The Young Turks - Pervert Trump EXPOSED - July 21, 2025

Episode Date: July 22, 2025

Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month Shopify trial and start selling today at ⁠shopify.com/tyt Trump's creepiest moments REVEALED. Jake Tapper confronts Sen. Amy Klobuchar over the Biden administration’s inaction on Epstein files. Tulsi Gabbard accuses Obama-era officials of fabricating Russia interference intel. Hosts: Sharon Reed, Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on⁠ YOUTUBE⁠ ☞ ⁠ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks⁠ FOLLOW US ON: ⁠FACEBOOK⁠  ☞  ⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks⁠ ⁠TWITTER⁠  ☞      ⁠ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks⁠ ⁠INSTAGRAM⁠  ☞ ⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks⁠ ⁠TIKTOK⁠  ☞ ⁠         https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks⁠ 👕⁠MERCH⁠  ☞⁠      https:/www.shoptyt.com⁠ 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. So the online news show. Cenk Uyghur, Sharon Reed with you guys, Sharon's on Rebel HQ. Check that out on YouTube. All right, we to Young Turks, the online news show. Cenk Uygur, Sharon Reed with you guys. Sharon's on Rebel HQ, check that out on YouTube. All right, we got a big show ahead for you guys.

Tons of updates on Epstein. A lot of people telling you, don't talk about Epstein, don't talk about Epstein. And then Trump throws a bag of squirrels at it. So we're going to talk about sports teams, names.

Tulsi Gabbard is going to investigate Obama for treason, is she? Is she? Okay, so we're going to talk about all of that and fight off the squirrels one at a time for you guys.

So fun show and in the second hour, Bangalore and I will discuss Syria, Turkey, and Israel. So buckle up, race for impact. Okay, Sharon, what do you got first? All right, I'm going to stay tuned for you and Ben, but first up, Hervey Trump, Cenk?

What is the best thing about being Donald Trump right now? Well, I'm married, okay? And I'm very happy to have a great wife, but if I weren't married, I'd be able to get all of the girls I want, except for possibly Robin. Do you think you could now be banging 24 year olds?

Absolutely. I have no trouble. Would you do it? I have no problem. Yeah, do you have an age limit or would you? No, no, I have no age. I mean, I have an age limit. I don't want to be like the- The upper bracket, yeah.

The kind of person solely with 12 year olds. Thanks for clarifying, I guess. Last week, Wall Street Journal released an explosive report on President Donald Trump and one Jeffrey Epstein. Since then, a number of very creepy clips have resurfaced, like the one you just saw with Howard Stern. It was recorded in 2006. And we do have more where that came from, but first, Cenk, any of the stories really surprise you at all?

I mean, Trump's been at this for years. Yeah, so Trump's a well-known pervert and we've covered him now unfortunately for over a decade on this. And so some of the clips, some of you will go, yeah,

remember when he did that? But they're very disturbing nonetheless, as you'll see, yeah, remember when he did that? And it's, but they're very disturbing nonetheless, as you'll see in a minute. In this particular case, look guys, I have mixed reaction to this. On the one hand, saying, they're joking, they're clearly joking around.

And I think taking the jokes that people made decades ago overly seriously is not necessarily the right way to go. They're talking about a specific scandal about Tim Foley that's a congressman at the time. And he said not as young as

the 12 year olds, etc. When Robin, by the way, was clarifying, she meant the upper age limit. But he immediately thought of the lower age limit and gave the number of definitely not 12.

So as I give you the context of joking, blah, blah, blah, foley, nevertheless, the idea that the number 12 would pop into your head is disturbing, right? That shouldn't be anywhere near the number that pops into your head.

And there's a lot of those, if you add them all up, it begins to draw a picture for you. At the same time, I know what the MAGA guys say and they as upset they are as they are about Epstein files not being

released, etc. They're used to making 1000 excuses for Trump. So they'll find a way to say, well, that's hearsay and he's over there is joking and that one is kind of but not really, etc. And to me, Sharon, what's over there is joking and that one is kind of but not really, etc.

And to me, Sharon, what's most important is, yes, but whether Trump is on the list or not, I really don't know whether Trump was great friends with Epstein, knew that he liked girls on the younger side as Trump said. That we know with absolute

certainty, right? So then what conclusion do you draw from that? That's very difficult because I think that there's a couple of possible conclusions. But let's give you more of the stuff from the past. difficult but not stopping people. 1992, let's go there, Entertainment Tonight filmed Trump interacting with a group of young girls. When Trump asked, you're going up the escalator, a child's voice could be heard saying yes.

Trump then responded with, I'm going to be dating her in 10 years, can you believe it? Media fight with that one. 1991, Trump judged the look of the year modeling competition, which featured models as young as 14. Competition was run by John

Casablanca, Casablanca, some of the men in his orbit used the contest to engage in sexual relationships with vulnerable young models. Some of these allegations amount to sexual harassment, abuse, exploitation of teenage girls. Others, they're more accurately

described as rape. We'll tell you what we mean. No such allegations have been leveled against Trump. Important to say that, but his close involvement in the contest does raise questions for the president.

Did he know that Casablanca's and others were sleeping with contestants? Why would a man in his 40s whose main business was real estate development want to host a beauty contest for teenage girls? and others were sleeping with contestants. Why would a man in his 40s whose main business was real estate development want to host a beauty contest for teenage girls,

The Guardian? Over the weekend, New York Times reported on a troubling incident from 1992. When Trump hosted a party at Mar-a-Lago for young women in a so called calendar girl competition, Efsing was the only other guest,

that's according to George Corneille, a Florida based businessman who arranged the event. Honoree's then girlfriend and business partner Jill Hearth, later accused Trump of sexual misconduct on the night of the party. In a lawsuit, Hearth said Trump took

her into a bedroom and forcibly kissed and fondled her and restrained her from leaving. She also said that a 22 year old contestant told her that Trump later that night crawled into her bed uninvited. Again, the New York Times with this reporting. Also worth noting that Virginia Guffrey was working at Mar-a-Lago when Virginia Guffrey was working at Mar-a-Lago when Ghislaine Maxwell first approached her.

Guffrey stated that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell trafficked her to Prince Andrew and other powerful men. She committed suicide earlier this year. Maria Farmer was another woman who states she was abused by Epstein and

Maxwell. She had an encounter with Donald Trump in 1995. Those like this, late one night Epstein unexpectedly called her to his offices in a luxury building in Manhattan and she arrived in running shorts. Trump then arrived wearing a business suit, started to hover over her, she said. She told the authorities. Farmer said she recall feeling scared as Trump stared at her bare

legs and Epstein entered the room and she recalled him saying to Trump quote, no, no, she's not here for you. The two men left the room, Farmer said she could hear Trump commenting that he thought Farmer was 16.

1993, Epstein was dating a woman named Stacey Williams. That year Epstein was dating a woman named Stacey Williams. That year Epstein and Williams visited Trump Tower to say hello to Trump. Here's what Williams says happened next.

As Trump and Epstein converse, Trump pulled Williams toward him, touched her breast, waist and buttocks, she said. It was like an octopus, she said. I was utterly confused and frozen. But this is a lot of stories, Cenk, over a period of decades. Different women who we have no reason to believe they all knew each other and concocted these stories. Pattern

and practice, including one lawsuit that's already, E.G. Carroll, I believe it is, reached conclusion where she said some of these same things about instant groping, force kissing, the whole thing. So what do we make of this? What place does this hold in the larger context of what's being

discussed right now in the media and loggers and everywhere? Yeah, so there's layers to this, right? So is Donald Trump a pervert? Yes, obviously. So I can give you a number of examples, and one of the ones is

the teen contest that we've been talking about the pageant. He bragged about how he could just go into the locker room anytime because he owned the pageant and he might catch them naked. They were as young as 14. That's super weird.

So I guess you could say maybe he was trying to ogle the 18 and 19 year olds and not the 14 and 15 year olds. That's a tough thing to hang your hat on. And so look, you can say it's in dispute,

that one's not in dispute, okay? I know for everything related to Trump, everyone will dispute every part of it. We're trying to be super fair here and tell you what's real and not real, okay? So you've got that,

you've got sluice of other, come on guys, you're going to just debate this? And you saw the video that entertainment tonight brought back, we covered that when it happened. I mean, he's looking at a girl who's tiny and saying can't wait

to date her when she's 10. How does that cross, I'm sorry, not when she's 10, 10 years later. How does that even cross his mind when looking at this tiny girl? It's uncomfortable. Does he like girls that are on

the younger side? Well, okay, depends on what you mean by younger, but younger when he's in his 50s, 60s, 70s, and he's talking about a 24 year old girl, definitely. The 22 year old girl says he crawled in bed with her and

touched her. He's got the teen pageant thing, he's got the 16 year old with the nice legs and all that stuff, or what he's somebody he thought was 16. So when you put that together, does he like girls that are younger?

Well, yes, of course, he said it, right? Girls that are 30, 40 years younger, and you could say if they're 24, man, that's no big deal, I get it, right? Then the question becomes, well, whether you agree with that or not,

I get it, right? Then the question becomes, how young? Well, that's a pretty important question, but has he sexually assaulted women before? Well, I mean, you could say, number one, we have, Pretty important question. But has he sexually assaulted women before? Well, I mean, you could say,

number one, we have literal evidence from a trial. The jury in the E.G. Carroll case found him to be at fault. Yeah, he did it. He's the one who sexually assaulted her according to the jury's conclusions.

And that's why he owed her money, etc. So now look again, they'll find excuses. No, it's in New York, it's this, it's that, I don't agree with it. How do you disagree with Trump on tape, and the Access Hollywood

tape saying, yeah, when you're famous, you just grab them by the genitalia, and they let you do it. It's overwhelming, guys. I mean, if you're pretending that Donald Trump isn't a pervert, doesn't grab women without their

permission, and doesn't like them, generally speaking, young, you couldn't die on that hill. But the rest of us think you sound a little crazy, right? So, okay, now that doesn't mean that he did the same thing. It doesn't mean he did anything

illegal. So we don't know if he slept with someone under the age of 18. We just don't know that, right? On the other hand, if you say you definitely know that, well, that's just not true. We definitely don't know that,

right? So, okay, now some people can look at that and go, I've heard enough. I can't stand this guy. And so is it believable that he'd be in the Epstein files? Well, at a minimum, it's certainly believable, right?

I mean, given that they were friends for two decades, Trump said he was a terrific friend. Epstein said Trump was his best friend for a while, okay? So it's certainly believable. Do we know definitively that he's in the files?

No, we don't, okay? And why don't we know? Right, because Trump won't release them. Well, that's pretty convenient. I mean, he's the president, he could release it today. And if you're not in the files,

by the way, I'd be pretty antsy to release them. If everybody was talking about how I'm in the files, and I'm the president, I'm really seeing them, give me two days to redact and they're out the door, right?

And he had a whole first term to release them and chose not to. So all that adds up to a pretty bad story, but nothing that we can say definitively broke the law, right? Now, last thing I want to share in for me is, look, I think the intelligence agencies are in a

panic to divert attention from themselves. And so there's a lot of leaks happening right now. And so now we're pointing to circumstantial evidence as we just showed you in Donald Trump's past. So is it conceivable that Trump's

on the list and did something with the, of course. Is it also conceivable that he was great friends with Epstein, likes him young, but didn't break the law and they don't have him on tape or any other evidence?

And it's the intelligence agencies just kind of leaking this stuff one by one, so that people get distracted towards Trump and forget about the intelligence agencies. That's not impossible either. So, I'm at, I don't know,

what do you think? I tend to agree with you, just because there's a lot of smoke there and just a way that the men in my orbit don't say things like that, the men in my orbit don't sit on the couch next to Joy Behar on the view with their daughter next

to them and make comments about if she wasn't my daughter. And they certainly don't sexualize a ten year old. I mean, it's just the men I know don't do that. So I don't really have that reference point other than what's

in the news over course of time. So I tend to agree with you, but nobody knows for sure unless perhaps you were unfortunately a victim, okay? I've not heard that related to Epstein and Trump. So we just don't know.

I think it's until we know we know. I'll leave the last word to you, but this next story I will say, Jen, might have been written for you, I don't know. Yeah, all right, so before we get there, I am curious about the poll in the live chat.

Shows live Monday through Friday at 6 o'clock, of course, I am curious about the poll in the live chat shows live Monday through Friday at 6 o'clock, of course, and be part of the show. Will we ever find out if Trump was on Epstein's client list? And that's interesting, 46% saying that we will, really. 54% saying no, I think I'd go no,

but I'm not sure either. And so that's interesting. And to your point, Sharon, about men in your orbit, I'm a guy. I played football, I played rugby, I've been around a lot of guys and a lot of locker room talk and a lot of really

racist stuff, right? So it's not like, I'm shy about it. I've never heard it. Golly gee, right? So it's not like, I'm shy about it, I've never heard it. Golly gee, right? So I've heard guys joking about women a billion times, right? Have I heard them talking about, yeah, that 12 year old?

No, never, literally never. And I mean, you can give a time reference, like back in the 1980s, was it different? No, it wasn't different. Have I ever heard people joking about sleeping with their own daughter?

No, never. And I mean, maybe others do. Maybe others joke around about 13, 14 year old girls and sleeping with their daughter, but I've never heard it and I've heard a lot. So, I mean, it appeared to be

at a minimum piece in a pod, I've seen in Trump, but we don't know how young it goes for So I mean, it appeared to be at a minimum peas in a pod, Epstein and Trump. But we don't know how young it goes for Trump, maybe just goes to 18 and not 17. Again, if that's the thing you're hanging your hat on, not a winning strategy in my opinion.

Although, last thing, I'm going to just macro, there's the Epstein files, who actually did it? Will we ever prosecute anyone? Will it ever come out? The second issue is about Trump. And whether Donald Trump is a good

moral leader for the country, that jury came in a long time ago, right? So if you're still holding on to him being moral and decent and wonderful, okay, I mean, you're the last of the Mohicans.

You guys can get together with the guys who still think Biden is young and have a grand old time. decent and wonderful. Okay, I mean, you're the last of the Mohicans. You guys can get together with the guys who still think Biden is young and have a grand old time. But the rest of us, that jury has definitely come in, right? The legal or illegal that hasn't come in.

Yeah, I also think that look, people are different and just because someone colors outside the lines doesn't necessarily mean that, they're not normal. But Trump's not normal and People are different and just because someone colors outside the lines doesn't necessarily mean that they're not normal. But Trump's not normal and he's socially inappropriate at best,

okay, with the things he says. Because I think most people don't have a reference point for it. I once looked, this was recently, at my daughter. She has these beautiful little feet she always has since she was a baby. I said it in front of one of our

long standing family friends who has been in politics and he's heard it all. And he said, I'm out of this conversation, okay? I don't want anything that I was saying my daughter's beautiful feet and want to know part of it, okay?

That's not Donald Trump, okay? World of his own. He might be like, hey, where can I look at him? Yeah. That's the type of thing Trump would do, Jesus man. Anyways. World of his own. He might be like, hey, can I look at him? Yeah. That's the type of thing Trump would do, Jesus, man.

Anyways. It's something else. No Frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC optimum points on your first five orders. Shop now at nofrills.ca. This could have been written for you, others, perhaps, Cenk, nothing to see here, we're calling it, and here's what we mean. Here come the lectures. Semaphore's Ben Smith is chastising those who keep over

analyzing the Epstein case. So you may be looking at our run down here. Smith said the Epstein obsession, as he calls it, has turned into QAnon for people who went to college, that's a direct quote. And here's the story of Ben Smith Smith said the Epstein obsession, as he calls it, has turned into QAnon for people who went to college, that's a direct quote.

And here's his point that while Epstein's crimes were horrific and real, the conspiratorial narrative around him, a secret blackmail network targeting global elites, he says it's a dead end. Stop with that already. And we'll go deeper into his

analysis, because here's the part that jumps out the most to me anyway. If you spend an hour, you learn that there's just no evidence to support the core suggestion. That I've seen who did horribly abusive underage, who did horribly

abuse underage girls. Also ran a child sex and blackmail ring that ensnared powerful men on behalf naturally of Mossad. 20 years of investigations, the decade of aggressive journalism has turned up zero videos, no client list.

Now Smith goes on to argue that this obsession as he puts it again, it's distracting from actual political strategy and it's not even landing with voters. And we'll have more on recent polling about that coming up. But your initial thoughts on what

Ben Smith has to say about this obsession, Mossad theorizing about it. Yeah, I mean, the critical word in that whole thing was Mossad. So Ben Smith doesn't want to talk about Mossad, mainstream media doesn't want to talk about Mossad.

All the people we're about to show you don't want to talk about Mossad. So nothing to see here, nothing to see, come on. Ben's an otherwise pretty good journalist, as much as you can be in mainstream media.

So for him to say, I mean, there's no evidence. So if you look into to say, I mean, there's no evidence. So if you look into it, you'll see that there's no evidence. Yeah, because the government didn't release it. That's what the whole controversy is about.

You're going to just glide past that? Nah, Ben's a smart guy. Like that didn't occur to you? We don't have the evidence because the government won't tell us? Okay, so is Ben saying there's nothing to see here that there was

no other person who slept with the hundreds and now some people are saying maybe 1,000 underage girls, just Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. But otherwise there's no evidence that a single other person, why did they pay out nearly half

a billion dollars in payments and lawsuits? The banks did because they were covering it up, Prince Andrew paid a ton of money, etc. So even Prince Andrew didn't do it, nobody did it, it was just Epstein.

Now, if you're a real journalist, you can't believe that. And so for him to pretend like that the essential controversy is whether the government will release any of that evidence or not, just for him to say, I'll take the government's word.

Well, they didn't release it, so there must be none. Well, if that's his standard for journalism, then I take back that he's a relatively good journalist, because that's miserable level of journalism. And then he says, well,

it's been thoroughly investigated, but a great journalist, has it? There's a great piece that broke the story from a reporter that he quotes in Miami Herald, etc., and a couple of others that did a pretty good job. And I love that they did real

journalism. Were the other publications all over Epstein? I mean, I remember covering it, because we're ancient, back in 2006 when he got arrested, right? And I don't remember other media organizations being like,

who's on the list? What's going on? Why did he get a light sentence? Nothing. And maybe Ben Smith is seeing unbelievable record breaking journalism from NBC and CBS and CNN and New York Times and

Washington Post that I missed pre 2019. So I'm happy to see the dozens of articles where they just dug in and it wouldn't take no for ever answer from the government. Here, Ben Smith is literally saying yes, we should all take no for

answer from the government. Hey, can we have any evidence related to Epstein? No, good, good enough, yes, we should all take no for an answer from the government. Hey, can we have any evidence related to abscene? No, good, good enough, perfect, no evidence, look away everybody. And so why massage? So that's one of the theories out there, we don't know because we

don't have access to the evidence, right? But is it a legitimate theory that perhaps if there were people who participated in the rape of those underage girls, I mean, what do they think, ghosted it? The girls did it to themselves?

I mean, come on, come on. It's an absurd, absurd. They have the conspiracy theory that the girls raped themselves. Okay, if you want to be a lunatic about it, sure, and destroy any credibility you have in real journalism, not mainstream media journalism where you're like,

I checked with the government and the government says I should be their stenographer, I have nothing to look here. Okay, yeah, you want to do that kind of crap journalism that mainstream media does? Go ahead, you can do that your

entire career, right? And you'll get nothing but, bravo, bravo, right? But if you're actual journalist and you want to dive into the story and figure out, you don't go well, the government didn't give me any evidence. So okay, so in this massive, what appears to be a conspiracy to cover up the hundreds of girls who were raped. Okay, so nobody did it.

No one's going to get prosecuted. When you look at that and the government under both Democratic and Republican administrations are so intent on covering it up. when you look at that and the government under both Democratic and Republican administrations are so intent on covering it up. And you don't wonder why and you don't wonder if there might be an intelligence that you say, first of all, CIA,

that would be the first guess, right? If you're a journalist, are you saying there's no way the CIA would do that? They are way too moral. We shouldn't even ask. Let's move on already.

Come on, come on. You're making it obvious. You're making it super obvious. And then when you throw in, definitely not Musad, definitely not Musad. Okay, I got it, Ben. I got it.

It's crystal clear. And if it was just Ben Smith doing it, again, not only is he not the worst of them, he's generally a little bit better, right? So I'd be like, okay, whatever, it's not the end of the world. But now, as we're about to show you

Mark Levin, and last week we showed you Ben Shapiro, and a whole host of other people that are very, very pro-Israel, they don't like to see her, nothing to see at all. We should move on right away, right away.

Guys, I'm not saying it, you're saying what's the panic about? If you said, hey, I think the government of Norway might be involved, I'd be like, that's curious, but I don't mind looking into it, what's the big deal,

right? The government of Bolivia might be involved, I didn't see that coming. By the way, some people say maybe MI6 or Saudi Arabia, that seems less likely, but I don't know, Prince Andrew was involved, so

it's not impossible, right? What is wrong with asking? Why do we all have to move on instantly? When you throw in, definitely not Mossad, and every supporter is intent on saying that, then you guys are doing

something super weird that is drawing the attention of everyone else going, why are they in a weirdo cold sweat panic over this? It's like when you accuse someone of racism, or not someone of racism, when you talk about like, the old Confederate generals were

obviously racist. Some of them lynched black people, hundreds of black people, right? And some guy jumps up and goes, I'm not racist. Well, brother, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about a Confederate

general that died hundreds of years ago or a hundred years ago, right? So you're kind of giving yourself away. So I'm really disappointed in Ben Smith in this total nonsense article where he's jumping up and down going, move away,

it's not most hard. Okay, brother, you do you. All right, who else is doing the same thing, Sharon? Well, and let me just say it felt like, and I'm not in his head, Ben Smith, but it felt like Mossad was his real, that was the real

point of this thing. He kind of just put some flowery stuff around it, if you want to call it that. And the other part of it is, but when the Catholic priest sex scandal happened, reporters dug and dug, there were government entities who slow walked it or covered up a little bit, didn't wanna go there, but they got to the truth. This just seems different,

particularly that he's relying on the same reporters who didn't tell us before the election that it was like weekend at Bernie's at the White House, okay? These are the same reporters that weren't able to uncover anything. But anyway, yesterday Mark Levin told House Speaker Mike Johnson that he wants Republicans to stop talking about the Epstein file saga. Here's the clip. We have a lot to run on and you have a lot to run against given the other party. But I will tell you this, we better be united, we better be strong, we better be focused, we better be articulate. We can't waste our time on Epstein and other stuff that are going on here that some people want us to focus on.

I'm about had it with all that stuff. Mass pedophilia, okay, we don't have time for this, okay? There's other important matters. Meanwhile, over on CNN, Jake Tapper confronted Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar about the Epstein files. He wanted to know why she is so

gung ho about releasing the files now when the Democrats could have taken action during the Biden administration. Here's how that went down. After the Miami Herald story broke in 2018, you said there was something not right in the Epstein

case, but it's true that the president says there, Democrats didn't really seem to do anything about the Epstein files throughout the four years of the Biden administration. I mean, should you have, you sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee,

Senator Marsha Blackburn for years has been trying to get flight records and other information about Epstein released and she seems to have been the only one on that committee trying to do so. So the president blaming Democrats for this disaster, Jake, is like that CEO that got caught on camera blaming Coldplay, okay? This is his making. He was president when

Epstein got indicted for these charges and went to prison. He was president when Epstein committed suicide. And then there was another case as you know that continued during the Biden administration, but he was president back then. Then there's Harry Enton, CNN. He argued last week that the ongoing Epstein-Files debate is not doing any political damage to Donald Trump. Let's show you that one. All these complaints online going

after Trump and the Epstein-Files, you might think his approval ratings were going down, Republicans. If anything, they're going up. Republicans who approve of Trump, look at our CNN poll, the prior one 86%,

the one out this week, 88% were Republicans. How of Trump, look at our CNN poll, the prior one 86%, the one out this week 88% were Republicans. How about Quinnipiac, the prior poll, 87% approval for Republicans, this week out 90% were Republicans. If anything, Donald Trump's approval rating has gone up since this whole Epstein saga started. He is at the apex or close there too, in terms of his popularity with Republican voters, Epstein files, complaints or not. You just proved that not everything

online is real. Yes, in real life. Who knew? Who knew? Amazing. Twitter and X are not reality. Is there any reason that you can find that this hasn't taken hold

and hurt him? Yeah, I mean on X all you hear about is the Epstein files, but how about out in the real public, Republicans who said the top issue was Epstein case? The answer is one, one and not 1%. One respondent. So, Cenk, the quote unquote mainstream media has always moved as a pack. And I wonder what you think about whether they seem to be

collectively trying to convince people to move on. We're moving on now, and what you make of that poll. So reactions and Amy Klobuchar's analysis about how this is just like the Coldplay incident, it's nothing to see here.

We're going after it as we should. So Jake Tapper, really good question. We'll come back to that one. So at least one guy doing a decent job out there. The CNN segment was embarrassing. Harry Enton does a lot of good

segments with interesting polling, calling out both sides. I appreciate the honesty on that. This one was not one of them. So he takes out a poll that was out for, I mean, one or two days since the story broke and says it's definitive.

Really, you're too good a pollster to say that. Now you won't get the real numbers in terms of people's reactions until this week. So that was from last week. Yeah, story broke three hours ago, I don't think you see here,

the polling is great. And then they literally like, now everybody remember, ignore everything online. Twitter isn't real, I don't think you see here, the polling is great. And then they literally like, now everybody remember, ignore everything online. Twitter isn't real, X isn't real, no social media is real, nothing, nothing, nothing. And then the second piece of, see,

these things are obvious if you don't politics and polling. So that's why the fact that they're doing this obfuscation makes me wonder. So then they say, well, they asked respondents and no, only one respondent said that

EFCE was the top issue. Yeah, a lot of people will say inflation is the top issue, immigration is the top issue. Those are things that monumentally affect your life, right? Maybe tariffs might be because they're causing inflation.

So you don't need EFCE to be the number one issue for people to care about it. So maybe came in number two or number three for a lot of people and that would be really telling. But we didn't get that information. We only got,

it's not the number one issue. It's not the number one issue. So everything that everyone is saying is totally not true. Move away. So that's what I'm saying, guys. If it was like one or two guys, like Ben Shapiro does it yesterday,

I get it, not yesterday, last week, right? And maybe one segment on cable, okay, fine. But almost all of mainstream media is moving in unison, and guys, there's no conspiracy. But my God, are they in a tiny

little bubble? They're the kings of group thing, they're like, everybody agrees, right? Time to move on, time to move on, time to move on, time to move on. They all say the same thing at the same time, these great

journalists who are such independent thinkers. So that was an embarrassing segment. Jake Tamber, thank you independent thinkers. So that was an embarrassing segment. Jake Tamber, thank you, good question. Biden was in office for four years,

how come you guys didn't release it? Klobuchar, come on, get out of here, Coldplay, right? So wait, no, in that analogy, if that were true, Coldplay had their affair the week before, and then they're hypocritically pointing out

the affair of the CEO. So that analogy doesn't even make any sense. She's not even trying to make sense. She's like, I got a good distraction. I said Coldplay, I'm so cool. No, you're not.

Okay, no, you're not. So here's the reality for people who do actual journalism. Trump had four years to release the files the first time around. He didn't because he's never going to release them. He's super worried about them He didn't because he's never going to release them. He's super worried about them

coming out either because he's personally in them or his friends and donors are in them or because it involves intelligence agencies. And then Biden gets in, he doesn't release them for four years. There's no excuse for it.

You don't say, well, yes, but I hate Republicans more. So Biden's four years of not releasing it doesn't count. No, it counts. Yes but I hate Republicans more, so Biden's four years of not releasing it doesn't count. No, it counts. Yes, were the Republicans more hypocritical about it? Absolutely, right?

But did Biden release it? No, and that's my point. Both parties, and now Trump, again, of course, won't release it. Both parties are like, no way, no way we're going to release it. No way we're going to tell you who raped hundreds of underage

American girls. We're going to let them all go. They haven't prosecuted a single one. So all those great journalists out there, and the one I'm most pissed at is Ben Smith, because he's supposed to be an actual reporter.

Ben, how many people have been prosecuted for raping those girls outside of Maxwell and Epstein? How many? I did the math on it, zero. So don't tell me that there's no evidence and there's no big deal and we should move on.

You're basically saying, all those girls got raped, who cares? They raped themselves or whatever conspiracy, lunatic conspiracy theory the government has come up with. But as long as the government comes up with it, I write it down right

away, there's nothing to see here. There's no evidence at all. The girls raped themselves. No, no, no, I know you're not saying the girls raped themselves. Then tell me who the hell raped the girls. Who raped, like,

abstinent Maxwell alone? Come on, it's embarrassing, especially if you're claiming to be a reporter. So it is clear that both parties completely covered up this list and these crimes. And both parties absolutely positively refuse to prosecute anyone outside of Epstein and Maxwell. And that is incredibly curious. If you don't think that's curious, you're not really a reporter. I agree. How do you get the media though to go along with this? Is it the people who are

whispering to them on both sides? Because they're still regardless of what entrance in there is considerable interest in this case, whether it translates to cable news ratings, I don't know. But that's just an outstanding issue I have. Yeah, no, look, honestly, for reporters, when the government says something, they're like, that is 200% true, we're all writing it down right away, okay? But if an outsider has a point of

view, they're like, that is definitely wrong. Let's go ahead and smear them. What did they do in ninth grade? Did they get detention, three detentions in ninth grade? That's terrible. I've seen this movie a thousand

times, brothers and sisters. Don't tell me what, I know the ending of the movie. The ending of the movies everyone in media in mass mainstream media goes there is nothing to see here the government is correct the Democrats and the Republicans say

there are no clients or the girls right themselves. So that is obviously true. I'm such a good reporter. I have access. I have access to a lot of sources. And they all say the same thing. We're covering it up.

I mean, nothing to see here. You've answered my question at least part of sources. And they all say the same thing, we're covering it up. I mean, nothing to see here. You've answered my question, at least part of it. You definitely got three or more detentions that I just know has to be true. You kidding me, dog? I can't tell you the number of

detentions I've had. You got to get to the suspensions before it gets interesting. All right, let's take a quick break here. And when we come back, let's take a quick break here. And when we come back, there will be something to see here. Okay, now, you want to speak about

talking about distractions, now the Republicans have one. Obama gate. Okay, we're going to break it down for you guys and show you what utter nonsense it is. We'll be right back. Get to Toronto's main venues like Budweiser Stage and the new Roger Stadium with Go Transit. Thanks to Go Transit's special online e-ticket fairs, a $10 one-day weekend pass offers unlimited

travel on any weekend day or holiday, anywhere along the GO! network. And the Weekday Group Passes offer the same weekday travel flexibility across the network, starting at $30 for two people and up to $60 for a group of five. Buy your online GO! Pass ahead of the show at Gotransit.com slash tickets. I'm Chris Hadfield. I'm an astronaut, an author, a citizen of planet Earth. Join me for a six-part journey into the systems that power the world. Real conversations with real people who are shaping the future of energy. No politics, no empty talk, just solutions-focused conversations

on the challenges we must overcome and the possibilities that lie ahead. This is On Energy. All right, back on TYT, Cenk and Sharon with you guys. Also, more Canucks and John Farag, thank you for, and that big, beautiful join button below the video on YouTube, you guys are awesome. Dawn Whitehead, thank you for sending a membership through YouTube, that's terrific as well.

Mark Jacobs, a YouTube member, says Cenk, you were right about right-wing base turning on him now, turning on Trump. Now tell me what the number on power balls are. Yeah, that's not how it works. I appreciate your mark, but you have to get evidence first, and Trump, now tell me what the number on power balls are. Yeah, that's not how it works.

I appreciate your mark, but you have to get evidence first, and I have no evidence about what the numbers are going to be. The evidence I had for why Trump voters, some portion of Trump voters would turn on Trump is because I talk to them, and more importantly, I listen to them. I know in this tribalistic times, that's what heretics do. You listen to the other side instead of just calling them names or punching them in the face. Heretic, right? But when you listen, you go, okay, they're not gonna budge on that at all. They might budge on that. Do we have surprising agreement on that? Right, but that requires an open mind. But anyway, thank you, brother.

I appreciate it. Sharon, what's next? How about another investigation? Call it Obamagate. the conclusion some may be wishing for as we enter the third week of Epstein related news. The Trump administration is trying to, well, they're trying its best to find a distraction that sticks. Latest attempt demanding an investigation into former President Barack Obama for

leading the charge to manufacture the Russian collusion hoax. As we can see by that clearly AI video, I wonder how many times it's been reposted. For the record, it was posted to Trump's truth social account. Trump is clearly hoping this one sticks.

Cenk, we're going to get around to the details on this one in just a bit, but first, what's your initial reaction as well as what you thought about the video that Donald Trump posted this time? Yeah, so this is an obvious distraction.

There's one other theory, we'll share that with you guys. We'll prove that it's meant to be a distraction. I've seen files a little bit later in this video. But I got to tell you, I criticize Obama a lot.

I criticize him from the left, I criticize him as a populist. I think he's way too establishment. That video made me sick. And that was just uncomfortable to look at. That was viscerally made me sick. And that was just uncomfortable look at it was viscerally made me angry.

And so and then they have him behind bars as well making him kneel on his knees, etc. And Trump, President of the United States posted that. What's wrong with you? Now, if Democrats have done the same thing, and in front of

Obama, Trump gets put on his knees and arrested and then behind prison, etc. My God, what would the mad guy have done? This is an outrage, right? We're at law fair and how dare you do that to the President of the United States, right? But no at law fair and how dare you do that to the President of

the United States, right? But no one ever does show on the other foot, ever, ever, ever. No one ever does introspection and goes, hey, I wonder how I'd feel if it was done to the other side, etc. For me, that kind of sick stuff,

what it does is it divides us. And okay, but now, let's get to the substance of the story, which is even worse. because Tulsi Gabbard is 100% making things up in order to protect daddy Trump. And she thinks, as apparently all

of the Trump team does, that their own voters are idiots. And that the minute they throw out a little red meat, they're all of the Trump team does, that their own voters are idiots. And that the minute they throw out a little red meat, they're all going to chase after it, and the squirrels are going to forget about Epstein. So all right, let's give you

the load of crap that Tulsi is peddling now. Well, she'd call it intelligence gathering, but last week, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a report accusing the Obama administration of manipulating and withholding key intelligence related to Russian

interference in the 2016 election. Here's what Gabbard stated. Obama and senior officials in his administration had laid the groundwork for a years long coup against Trump after his victory over Hillary Clinton by manufacturing intelligence to suggest that Russia had tried to influence the election. That included using a dossier prepared by British intelligence analyst Christopher Steele that they knew to be unreliable. And she added this, no matter how powerful every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to ensure nothing like this ever happens again.

The American people's faith and trust in our democratic republic and therefore the future of our nation depends on it. Gabbard went on, well, a multitude of Fox shows, including Maria Bartiromo's Sunday morning show where she discussed some of her proof. Listen. In the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the intelligence community agreed that there was no intelligence that reflected that Russia was trying to hack the election in favor of either candidate. The evidence showed, the intelligence showed that again,

Russia did not have either the intent nor the capability to be able to impact the outcome of the United States election. So it was very striking when we look back again at the documents that I declassified and released that shows there was a shift in early December, the first week of December. Again, another document was produced by the Intelligence Committee, a President's Daily Brief that was consistent with every other assessment that was done previously leading up to the election.

Russia did not, this is after the election now, did not attempt to affect the outcome of the American election. That was never published. Hours before would have gone into President Obama's President's Daily Brief. It was pulled by a senior level intelligence official saying that they had to pull it because they had received new guidance. There you see Tulsi Gabbard, she has a very different affect we'll call it. But particularly comfortable in a setting where she's not being challenged at all. So what happened next? Well, take a look at the graphic. It shows you what happened next. And following the whole briefing, Obama officials, including James Comey,

John Brennan, James Clapper, they met with Obama to plan the hoax. This is her reporting, Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence. They began outlining a new assessment claiming the election was hacked, and then leaked this news to the media. But here's the thing, Gabbard's claims directly contradict the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee's

landmark volume five report from August 2020, nearly a 1000 page document that laid bare the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election. That report was not a product of MSNBC or the so called deep state Republican Senator,

Republican Senator Richard Burr first led the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. After Burr stepped down under a cloud of an FBI investigation, stunning report received final approval from Acting Chair Marco Rubio, who now serves as

President Donald Trump's Secretary of State. Now the committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a sweeping campaign to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor. The report explicitly states that

Russian intelligence services, especially the GRU, engaged in cyber operations to hack and disseminate emails from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. And amplified pro-Trump narratives, via state sponsored media and social media operations.

That report also found that Donald Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, had a close relationship with a man named Konstantin Kilmanyk, who was likely a Russian intelligence officer. Regardless, now that all of this

has come out, Gabbard is pushing it all, well, onto Pam Bondi and Kash Patel so they can yet again take the blame once this all blows up, watch. So at the end of the day, we need to look at Pam Bondi. Is that watch. So at the end of the day, we need to look at Pam Bondi.

Is that the person who at the end of the day is going to bring us accountability, Pam Bondi? Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Cash Patel, it is their responsibility to gather all of the evidence both that we have released,

the facts that have already been known previously, the information that will continue to come out and move forward with this prosecution and these indictments. And expect the fallout to be big, MAGA portions of it, big portions already absolutely giddy about this, we'll show you. Surprise, surprise, the Obama administration laid the groundwork for the Russian hoax that was created to thwart President

Trump during his first term. The Obama administration has been working on this for the last few years, and it's been working on this for Surprise, surprise, the Obama administration laid the groundwork for the Russian hoax that was created to thwart President Trump during his first term. Senator Marsha Blackburn there,

Tom Cotton too. Senator says it will take decades for the intelligence community to recover from the damage done during the Obama and Biden presidencies. These partisan Democrats were desperate to defeat and undermine President Trump.

Pat Harrigan, the congressman says makes Watergate look like amateur hour, Obama's intel officials ran a disinformation campaign against the American people to take down a sitting president. This is absolutely disgraceful and it goes on and on. Expect more coordinated attacks and

again, a mega audience to perhaps be captivated by this, Cenk, your thoughts? Yeah, okay, so you've seen a lot of the evidence, let me tie it together for you guys. So she says that Obama was part of a years long coup attempt at Trump.

Obama was president before Trump. So the lunatic theory here is Obama secretly running the government while Trump is president for years. We're supposed to take this theory seriously. And Trump was like, it's okay,

let Obama run the government and maybe he'll do a coup against me, but it's okay. I'm going to let Obama run it's okay, let Obama run the government, and maybe he'll do a coup against me, but it's okay, I'm going to let Obama run it. Okay, all right, you say, now Cenk, you're over extrapolating there, all right.

She said, we have the evidence that they were going to show that the Russians were not involved, but they pulled it before Obama saw it in the presidential daily briefing. Wait, if they pulled it before Obama saw it in the presidential daily briefing. Wait, if they pulled it before Obama saw it, how did Obama run a years long coup attempt based on

that evidence if he didn't even see it? You're not even trying to make sense. Okay, number three, whoever is involved in the Steele dossier, I mean, that was outrageous, by the way, Steele dossier was

outrageous and stupid. Half of those charges made no sense at all. Guess who said that right away? We did, okay? Trump's a germaphobe, half those stories didn't make any sense. Okay, so you know who ordered the Steele dossier?

Originally a Republican opponent in the primary, not the Democrats. So is that person going to be prosecuted? Are you going to tell us who that person is? Let me guess, it's the Trump administration.

We couldn't find the files. We were trying to find who ordered the Steele dossier, and they have seen files and golly gee, they all got lost. Maybe they were in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom somewhere. So who's the Republican who paid

for the Steele dossier? Are they guilty of treason? Were they working with Obama for years on a coup againstier? Are they guilty of treason? Were they working with Obama for years on a coup against Trump? Should they be prosecuted? No one will ask Tulsi Gabbard that, and if anyone does, she'll totally ignore it.

She'll never mention it in her life. So that gives you a sense of, is this for real? My God, we found something. This is amazing, terrible. We got to really look into this. Who are the traitors? Or is it a political hatchet job to

distract you? Well, you can tell if it's partisan, boom, partisan right out of the gate. They're not going to look into the guy who ordered this steel dossier because he's a Republican. Okay, now to the heart of it.

So the Senate Intelligence Committee that looked into this was not just didn't just have Republicans on it. It was led by Republicans. The whole report was led and written by Republicans. And at the end, when everybody saw the report, every Republican and

every Democrat voted unanimously saying yes, this is what actually happened. And when Senator Burr from North Carolina left, the person who took it over and signed off at the end as chairman was Marco Rubio. So is Marco Rubio part of

the conspiracy? Was every Republican on that committee part of the conspiracy? because that report says definitive will be several things. The one that everybody focuses on in Magna World is Trump did not collude with the Russians during

the election. Now I understand why they focus on that because that's super important, right? And when I saw that portion of the report and I saw all the Democrats signed off on it, I said, okay, no problem.

Then Trump did not collude with the Russians. But the report also says the Russians definitely interfered in the election. Here's all the different things that they did. And yes, they definitely tried to

help Trump win. Now, if Trump didn't accept, wasn't actively working with them, Trump's not at fault. But did they do it? Yes, they definitely did it. And that is what every Republican said at the time.

Now the Republicans are flipping and going, yeah, maybe the Russians didn't do it. Yeah, it's just like an Obama plot. Yeah, that's what it was. All right, come on. And this is right after the Epstein files, they're trying to distract.

And so, Antosia Gabbard was a little bit in the doghouse. Because she had accidentally said the truth about intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear program, which is that it basically was not weapons ready at all, not even close, not within years.

But when she said that and later Trump bombed Iran, then Trump was like, Tosi's wrong. I am the great warmonger, I mean, peace candidate. And so she's trying to make up to Trump, be like, yeah, yeah, we'll help you with your stupid

lies about the Russians from 2016. Why are we talking about 2016? Do you know who won the 2016 presidential election? Donald Trump did. So who cares? Donald Trump wasn't prosecuted because he shouldn't have been

prosecuted because he didn't collude. So we're done with it. Why are we going back to that? It's not like he lost the election, he won it. So this is just dumb. And by the way, super ugly.

I mean, this shows you who Tulsi Gabbard is. Talking about arresting the former president on treason, when she knows for a fact that there's no evidence to support that. All right, well, that tells you that people tell you who they are

in their actions. Tulsi Gabbard just told you she's a giant liar. She's total partisan right wing hack and never meant anything she said. And I mean, look, a lot of us had already figured that out by now.

But people take her seriously, she shouldn't be taken seriously. And now any intelligence that comes out of that department is totally suspect. Because we know the head of that department is totally suspect. Because we know the head of the department is an enormous political hack who will lie about

outrageous things with no conscience at all. But will MAGA take a portions of it large enough portions of MAGA take this seriously? I mean, you said earlier how this administration seems to think that MAGA is stupid just when we think

they're waking up Epstein, they're demanding answers. They at least have integrity in the things they believe in. Will they take this bait or will they say, you know what, we have a Republican entity or at least one with close ties.

Who was the one who funded the research into this dossier? Will they say, wait a minute here? Look, tribalism makes us blind. So there's so many things the Democrats believe that were just outrageous. Like you would see Joe Biden

shaking hands with a person that didn't exist and they would say, no, that's normal, people do that, right? Now, were all those Democrats who believe that a significant percentage of the Democratic party, quote unquote, stupid for

believing it? No, no, no, no. People get brainwashed, man, and I know they find that just as offensive. But guys, they told you it was young and dynamic, look at them. Come on, you gotta realize they were trying to influence you. Human beings are unfortunately They told you he was young and dynamic, look at him, come on.

You gotta realize they were trying to influence you. Human beings are unfortunately are really prone to influence, overly prone to influence. So for the MAGA base, will a lot of them believe this nonsense? Absolutely, because they've been

told their whole lives, yeah, Obama's part of a thousand conspiracies. And my God, the Democrats are so evil and Donald Trump is the one special pure victim, etc. So this is perfect red meat. So I get why Tulsi is doing it.

She's like, ha ha ha, deep state, back to the deep state. Not the deep state that's covering up the Epstein files. The deep state that did this thing that all the Republicans earlier said didn't happen at all, right? And everyone who's piling on here

knowing that the Republican senators all said this did not happen, we looked at all of the evidence, definitively not true including Marco Rubio saying that. And they go, yeah, now we're going to pretend that the Republicans said that it did happen.

Okay, they're announcing like Tom Cohn, Marsha Blackburn, are putting a flag going, yes, I'm a goddamn liar. And people will believe them, yes, a huge portion will. But remember, not all Trump voters are MAGA or hardcore MAGA.

So a lot of the independents will go, now brother, you expect me to believe this too, right? So now you expected me to believe there were no Epstein files, and then they were fake and created by Obama. Now you're expect me to believe this too, right? So now you expected me to believe there were no Epstein files, and then they were fake and created by Obama. Now you're expecting me to believe

that Obama was president while you were president and it did a years long coup. And every Republican earlier was lying to cover up for Obama. That makes no sense at all, none. So anyone who is not blinded by tribalism will see this for

the horse crap that it is. But unfortunately, huge portions of people are just that blind. Yeah, I still have heavy Democrat friends who say, look, somebody put that sandbag there at the Naval Academy when Joe Biden tripped.

He didn't really just trip over it, somebody put it right there and they forced it to happen. They don't want to believe that he was declining, but anyway, great analysis. Yeah, all right, so we have to take one more break,

right? Yeah, all right, guys, so we got to take a quick break. We got one more story for you when we return. That's super important. Right back. All right, guys, we're back. Just a couple comments here and

then we got to take a quick break again. Ben Gleib is going to join us. All right, guys, we're back. Just a couple of comments here and then we got to take a quick break again. Ben Gleib is going to join us. A lot of interesting commentary in

the second hour. Sharon, I'll just read a couple of quick ones for you that are YouTube members. Yo progressive stylist wrote in, Cenk, I would love to play your show in my shop. I also own a solo salon in the upper

peninsula of Michigan. Majority of my clients on the right so they would be so offended. Well, you know what? Look, it's your business. I can't ask you to take a chance with it, but I'd played from time to time and see what reaction you

get, because you might be surprised at the reaction. I've been surprised at the reaction from time to time from people like the comment I just read earlier, from the member who said, I disagree with you on most things, but at least you're honest.

And it's the reaction we're getting a lot, so maybe just a little bit and see what happens. Flourishing recovery says what would happen if the Democratic nominee for president ran on releasing the files? They would win,

that's what would happen. But they have to actually mean it, and they have to actually release it when they get into office. So maybe a role Kana could do that, but everyone else, I mean, if they ran on it, the corporate guys, I wouldn't

believe it for a second, right? But will they run on it? No way, no way. You saw what Pelosi did the other day. Pelosi was like, Donald Trump is right. This is no big deal at all.

We should definitely move on from Epstein. That's what they're all going to say. Gee, I wonder why people think it might have something to do with the government when both sides go, move away, don't talk about it.

Okay, the panic is thick in the air, including from Democrats. Guys, this is all a shell game. It's all theater. It's where you're in a play and the mainstream media's job is to pretend that it's not a play in its real life.

Anyway, okay, we got to take a break. Sharon, you've been phenomenal. We appreciate you. We appreciate you more. We're going to solve more mysteries together soon. Okay, check out Sharon on Rebel HQ

on YouTube. We're going to come right back and we've got not only Israel and Syria and how's that working out, Ben and I will have an interesting conversation about that. And now of course, as expected, not just Republicans, but

the Democrats attack Zoran Mamdani. Of course, we'll be back.