The Young Turks - Propaganda Machine

Episode Date: April 28, 2022

Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, feared in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack that several far-right members of Congress would incite violence against other lawmakers, identifying several by name as security risks in private conversations with party leaders. At least a dozen states, including Tennessee, have introduced legislation to create private school vouchers. Twitter has been flooded with user reports of high-profile accounts losing thousands of followers after news broke that Tesla CEO Elon Musk would purchase the social network. The company said Tuesday that the “fluctuations in follower counts” came from “organic” account closures. The Los Angeles County sheriff said on Tuesday that he was investigating a reporter at The Los Angeles Times who had reported allegations that he was involved in covering up a case of inmate abuse, an announcement that drew accusations that he was violating the reporter’s First Amendment rights. Hosts: Ana Kasparian ***  The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET.  Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews https://youtu.be/DZLA2abZxGQ https://youtu.be/MLj1tSwkrkc https://youtu.be/wEI4AJ0QdCo https://youtu.be/hTRFlkqhxoc https://youtu.be/NVxuKHKhjIs https://youtu.be/gu9BZpox-O0 https://youtu.be/DfyDMMKDyWI https://youtu.be/uz_OnNpEOgk https://youtu.be/Gy_zcjlRhts 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. All right, well, the Young Turks, Jake Eger, and a Cusparian with you guys. guess for you guys, you might recognize her, you might not depending on, you know, how long you've been watching, TYT, but she wrote a really interesting story about how her mom, who's in the Russian parliament and her disagree, we're gonna talk to her a little bit about the Russian war today. By the way, don't forget next Tuesdays, the primaries in Indiana and

Ohio, we're gonna cover that for you guys. You're gonna see that at 8 o'clock Eastern right here, and that's got amazing progressive candidates, Liam Doris. Morgan Harper and of course Nina Turner so don't miss that and speaking of which there's only about five days left in those races and we've got another rebellion pack ad for you guys later on the show help the rebellion.com all right now Anna's got amazing stories for us including the war in Ukraine. Yes, I wanted to give some updates on what is happening in terms of the US response to Ukraine and it is interesting.

that when it comes to defense spending, apparently it's like a bottomless pit of money that we can offer. So President Joe Biden is planning on soliciting Congress for tens of billions of dollars in additional funding for Ukraine. The money would go toward, of course, military weaponry, also humanitarian aid. But what this reveals is that the government seems to have a bipartisan effort to easily appropriate, money for any type of defense spending, any type of war-related efforts, and this is a perfect example of that. So the White House says it needs Congress to approve just over 20 billion in security assistance for Ukraine, including $5 billion for weapons and other military aid, $6 billion for the Ukraine security assistance initiative, and $4 billion for the State

Department's foreign military financing program, an administration official. told reporters on a call previewing the request. Additionally, by the way, Biden is asking Congress to approve $8.5 billion, more in economic assistance for Ukraine and $3 billion in humanitarian assistance and food security funding. And the total in terms of new money that the White House is planning on appropriating for this effort is about $33 billion. dollars. And keep in mind, that is in addition to the billions of dollars that have already

been appropriated for Ukraine. Now, the president's funding request is what we believe is needed to enable Ukraine's success over the next five months of this war, said a second administration official who warned that the war could well last months or more. And the reason why I give you that timeline is because they say that the $33 billion in additional funding is just meant to carry Ukraine through till the end of the year. But if the war continues past that, it is very likely that they will want to pour additional money toward this effort. And as I've said on the show before, Jank, I'm obviously empathetic toward what the Ukrainians are going through. We have made security commitments to Ukraine after they agreed to give up their nuclear arsenal.

However, what this really does show us, and it's happened over and over again, is that the money's there. Congress has no problem in giving this money to certain efforts that involve defense spending. But when it comes to something like making the child tax credit permanent or providing financial relief for student borrowers, I don't know if we have the money for it. How are we going to to pay for that. I mean, all of those arguments we already suspected were complete bull, and now we know for sure. Yeah, so I wanna focus on a couple of numbers here.

This is just for a five month period, and they already appropriated $13.6 billion in March. So when you put the 33, along with the 13.6, just over a small number of months here, in total about six to seven months. So, and then you extrapolate for a whole year, well, you're getting to a number that is very similar to build back better. Remember, build back better, they would say like, oh, 1.7 trillion or whatever, but that's over 10 years. So you do the math on it and you being to realize, oh my God, we're almost there in assistance to Ukraine.

I agree with Anna, I love that we're assisting Ukraine. I do, I think that all of this is efficient spending, there's no way, it's going through the Defense Department guaranteed it's double what was needed. Half the money is going to go to executive somewhere. And that's why this is all being approved super fast, not just because we're all concerned about the war in Ukraine, but because everybody in Congress and all the defense contractors are thinking, Cheching, and so this will fly by, everybody will vote yes, right away. And it's for both reasons, and mainly because of the military industrial complex and the money

they're going to make. By the way, again, to be clear, just because defense contractors are getting rich doesn't mean you shouldn't help Ukraine. And by the way, just because you want to help Ukraine doesn't mean you need to spend twice as much money to make sure the executives get a couple of billion dollars in their pockets. So, but I know we've lost track of all reason and balance in the U.S. government. But guys, I mean, what happened to all the right winger saying America first. So I'm not, again, we're not saying, hey, be pro Putin and pro Russia and all that stuff. I don't want to encourage the right wing to go in the wrong direction in that sense.

But we should help America as well. And so Bill Back Better had tons of things like child tax credit that you need and family leave and all these things that actually affect your family immediately. And it has no chance of passage because it doesn't. help defense contractors or any other lobbyists. So that's the priorities of America. That's real. how the Biden administration came to these numbers specifically, and you can see the disproportionate

amount that goes toward military weaponry versus actual humanitarian assistance. So just going back to the first graphic again, I mean, it's funny how they separate things out as if all of these are different categories, when in reality, every number that I'm about to read has to do with military weaponry. So there's the $20 billion in security assistance for you. Ukraine, including $5 billion for weapons and other military aid. What is the difference between the $20 billion for security assistance? And what does it mean when you say $5 billion for weapons and other military aid? $6 billion for the Ukraine security assistance initiative?

Like how do you differentiate between those two? Like what falls under those categories? Because it all sounds like the exact same thing. And then you go to economic assistance. Biden is asking Congress to approve 8.5. billion in economic assistance and only 3 billion in humanitarian assistance and food security funding. So just notice that disparity, the huge numbers that are associated with the Defense Department and the relatively smaller numbers relating to economic and humanitarian assistance. Also,

I want to just add that the administration is also asking for $500 million to address domestic and international economic stresses related to the war. I think this is actually a worthy cause that will go toward helping the U.S. increase food production of wheat and other food crops experiencing shortages. And the funding would help officials use the Defense Production Act, a Cold War era law to boost domestic production of critical minerals affected by the war. The reason why I say that's a worthy cause is because, you know, obviously as a result of this invasion into Ukraine, there's inflation in various food items, and that's because, you know, the international market relies on Russia's production of these food items.

So I like the idea that the Biden administration is trying to work around that. But again, take a look at the numbers associated with economic relief, both for the Ukrainians and for the United States, and just compare it to the outrageously high numbers associated with defense spending. Yeah, 100%. So look, obviously we get that there's a war, and if ever you're going to do defense money, it's now. But also remember what we reported to you a couple of days ago, the CEOs of the defense

companies have admitted, yeah, we already have the weapons and we've sent them to Ukraine. Most of this money is to replenish the stock. And again, that's optional whether we want to replenish in this case. But I don't want you to get the wrong impression that, oh, they got to go, the weapons and send it over to them, and that's why we have to spend exactly this amount of money. And then whenever you look at the defense budget, which no one does, because they all live off of that pork, but if you look at doing an honest assessment of it, the devil is very much in the details. And the details are where they rob you. I would love to help Ukraine

without robbing the American people. Absolutely, I agree. And one final thing that I will mention the Biden administration is also simultaneously asking for funding related to the coronavirus pandemic. The federal government has run out of money that would help assist Americans who are trying to get tested for COVID, Americans who still need to get treatment for COVID because they might not be fully vaccinated. It's funding for monoclonal antibodies, all sorts of things that we need to keep people healthy and alive because whether we like it or not, the pandemic is still ongoing. And so the Biden administration allegedly wants $22 billion for COVID related funding. And it's just, it's just fascinating how it's been so difficult to get

Congress to approve that alone. So Biden has already tried to get that funding appropriated. Congress has turned that, you know, offer down or that suggestion down. And it's just, it just shows you Again, what the government, what Congress in particular likes to prioritize. And it's not about doing the right thing by Ukraine. It's about ensuring that we redistribute wealth, again, from the bottom to the top, to these wealthy defense manufacturers and defense contractors. And when it comes to funding that helps to keep people healthy and alive within our borders, I don't know, it's a little too tricky, it's a little too controversial.

Yeah, so my last thought here is they want to, They're considering coupling the bills because the defense spending, they feel like it's a guarantee that it's going to pass. But since the COVID relief goes to actual American voters, that is not at all guaranteed to pass. So they're thinking of attaching the COVID relief to the Ukraine help. Why? Because Republicans and conservative Democrats are such big humanitarian and they just feel like in their hearts, they've got to help the Ukrainian people. But by the way, not the American people? No, because they know all those corporate Republicans and Democrats get funded by the defense industry.

So they will have to vote, yes, their donors have instructed them to vote, yes, they have no choice at all. That is why they are considering whether they could put assistance for Americans along with that to force them to vote for Americans to get help as well. because otherwise our corrupt politicians really, really don't want to help us. Yeah, it's really sick. Well, we got to take a break. When we come back, we have a wonderful guest to join us, someone who is certainly privy to the propaganda in Russia. And we'll also talk about how Russian state television is just very nonchalantly talking about a nuclear war. We've got that story and more coming right up.

All right back on the young Turks, Jank Ugar, Anna Kasparian, Stephen Belgaard and Matt with you guys. Matt Dhabi, not seeing ya. So those are folks who just joined by hitting the join button below on YouTube. We welcome you to do that as well. And you know, are they American heroes? I guess, right, because we're helping to bring the truth to the world, which leads us to the next story. Casper. All right, well, why don't we check in a little with Russian state television? There was a conversation recently that's getting a lot of attention. The possibility of a nuclear war came

up during a recent broadcast on Russian state media. Margarita Simonian, the director, I should say the editor and chief of RT, considered the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons and engaging in a nuclear war. And what really stood out was kind of like the nonchalant nature that this conversation was being had. Let's take a quick look at the video and we'll discuss. Or we're playing on Ukraine or it begins with 3rd-Miravoy. Lichn, I think in the more realistic

put in the 3rd-Movoy. Because, knowing us, knowing our Rukovieti, Putin and Vladimir Vladimir, So, what's the most that in the end of the end of this will end up

it's still more more than what this is a better than what's going to to the other side, to the other side, to the understanding that, well,

what, so, you know, we're in right? Yeah, I mean, I just, I mean, so she says that, you know, there's some

likelihood that we have nuclear war, you know, she says on one hand, it's something that horrifies me. On the other hand, it is what it is. And then the anchor of that program, Vladimir Soloviav jumps in and basically says, well, we'll go to heaven while they will simply croak. And so there's also some concern because Vladimir Putin, of course, has thrown all sorts of threats around. But lately the threats have been a little more intense. This week,

Putin threatened countries that are currently aiding Ukraine, of course, including the United States. He said, quote, if someone intends to interfere in what is going on from the outside, they must know that constitutes an unacceptable strategic threat to Russia. We have all the weapons we need for this. No one else can brag about these weapons and we won't brag about them. We will use them. So he didn't specifically mention nuclear weapons, but it was clearly implied there. And so what do we make of this? There's, of course, a lot of propaganda in What we heard from was Russian state media, very supportive of Vladimir Putin. But are they bluffing? Is this just meant to threaten America and its Western allies from getting involved further in this war?

It's really a big question that is being discussed right now. And so I'm happy to bring on a guest, a longtime friend of the show, an incredible woman, incredible reporter, Alona Minkowski, who actually used to work at RT long ago and is currently an award-winning host, writer, and producer. Alona, thank you so much for joining us. Hi guys, thanks for having me. So you recently wrote a piece that I really appreciated. It was published in the New Republic titled Life Behind Russia's Veil of Misinformation.

Putin's regime spares no effort in distracting and propagandizing the citizenry, but it's the lies of a mission that do the most damage. Before we get to your piece and some of the insights that you provide, what do you make of that segment that we showed, where they're discussing the possibility of going to nuclear war? Well, on one hand, of course, it's terrifying to hear people like you said, sort of nonchalantly talking about it. But it also is just part of the entire show, right, that has been consistently put on to convince the Russian people to support this war. And it keeps evolving and becoming more extreme. If you listen to the commentators, and I think that that's what happens because they have to keep justifying

the fact that this war is still going on. But what I thought was interesting that Margarita said is, you know, it's either we lose in Ukraine or there's nuclear war, which I think just tells you a lot about the messaging there from the Kremlin, from the Russian government, right? And then those commentators who effectively represent the Russian government, which is that losing isn't an option. And it's all about trying to paint this like very stark, black and white, good versus evil picture to convince the Russian public that they are the heroes in this situation. So Alona, I wanted to ask you, there's a kind of a don't look up vibe to that segment like, oh, we might all die.

Okay, up next, coffee, right? Should you have it with lunch as well? So now, I imagine that the reason that that anchor that is very well connected to Putin is saying it is because she's trying to relay Putin's bluff to the rest of the world. But then I pause and thought, how sure are we that he's bluffing? What do you think? I don't know, you know, is the very honest answer. And it's one of these situations where over the years, no matter how many interviews I've done about Russia, people have always asked me, well, what is Putin thinking?

As if I'm supposed to have insight into what's going on inside of his mind. And the truth is that I've been wrong most of the time. And that's how I felt with this war when it actually started when he invaded Ukraine. I was genuinely shocked because I never thought that he would go this far. You know, and part of that is because he's been played up as this master strategist in the way that the world looks at him. But, you know, clearly he's a madman. And I don't think that he's someone who functions rationally. And so while I hope in my heart of hearts would love to believe that that all of this is just a bluff, I can't really honestly say that.

But you know, but the truth is, yes, I hope that you're right. I hope that that's the case. I hope it's just meant to kind of show this very powerful image more to Russians than to send any realistic message to the rest of the world. Yeah, you know, I like that you pointed to the fact that you were wrong in the beginning of the war, because so was I in terms of my predictions. And I remember once the invasion happened, one of the people that I was furious with, I never vocalized this, was. Rachel Maddow and all of the corporate Democrats who spent the entirety of the Trump administration, you know, really just fearmongering about Russia to the point where all of the warnings coming from the State Department in regard to Russia's invasion into Ukraine just felt like the boy who cried

wolf. And I dismissed it, right? And it's it always feels like especially the State Department is looking for the next boogeyman in order to, you know, have some sort of excuse to funnel more weaponry or more military aid to defense contractors, more military related money and spending to defense contractors. But it turned out that Vladimir Putin actually did do this invasion. And you're right in saying, or using the word irrational, because it really does go against his own interests. I mean, the Russian economy is struggling right now. Inflation is up to 20%. It's likely to go higher. There is a little bit of leverage that Russia has because so many European countries are dependent on Russia for its fossil fuels. But so far, regardless of how devastating this might be to the Russian people, Putin has decided to keep chugging along.

He thought he was going to be in and out. But it turns out that there was far more resistance than he expected. And what I also found really interesting is that he's decided, much like Donald Trump did when he was in office, to surround himself with. yes men, to surround himself with an intelligence community that doesn't actually give him intelligence, but rather just tells him what he wants to hear. And I think that's a really interesting part of his strategy, because it is putting him at a significant disadvantage. And so can you talk a little bit about what happens to anyone who might disagree with him, including individuals who might be giving him information he doesn't want to hear, but could actually help him? Yeah, I mean, God, there's a lot of points that you made there that I want to kind of comment on,

which is that, yes, I was with you in the beginning of feeling kind of angry and annoyed at a lot of the alarmism that we saw toward Russia for a long time, because it did for many years seem to go counter to what was actually happening. But so in the same way, right, I wasn't, I was caught off guard when this invasion actually happened. But yeah, I mean, we've seen that this is a huge problem that Putin has created for himself in not allowing anybody around him to actually speak the truth. And this is kind of a classic, you know, dictator, dear leader issues that when you're only surrounded by yes, men, then you aren't getting fully unfiltered information. And honestly, I know we'll talk about my piece in a minute, but it kind of goes to my point there about omission and how excluding information. and excluding the truth is something that that just gets you even farther and farther from it. But it's an incredibly dangerous environment right now for Russia, for anybody who speaks out against this war,

not just for activists or for regular people who can't post anything about it. They can't say anything wrong for fear that somebody might turn them in. So many of my friends, I know a lot of people who have either had to just pick up and leave and flee the country, not knowing exactly what their plan is or people who are planning to leave, right, but just desperately trying to get documents so that they do have a place to go and a place to be afterwards, but we have already seen, too, that there have been some officials from the FSB who have just disappeared or have been imprisoned. There is no room to give unvarnished truth to Vladimir Putin.

And I think that will be his downfall. But unfortunately, in the meantime, a horrific war and an incredible loss of life is happening. So, Alona, that does bring us to your piece. You talked about how there's pretty much one side of the story, and that is it in Russia because of the state of media in Russia. And that is why people appear to be living in delusion. And you even talked about your own mom who is in the Russian parliament and how it's hard to get her information that she believes, right? And it kind of reminded me of what right media does here in America, but instead of 30% of the country losing its mind, it appears

that almost all of Russia has. Now, of course, not all, I say almost, because there's some of the bravest, most wonderful people who are dissidents and protesters and journalists, et cetera, in Russia. But it struck me that the power of propaganda is overwhelming when there's only one source of news. Yeah, and it's painful to see that, right? And incredibly upsetting to know that just all of the information and air has been sucked out of the room when it comes to the majority of the Russian public, because the majority of the public, especially older populations, do get their TV, excuse me, their news from

TV, which is all state-run media at this point. And a lot of younger people or people who want to be seeking out on their information or using VPNs to bypass some of the blockages and the censorship. But still, it's not like you can then post about it and share it with other people or even necessarily talk about it. And don't forget that hundreds of, it's estimated, the last estimate I saw was that 200,000 people have left and fled the country. And those are the people who tend to be, I think, the most aware of what's happening, awake to the situation, the most. resistance minded. And so in this piece, you know, I, I was trying to come up with answers. I mean, we have a problem with disinformation all over the world. And, and we're, you know, there are lots of conferences. As I mentioned, Barack Obama's launched a whole campaign to try

to fight it. But in a case like this, too, with the war in Ukraine, you just have to try to understand or try to wrap your head around. How is it that people are rationalizing, supporting a bloody, unjust conflict and it's that they're not getting other information for the most part. They're being shown this story of Russian heroism, of taking out Nazis. It's something I've spoken about before, but I think that Vladimir Putin has very strategically used Russian history, at least the parts that are to his advantage of Soviet history, excuse me, like bravery in World War II to help amplify and kind of nurture this. support for this war and this denotification of Ukraine. But of course, most Russian people have either,

older generations maybe don't talk about it. Younger generations don't really know a lot about what happened in the Soviet Union. There have been opinion polls that have shown this and studies that have shown this. That's another history that has been whitewashed inside the country. And so again, you know, like you just see what happens when people don't know, when they don't come to terms with history. They don't take accountability for it, that things like this repeat themselves and her horrors like this repeat themselves. I wanted to read, there were some excerpts in your piece that I related to, it really resonated with me.

I also have some family in Russia. And as an Armenian, you know, Russia has been a long time ally of Armenia's. And Armenia is really dependent on Russia for security. I mean, without Russia, Armenia wouldn't even exist. So I kind of understand the biases coming from, you know, Armenians on this issue. But this particular excerpt from your piece really spoke to me. You wrote, the current clash over truth, fiction, and everything in between has expanded the thousands of miles that physically divide parts of my family. So much so that these days, it often feels as if we reside on different planets.

While it's never been easier to stay connected, I no longer know how much of the conversations we have with one another is real. And later you wrote, if my time at RT America taught me anything, it's this. A mission can be just as powerful a tool as telling brazen lies or sowing suspicion. And I thought that last part was just so incredibly important because I remember your show on RT, I mean, years and years ago, and I remember coming on your show as a guest quite often. And it was really the only program in America at the time, other than TYT, but we weren't on television at the time, where we could speak freely about the excesses of American foreign

policy, the brutal nature of it. You know, we talked about issues that we actually genuinely believe in. But at the time, it didn't really hit me that we were avoiding certain topics, right? And I wanted to talk to you a little bit about that, because you kind of had your own awakening about the powerful omission or the emissions and how powerful it is in Russian state propaganda. Can you elaborate on that a little further? Yeah. I mean, you know, Anna, it's I didn't occur to me when I was hosting the show too that we were making that compromise. You know, and maybe it's because I was like 23 and just didn't know any better or maybe I was, again, just, you know, willing to kind of deny that fact because I felt so passionately about the stories

that we were covering and felt like there wasn't really any other outlet to be covering all those progressive stories and those angles on TV like you mentioned. And so I kind of just allowed myself to not realize, well, hold on, there's a huge conflict here. If, sure, I'm allowed to talk about whatever I want to on my program and cover any story I want on my show here about the United States. And I think I saw it that way too because I'm an American. This is where I've grown up. This is the country that I, you know, vote in that I have lived in since I was four years old. And so that was my primary kind of thought process as I was thinking about America. But the clear conflict was we were talking about all these stories, but then not talking about Russia.

while, of course, the Russian government was paying the bills for RT America to exist. And so, you know, it's something that I have, as I mentioned, that he's faced a lot of consequences for professionally. People not wanting to hire me because of it. And it's something that I have to just outright acknowledge and own. And so I think that that kind of a mission, though, it does exist everywhere. And it's just sometimes some of it tends to be culturally acceptable. If you look at the way I used Condoleezza Rice as an example and the piece of her going on TV and giving interviews talking about what a violation of international and human rights it is for a nation to invade another sovereign nation without really having to at all confront, you know, Iraq and her track record there in the Bush administration. And so I think it's, you know, it's this, it's, it's part of or a key, in my opinion, to solving the disinformation kind of plague that we have globally, which is realizing that unless you really say it all and confront uncomfortable and inconvenient truths, then that disinformation is just going to have more room to grow.

And so, of course, in Russia right now, that omission, I wish I had a better word, instead of repeating that a million times or exclusion. Maybe I should say, you know, that exists right now to an extreme degree because they're just living in a completely censored environment where social media has been blocked, where Western outlets have been blocked. And so it's, you know, a mission to the extreme. But that, I think, is what allows people when that truth isn't there and it's not getting through and it's not even being shown. It allows them to to block it out and to deny that. that it exists. So yeah, Alona, so last question here. First of all, I just want to acknowledge that's exactly right about omissions being everywhere. I mean, look at CNN, right? So they cover the Ukraine war nonstop.

Did they give the same coverage to Yemen? No, right? And so that is a giant, giant omission for a long time. That was a much larger war with a much larger death count. Yet almost no word of that because why the Saudis are ostensibly US allies. That is also a form of propaganda and that is why a lot of Americans live in a bubble where they don't realize that wars like that are happening. So that's a great point. And by the way, all those great points in Alona's article, you can see because we'll put the link down below

that you can just click on the description box if you're watching this on YouTube or Facebook later. So but the last question is this. Look, you, I thought it was brave of you to talk about your mom in the Russian parliament and how you guys disagree. So that means she's supporting Putin and she lives in that same information bubble that you're talking about. So, you know, can you get through to her? Like, hey, mom, there's different information. Like here they're showing the dead Ukrainians and et cetera, et cetera. And if you can't get through to her, how does it affect your relationship on a personal level?

It's hard. It's really hard. You know, it's my mom. And so I get emotional talking about it. But you know, it really is, it's incredibly challenging and difficult. And I think especially because at this moment in time, even though she might downplay it, I feel like I don't know if she's being 100% truthful with me when she's speaking to me just because of the environment where like it's assumed someone's always listening into your calls, especially for someone like her and your government official. you know, I don't know if she is afraid to say something counter to what that kind of, you know, government narrative is. I don't know if she really buys into it. It is just a confusing time for me and one that, you know, I try to do what I can.

I try to say my piece, but I think so many people have probably experienced something similar, obviously not exactly the same. not everyone's, you know, parent is a, is a member of the government in Russia, but just of trying to get through to relatives, people that you love and that you care about who seem unreachable at times, right? Or maybe it just results in you screaming about it and fighting matches, and it just feels like not worth it to have to bring it up every single time. And so, you know, you want to try to maintain and sustain a relationship with this person that you. care about. And so it's, yeah, it's challenging. That's what I'll say. Yeah, I can definitely relate. Many times, just walk out of the room, go outside, touch grass, calm down, and then come back. But seriously, thank you so much for taking the time to come speak with us. Everyone, please check out her piece in the new republic. We will include a link down below, life behind Russia's

veil of misinformation. Alona, thanks for coming on. I hope you'll come back again soon. Thank you so much. It's been great to be back on with you guys. All right, everyone, we're going to take a brief break, and when we come back, corporate Democrat had some pretty terrible things to say about progressive members of Congress. We'll give you that story and more coming right back after the break. All right, back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys. Also, Laslow 216, that American hero just joined by hitting the join button below on YouTube. That's how you become a member. That's how you help us produce this show that tries to bring honesty and change to the country.

Anna's got more news. Anna, we can't hear you. Sorry about that. That happens all the time when you're at home. It's okay, no big deal. I know, I know, sorry about that. Okay, let's do it. Let's talk a little bit about what's happening with the Minneapolis Police Department.

When you think of the Minneapolis Police Department, you probably think of some high profile police killings, including Amir Locke from earlier this year, and also George Floyd in 2020. But yesterday, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights released a 72 page report detailing the activities and behavior. of the Minneapolis Police Department and their findings do show that the department is actually far worse than we even suspected. So here are the report's main conclusions. After completing a comprehensive investigation, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights finds there is probable cause that the city and Minneapolis Police Department engage in a pattern or practice of race discrimination in violation of the Minnesota human rights.

act and what they looked into in order to come up with these findings, hundreds of interviews, a review of 700 hours of body worn camera footage and nearly 480,000 pages of city documents. And the report is so long, there are so many things that we could talk about. Obviously we don't have time for that, but we're gonna give you the highlights from the report. For instance, apparently upsetting or hurting a police officer's feelings has led to some pretty terrible behavior by the cop that's offended. So a high level MPD leader explained that officers often arrest and cite individuals with obstruction or disorderly conduct for things that could fall under the category arguably of pissing off the police. Community members and public

defenders also consistently reported that MPD officers commonly issue one of these two citations when officers are annoyed or displeased with a community member's reaction or response to a police officer's presence. So analysis of traffic stop data also showed that when officers can see the race of a vehicle's occupant, they're far more likely to stop vehicles with people of color, color than people who are white. So they have the data to show this. MPD officers were 12% more likely to stop a vehicle occupied by a person of color or indigenous individual when it was light outside and officers were more likely to see

the race of the people in the car compared to when it was dark outside and officers were less likely to identify the race of individuals before deciding to make a stop. And when it comes to various searches that they do, there's also a disparity regarding race. I can get to that in just a moment. But, Jank, I wanted to give you an opportunity to weigh in. Yeah, so look guys, in the report, there are tons of instances of officers using the N-word,

calling Latinos beaners, calling black people monkeys and orangutans. And you go on and on when it comes to women, the sea word, some other variation. of the C word. It's just endless. Now, having said that, you don't have to just rely on anecdotes. So look at the number that Anna just read you guys. If they can't see who's in the car, there isn't bias. But during the daytime, when they can see who's in the car, they pull over black people 12% more. Well, that's not an anecdote. That's what they're doing in mass. That is, you know, over the course of time, thousands of more black people pulled over for no reason.

In fact, here, I'll give you that quote here as well. Current and former high level city and police officials acknowledge that the Minneapolis Police Department stops vehicles with people of color for either no genuine reason or for low-level violations in an effort to find guns or drugs. So they admit it, they're like, yeah, we pull over black people, even if there's no reason. And I tell you this, because if you're black, you already know that, you've already lived that, right? But a lot of white people don't know that because they haven't lived it. So when you see numbers like this, please have an open mind and understand how bad it is, which leads me to Graphics 6.

In the first precinct, which serves downtown Minneapolis, when MPD officers stopped vehicles with black individuals, officers were six times more likely to use some type of force against the vehicle's occupants than during traffic stops of vehicles occupied by only white individuals who are stopped in similar circumstances. Now we as progressives, we don't want officers to use more force on white people. That's crazy, no, we want them to use less force on black people and they're doing, look at how disproportionate it is, it's six times more if you're black. So when you see the slogans like Black Lives Matter, they didn't come out, come up with that from out of nowhere, it's because police across the country treat their lives like they don't

matter. And now look, Minneapolis has become famous because of George Floyd and some other very controversial police abuse stories. But, you know, it's not Alabama, it's not Mississippi. If I'd asked you a couple of years ago, do you think Minneapolis is one of the most racist police departments? You probably would have guessed no, right? It's just a random police department. But you turn over the rock from a random police department and this is what you find. That is exactly what black people have been saying in this country for centuries and no one would believe them. Turns out of course it's true. Exactly, I wanna get to some other numbers, other findings from this report.

Let's go to Graphic 5 because they're far more, African Americans are far more likely to be searched than other individuals. So for instance, one black man reported that MPD officers pulled him over at least, imagine living through this, seven times in the last five years for alleged minor traffic violations. During four of those stops, the officers told him that they smelled marijuana in his vehicle and conducted a search while they handcuffed him, sometimes with their guns drawn and pointed at him. And guess what, of course, officers never found any drugs in his vehicle.

So the allegation that they smell marijuana is just used as an excuse to essentially harass the driver here, a black driver with the intention of finding something, but of course they find nothing. And if you're living through that, imagine how annoying that is. At the very least, okay, at the very least it's annoying because you're just trying to live your life. you're dealing with seven stops and searches within a five year time span. Also, the report finds that based on a review of 300 MPD use of force files from 2010 to 2020, supervisors failed to complete a thorough review of an officer's use of force in 48% of cases. The review demonstrated that in 24% of use of force files, evidence contradicts or disputes the information that an officer

officer recorded in their use of force report, in 28% of all use of force incidents, MPD officers failed to request or provide medical attention to community members who required it. And so when we think of what policing is sold to the American people, what it's supposed to be, essentially an agency that's funded through our resources, through our taxpayer money meant to protect and serve, We have to understand that for some members of the community, that is not what they're getting. They're getting the exact opposite. They're being harassed, they're being unlawfully searched, they're dealing with brutal force when they've done nothing wrong and there's no probable cause to warrant the kind of behavior that they're being met with. And that is a dangerous climate

to live in, especially when we are dealing with a crime wave, especially when everyone in every community does want protection, does want safety, does want stability. But we also have to understand that when the community has distrust toward the police, then there is no real public safety in that equation. It's the exact opposite. So when we talk about reforming the criminal justice system, it can't just be about shorter prison sentences. Sure, that's part of the equation. But what I'm actually pretty furious about is that both on a local level and also on a federal level, there has been very little action in regard to reforming policing. And it can't just be a simple black and white issue,

like do we fund or do we defund? No, we need police, but we need police to work for everyone in the community, to keep the community safe, to actually carry out what they claim they're supposed to be carrying out. Yeah. And if you read this report, it proves to you guys almost everything that we've been telling you in all these police abuse videos. So for example, we show you in video after video, they shoot someone, then they handcuff them, and then they don't get the medical help for a long, long time. And then they sometimes they'll literally bleed out. Or in the case of George Floyd, you know, he'd already stop breathing and they just would not

give him medical attention. And every time the police union or the right wing says, oh, just a few bad apples. But in this case, they show you, no, 28% of the time, they just don't get the medical help. So you can say, hey, look, 72% of time they do, 28% is a monster number. That's a giant number, hundreds of people who desperately need medical help and they're not going to get it because the cops think their lives don't matter. So then you say, well, you know, okay, so what did they get pulled over more? Okay, well, number one, when they get pulled over, they get subjective violence six times more. Number two, remember that first quote that Anna read you.

And boy, I mean, this is probably the number one thing that I say all the time about the police. And it's right there in the report. The biggest crime is pissing off an officer. So if they stopped you for no reason, and the conversation went slightly awry. And remember, they have terrible assumptions about black people and indigenous people, Latinos, et cetera, when they pulled them over. So if anyone says anything that matches that assumption in their heads, that's it, you're off on a wrong track. and then he's going to arrest you just for making him mad. And why is he mad?

Probably because you asked him, why the hell did you pull me over? And he knows he pulled you over because you're black. And then he's more likely to arrest you. And then finally, they target African Americans in every conceivable way. So I'll give you one more here. MPD officers, that's Minneapolis Police Department, use covert or fake social media accounts to surveil and engage black individuals, black organizations, and elected officials without a public safety objective.

So, and they say as of December 2020, MPT did not use its covert social media accounts to track white supremacists or white nationalist groups. Now, the FBI has said that white supremacists caused more violence in this country than any other terrorist group. And the cops go, no, I don't actually want to check extremist groups that we know are causing violence. I want to check. I want to check. random black people and elected officials, and they specifically state without a public safety objective. This is exactly what racism looks like, and it has incredibly hurtful and damaging effects on African Americans all across the country. Whether you see it or you don't see it, it's happening. Well, I want to pivot to something completely different. I want to discuss

what is transpiring within the Democratic Party because while we've been talking about these New York Times writers and their book detailing the infighting within the Republican Party, fact of the matter is there's plenty of infighting within the Democratic Party as well. So let's talk about it. Two of Joe Biden's top White House advisors privately shared some pretty searing criticism toward progressive members of Congress. Now this was a all revealed in the upcoming book, This Will Not Pass, Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America's Future, written by New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns. Now, according to the book, Cedric Richmond, who represented Louisiana's second congressional district from 2011 to 2021,

became irate after the sunrise movement attacked Biden for naming him as a senior advisor and director of the Office of Public Liaison in late November of 2020. So what did he do? Well, he called a friend to complain about it. Apparently, Richmond telephoned a friend to express his anger at the group of progressive female house members known as the squad, all of whom have close ties to sunrise. He was particularly angry at two major sunrise allies, representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Representative Rashida Talib.

In fact, he told his friend that the left wing lawmakers were effing idiots, and we have to censor it for the show. He didn't censor it during this discussion. And Jank, apparently what really upset him was they had the audacity to point to his cozy ties to the fossil fuel industry. Because remember, calling them out on the corruption is something that they just cannot deal with. And guys, this is a really important story, because this is exactly the kind of, you know,

group think that exists in Washington where calling out somebody for their corruption is considered the biggest violation of etiquette and people consider you mean and terrible person. How could you do that to poor Cedric Richmond? Just he's been taking all that oil money and stuffing it in his pockets and not doing anything about climate change and you're actually calling him out on it? No, no, the problem isn't calling him out on it. The problem is that he's doing it in the first place. Well, you should tell Cedric Richmond, if you're a progressive in Congress,

well, maybe you should stop thinking about getting bribed by the oil companies. Now, if they did that, oh, it's outrageous, that he's in the club. He's an elite. He's an elite. You cannot criticize the elites. But I ask you this. Does it look like Cedricman feels the same way about progressives, also in Congress, also his colleagues.

No, it doesn't appear that way at all. He can say anything he wants about progressives. He doesn't have to be polite to them. And there is no culture in Washington that thinks, oh, I can't believe Cedric Richmond did that. This story's been out, nobody's outraged by it. It didn't make almost any news at all. If- None. If Alexandria Ocaser-Cortez had called Cedric Richmond an eff an idiot, it would make unbelievable.

news and everyone, not just the Democratic establishment, but most importantly, the mainstream media and cable news would say, oh, AOC, look at this. Progressive, they're so disrespectful. And Sandra Richman agrees with her basically on everything. Not true, total lie. The media lies to you about that all the time, okay? Oh, and now she's being so disrespect. They did this to Nina Turner. You remember, we did a town hall where Killer Mike, said that he couldn't believe that Clyburn didn't ask for anything in return from Biden for endorsing him in South Carolina. And he said, you know, that there was a stupid strategy because you should at least get something back. They said, oh, no, you called Clyburn stupid. And

Nina Turner was on the same stage. So that's why Clyburn's feelings were hurt. And there were dozens of articles. Nina Turner hurt Jim Clyburn's feelings. She what a monster she is. And that hurt her really bad in that election because voters who don't know anything but watch television, honestly, Democratic primary voters that don't go online, they're like, oh, I guess Nina Turner was super disrespectful, only because they framed it that way. And when Cedric Richmond, a conservative Democrat, calls us, and in this case, it's not even us, that would be the most normal thing in the world. Oh my God, outsiders that aren't in the club. You can say anything you want about actual Americans. But when he says it even about people in the club, they're like, oh yeah, of course they're progressives. You can say anything you want about them.

No one in Washington thought that that was abnormal. And they probably, most of them thought attaboy. So no, there's no reason in the world why progressives should do unilateral disarmament. You should fight back against Cedric Richmond and Akeem Jeffries and Jim Clyburn and Pelosi and Schumer and Biden. Go get them. Stop sitting there waiting while they savage you. Attack back. Stop being so goddamn polite. No, I couldn't have said it better myself. I totally agree with what you're saying here. And under like I want everyone to just really take in what is happening in the country, right? The broader trend that we're seeing and how yes, the Republican Party is awful in

so many different ways and is a threat to our democratic system, our democratic process. We all acknowledge that. But what paved the way for them? Who empowers them? It's the corporate Democrats. I mean, the corporate Democrats have emboldened the right wing to turn into the monsters that they've turned into who have absolutely no problem, you know, bringing the country closer and closer to to fascism toward an authoritarian state. Not only do the corporate Democrats fail in essentially providing an opposition party that's effective enough to squash their efforts, they don't offer anything in exchange. They don't offer anything as a substitute to what the right wing in America is offering.

So when it comes to progressives, it's not just that we're trying to pressure them to fight back. They have a mandate to fight back. It is an obligation, a requirement. That is the reason why they were put in a position of power in the first place. They were supposed to be the ones who come in and they offer something else to Americans, something that corporate Democrats have failed to offer. And look, I get it, once you're in Congress, once you're dealing with these people day and day out, day and day out is a bit much.

They work like six months out of the year, but you get what I'm saying. They're in the room with these corporate Democrats and sometimes it's better to go along to get along. But we're talking about the future of the country. We're talking about the failures of the Democratic Party that has emboldened and empowered the right wing in this country. And if progressives don't fight back, if they just sit back, see these stories, and they don't call corporate Democrats out on what really fuels them. So there's really no point in serving in Congress in the first place. You're just another run of the mill Democrat, you might not take corporate pack money, you might not take money from big donors.

But who cares? If you sit there and you don't fight back and you just kind of bow your head and go along with what corporate Democrats want, we're gonna lose. But even worse than that, we're gonna lose the country. Yeah, no, progressives go to Washington. Then all of a sudden, they get super comfortable. And they all, they believe in the culture of Washington. Now, I have facts to back that up. The progressive caucus didn't endorse the Turner. They went, and endorsed her conservative Democrat in the primary that she's running against. Why? Well, she's one of her, their colleagues.

It would be rude not to endorse the corrupt person who took millions and millions of dollars from packs that want her to do the bidding of the oil companies, the drug companies, the lobby for Israel, et cetera. All those people poured money. You know that she took that money. You know that's how she won the election. You know that those are the oil companies and the drug companies are the people. people that were fighting against to get our legislation passed, but yet you're going to back

Chantelle Brown because it would be rude. Well, it is deeply rude to actual progressive voters that you guys seem to have no principles and no fight in you, no fight at all. Look, I founded Justice Democrats. This time around, they didn't endorse Nina Turner. I'm deeply embarrassed about that. I don't have anything to do with them now. And if that's the way they're going to think, I don't want anything to do with them.

And all, I don't know of a single person in Congress that's endorsed Nina Turner. Man, they run. That is sickening, man. It's called loyalty. You should look into it. And you think that by picking off your own friends, they somehow, Cedric Richmond is going to be your new friend? No. The minute you're back is turned, he calls you an effing idiot.

And by the way, if you don't fight him back, what are you? Are you brilliant by constantly laying down for him, for laying down for Chantelle Brown, for laying down to all of these conservative Democrats? Nah, man, no, look, I've told you guys a thousand times about rebellion pact and how we're one of the very, very few people fighting on Nina Turner's side. Why? Because nobody else would. I had to set up another damn pack so that we could actually get some fighting progressives.

I'm super proud of it. Help the Rebellion.com. If nobody else will come, we'll come. We're the cavalry, and we're always going to back progressives. And if you're a progressive in Congress or you think you are, you should start acting like one and actually be strong and fight back for your voters, not your goddamn colleagues. Colleagues my ass, they are opposed to you on every policy. And they say every terrible thing behind your back.

And who do you attack? You attack your friends and your allies and do their bidding. for them. For once, stand up and fight back. But you won't, you'll find me rude because I'm not in the club. I've been terribly rude. And all, and you'll go back to listening to the Richmond's and the Clyburns of the world and the Pelosi's and the Schumbers. And you'll do nothing. That has been the trend so far. Get up and fight back. Otherwise, are you really progressive? All right, we got to wrap up our first hour. When we come back, we will lighten the mood a little bit and share some new stories with you, including, man, something just broke

involving Madison Cawthorn. It really does seem like his own party is doing some opal research, which makes me think maybe those cocaine-fueled sex parties were real. We've got that story and more coming right up. 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, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.