jobs on the assembly line. And so Trump, in a way, has an opportunity to court them. But going after Sean Fane out of the gate when he's getting kudos right now for the way the strike was handled, seems a curious political play by that guy. Well, I don't know about that, Michael. And I want to show Biden's clip in a second too.

But first of all, at least one outlet that I saw had a headline, Trump backs the workers. But yeah, I mean, show the clip. Yeah, yeah. And that's not backing the workers at all. No, nor is it backing their leadership, and this is new leadership that they elected and they like. Yeah, I understand. But number one, when he loudly says, like, the workers are getting screwed. A lot of people interpret that as he's in favor of the workers.

He then goes out the state of position that's against the workers. Right. Right. And that's maddening, and that's why it's our job to correct that. But at the same time, we have to be careful because some of that bombast sounds sometimes like he's fighting for them. And it has an anti-establishment ring to it because all their leaders are screwing them. Now, in this particular case, you know, if you're the United Auto Workers, it's probably not going to resonate with you because you're pretty thrilled with how Sean Fane's been handling this. And you like the new leadership that you have.

That certainly seems to be the case based on the reporting. But overall, he gives some vague impression of being on the worker's side. But what he actually was saying is that if we go to electric cars, all these workers are going to be gone. And he had no solution for that. It almost sounded like to me, like, they better not strike too much. Otherwise, their jobs are going to get shipped out to China, and that's going to be worse. And that's his backdoor way of doing what he always does, supporting the rich and corporations while pretending to be a fake. While pretending to be a populist, and he's a fake one, obviously.

accent? To me, he's, well, he's the king of saying nothing. He says everything. He's on everybody's side, and therefore he says absolutely nothing. He stays vague. And one of the things that you point out, Jank, all the time is one of the things that's most underestimated about Donald Trump is how just unbelievably unintelligent he is. You know, you could watch a whole interview. And to me, he just looks like a man who's desperate to not be thrown in prison. And we'll get to the, you know, story later about how he says he absolutely wouldn't pardon himself. But Trump's just flailing around. He's doing every. everything he can to stay out of jail. And that's all I see. Anytime he says anything, it's

just him running his mouth saying a whole bunch of not a damn thing. It's a tough place for the president. He is notoriously and famous for being a pro-union guy as he was coming up. The auto workers a little different. As we talked about, his stance on the environment as president, and his initiatives on electric vehicles have sent the auto workers into a bit of a tailspin. So it becomes a tricky place. It's also a tricky place because, you know, he has lots of wealthy donors to who he's beholden.

Many of them are chairmen of boards, but his experience with the auto industry bailout in the Obama administration has kept him sort of cozy with the auto workers had done so. He spoke with Sean Fane the other day, and this morning he spoke on the issue of this auto strike. Auto companies have seen record profits, including the last few years, because it's extraordinary skill and sacrifices the UAW workers. Those record profits have not been shared fairly, in my view, with those workers. Let's be clear, no one wants a strike. Say it again, no one wants a strike. But I respect workers' right to use their options under the collective bargaining system.

And I understand the workers' frustration. For generations, auto workers sacrifice so much to keep the industry alive and strong, especially to the economic crisis and the pandemic. Workers deserve a fair share of the benefits they help create for an enterprise. And the companies have made some significant offers. But I believe they should go further to ensure record corporate profits mean record contracts for the UAW. I'll say that again, record corporate profits, which they have, should be shared by record

contracts for the UAW. The president not making any bones about where he is coming down, at least now and at least publicly in this. I know you'll probably find bones, Jank, but he was pretty direct about, you know, taking their motto of record profits and record contracts and holding it, holding their feet to the fire on this in as much as he does that. He can't step in. He can't do anything. It's not like a railway strike or an airline strike where he can step in and act upon it. He has to, what he can do is keep them negotiating and put pressure on them. But I think this was a clear backing of the workers, both for political and probably historical

reasons. So we're going to ask you guys, because I think this one's complicated. And we've got a poll on it in a second, which we'll get to. And all the polls, you always have a link in the description box. So look, he very mixed record here. His National Labor Relations Board is really great. On the rail strike, he backed the companies, and that was a disaster. But afterwards, he went back and actually helped the workers to get days off and didn't get a lot of credit for it.

And that actually is going to go to my main critique here. So, but, and he's done absolutely nothing with the pro act, despite promising that he would do it and make it a priority, etc. He's nothing, nothing, nothing with it. And as exactly as predicted. So it's not a, it's for a Democrat, a 50-50 record is pretty good, pretty good. I mean, I'm just keeping it real in terms of expectations, right? And here in that speech, he wasn't even quite 50-50. He was more on the worker's side, right?

I mean, it wasn't even close. Yeah. Well, he said you need balance and no one wants to strike and stuff, but I don't mind it. It was a balance speech. But no one does want to strike, right? No, I hear you. Look, I'm not trying to criticize that. I think it was a balanced speech that I, that mainly was on the worker's side.

You could argue if it was 75% or 85% on the worker's side, okay, but whatever, like, it's fine. Or 100% on the worker's side. No, I wouldn't argue that it was 100% on the worker's side, but apparently someone would. So there you go. So this, but before we get to the poll in Jackson, I just want to say like, the problem with Biden oftentimes is the substance. But that's, it's not in this case. The substance is like he did pretty good on this, especially vis-a-vis other issues, right? Here the issue is optics, and I know it's super hard for him.

But if I was advising him, what I would tell him is go out there and say, God damn right, they should strike. And I love the American worker, and it's about time that they fought back. If the CEOs are getting 40%, why shouldn't the workers get 40%. Congratulations to GM Ford and whatever that other company is called. And, you know, on their record profits, hey, in America, we love record profits, okay? But you share, you share with the people who brought it to you, the American worker, okay? Now that's less balanced, it's more hyperbolic, it's less of a common, you know, classy speech that Biden gave.

And it would resonate, in my opinion, 10,000 times more. And then we wouldn't be having a debate if, or not us, we're clear on it because it's obvious, but the press is having a debate about whether Trump or Biden is more pro. worker and that's a joke. And he could take all that away with much stronger speeches. I know it's not in his nature. Jackson, before we go to you, I just want to tell them where the poll is. TYT.com slash poles slash UAW strike. But you could do just slash polls and you'll get there. We're asking, did you think that Joe Biden was going to stand with the UAW or the big three companies? Now look, so far so good, you'd be right to, I think, answer the workers so far. but he does have that record and those donors are real and they do have enormous power in DC.

So if there was a moment where Biden could do something significant and real in the physical world, right? Like in the railway strike where you could say I'm ending it or not ending it. I don't think there's going to be a moment like this in this one. But which way is he going to act rather than talk is the point of that poll question? Jackson. Yeah, and I think that the optic issue extends further beyond just the Biden administration, but just one that the Democrats have an issue with entirely, especially since Bill Clinton came in office. But, you know, when Biden says that he's the most pro-union president ever,

but at the same time, the National Labor Relations Board that you mentioned basically made it such that workers have a right to unionize and come together. But generally, people don't really know about that unless you're really deep into the political process, unless you really follow this stuff, people really don't know about that. But if Biden would have been able to, let's say, pass his student loan debt forgiveness plan in full, he would have been touting that all day. And so oftentimes the Democrats have this, you know, image that, oh, they don't do anything. There's no difference between them and the Republicans. Now, yes, the Democrats are very milked toast and they always can be pushed further. And luckily for us, you know, a lot of these people are like 80 years old. So their time is just coming to an end and we can get younger people in office. But it's not. true that the Democrats don't do anything and that they never accomplish anything. And something like what Biden's National Labor Relations Board did, so many people just absolutely don't know what it was. They don't know that workers have these rights now. So when Biden does go in front of people, and yeah, in my opinion, I think he sided with the workers. But it just

doesn't hit as hard as it could, because as you pointed out, he doesn't really do it enough. He doesn't, but that's the Democratic Party's problem. It's not just Biden's problem. I think it's really fair. Yeah, it's fair. I just think that he came out in favor of, and that was Biden's. I mean, you have to listen to who is speaking and hear it how that person speaks. He's the president, and we know what he speaks like. We've known it for 50 years. And that is about as, and that doesn't mean you have to love it. But that's pretty, I would say, emphatic for Joe Biden. And I think that's what you saw there. So especially at a time when union membership is declining around the country. country, and he's been someone who's been boosting it up or trying to for quite a while. Okay, God bless. Let's see a quick break, guys. When we come back, there's a lot more news about Biden and Donald Trump. Trump says that he would not pardon himself. Mah ha ha ha ha ha. All right, back on TYT, Jank Michael Jackson, why with you guys?

Alfred Snacksson has joined us. Now I'm spreading the love. It's Alfred Jackson, but I'm sure he's a Snacksson too. Alfred, thanks for becoming a member. We appreciate you. And so did Peril the Polar Bear Dragon and also rode in, I'm back. So good to have you back, brother. And Esley Mercer joined it at the premium level.

which we really appreciate, because that allows us to keep prices at $4.99 for everybody else. So thank you. You're awesome. Oh, Aaron Noel De Carlo also gifted five young tourist memberships, and disco stew did as well, thereby becoming American heroes. We appreciate you all. All right, Michael's got more. Yeah, we do.

We heard a little more from Donald Trump. Here we go. I was told by some people that these are sick lunatics that I'm dealing with. Give yourself a pardon. Your life will be a lot easier. I said, I would never give myself a pardon. Even if you were re-elected in this moment? Well, I think it's very unlikely.

What did I do wrong? I didn't do anything wrong. You mean because I challenge an election? They want to put me in jail? There he is, saying it's unlikely that he would give himself a pardon. I can't imagine people would believe that. That's the former president on with Kristen Welker. That will air on Sunday.

She's the new host of Meet the Press. And this is her first interview where she apparently didn't push back too much on Donald Trump. but we'll see when we see the entire video. Trump claimed multiple times that lots of people told him that he could use the pardon to pardon himself and he should in his last administration. And he didn't that time. So why would he this time? Here's a little more from Donald Trump.

Mr. President, if you were reelected, would you pardon yourself? I could have pardon myself. Do you know what? I was given an option to pardon myself. I could have pardon myself when I was. I left. People said, would you like to pardon yourself? I had a couple of attorneys that said, you can do it if you want. I had some people that said it would look bad if you do it, because I think it would look terrible. I said, here's the story. These people are thugs, horrible people,

fascists, Marxists, sick people. They've been after me from the day I came down the escalator with Melania, and I did a great job as president. I said, the last thing I'd ever do is give myself a pardon. I could have given myself a pardon. Don't ask me about what I would do. I could have, the last day, I could have had a pardon done that would have saved me all of these lawyers and all of these fake charges, these Biden indictments, they're all Biden indictments, political. So, ready? I never said this to anybody. I was given the option. I could have done a pardon of myself. You know what I said? I have no interest in even thinking about it. I never even wanted to think about it, and I could have done it. And all of these questions you're asking

me about the fake charges, you wouldn't be asking me because it's a very powerful, it's a very powerful thing for a president. Well, you can believe Donald Trump if you'd like, but that comes at your own peril, because it seems like he actually thought more seriously about giving himself a pardon than he led on to Kristen Welker. CNN previously reported the then president had been asking aides and lawyers, including then White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, who on closed captioning, comes up as Patsy Bologna during the, which I love more than anything, during those one-six hearings. They asked Pat Cipollone about his self-pardon power in the week surrounding the end of his time in the White House. And as we know, Trump has now been

indicted four times in federal court in Washington, D.C., in Florida, and in state courts in Georgia in New York. State courts important. He faces a total of 91 charges and that he could pardon himself in D.C. He could pardon himself in the other federal case in Florida, but he can't pardon in a state case. And the hush money and the voter interference couldn't be pardon. Plus, a presidential pardon is untested, an expert or a self-pardon, untested experts divided on its constitutionality. A legal memo written by the Department of Justice's his office of legal counsel just days before Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974. Our Udra president could not self-pardon, but the legal opinion, of course, is not binding.

So whether or not he can do it, the point is he says that he probably wouldn't, which means what, Jenk? It means absolutely nothing. Right. Okay, so I got a lot of thoughts on it, but I wouldn't give the first thought to one of our members. Crystal Sheets is a YouTube member and wrote in, Trump wouldn't partner himself, and I'm the Loch Ness Monster, and we live in Candyland with Cotton Candy Clouds. I love doing the show with members. That's funny, it's true. Hit the join button below the video to become a member and do the show with us.

Okay, let me add on to what Crystal's saying. So first of all, he did have a number of interesting confessions there. First, he said, you know, we had a team of lawyers that came in, said I should do it, but I wouldn't do it. Later on, he's like, I didn't even think about it. Then why did you have the meeting with teams of lawyers? He's such an obvious liar. That's why, like, the MAGA guys, I understand their anti-establishment rage and all that stuff. And I probably understand it better than almost anyone else, certainly on the left, right?

But I'm amazed. I'm never not amazed at how they can't see how obvious it is that he's a liar. That was pretty Trumpian, by the way. The way I said it? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I understand. I'm trying to speak their language. I probably understand it better than anybody else. I understand it better than anybody.

Nobody understands the anti-establishment rage like I did. Better than I do. You gotta give it credence. You gotta give yourself credence, you know what I mean? It was both giving yourself credit, but also at the same time, a little confusing the way I stated it. It's perfectly Trump. Very Trump. Anyways, but you get it, which is that, like, how do you guys not see it?

He just contradicted himself right there, right there in the same. Like two minutes span. Anyways, but he also said, and this is going to be interesting, I mean, I hope we never hit this scenario where he's president again and can pardon himself. He said, it looks terrible. Okay, so when you do pardon yourself, if that happens, you're going to say it looks wonderful. We all know it. And all of Maga is going to say it looks wonderful.

We're going to play this tape of him saying it looks terrible. And then he's going to say, no, fake news, fake news. And then he went further and said, it's the last thing I would. would do. And then when he does it, we're going to play that tape. And then Mag is going to go, no, quoting Trump is fake news. Right. So everyone, or it doesn't matter. Yeah. Okay, guys, I mean, think about it this way. Sorry, Jackson. One last thing about it. Does anyone think that Donald Trump, if he won re-election and gets convicted of these crimes, goes, no, you know, you guys are right. I'm going to go to jail. Come on. Come on. And his base would want him.

to pardon himself too. They would be cheering for it, you know. But the idea that Donald Trump wouldn't do this as if he hasn't done many things that are like equally on par with that or even more egregious. Like he wants to he wants to change the laws of an entire state, which is Georgia, so that he can stay out of prison. You know, he openly calls, we have him on the fall and asking for like one more vote than he needs to win in that area. You know, it doesn't get more direct and obvious than that. And everything else that he's done just to rip people off across his whole life and do what he needs to do to protect himself and throw everybody else under the bus. Everyone he's hired, he hires the best people, but then as soon as they do anything remotely

against his brand and his name, then they're the biggest idiots and they're the worst people in the world. So yeah, Donald Trump absolutely 100% would pardon himself because why wouldn't he? That's what history says. Yeah, I want to say last couple of things here for me. What is, I'm just slightly amused that he always, he does this on true social all the time. The thugs, fascist, Marxist that are against me. Everybody. I'm pretty sure they can't be fascist and Marxists. So like we, like if I were to say, like I think Donald Trump is a fascist.

So I'm not criticizing him for hyperbole, although I don't think it's hyperbole at all. When you try to do a coup against America and say, screw elections, I just want to stay in power even though I lost. That's kind of definition of fascism. But anyways, but I wouldn't call Trump a Marxist because it doesn't make any goddamn sense. So I get it if he calls his opponents a Marxist, but fascist doesn't make any sense. But again, logic effects are not relevant for that portion of the political spectrum. I wish it were they were, but they're not, apparently. Nor is history, by the way, because I don't know that he'd be able to define Marxist or fascist, really, like in what they each mean.

By the way, next time Michael goes out to interview Trump fans, maybe we'll ask him. That's a great question. Yeah, what is it? Because they call, no, yeah. They call everyone a Marxist, what's a Marxist? There's a 0% chance there you're gonna get it. No, that's not true. Some of this Trump guys actually, that Michael interviews,

they're like, huh, interesting. Like, okay, so I think you'll get two interesting, good answers and the rest will be a hot mess. Yeah, I think you're right. We're gonna maybe be going to South Carolina in a week or so. So we'll add that to our repertoire. Yeah, and so, and the last thing I was going to mention is, So you guys had a meeting with lawyers about whether you should pardon yourself. I know I didn't have a meeting like that.

I know I'm not president, so it's quite perfectly applied, but Obama didn't have a meeting like that. Why did you guys have a meeting like that? Oh, right, because you knew you broke the law. You totally and utterly knew. Like now he's making it seem like, I can't believe they charged me. I don't know where that came from. Apparently you knew it all the way back then, and you were wondering if you should protect yourself from legal liability. you knew that at a bare minimum, it was possible they were going to charge you for crimes

because you knew you had committed them. Well, during that very same interview with Kristen Welker, Trump was asked about the Mar-a-Lago documents case, that's the Florida case, also a federal case, and whether or not he directed one of his staffers to erase security footage. The president said in responding to that, in the superseding indictment filed as part of a special counsel, Jack Smith's investigation. Prosecutors alleged that Trump's valet, Walt Nauta and maintenance supervisor Carlos DeLivera

asked a third unnamed staffer to delete security video after investigators issued a subpoena ordering that the tapes be turned over. Nata and DeLivera, who have both been charged with obstruction of justice, told the third staff member that the boss had requested that the security video be deleted, the indictment alleged. And Trump, of course, when he was

Answering to Kristen Welker, and this is the video, he said that he did nothing wrong. A new charge suggests you asked a staffer to delete security camera footage so it wouldn't get into the hands of investigators. Did you do that? It's false. But let me tell you what else. Would you testify to that under Oakes? I'm going to testify. I'll testify. You testify to that under Oakes? It's a fake charge by this deranged lunatic prosecutor who lost in the Supreme Court 9 to nothing and he tried to destroy lots of lives. He's a lunatic. So it's a fake charge. But more importantly, the tapes weren't deleted. In other words, there was nothing done to them. And they were my tapes.

I could have fought them. I didn't even have to give them the tapes, I don't think. I think I would have won in court. When they asked for the tapes, I said, sure, they're my tapes. I could have fought them. I didn't even have to give them. Just so you understand, though, we didn't delete anything. Nothing was deleted.

So that's false. The people who testified to- Number one, the statement is false. Much more importantly, when the tapes came, and everybody says this, they weren't deleted. We gave him 100%. So there's a little bit of news tag to this today, not related directly to the documents case, but the Justice Department has now asked federal prosecutors have now asked the judge in the election interference case to limit what Trump is able to say because they think

he is tainting the jury pool by saying things like Jack Smith is a lunatic and a loser, et cetera, etc. So, you know, it may have stemmed from the types of things he was saying to Kristen Welker here. But again, he's saying he's going to testify under oath. Do you believe him, Jay? Yeah, so there's two different issues there. Let's take the testifying under oath first. I love this defense. I know with his own supporters, every defense works. You know, he could say the security footage was deleted, even though the government told me not to delete it. And I know that's illegal, but I did it anyway because Deep State, and they're like, not guilty. Now, having said that, if you notice what he's saying, he said, well, we didn't delete it.

That doesn't mean you didn't try to delete it. And trying to delete it is still a crime. It's like saying, well, I went to rob the bank and me and my guys were all sought off shotguns, but the door was locked, so we turned around. Well, still a bit of an attempted robbery, right? Or I shot at my wife, but I missed, so it's all good. No, no, it's not all good, okay? It's not how it works.

And by the way, why wasn't it deleted? Because A, that tech guy was like, I don't even know how to delete it. Okay, and B, wait, didn't the process, somebody's government official tell us not to delete this? I'm a little worried that we're all going to get in trouble. And Nauta and the other guy, Olivera, were like, yeah, don't worry about it. The big guy says delete it, just delete it, okay? It's going to be fine. And luckily, he didn't even know how to delete.

And now that tech guy has turned on them and said, yeah, of course they told me to delete it. Why the hell would I think to delete it? How would that pop into my head? Right. So come on, guys, Maga, you guys cracked me up, man. You think the tech guy by himself was, because they have evidence that he tried to delete it? You think the tech guy was like, hmm, you know what? I'd like to randomly delete October 20th, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

Right. Come on. If someone was going to do that, they would delete the whole damn thing, right? And say, I deleted everything. I got nobody has any records or anyone who's here. They don't go for the exact thing that they want to see. That's just like when he went for the exact number of votes that he needed, you know? Right. It's like every, he can't help himself.

And he's like literally on, caught on camera or caught on the phone in 4K. however you want to say it. And he says either that's not me or there's nothing wrong with this. But Donald Trump, like, he's always trying to brand himself as the victim. And he successfully does that, at least with his base. And he has for a long time with all the hundreds of millions of dollars that he's raised over time. What is he over 40 million that he spent just on his legal fees and yet somehow still hasn't paid any of his lawyers. But that's kind of how he brands himself. I'm the victim. Everybody's against me. And he's done that. all the way into 91 federal charges.

So I'm just curious to see how this is gonna turn out because I mean, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say, oh, he's going to jail, but 91 federal charges, that's kind of hard to get away from. We've never seen anything like this. So we'll just have to find out. Yeah, now I will say one last thing about the prosecutors asked, if I was a judge, I'd be a little torn on it. You might be surprised by that, but because on the one hand, I get it. I mean, He says these crazy things. And most importantly, I'd be worried about the witnesses. And some witnesses have already come forward telling the court, yeah, he said things about me in public.

And now people are sending me threats and intimidating me, et cetera. That's some vigilante stuff. And the judge should lay down the hammer on that. And that's what they did do in Georgia, what Giuliani did in Georgia and got and was indicted for. Yeah. But when it comes to telling the prosecutor and the judge, that one I'm less clear on. You know, he's running for president. I think he gets to say I didn't do it.

And I think he, and loudly, and I think he gets to say the prosecutor is attacking me for no reason. I mean, that's part of his defense, right? That it's a political prosecution. And the judge is a grown person. She can handle it. So, and I don't think that taints the jury pool that they're all going to, like if they believe Donald Trump, they believe Donald Trump and they're going to say he's not guilty no

matter what, right? They're asking for limited. They're asking for limited restrictions on what can be said. So I think it's the personal stuff that could taint the jury pool. But see, I think that's nonsense. I don't think there's an independent out there or someone who's neutral and goes, oh, Trump said the judge or the prosecutor is a maniac. Oh, I instantly believe him.

Okay, I'm going to go in there and say not guilty. I mean, if you're that guy, you were already MAGA and you were already going to say not guilty. Right? So you do have to let the guy run for office and let him defend himself publicly. So it's a balancing act, balancing act in that regard. Fair show in America. All right, we've got to take a break. I disagree.

I mean, I disagree with the balancing act. By the way, you're also allowed to disagree that it's a fair show in America, because ironically, it only makes us fairer. Right. Okay. All right, we've got to take a break. When we come back, you're going to be shocked to find out that someone else has been doing sexual harassment at Fox News. No, say it ain't so. Well, it is, and we'll tell you who it is.

Jake Michael Jackson. Now I want to call you Snacks in every time. And a number of- It's gonna stick, man. It's gonna stick. Yeah, it's like it or anybody likes it or not. It's right, it's already stuck. No, 100%.

So Gabby Mathis gives it a membership. We appreciate her for Janet Tweety just joined. Hitting the join button below the video, American Hero. And speaking of which, Jenks raging emotions just upgraded to premium. Look at all of you guys who upgrade, you can upgrade through the join button too. button too. It helps tremendously all throughout all of inflation. We never raised it from

$499. Thanks to you guys. All right. Michael. So we go to Fox News where you'll as jank teased before be shocked to know that there was some sexual harassment. Turns out according to an exclusive media I report, a Fox executive who'd been there for over 20 years, John Finley has been ousted from the company after stalking and sexually harassing a woman who worked on projects with Fox Nation. Sadly, this is not the exec's first instance of bad behavior. Sources who spoke to media, I stated that Finley has been a sleazeball for years now.

According to multiple anonymous Fox employees who were worked with Finley, he pursued romantic relationships with subordinates throughout his entire tenure at Fox. Two sources who worked with Finley claimed that he always made it obvious when he was interested in a Fox employee that's like a comedy sketch, because he'd always buy them pearl earrings from Tiffany's. Unbelievable. That's the most fox harassment you could imagine. One of those sources told Mediite, it was our big code like,

oh, she must be getting those same pearl earrings from John. She got promoted with no experience. She's blonde, looks like she came out of a sorority. He buys all the girls the same gifts. It was like he was having an F off. Anonymous source to Mediaite there. Board also states that Finley would offer sleazy quid pro quotes. Not shockingly, two staffers. One former Fox employee said Friday, Finley often made promises of big show promotions to young female staffers telling them he would make them a Fox News star despite little to no power to actually do so. Unfortunately, Finley was able to get away with this inappropriate conduct for years. Thanks to the company's culture that we know already so much about, the Washington Post, which first reported on,

Finley's ouster last weekend, but did not report the claims against him, noted that Finley was investigated for misconduct in 2011, but cleared of any wrongdoing at the time. The network, which conducted the probe internally, cited a lack of evidence. Our HR department was a complete joke back then, a high-level Fox insider told Mediite, another longtime staffer concurred calling the investigation a joke. Well, they're always on the backs of their heels at Fox HR, Jank, and here's another one. Yeah, so look guys, there's a difference between relationships at work, and sometimes that happens, and sexual harassment. And so, for example, at ABC, they fired these two anchors that were married to different people and then got divorced and then they had a relationship.

But neither one reported to one another. I have no idea why they got fired. I'm not even sure that it's legal to fire them. You can't fire people who are having a relationship at work unless they report to one another and are creating an issue, right? And so there's like important rules around it. But I give you that as context because this is not anywhere near that. This is the exact opposite end of the spectrum. It's a toxic cesspool.

It's quid pro quo on top of quid pro quo. You don't need quid pro quo for sexual harassment. But if you have quit for quote, it's definitely sexual harassment. And this guy, the whole building, all those people that they're not, they don't work at MSMEC. They work at Fox News. They went there, presumably at this late date because they, They wanted to work for a right wing news outlets certainly know that it's a right wing news outlet, right? And they go there and they're going, oh my God, every guy in here is trying to have sex with all the people, all the women that work here.

And so when I say every guy, the reason that the fish rocks from the head down is because Roger Ailes was the original executive of Fox News and ran it for about 20 years and then got fired at the very end for sexual harassment because he was about the cause the company, a tremendous amount of money, which he had done in the past. and Bill O'Reilly had done in the past, and apparently this guy was doing it in the past. And so it's because Roger Ailes set that tone. And he, he, everyone in the building knew Roger Ailes was trying to sleep with the women trying to get on air, the women, some of whom were on air, the people who weren't on air, everyone knew it. And when people would complain about anyone else doing it, the HR would immediately side with the harasser.

So that's why Bill O'Reilly did it with impunity. And by the way, I'll give you a contrast, too, in all of these sex scandals at Fox News, which now has been, I don't know if it's in the dozens yet, Sean Hannity's never been mentioned. So good on Sean Hannity that at least, I know this is the lowest bar in American history, right? But then apparently he's the one guy in the building who's not a sexual harasser. But there's no bar there. Like you don't put that bar anywhere. Like don't even mention it.

No, I just give it as because the right wingers think, oh, you guys attack anyone you don't like. No, that's fair, yeah. Yeah, I can't say Sean Hannity, but he didn't do this, right? And so, but this guy apparently did, and everybody in the building knew it. And I'll tell you the thing that turned my stomach the most was the pearl earrings. Because all the guys in the building are looking at the women with pearl earrings. Right. That's just terrible, man.

It's, I can't believe it lasts until 2023. I can believe that it was at Fox News. Yeah, you gave me pearl earrings in 2014. It was a little different, Michael. Okay. Okay. Go ahead, Jackson. Yeah, I mean, exactly.

Culture sets the tone for everything. You know, work environment, political environments, home environments. It's the way we conduct ourselves. So, you know, you pointed that out perfectly. And because all the money that was being made, and it kind of is attached to just kind of the general patriarchal culture, misogynistic culture. So, you know, things were swept under the rug as long as they could be.

I'm curious to see what Fox News's future was. news's future will be, you know, just given the general age bracket of their heaviest audience, you know, are millennials and Gen Z conservative is going to continue to watch them? I don't know if they care about things like that. But it's always crazy to see stuff like this because when men do things in this manner, it's clearly just a power trip, you know, because you could just date women in a normal way. You could just, you know, find women outside of work. And you're in New York city. There's so many women out here all over the world. We live in modern times. We live in the digital age. So you could like, you know, date women elsewhere, but it, you know, makes you feel

powerful, makes you feel like other people are beneath you and gives you a kick. So that's all what it is about, clearly. But it's good that he got busted, you know. And to answer Jackson's question, when I'm out there with the Trump people, many of them say they don't watch Fox News at all. And it's not just young ones. It's people who don't think they're conservative enough. And they watch newsmax and other play and other outlets now because of that. This goes further. We now know what Finley's done. And the question, of course, is why did they wait till 2023 to do something about it

and alleged in the report? And according to that report, it's the fact that he did, he was stalking. He was harassing and stalking a woman who was not a Fox employee, but worked on Fox Nation, which I guess is one of their shows, worked on some of their projects, a source familiar with the woman's claims alleged that Finley stalked her relentlessly and would not stop texting her. The woman kept rebuffing him, the source said, but he pursued a relentless pattern of sexual harassment and quid pro quo. I can get you this job if you, blank, incredible opportunities if she went into New York and didn't see him, temper tantrums.

The report states the anonymous woman eventually brought her claims of harassment to Fox, at which point the network hired an outside law firm. They fired Finley. They settled apparently with the woman, but it does appear that he was not fired for sexual harassment and other sorts with knowledge of the findings of the investigation said he was not fired for sexual harassment but for violating Fox's standards of business conduct. I mean, that's not just legalese. Among the standards that were breached included conflict of interest in proper use of his position to benefit someone over whom he had influence and business ethics, the source said. That's like textbook definition of sexual harassment. And euphemism. I mean, it's just

it's unbelievable. Fox News media and John Finley have parted ways after an independent investigation concluded that he had violated certain standards of business conduct Fox News said themselves in a statement. Yeah. Last couple of quick things here. Fox Nation, of course, is their web entity. Right. And it doesn't matter if the person's an employer or a contractor, you still have a responsibility towards them when they're in the building. And especially when you're saying, hey, I can hire you if you sleep with me and I won't hire you if you don't sleep with me. Again, textbook sexual harassment. If you're going to work at these places and you're a woman, just be careful, be careful.

I mean, and every time folks are surprised, like at right-wing outlets, Stephen Crowder's employees are surprised, the Project Veritas people were surprised, Fox News people are surprised. What they're saying on air isn't just theater, a lot of them believe it. So you go into a nest of vipers with people who say that women aren't worth much. And then you're surprised to find out they think that women aren't worth much. And so, yeah, I mean, rethink your views a little bit. And of course, if you remember, the last Fox News guy that left was Tucker Carlson. And there were some allegations against him and how he might have cost them some money.

I don't know that they were, you know, we didn't find out all the details of those allegations. But Tucker did say when he was talking to Trump, you know, scared women run Fox News these days. Yeah. Like it almost like a sneering. I remember the good old days when we could sexually harass and do anything we wanted to the women at Fox News. My child tax credit cut child poverty in half. I provided a breathing of the 65 million children and their families. We extended the child tax cut that reduced child poverty in America by over 40% in the first year.

Now what's the ugly truth? The child poverty rate is now double what? it was in 2021. That's up 7.2%. So the game of blaming Joe Biden and his administration for the rise in child poverty is now hit right wing media. And that blame game comes after a new report from the Census Bureau was released on September 12th on childhood poverty. According to the Census Bureau's latest report on poverty in the United States, the supplemental poverty rate among children more than doubled between 2021 and 2022, jumping from 5.2 percent to 12. 12.4% in just one single year. This represents an increase in over 5 million children experiencing poverty in 2022.

For a total of about 9 million children also increased for all ages by 4.6 percentage points to 12.4% in 2020. This marks the first increase in the supplemental poverty rates since 2010, marks the largest one year rise in poverty rates on record, according to the Census Bureau. And this was tweeted by Sean Spice. You recall work for President Trump, also child poverty more than doubled from 5.2 to 12.4 in just one year, the third year in a row talking about it. And then to right wing media now, we're not going to go into all that because we're in a time crunch. But this is terrible because we saw childhood poverty drop to historic level after the child tax credit was passed and remember that for a moment.

because a year after anti-poverty programs were established or expanded in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the child tax credit, which increased by 1,000 to 1,600 per child for families of all incomes, the Census Bureau reported that childhood poverty had dropped 46% from 2020 to a historic low of just above 5%. Obviously, you look at that and then what do you do? You blame Biden, right? But he's not the one to blame for this. The child tax credit was a really good thing for the country. It did expire, but it was because Republicans refused to vote with most Democrats on its enhancement into the federal spending bill. And that enhancement briefly included, the American Rescue Plan made three significant changes to the tax credit for 2021, increasing the maximum credit to 3,600 for children under age six and 3,000 for those ages 6 through 17.

Heads of households earning up to 112 a year and married couples making up to 150 were eligible for the full amount. It made the credit fully refundable so the lowest income families could also qualify and it sent half the credit to families in monthly installments of up to 300 from July through December last year to help them cover expenses. GOP lawmakers didn't want to make this credit fully refundable because they thought it would discourage parents from working. It's the whole don't give welfare because those people just want the money. They don't want to work attack. They're taking it to now the right-wing media who vilified the childhood tax credit in 2021. Here it is. This is woke economics, you know, big government, more spending.

You know, you said it. Look, child care, it's refundable tax credits. Just giving people more cash without any work requirements, without any employment incentives. 35 million families with nearly 60 million kids for a total price tag, $15 billion, depending on my children to have, determines how much money you are getting right now in direct deposit. Some would call it welfare, as you heard from Sherrod Brown. He thinks it's progress. Look at those child welfare payments, the family payments.

You think it's going to be easy to take them back $300 for each child. Once these entitlements are established, it's incredibly hard to get them back, They're things that people like. And that's why this is so destructive. Well, today the Biden White House unveiled championed their expanded child tax credit payments, as they continue every day to inch closer to socialism. Now, I've previously been a supporter of modest child tax credits, especially for needy kids. But this is something entirely different.

This massive expansion is a step towards universal basic income. Let's call this UBI, Universal Basic Income. Let's call this UBI universal baby income. That's clever, although right wing is putting none of the blame on themselves. You know, Bill O'Reilly even going as far as saying that conservatives cutting tax credits, he blamed poverty on having babies out of wedlock with no assets and people becoming a substance abuser. That's why there's poverty. That was his message of the day.

So, Jenk, I mean, it's not a surprise, but it's really out of bounds. Yeah, so child tax credit, as we just showed you, overwhelming evidence to that effect, incredibly successful, brings down child poverty, great job. And by the way, enormously popular, which even the conservatives admitted in those clips. I think Steve Hilton said, people like it and then it's hard to take away. I think that's how democracy is supposed to work. And then they turn right around. And they're like, because it had a one year expiration date, right?

And it's because the Republicans demanded it. And they go, can you believe the child poverty is going back up? So look, this goes to my usual comments on this. Number one is Democrats, why don't you repurpose it? Why don't you fight for it? It's incredibly popular and it was incredibly successful. All right, but the Republicans, I don't, I can't. I guess because people don't pay attention to the news, right?

But if you pay attention to the news, how could you not see that all Republicans are liars? They just lie all the time, mercilessly. I mean, and I don't mean the individuals, because like the citizens, they got things to do, right? They got jobs, et cetera, and not their job to track it, and they don't have any incentive to lie. They're the ones being lied to. I'm talking about the Republican politicians and their Republican media. They're like, oh, trial tax credit, terrible socialist, woke tax, blah, blah, blah, right? Why doesn't Biden help the children?

Come on, you guys are disgusting. I vomit your lies. I can't stand your lies. They're just the most poisonous toxic people I've ever seen. It's just, it disgusts me every time. But finally, it's Democrats. Wakey, wakey, call their goddamn bluff. If I was Biden, I'd go do a press conference, I'd play their clips, and then go,

good news for Fox News. I'm reintroducing the child tax credit. you're all on board. I assume you're on board. Oh, you're not? Okay, these are the sons of bitches that don't let you get that child tax credit that you loved so much America. I think this is elementary politics. In Washington, everybody thinks that's outrageous and scandalous and no one should ever do it. I don't understand them. I don't. I don't understand Democrats. I don't understand why they think it's so normal to be so weak. Okay, Jackson, last word. And then perhaps if, you know, the Democrats would fight for things like a $15 minimum wage and other stuff like that,

you know, general wage increases. If unions would have been strengthened earlier than what Biden's administration did with the National Labor Relations Board, you know, then this type of temporary order, which is the child tax credit, wouldn't be such a big deal, such that as soon as it gets taken away, now we got all these extra kids in poverty. You know, if people were getting paid well, if health care wasn't so expensive, if education wasn't so unaffordable, if there wasn't over a trillion dollars in credit card debt and so on and so forth, then this child tax credit wouldn't be as important as it is.

So I think this is a wake up call for everybody. I'll end on this. Jackson said on another story earlier in the show, look, the parties are not the same. So as frustrated as they get with the Democrats were now pushing harder, who got you the child tax credit that actually brought down child poverty? They did it for only one year, they should have done it for more, but who did it? It was the Democrat. And who fought against it? It was the Republicans. Every Republican voted against it.

Every Republican would vote against it today. Every Republican always votes against the American people on issue after issue after issue. So you get frustrated with the Democrats, I'm right there with you, brother. But the alternative in this country right now is a disaster. And it's no alternative at all. And what president came out today and supported the workers pretty clearly, at least very clearly. And so it goes. imperfect, but there is a record of who, and there is a big difference as Jackson.

And Jank have outlined today. And happy New Year to all who celebrate. Oh, yeah, thank you for saying that. Any guys, make sure you're checking out Jackson on Rebel headquarters and his own show, Politics and Paper. And Michael, of course, you see on the main channel when we do those fun Trump videos and Trump rally videos, which he'll be going to do one soon as well. All right, when we come back, we've got more news for you guys, including, unfortunately, a pretty negative story about Biden as well. We'll be back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks.

Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jank Huger, and I'll see you soon.