The Young Turks - Racist Clown Show

Episode Date: March 23, 2022

Human rights advocates are demanding that the United States immediately release billions of dollars which it seized from Afghanistan’s Central Bank after ending its 20-year military occupation of the country last year, causing a devastating hunger crisis that has already killed thousands of Afghan newborns in 2022. A GOP Senator said the Supreme Court shouldn’t have legalized interracial marriage. Tucker Carlson says “a rap star off the street” would be a more mainstream choice for the Supreme Court than Ketanji Brown Jackson. St. Jude fights donors’ families in court for a share of their estates. ***  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/exmdrqwvoxM https://youtu.be/meT4kR0O4QQ https://youtu.be/Czf8E3-lFn8 https://youtu.be/YK1zLcWnKJM https://youtu.be/nZR2pAwL3GI https://youtu.be/LRgOHtIkpyU 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. What's up everyone, welcome to TYT. I'm Anna Casparian and today we're gonna have a giant, fantastic show for you. We're gonna of course cover the fourth day of the confirmation hearings for Judge Katanji Brown Jackson, just an absolute circus. It should be an embarrassment for Republican voters to see the behavior of their Republican senators and the way that they've

been acting the way the questions they've been asking. But unfortunately, I think that this is a circus meant to posture, meant to engage in political theater, specifically for the purposes of the midterm election. So we'll get into video of that. We'll talk about what we've heard on Fox News in regard to her ability to be a Supreme Court justice. Remember, we're talking about a woman who not only has the qualifications, but someone who's already been confirmed by the Senate for lifetime appointments as a judge, as a federal judge. So we'll get to all those details a little later. We're also going to have John Iderola join us for the second hour to talk about a whole host

of stories, including a story regarding APAC and how it apparently has absolutely no problem, funding politicians who both incited the insurrectionists on January 6th and continued to defend them. So we've got those stories and more. Definitely don't miss it. And if you like the show, if you want to help us out, like and share the stream if you're watching us on YouTube. You could also become a member by clicking on that join button. And that will help to keep the show sustainable and independent of corporate sponsors, something that I definitely appreciate and enjoy. So without further ado, why don't we get to our first story, something that isn't the top news story of the day, but something that I think is important for everyone to have on their

radar. More than 13,000 Afghan children, newborns, to be exact, have died of hunger, have died of malnutrition as a result of the Biden administration deciding to seize the assets of the Afghan Central Bank. This has been a complete disaster for the Afghan people. It makes absolutely no sense for Biden to continue on with this. But nonetheless, despite the number of deaths as a result, this policy continues. Now, this is based on a new report that was released by Human Rights Watch.

And here's what we've learned through that report. With 95% of the country unable to access sufficient food due to the currency crisis, Human Rights Watch reported that 13,000 newborn babies have died of malnutrition and hunger-related diseases since January. not January of last year, January of this year, okay, it's March. 13,000 newborn babies in Afghanistan have died. Human Rights Watch is warning that time is running out to address hunger in the impoverished country. Now the country is grappling with currency shortages as a result of the United States

freezing the central bank in Afghanistan. And what did they do? Well, our government decided to seize $9 billion from the central bank in Afghanistan. According to the American prospect, an excellent report by Ryan Cooper, the banking system has ceased to function. Businesses can't find credit and have resorted to mass bankruptcies and layoffs. People can't get enough cash. The country can't afford necessary imports, and the value of the currency is collapsing. And there's a huge problem, because the way the economy works has been completely destroyed single-handedly by the United

States seizing these assets. And the argument here is, well, the Taliban took over. And so as a result, we're going to seize the assets and we're going to implement sanctions because we're not in any way going to support the current government of Afghanistan because we don't want to do any type of business or provide any type of support to the Taliban. But understand what that means for the Afghan people, which have done, they've done nothing wrong whatsoever. Innocent people, innocent civilians who were already brutalized by U.S. foreign policy are now experiencing insult to injury with their economy collapsing based on what we're doing here, what our government is doing.

Ryan Cooper continues to write in the American prospect. The main problem is the shattering recession and currency crisis that has crushed the Afghan economy since American troops withdrew. Occupation spending accounted for 40% of the country's GDP and three quarters of its government budget. Most Afghans can't afford food that would otherwise be readily available. Now Doctors Without Borders is overwhelmed. They're trying to help in every way they can, but it's incredibly difficult to do so, especially based on the sheer numbers of people who are suffering from malnutrition as we speak.

One in every five children, by the way, one in every five children admitted to critical care is dying. And the situation at the hospital has been made worse in recent weeks by the spread of the highly contagious measles disease that damages the body's immune system, a deadly blow for babies already suffering for malnutrition. Why are we allowing babies to suffer any type of consequence right now? What is the reasoning behind it? And so the Biden administration has received some backlash on this, because who are we to seize $9 billion in assets from a sovereign country? Especially after we engaged in a war that lasted decades, spent $3 trillion and accomplished absolutely nothing. Why? We destroyed that country. Why would we continue destroying it by seizing these assets? Well, apparently the Biden administration decided, okay, look, it appears that people are really

suffering in Afghanistan based on our actions. So why don't we provide some humanitarian aid? Why don't we take some portion of the $9 billion that doesn't belong to us, belongs to Afghanistan, and just give it back to them in the form of humanitarian aid. But there are problems with that. So as Common Dreams writes, after spending months sitting on more than $9 billion it sees from the central bank last summer after the Taliban took over the took over Afghanistan. The Biden administration last month announced it

would commit $3.5 billion to unspecified humanitarian efforts. Hmm, 3.5 billion dollars. First of all, why not return all the money that you seized from a sovereign country? Again, let me repeat. But more importantly, is that humanitarian aid could actually get to the right people when you consider that there are sanctions in place as well. And the sanctions dissuade international banks from doing any business with humanitarian organizations that would do the work in Afghanistan. They're worried, hey, what if we go against U.S. sanctions? What if we get penalized in some way, reprimanded in some way by the U.S.

government for doing this business? So you have to take those sanctions into account as well. And what about the rest of the money? What is Biden doing with the rest of that $9 billion that was seized from Afghanistan? Well, let's watch this video to give you a little more of an explanation. The Taliban were in power in Afghanistan when the 9-11 attacks happened, as you know. And they had played host to al-Qaeda. And al-Qaeda was the organization, the group that planned and executed the 9-11 attacks. nothing to do with ordinary Afghan people.

But the money that President Biden has decided is to be split between giving it to as compensation to the 9-11 victims' families and humanitarian relief in Afghanistan itself, it's using the money that really belongs to Afghan people. Now, if you're an Afghan and you go to the bank anywhere in the world, including in Afghanistan, and you put your ATM in the wall as we do, your money won't come out because they're the frozen And so there is a lot of anger and disappointment that what President Biden has decided to do is co-opt and in the words of some people I've been speaking to steal their money and leave them as destitute as they have been since the country fell to the Taliban last August. So Biden takes half that money and says that he's going to give it to the families of victims of 9-11, even though many of those families have come out and said, no, this is wrong, don't do this.

But he's decided to do it anyway. It's fascinating because we still have very nice relations with Saudi Arabia. And there's never any critique or criticism coming from the United States government, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, or a Republican sitting in the White House in regard to Saudi Arabia's role in what happened on 9-11. No conversation about that whatsoever. In fact, our relationship with Saudi Arabia is so friendly that we will go to war on their behalf.

We will assist them in a war in Yemen where you have, oh, would you look at that? More innocent children dying of famine, dying of hunger. And when you take a look at stories like this and you compare it to the way both the corporate media in the United States and the way mainstream Democrats, corporate Democrats, just respond to Ukraine. Just compare what they're doing in these countries, how little attention it gets, and compare it to the response to Ukraine. Wouldn't it be amazing if we had, if we're humanitarian, humanitarian minded when it came to every country, not just countries that we cherry pick as wanting to help. You see story after story humanizing the Ukrainian people. And that's the right way to

cover what's happening to them. But you rarely see stories about Yemen. You rarely see stories about what's happening to civilians in Afghanistan. And it's just wrong. It's just, it is, it's just wrong. And the other thing I want to bring up is how we haven't heard a peep from people like George W. Bush, who was really disappointed that the United States was withdrawing troops from Afghanistan because it was concerned about Afghan women. Oh, what about the treatment of Afghan women? Are we really going to pull out? Well, now Afghan women are starving. Their newborn babies are dying, not a peep. Because apparently being concerned about civilians, only matters to government officials when you can sell weapons,

when you can ensure that some profit will be distributed over to private defense contractors. It's just wrong, it's gross, it needs to be called out. I get that this isn't the top news story of the day, but I wanted to make sure you guys knew about it. All right, we gotta take a break. When we come back, we will be joined by a former communications director for Eric Garcetti. Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, and she has blown the whistle in regard to one of his top advisors, Rick Jacobs, who had engaged in sexual harassment. Garcetti claims he didn't know

about it. She says otherwise. We've got that and more when we come back. What's up, everyone, welcome back to the show. We are trying to get our guest on the program. We're having some technical issues with that. But in the meantime, might as well cover some more stories. I do want to read a few comments from our viewers, starting with our members. Ecclectic miscellaneous says, TYT Wednesdays come for the salt,

stay for the ice cream. Ice cream. And DJ Bart is always willing to supply the ice cream. So special things to him. Thank you. OJAM says Biden seizing funds owed to the Afghan banks is a political calculation. He thinks Republicans and centrist are going to give him credit

for treating Afghan people with cold brutality. Conservatives don't even know he did this. They'll hate him and vote against. him anyway. I think you're right, but there's also a part of me that thinks, maybe not. I really, I don't know what's motivating Biden here because the fact that he was willing to pull out of Afghanistan, despite all the criticism he was getting, both in the media and among his favorite Republican colleagues, tells me otherwise. He continues to refuse efforts to implement a no-fly zone in Ukraine. There are some areas where I see strength from Joe Biden.

So I don't know what's really motivating his decision to seize these funds, but the pain and suffering that it's leading to in Afghanistan is just absolutely devastating, uncalled for, and I'm completely against it. So I just wanted to make sure that we cover that story and let you know what was going on. And theater goddess says, I think this is such an excellent point. The government let 3.6 million American children fall back into poverty by failing to extend the child tax credit. think they're going to care about children in Afghanistan? Good point. Another good point is, I mean, look at what's happening in children in Yemen. And Biden has decided to continue assisting the Saudi-led coalition there. It's just, but you know, Biden's one of those people where I've been surprised in the past where if there's enough backlash, you can move him.

So let's stay on these types of stories and let's see if we can persuade his administration to move in the right direction. All right, for now, though, let's move on to the Supreme Court confirmation hearings. That's been certainly telling. GOP lawmakers have certainly shown their hand during the confirmation hearings for Judge Katanji Brown Jackson, making it clear that abortion is not the only thing they're going after. They're looking to roll back progress on a whole host of social issues. Supreme Court rulings that were made literally decades ago on things like interracial marriage.

Yes, they're mentioning that and even the access to birth control. So one person I wanted to talk about a little bit here is Republican Senator Mike Braun. He's from Indiana. And he decided to have a meeting with some journalists, answer some of their questions, about the Supreme Court nomination hearings, and he said some things that are concerning, like this. Whenever I vote for Supreme Court justice, it's going to be basically, how are you going to interpret the law? If your record shows that you're going to be kind of an activist there, I don't think that's good, and I don't think the founders intended it that way. So let's pause.

This type of statement is par for the course. Let's just be absolutely clear about the fact that every political party, each political party expects the judges they nominate to be activist judges. Okay, that's the reason why you have the Federalist Society pushing for the right wing judges that have been confirmed into our Supreme Court. The three who were confirmed during the Trump administration were all endorsed by the Federalist Society. And I, Democrats pick more liberal judges, conservatives pick more conservative judges. Why? because they don't expect them to be activist judges, no, because they expect the judges to have certain or hand down certain decisions, rule in a certain way, vote in a certain way,

that goes along with the political ideology that represents each political party. Like, let's not be stupid and let's not pretend otherwise. I think that it's an annoying conversation, an annoying debate that happens over and over again. The one thing that's absolutely clear on both sides, though, is that they tend to nominate, Supreme Court justices who are pro-corporate. And if you notice, the hearing so far have not really delved into issues like money in politics. Now let me tell you more about what Senator Mike Braun had to say. Braun said the Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage.

He said that. Let me read it again. Republican Senator Mike Braun from Indiana said the Supreme Court was wrong. to legalize interracial marriage, referring to the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision. Jackson, that's of course the judge who's undergoing these confirmation hearings, who would be the first black woman on the Supreme Court

if confirmed, is married to Dr. Patrick Johnson, who is white. So he was asked, Senator Braun was asked this. So you would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the issue of interracial marriage to the states, a reporter asked Braun. Yes, he replied, if you're not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that's hypocritical. Oh, that's fascinating. So maybe Mike Braun is having a little difficulty understanding what

the purpose of the Supreme Court is. So the purpose of the Supreme Court is to weigh in on and decide whether or not certain issues either are constitutional or unconstitutional. Whether we're talking about legislation, whether we're talking about, I don't know, hobby lobby deciding that it doesn't want to provide health insurance that covers things like abortion or contraceptives. Those are the kinds of things that the Supreme Court weighs on. It is a system, is part of a system of checks and balances. So if, let's say, a certain state, decides to vote in favor of legislation that does away with the civil liberties that Americans get to enjoy, the Supreme Court is supposed to come in, hear a case involving

that legislation and decide whether or not it's constitutional. So I would argue that issues involving identity, issues involving race have to do with our civil rights. And civil rights issues are protected under the Constitution. The Constitution is if you're passing legislation that treats certain groups of people as second-class citizens, then what is our Constitution means? What is it supposed to do? I mean, are you supposed to have a system in place where we just decide, all right, well, we don't like black people, we don't like gay people, we don't like whatever group? And so we're going to treat them as second class citizens, even though our constitution

is supposed to protect everyone. It's supposed to include everyone. Those are rights that extend to every single American, right? That's why the Supreme Court comes in. Again, it's a system of checks and balances. It is a civil rights issue. It is not a state's rights issue. But it doesn't matter.

Senator Braun said what he said. And in fact, he took things even further. Let's watch the video. So you would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states? Yes, I think that that's something that if you're not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that's hypocritical. About Griswold versus Connecticut. Well, you can list a whole host of issues when it comes down to whatever they are.

I'm going to say that they're not going to all make you happy within a given state, but that we're better off having states manifest their points of view rather than homogenizing it across the country, as Roe versus Wade did. No, that's just, it's the wrong interpretation. And look, he knew what he was saying. He was abundantly clear there. He wants to leave it up to the states because he wants to. to allow states to ban interracial marriage.

Very similar to what we've seen with states outlawing abortion. And we'll see how the Supreme Court weighs on that pretty soon. Once they make a decision on the state of Texas and how it has effectively banned abortion, if they decide no, that law can stand, then it means it's up to the states to decide whether or not they can just outright ban abortion. That's terrifying. The same thing would happen with other social issues, including interracial marriage. If it were up to people like Mike Braun, even though issues pertaining to race are civil

rights issues. So he also mentions the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, which stops states from banning contraceptives. So remember, these so-called small government Republicans do not care. at all about keeping the government small. They want government to be so big that they get in between you and your doctor as a woman. They want to make sure that government stands in the way of a woman making a decision about her own body. They want to get involved and ensure that if a woman happens to live in a red state and that red state decides they want to ban

not only abortion but contraceptives, they have the right to do it. You as a woman, you have have no agency over your body, they get to decide, it's a state's rights issue for them. And after receiving some backlash, Bron was like, maybe I showed my hand too much, maybe I need to walk it back a little bit, but he knew what he was saying. He thinks interracial marriage is a state's rights issue. He thinks contraceptives, states rights issue. Nonetheless, he walked it back a little bit, but I'm not buying it at all. He says, let me be clear on that issue, there is no question the constitution is, the constitution

prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race. That is not something that is even up for debate. But hold on, it seems like you think it is up for debate. Seems like you think that, you know, having the Supreme Court rule on something like that is hypocritical. It's having your cake and eating it too, whatever that means. Let me read the rest of his quote. And I condemn racism in any form at all levels and by any states,

entities, or individuals. then why did you make a point about how states should be allowed to ban interracial marriage? Like where did that come from? Are you walking this back simply because you're getting backlash? And I would say the answer is yes. But what's terrifying is he's not the only one. Marsha Blackburn, another Republican senator who has asked clownish questions of Judge Jackson during the confirmation hearings, decided to put together a cutesy little video for Twitter where she listed Supreme court rulings that she has a problem with. And guess what came up again? Let's watch. Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold v. Connecticut. Kilo versus City of New London

and NFIB versus Sebelius confused Tennesseans and left Congress wondering who gave the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is part of this system of checks and balances. Listen, I know Republicans are obsessed with gutting education. I didn't realize that they gutted it so early on that Marsha Blackburn doesn't understand simple, simple, doesn't even understand like the basics, the simple basics of how our government works. The Supreme Court comes in, let me just spell it out very clearly for her and anyone else who might have difficulty understanding this, they come in to deem legislation either constitutional or unconstitutional. They interpret the constitution. That's the whole point of the Supreme Court. It is part of a system of checks and balances.

But the reality is they hate that system of checks and balances when it's inconvenient for them. So when the Supreme Court decides in the Griswold ruling that she also cited there, when they decide that it's unconstitutional, they don't like that. They want to leave it up to the states to make a decision as to whether or not a woman has access to birth control. And look, I don't need to tell everyone that birth control is something that goes beyond preventing a woman from getting pregnant. Now, that's the main purpose of birth control. But women are prescribed birth control for a whole host of other health issues. And guess what?

Those health issues are no one's business but her own, but her own and her doctors. That's it. To have these goons get involved and tell a woman not only that she needs to be forced to have a baby that she doesn't want to have. She needs to carry a baby for nine months because they want government so large that it makes those decisions for a woman. The fact that they want to prevent a woman from being able to take birth controls. This is who they are. This is what they want. They want to take us back to the dark ages.

And part of it is just politically motivated because what else are they going to offer their constituents? They're certainly not going to reform economic policy. They're certainly not going to make their own constituents whole as they're struggling with poverty. They got their corporate donors to look out after. That's what they're concerned about. So they got to focus on the culture war issues.

And they'll manufacture culture wars, they'll, you know, dig deep into topics that have already been adjudicated over and over and over again, whatever it takes to just distract from the fact that they've got nothing else to offer their constituents. The only problem is while they're doing this based on their, you know, political agenda, their political aspirations, it has real consequences for people. Women in Texas are already experiencing those consequences. But outlawing abortion is not enough for them. They want to go further.

They want to get involved in who you can marry, what kind of medication you can take. And I think it's absolutely sickening that this confirmation hearing for Judge Jackson has turned into the culture war circus that it has. What a waste of time. Just the types of questions that they're asking, the types of things that they're asking, the types of things that they're fighting for. It's just absolutely devastating. But anyway, with that said, let's see if we can move on to, yes, let's move on to our interview

now, which I'm very excited to do. Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican, has placed a hold on Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti's nomination to become U.S. ambassador to India. Now, Grassley has cited allegations that Garcetti knew about the sexual misconduct that was allegedly taking place within his administration under, you know, the top advisor, who is no longer his top advisor, Rick Jacobs. He allegedly failed to take proper action for it. And Grassley wants to make sure that they can look into this prior to holding the confirmation hearings. Now, there is a woman who is blowing the whistle on Garcetti,

and she happens to be his former communications director. Her name is Naomi Seligman. Now, she says, no, Garcetti definitely knew what was going on. Seligman contends that Garcetti lied in a deposition that was brought by Los Angeles police officer Matthew Garza, a member of Garcetti's security detail. Garza claims that Garcetti witnessed some of Jacobs's behavior, but did not take steps to stop it. Jacobs called Garza's lawsuit, pure fiction. Now, her complaint further alleges that Garcetti lied under oath during his confirmation hearing in December.

Asking about the allegations by Senator Jean Shaheen, Garcetti said that he, quote, never witnessed nor was it brought to my attention the behavior that has, that's been alleged. And I want to assure you, if it had been, I would have immediately taken action to stop it, or stop that, end quote. Now, Garcetti's office denies all of this. In fact, they tell deadline, quote, there is nothing new here. And these false claims about the mayor are just as ridiculous now as they were when they were first made. The mayor stands by his testimony unequivocally, and more than a dozen witnesses have testified under oath that he was never made aware of any. improper behavior. Now, let's have a conversation about this because I want to learn more

details. I think everyone should learn more details. And here to join us to do just that is the woman who has blown the whistle, Eric Garcetti's former communications director, Naomi Seligman. Naomi, thank you so much for joining us. So let's start at the very beginning because I think it's really important for the audience to understand the accusations that have been made against Rick Jacobs, and then we'll move on to what Garcetti may have known or may have not known. So what did you experience with Jacobs? You had some allegations against him of your own. Sure, I was I was a victim. Rick Jacobs kissed me on the lips in front of my staff, pinned my arms down, held me, and then just kind of dropped me and walked out.

I then reported that I reported Rick Jacobs to the chief of staff at the time, Anna Guerrero, who said there's nothing we can do about it. I then called a close friend and a commissioner who works on gender equity to recount in to recount contemporary. what had happened to me. We were deposed, both me and my friend, and both testified under oath to what happened to me. And based on reports of all of these allegations, he did this to women who worked under him, men who worked under him. Can you detail some of the other allegations against him? Sure, I mean, we have Matthew Garza, who is a former protective detail, who for years,

who for years was sexually harassed and abused by Rick Jacobs inappropriate touching, inappropriate comments. But he's just one of really so many. He was just very brave to come out and tell his story. But we have scores of victims here. We have women like me, like my former staff member, Anna Barr, who was in the LA Times this weekend where her texts were where her texts were reported on about being abused and harassed by Rick Jacobs. We have Jeremy Bernard, who is the former, the former Social Secretary for the Obama White House. He heard the mayor several times say to him, wow, I can't believe we made it through Rick Jacobs being at City Hall and we didn't get sued. He said that several times to Jeremy.

We have we have men going back, you know, years, decades that have been talking to reporters that I have personally spoken with who have been victimized by Rick Jacobs. And we're talking about pretty serious, pretty serious offenses here. This is grabbing and hugging and but even even worse than that in some cases. And as I said, you know, so much of this was done in front of, in front of many people, but including in front of Mayor Garcetti. So when, when this type of behavior was taking place in front of Garcetti, what was his reaction to it? Was there ever a moment where he pulled him aside and said, hey, this is inappropriate.

This is, I mean, some of the accusations really seem like form of an intimidation. Was there any moment where Garcetti thought to reprimand him? I mean, just to be clear, these are all power maneuvers, right? We know that Rick Jacobs went after people that he wanted to dominate. And he did that again and again. And he absolutely did it in front of the mayor. I think it gave him, it was a sense of prowess that he was expressing during that time. The mayor, when I saw him witness it, he just watched or laughed as Matthew Garza has testified to.

He has he did nothing it was it was if you were watching him tell a joke or you're watching him have a conversation. He would come to protective detail, grab them, Rick would lift them off off the floor and shake them and say, oh my LAPD and really vicious vile other things he would do and say racist things he would say. And the mayor was there, absolutely. I would stand outside the mayor's office in the scheduling office. And there'd be me, the mayor, a scheduler, and Rick Jacobs in protective detail. And he would do it inches from him. And we know this also that he was comfortable doing it in front of him because we have that photo. I don't know if you have that photo with you, but there was a photo of the mayor and Rick Jacobs.

And Rick Jacobs literally puts his hand over a man's genitalia. Right. Inches from the mayor. And the mayor said, well, I never saw that. But the point is not whether he saw it or not. The point of course is that Rick Jacobs felt comfortable enough to put his hand on another man's crotch, inches from him, in a photograph.

And he knew that there were no consequences. Yeah. And that's why he did. Yeah, that photo was, I mean, it was so brazen. And with Garcetti in the photo, I mean, if he didn't notice it happening as the photo was being taken, how do you not see it after the photo was taken? I mean, you're in the photo. I'm pretty sure it was brought to his attention at some point. And so you mentioned trying to report what it happened to you and how you were told nothing

can be done. Why is that? I mean, did it just stop there? Nothing can be done about this, or was there any reason for why nothing was done about it? I mean, what is the real relationship between Eric Garcetti and Rick Jacobs? Why does it seem as though there was some sort of effort to help him out, provide cover for what he was doing? What motivated that? Listen, there's a lot of reasons. Some of them include that Rick Jacobs raised a lot of money for Eric Garcetti for his first campaign. He had an independent expenditure for him. He introduced him to a lot of powerful and wealthy people.

And I know that the mayor felt as though Rick had sort of brought him to the ball. We also know that Rick Jacobs was extraordinarily, extraordinarily close with the mayor's wife, Amy Lane Wakeland. And we know that that relationship was very important to Amy. And we knew we knew that the mayor would do nothing to hurt that relationship. There's a series of other reasons. But I would tell you right now, it was just an extraordinarily close, almost codependent relationship. And it was verboten to criticize Rick in any way, shape, or form. It was not welcome. He was not open to it. And I will tell you, I spoke to my chief of staff beyond, excuse me, beyond that one complaint

I made, we talk about it on a pretty regular basis. And she say, you know, there's nothing I can do. In fact, Garcetti said that or your chief of staff? The chief of staff would say it. And I would say, well, have you talked to the mayor about it? It's very concerning. Part of being a communications director is that you assess risk, right? And what can get out there? And I said, I think this is very risky for him and for his career. And she says, you know there's nothing I can do about it. And I said, but have you talked to the mayor?

And she said, he won't do anything. Susie Emerling, who was my successor as director of communications, has testified to the exact same conversation. And I know others spoke to Anna about it. I tried to talk to the mayor, even about a work product issue with Rick. And the mayor was so short and cutting and angry that I never brought up anything about Rick again. Instead, I decided to resign because that felt like that was my only choice. It was really a constructive discharge. Were there instances of people coming forward and based on what you're saying, nothing was ever done about it?

But was there ever retaliation for anyone who came forward? Listen, there was retaliation in that office day in and day out. They'd call it running actions on people. Again, Matthew Garza overheard a lot of those conversations. I sat around the conference table as members of Garcetti's team planned those actions. So anyone that came forward knew that they were going to be retaliated against. They knew there would be ostracized and they knew there would be no longer part of this, of this club of this as they called it team hashtag team Garcetti. There was a real culture

of Omer Ta there. It was basically, you know, you were either with us and you were loyal or you faced the consequences. So people did not come out and talk about, and talk about Rick. Because when we had conversations about it, it was, they were so quickly terminated and we were looked at like, why are you even bringing this up to me? What are you thinking to bring this up to me? And that was that was that was pretty much how it went when we tried to talk to anyone in the top echelons about Rick Jacobs. So what happens next? You've blown the whistle, you've come forward. What are you hoping to do with your efforts? So we want accountability, right?

We want to make sure that Eric Carcetti can no longer enable, cover up, and then lie about sexual harassment and abuse. We know that he is committed felony perjury, not once, but twice. We know that they had an independent investigation that they spent $100,000 on from the city that was incomplete, woefully incomplete, did not include any of the testimony. or interview any of us who told the truth. And then they presented that to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as evidence that the mayor didn't know anything. We know now there's a new story in the LA Times, and I'm sure there's more coming out about how that was really this fig leave. So not only did he commit felony perjury in the Senate, he also deceived them a second time by giving them this report, which he called confidential. He wouldn't release this report to the public. So now we're meeting with with senators.

And we've met, you know, by the end of this week, we've met about 15, both sides of the aisle. We know that Senator Grassley has placed a hold. We're really hoping that some Democratic senators come out and place a hold as well or ask President Biden to rescind this nomination. Just two weeks ago, President Biden signed legislation ending forced arbitration. I am sure that you covered it here, Gretchen Carlson's legislation. And Senator Gillibrand was there and other senators were there. But they have all stayed silent about this. And I find that, I find it really sad.

And I find it, you know, I'm a lifelong progressive. And I find it sad and that they've not respecting the victim's lives here. So I really want to hear from those senators as well. Naomi, thank you for, you know, it takes a lot of courage to come out against powerful people, especially when they're praying on people who work under them. I know what politics looks like if you are willing to speak out, especially if you're willing to speak out against your own side. So I thank you for sharing your story with us and being so candid about what you experienced. I hope that there's a thorough investigation. I hope there's justice for the victims

here. And I appreciate you taking the time for sharing the story with us. Thank you. And I can just ask, I know you have a very active, a very active audience. You know, and if you feel strongly that we cannot have someone representing us in India that enabled sexual harassment abuse, I implore you to get in touch with your senator and ask them to vote now. Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. Thank you, Naomi. Thank you, Anna. All right. We're going to take a brief break. When we come back, we have some more news from the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Jackson.

Welcome back to the show. Special thanks to our members, including our YouTube members, MW is one of those newer YouTube members. And thank you so much for supporting the show. We're gonna have an awesome bonus episode tonight with John Iderola. We're gonna talk about Ted Cruz having a meltdown over an anti-racist children's book. It's really something, it's something you don't want to miss. So definitely check that out if you are a member. You can go to t-y-t.com slash join to become one or click on that join button if you're watching us on YouTube.

And shock me by reading this, who's also one of our YouTube members, has a comment. Just wanted to give Anna and that gorgeous blouse slash dress a shout out. Thanks for all you do. I'd be lost without my TYT family. It is a dress. It's a nice linen dress. It is hot as hell in Los Angeles right now. And I got it on Poshmark, which is a place where you can buy secondhand stuff.

I highly recommend it. It's a sustainable way to buy clothing. And they've got a lot of cute stuff that you don't have to spend a lot of money on. So that's what I did. Anyway, let's get to our next story. I wanted to stay on the topic of the confirmation hearings for Judge Jackson. And unfortunately, what we're hearing from conservatives is what you'd expect. Why is it so radical to ask what your test score was to get into Harvard Law School?

How was that out of bounds? Yeah, that was Tucker Carlson, responding to some of the backlash he received after demanding to see Judge Katanji Brown Jackson's test scores, LSAT scores, which got her into law school. Now, she's an incredibly intelligent woman, Harvard educated. She has all the accolades that you would expect from someone who gets nominated to the Supreme Court. But it's curious, right, that Tucker Carlson would want to see proof that she earned it. Similar to the calls to see Obama's birth certificate to see if he was qualified to run for president of the United States. Gee, I wonder what the similarities are there. I wonder if there's a pattern.

Now, look, Tucker Carlson's not a stupid person. He might be a bad person, he might be a hateful person, but he's not stupid. So he knows exactly what he's doing in demanding to see the judge's test scores. He's pretending like he doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. And look, the effort to smear her, just as she's likely to be the Supreme Court's first black woman, first black female justice, it's just aggressively underway. We're seeing it during the confirmation hearings.

We're seeing it in conservative media. In fact, why don't we take a look at what the rest of that conversation looked like? Let's not understate how insanely absurd the Brett Kavanaugh hearings were, Tucker. They were going line by line through every word in the yearbook asking him like all these different, Anybody's ever seen a high school yearbook before, they were asking about all the inside jokes. What did this line mean? What did that line mean? I mean, he pulled out, it's unbelievable that he had a calendar as detailed as he did, tracking everything that he did over the course of the summer and his life.

But Tucker, I don't see how anyone can complain about any question relating to Katanji Brown Jackson based on the standard that they put in place for Brett Kavanaugh. Yeah, you know, Brett Kavanaugh seemed to have a little bit of a different standard. I wonder if that had something to do with the credible allegations of attempted rape. I wonder if it had anything to do with that. Now, of course, that point was completely missing from the conversation. And what was also missing from that conversation on Tucker Carlson's show was the fact that the FBI conducted a sham investigation into Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's allegations of attempted rape against Brett Kavanaugh.

And I just realized that maybe Josh Hawley lying about Judge Jackson being soft on pedophiles was just an attempt to manufacture some sort of controversy similar to what Brett Kavanaugh was dealing with because, you know, unlike Judge Jackson, Brett Kavanaugh had serious. attempted rape allegations against him, credible rape allegations against him. In fact, after Dr. Ford testified during the hearings about what she had allegedly gone through, Donald Trump was very upset. There are reports about this, you can read it. He was upset that she was allowed to testify because her testimony was so credible.

But again, all of that was missing from the conversation that Tucker Carlson had on his show. They're pretending like they're comparing apples to apples. They didn't compare apples to apples, okay? In fact, I think it's really, really important to take a look back at exactly what the Senate confirmation hearings looked like when it came to Kavanaugh versus Judge Jackson. Because while they're trying to paint her as someone who's not qualified, while they're trying to make it seem like she's not someone who has earned her role as a federal judge, as someone

who has worked hard and has gotten to the place where she is through her hard work. I mean, they're trying to make it seem like, oh, this whole system, it's just so unfair to poor poor people like Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed anyway, who was confirmed anyway after the sham FBI investigation, after all of it, he got what he wanted, the right wing got what they wanted. He's confirmed, he's a Supreme Court justice now. But again, while they tried to make it seem like he was wronged in some way, he was the qualified one, Judge Jackson isn't the qualified one, all of that garbage. I just want you to take a look back at what the confirmation hearings really look like.

I want you to compare the two. I went back, looked at the opening, okay. I went back, I looked at the opening statements from Brett Kavanaugh. And then I watched the opening statement from Judge Jackson. And there were some differences, some pretty significant differences. And I wanted to bring that to your attention. In the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around. And while I'm on the subject of gratitude, I must also pause to reaffirm.

my thanks to God, for it is faith that sustains me at this moment. Even prior to today, I can honestly say that my life has been blessed beyond measure. I am an optimistic guy. I always try to be on the sunrise side of the mountain to be optimistic about the day that is coming. But today, I have to say that I fear for the future. The first of my many blessings is the fact that I was born in this great nation. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers.

Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. My parents taught me that unlike the many barriers that they had had to face growing up, my path was clearer so that if I worked hard and I believed in myself in America, I could do anything or be anything I wanted to be. If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault will be an ugly new place in this country.

Yeah, you know, for all the crap women get for being overly emotional. emotional, usually when they're passionate about something, it is amazing to see the double standard play out in real time, where you have a calm, composed, overly qualified, if you ask me, woman who's dealing with these clownish confirmation hearings versus what Brett Kavanaugh received from the same people who are demonizing Judge Jackson as we speak. I mean, Lindsay Graham, like almost tore a vein in his neck defending Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. And to see the kind of treatment that Judge Jackson is getting from Republican senators, all while Republican leadership sits back and just lets it happen, it blows my mind. She's getting asked questions about anti-racish children's books and whether she supports them.

She's getting accused of being soft on pedophiles when in reality, her rulings, her sentencing was in line with conservative judges. They're actually smearing her. Yes, there is a difference between Judge Jackson and now Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The difference is she's not dealing with credible sexual misconduct allegations. Brett Kavanaugh did. She hasn't done a damn thing wrong, and there is no reason to question her qualifications to serve in this role. But as we all know, for people like Tucker Carlson, it, for someone who claims that, you know,

everything is just taken over by identity politics, all he does is focus on identity. Why is he going after her so hard? Is it because he genuinely has any problems with her past? Does he have any problems with her qualifications or does he have problems with something else? Her identity is a black woman. Now what's fascinating is he's also trying to paint her as an elitist. He's trying to justify the deceptive, disgusting attacks that he has launched against her by saying, look, she might be black, but she's like all those affluent liberals out there.

In fact, he says it during the conversation he had with that dweeb. Let's let's take a look at that. It's a Greta Thunberg play. It's like we're going to bring someone on, you're not allowed to criticize. I have to say, her views really seem like those of every affluent white liberal I've ever met. If you want a black candidate, I'm serious. I think the country would get better representation from, you know, she's just a carbon copy of everyone in the neighborhood I spent my life in. Anyway, this is what happens, Tucker.

They want cosmetic diversity, but everybody to have the exact same opinions. No diversity of thought, diversity of appearance. It's scary. If you picked a rap star off the street, that person's views would more likely be closer to the views of the average American than the views of this woman. So do you guys get what I mean when I say Tucker's smart? He's a terrible person. But what he did right there is perfect for those who just want to attack. Judge Jackson and then provide cover for their racism, essentially.

No, no, I mean, I'm not attacking her because she's black. I'm attacking her because she's an elitist. Why? Can you be specific? What do you mean you're attacking her because she sounds like an affluent white liberal? What do you mean by that? What has she said be specific? He's not being specific about it.

And then he brings in some rap, any rapper would be more representative. of the people. So when he mentions rapper, he knows that his audience is thinking, black people. So this isn't really about black people, this has nothing to do with race. It has to do with elitism, I guess, I don't know. And this is what he says after having a conversation questioning her qualifications, questioning whether or not she earned a spot in law school. There's nothing more elitist than that and racist, let's keep it real.

Anyway, we know what they're doing. I think most people who have two brain cells know what they're doing. I just feel terrible that Judge Jackson has worked this hard, has remained this calm throughout these hearings and has to continue dealing with this circus. And it's frustrating that we're not hearing questions about things that actually matter to ordinary Americans. Instead, we're hearing about CRT. We're hearing about manufactured right wing culture wars.

And they're wasting, not only Judge Jackson's time, they're wasting our time. Because they don't represent us. They never cared to represent us. It's all about political theater for themselves. And Democratic leadership won't shut it down. It blows my mind. Anyway, we got to take a break. When we come back, John Adderall will join us.

And we'll get to some more news, including who APAC is funding. Come right back. After a workout, have some beers. That's horrifying. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.