The Young Turks - Reformative Justice

Episode Date: September 14, 2022

A report shows that a railroad strike could possibly cripple the supply chain industry. An undercover woman was forced to deal with an incredibly sad chain of events, ending with her arrest. Around 200 members of congress from 2019 to 2021 have made a stock trade. Lindsey Graham has been accused of willful sabotage by Roger Stone. Dark Brandon has been unleashed on Rick Scott and other GOP pundits that dare cross his path. Host: 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 Watchlist ▶ https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey ▶ https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt Unbossed with Sen. Nina Turner ▶ https://www.youtube.com/unbossedtyt 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 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Welcome to CYYT. I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and we have a gigantic awesome show ahead for you, including an interview today with Jason Miles, who is the co-host of the This Is Revolution podcast. I wanted to have him come on because of his personal experiences dealing with various methods to help with the drug addiction epidemic that we're seeing in the country. He has worked in the area of harm reduction. And I think that that perspective is incredibly invaluable. So we'll have him on the show in the

first hour to discuss his personal experiences and his thoughts on what we can do as members of the left to help get the country out of the situation it's currently grappling with. The opioid epidemic, of course, continues. Now we have around 100,000 people dying of drug overdoses per year. So it's an important topic, and I really want to explore it more. We will be doing that in the first hour. Later in the show, we're also going to have John Adirola join us for a fun second half and we'll discuss some lighter stories for sure, fun stories. I'm sure John will have some thoughts on what's going on in the world of fantasy content, including House of the Dragon, Dragons, because that show, I was a little worried it was going to suck, but I watched

it and I'm already three episodes in. Love it. Couldn't recommend it more. So we'll talk about that and more in the second half of the show. But before we get started, I wanted to encourage you guys so like and share the stream. I think it's an easy way to help support the show and support the message. And you should also become a member because in the members-only bonus episode today, my husband, who was a former professional baseball player, will be joining us to talk about the fact that the minor league has now joined the MLB union, which is long overdue. This is really, really good news.

And so he's going to come on to talk about his personal experiences in the minor leagues and what it was like, because I don't think a lot of people understand, even in the minor leagues, you don't get paid much, and the conditions aren't so great, and so unionizing will help at least start to address some of those issues. Speaking of labor, by the way, we're going to begin with a story to update you on the rail strike. So let's get right to it.

We're not asking for the world here. We're asking for a few days off a month to spend with our family. instead of living on a train. We spend 240 to 260 hours a month sitting on these trains or sitting at the hotel rooms away from our families. I love how shocked and surprised conservative hosts are when they hear from workers who are about to strike because they don't have great working conditions,

but more importantly, they don't get paid time off. And in this case, they were specifically speaking to a railroad, worker. And there's good reason for having this discussion. We got to keep in mind that rail workers are planning on striking as soon as Friday of this week. And I'll tell you why in just a moment, but just to break down that video even further, the whole point of that conversation was to bring up the fact that the rail workers, railroad workers are not willing to accept what the terms of the latest negotiation with their employers have been. There are, 12 major railroad companies that are about to lose workers to a strike later this week

because they're unwilling to change the fact that they aren't giving these workers enough time off to deal with illnesses, family emergencies. I'm going to give you the details to all of that in just a moment. But I do think it's important to watch the rest of that Newsmax video. So let's take a look. We did reach out to the Association of American Railroads, and they say that workers get sick days and paid time off. Whoever told you we get six days. Our sick days is manipulating the data. We get paid time off that we earned the previous year before. Before the new policy came about, we were allowed to take five days off and two weekend days off a month.

Now we could take virtually one day unpaid off a month. And then the only other time we could take off is our, paid time that we had to earn the previous year. Yeah, that does seem ridiculous. They would never let airline pilots do that. Is that issue number one for members of the unions? 100% is number one. So here's an update on what's currently happening with the railroad workers, their employers, and where the current negotiations are at.

As we've shared on the show before, railroad workers have been threatening to strike, and the White House actually intervened to prevent that strike from happening. And the reason why the Biden administration would want to intervene is because, of course, railroad workers striking would be a massive disruption to the economy. And that kind of disruption, especially so close to the midterms, would be a disaster for the Democrats since they're in charge right now. Now, as I mentioned, the railroad workers are potentially going to strike later this week, unless Congress gets involved and basically prevents them from doing it.

But before I give you the details to that, let me give you the details on the terms of the negotiation that the railroad workers have rejected. So the negotiations did lead to a proposed pay increase, which is pretty significant, right? Now, that's not enough, though, because these are individuals who are working incredibly long hours. Oftentimes, they don't see their own family members for weeks and weeks and weeks. And so they want to be able to spend more time with their families, which is understandable. They want time off in case they are sick. And unfortunately right now, they only get one day in some of these railroad companies, right? The workers get maybe one day off per week for,

let's say, an emergency or an illness. And clearly that's not enough, right? And so if the As I mentioned, it could have major ramifications for the economy. The Biden administration has been pretty aggressive in trying to do something about inflation. And as recent reports indicate, inflation is still very much a problem. I think that there are multiple factors that are leading to inflation in different sectors of the economy. We've talked about that before. But I do want to mention that if a negotiation has not been reached by Friday, they will strike.

that, those unions can legally strike a move that could drive transportation costs higher, stall commutes and gum up shipments of coal, chemicals, cars, and grain, and cost $2 billion a day by one estimate. Okay, so again, those are the ramifications for the economy, which this is where workers' power really lies when they're able to bring companies to their knees by doing a strike like this. Now, how much will this have a toll on the economy? Well, depending on how you want to measure it, the railroads at some point touch between about a third to about 45 percent of all freight in the U.S. at some point or another. Okay, so let's pause for a second. That's a quote from

Jason Miller, who's a professor over at Michigan State University. If you know that the nation's economy literally relies on these workers. There are as many as 100,000 rail workers involved here, right? Just give them more time off. As far as I understand it, by the way, they're not even asking for more paid time off per month to deal with family emergencies or sicknesses. They just want more unpaid time off, meaning workers have been retaliated against if they need to take more time off, unpaid, which is crazy. Now, the White House has already gotten involved, as I mentioned earlier, the White House is reportedly speaking with ocean shipping, truck and air freight

providers to explore ways to keep goods flowing. But filling a railroad network-sized gap in the economy could be a tough task. And this is where the $2 billion number comes in. It could cost as much as $2 billion a day just to do that. And that's according to the Association of American Railroads. It's an industry group. And while I do think that it will be costly for the economy, you should also be a little dubious of that $2 billion a day number because this is essentially the industry trying to encourage Congress to step in and essentially prevent the strikers from being able to strike. And there is precedent for that.

Now, the association estimated that it would take 467,000 long haul trucks daily to haul what the railroads do. There simply aren't enough trucks or truck drivers to handle that volume, it said, in the report. And that I do believe, as we know, there was already an issue with a shortage of truck drivers. And so the idea that truckers can fill that gap left behind by striking railroad workers is insane. And I would probably venture to say that some of the truckers probably wouldn't want to, you know, go against the striking workers and fill the so-called gaps. Now, again, that responsibility to fill the gaps would fall on the truckers. Now, why haven't

the railroad companies been able to reach this deal? Again, the main issue was leave and And they've already agreed on the percentage increase in pay. So in July, President Joe Biden intervened to avert a strike, naming a panel of arbitrators to mediate the contract disputes. The panel last month issued a 124-page report recommending a 24% pay increase, sounds pretty good, and bonuses through 2024, along with back pay through much of 2020. Now, that satisfied the railroads and has tentatively been good enough for 10 out of the 12 labor unions. But the two labor unions that have decided, no, we're going to reject this, are specifically calling on more time off.

Okay? So the remaining holdouts, the brother of locomotive engineers and trainmen, and the International Association of Steel, Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers account for well above half the rail labor force, they say they want any agreement to address what they say are strict attendance, sick and time off policies. That's all it takes at this point. So basically, three out of the 12 unions representing these workers have already voted in favor of doing this strike by the end of the week.

Again, the only thing that the employers need to do is agree to provide. more time off for these workers so they can deal with life, something that we all have to deal with, right? So I think it's totally reasonable. And so I should note that the two remaining holdouts when it comes to the negotiations so far were the brotherhood of locomotive engineers and trainmen and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and transportation workers. They account for well above half of the rail labor force. They say they want any agreement to address what they say are strict attendance, sick, and time off policies. And again, incredibly reasonable. And instead of just providing this one final demand to the workers,

who, by the way, without those workers, economy goes to crap. Without those workers, no revenue, okay, for the employers here. All they need to do is the bare minimum. They've already agreed to the pay increase of 24%, they've already agreed to back pay, just give them the time off that they need. And instead of doing that so far, by the way, we're hearing that they're hoping that Congress will intervene and essentially prevent these workers from striking. They're trying to force congressional intervention. Analysts over at JP Morgan are telling investors, now's a great time to invest in railroad companies because there's no way Congress won't intervene. And it gives you a sense of what Congress is really meant for in neoliberal politics.

In neoliberalism, the government isn't there to protect you, the worker. The government is there to protect corporate interests. And that's what we see play out over and over again. And while the Biden administration really wants to position itself as, you know, a pro-labor administration, And to be sure, to be fair, Biden and his NLRB have certainly been better than administrations in recent decades, which isn't saying much, it's a low bar. I would have liked to see the Biden administration actually apply the pressure to the railroad companies to ensure that these workers get the time off that they need. Okay, that's what's important to do here.

And as I mentioned earlier, there is precedent for Congress stepping in. So the June 1992 railroad strike lasted for two days before Congress passed a bill banning strikes and lockouts. That was signed by George H.W. Bush at the time. And then you have lawmakers who have used the Railway Labor Act of 1926 to intervene at least 11 times since 1963. So again, it's not unprecedented for Congress to get involved. But I would really like to see Democrats put their money where their mouth is.

They love to campaign on supporting the workers and doing right by them. How about you actually put those words into action? And instead of intervening to prevent the strike from happening, you apply pressure to the employers to agree to this one final thing, which I know this is like the billions of time I've said it, is incredibly reasonable. All right. We got to take a break. When we come back, we're going to have an excellent interview.

I'm really looking forward to it. Jason Miles, co-host of the This Is Revolution podcast, will be joining us to talk about the opioid epidemic and what we can do in terms of harm production, how we can rethink, you know, battling this devastating problem that we're seeing all across the country. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. Welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have a fantastic guest and an important conversation up next. Joining us now is the host of the This Is Revolution podcast, Jason Miles. Jason, thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you for having me. This is cool.

So, Jason, I've been meaning to talk. talk to you about your experience with safe injection sites, with harm reduction policies, because clearly the way this country has dealt with the opioid epidemic, with people who are addicted to drugs, the fact that we've decided to criminalize them for so long has been so destructive. And we're starting to see a different approach in some parts of the country, California being one of them, where the focus has kind of shifted, toward the idea of harm reduction instead of criminalization and prosecution.

And you had called into the majority report back in February and you just kind of wanted to share your perspective. I thought what you had to say was really interesting and I wanted to kind of make space for you to elaborate on your thoughts a little more today. So first, let me just kind of set this up, give the audience some context. What have your experiences been in this space, in this area dealing with drug addiction? I myself have never touched drugs or drink, drank, but drug addiction is pretty deep in my family as far as growing up with an addict, and I've faced homelessness.

I actually was homeless for a while, and then kind of the only thing that saved me from it was recently moving down here to Mexico, where I live now, is the only place I could afford. And I lived and worked with the unhoused for quite some time in what would be known as a wet facility or a facility where people actually can use drugs. You're not going to lose your housing for drug use. And I had to work hand in hand with the position that I had actually with a company, an organization called Hepback. I shouldn't say a company is an organization that actually hands out. needles. And I think when people think about safe injection sites or when they think about even wet facilities like the one I was in, it always becomes, it's either I don't want it

next to me kind of issue. And that turns into I don't want it at all, sadly. Or we need to have more of these things, but silently I don't want it next to me because one of the things is, and I can give Oakland as a perfect example, East Oakland. If you're familiar with the Oakland Raiders, we're now in Las Vegas and the Golden State Warriors who are now in San Francisco, they vacated a very large facility that now only the Oakland A's have. And you probably have seen, if you guys, I know you guys do a sports show, the attendance is extremely low. Sometimes there's less people there that are there for a high school football game. And a lot of that has to do with the deterioration that happened around that area, especially when those teams left.

And the little bits of business that were there left as well. So there were hotels there because it's actually right next to the airport. It's kind of a perfect location for a sports team. You have freeway access, literally exits right into the parking lot. You have public transportation access. We have a subway system in the Bay Area called BART Bay Area Rapid Transit. that lets you off right at the stadium. But we had a Walmart leave,

and I don't know too many people that know what it's like when a Walmart actually vacates an area. It actually leaves a really large hole, and there's been a fight around who's going to use that building between the county and the city. And you create this environment where you have a lot of people that are also losing housing that got ramped up during COVID.

So these hotels that were left there, and what I think is kind of a great strategy, first step strategy in handling our homeless problem is single room occupancy, especially with these or SROs, you might hear people say that. And so we had a lot of emergency facilities

that were started up instantly. But some hotels didn't buy in. They just didn't want it. And what then happened around those areas because you had such a large influx of homeless people is

kind of, and this wasn't part of the plan, of course, you build almost a hell zone in this area because it's an anything goes space. There's drug use, there's prostitution, there's tons of violence, and it's all going to happen in this space. Okay, let me, let me pause you for one second. Because you're touching on something, obviously, it's uncomfortable to talk about, right? Because on one hand, you want to house people, you want to get them off the streets. Like, to me, that's the number one priority, because if they're on the streets, it's dangerous. I mean, if you look at the homicides in Los Angeles, for instance, the individuals who are overwhelmingly represented, overrepresented in the homicide statistics are the unhoused.

So you want to get them in housing, but there is an issue with some of these public housing solutions, even if it's temporary housing. If they have the very strict rules on drug use, for instance, well, then you're going to deny people a roof over their heads, and it seems incredibly cruel. But I feel like there's also some downsides of not having any rules, and you're kind of touching on that right now, and it's really hard to hear it. But the thing that people forget about, because I used to be 100% against any rules, it's like just get people housed.

But a woman actually reached out to me who used to be unhoused because she left her abusive husband with her kids, and she didn't want to be in an environment where she and her kids had to deal with some of the things that you're describing right. right now. So it's a complicated and nuanced issue, but I wanted you to continue. Sure, sure. I have a few anecdotes and I hope we have time for them. I'll try to be brief. And if we can come back, I can talk more about the idea of accidentally creating a hell zone because I think none of us want that, right? And one of the things that I tried to do in my position in the facility was reimagine the way we have these facilities. And it's very hard. So first of all, what I wanted to do was make it kind

of an oasis. So I called all of the people that I knew from the industries that I've been in and friends that I've met over the years. And I also had to get as many people on board working there as well because you're trying to reimagine how we imagine housing. And what it ends up becoming is warehousing. And I think a lot of people don't want to see it that way because they want to assume that once you throw someone in a house, they're going to be grateful. So that also flattens the way we see homelessness and the people that are unhoused. And my big issue

with that is if you really want to combat this, you have to accept the fact that not everybody is going to be the perfect homeless person. There's going to be real criminals in here. There's going to be pederists in here. There's going to be rapists and murderers in there.

Actually, by managers of the facility, or literally murderers that had turned their lives around. So you have to understand the population that you're dealing with isn't all kind of idealistic, right? And it's going to get ugly some of the things that you're going to see. And I want to give a quick anecdote. There was a woman that came in with her boyfriend.

And at some point, the boyfriend became abusive. now we don't know about anyone's spousal abuse problems there is no knocks on doors and asking how's the relationship going and a lot of services weren't provided people came to me all the time and asked for drug treatment service like hey can we have an a meeting and there's certain rules about having aA meetings and another thing people have to understand is most of these things are run by non-profits so the state doesn't want to pay benefits to anybody so they'll throw some money out to a nonprofit, the nonprofit is going to try to keep everything as lean as possible. So all the programs that we instituted, even down to a school program that was because we had

a woman in the facility that was a retired teacher and all these kids that were in there and wonderful people donated materials. We were able to have school for kids even during the pandemic. But again, this all comes from trying to reimagine this. And this isn't coming top down. It's not like Gavin Newsom is giving us orders or the mayor is giving us orders or city council is giving us orders. This is people wanting to create a better environment. But back to this situation. I'll try to be brief and tell me to shut up if I'm running out of time. so she has issues with this with this abusive boyfriend and um he hits her and we get a call hey you guys got to come over here jay this woman just got hit while i was before the call

came we were stopping another guy from fighting another cat it happens right there's one washing machine between 400 people there's going to be some fights right right so run over talk to the guy talk to the woman she's upset obviously I have to take the man out of the facility and say hey man

you got to go he says are you going to call the cops said are you going to leave he goes yes he leaves right so I go to the young lady and we talk she's very upset

I asked her if she wanted to go into a different room for the night she said yes please please. And I walk her to another room for the gentleman. You know, he's already out of the facility. And I heard her break down and cry in a way. I've never heard anyone break down and cry before. And just thinking about it right now is actually making me a little bit emotional. And so she wanted to go back to her room. She's like, thank you for this night. I was like, you can stay there. No, no, no, no, go back to my room. And unbeknownst to us, because hotels are

not really set up for surveillance like you would think. It's more for surveillance of a parking lot. It's not for rooms. It's where privacy comes into play. He was sneaking through a fence. And he kept sneaking back in. And we had to open doors for people, right? They didn't have their own key. And opening the door, I saw him in there.

And I took her aside privately. And I was like, hey, is back? And she lied to me. She goes, no, no, not at all. Why would you think that? I was like, because I opened the door for you and I saw him. But she had asked me to open the door. That was her way of trying to.

warn me without warning me right so he didn't um eventually he he had a he had attacked her again and eventually we had to we had to call the police okay all right so let's let me ask you i have so many questions for you okay so i think the point you made about the lack of government involvement is a really important one, because I see the same problem when it comes to building housing, right, where I would much rather have the government be in charge of building the housing, meaning the government hires government workers, pays them really well, gives them benefits, and instead of hiring a third party, instead of hiring a private contractor to build housing so they can pad their pockets by inflating the cost of the building materials or whatever,

I just think it would be much better to have the government facilitate all of that. What I'm noticing, just based on the anecdote you're sharing and your personal experiences, is that you have a community coming together trying to do their best. You have a nonprofit organization trying to do its best. But we're talking about people who have all sorts of problems, issues, whatever you want to call it, they need help. It goes beyond just putting a roof over their head, right? It could be a drug addiction. It could be a domestic violence issue. Was there anyone within, you know, your team working there who had some expertise on these issues, or was it just

ordinary people coming together doing their best? I'll be honest. No one wants that job. So you're dealing with people that some people stay. There's maybe from when I was there, I left because of a COVID outbreak, and it was the second one. And I had a bit of a blowup. And as you can imagine, you know, trying to reimagine the way that nonprofits usually do things, they don't like that, right? So I was a bit of a thorn in the side, and then I left. And there's only about maybe three people that are still there from when I was there. And then that extra facility actually went back to being a private hotel.

And some people moved throughout the company to help. to continue to help people get housing. And because that's our main goal, right? The main goal of this organization actually was to put people into permanent housing. But the problem was that we were just kind of in a warehousing facility where we couldn't speak to the issues that we were dealing with, especially when it came to violence. Because the county didn't want to hear about it. And the nonprofit couldn't have the county hearing about it because that would be detrimental to the program. And the reason why I bring this up and I want to say this on air is because not to shut these things down, you know, we have to understand that these are the problems that are going to happen.

If we want to reimagine what criminal justice looks like, you know, I look at a person like Chesa Boudin, who I got to know kind of peripherally working with Shahid Bhutan in San Francisco, trying to reimagine the justice system, reimagine the district attorney's office. and not incarcerate quality of life crimes that leads people down this path. I'll try to be his brief again. I know we have a short time. One of my coworkers, we got a new guy

that was one of these dudes that had committed a major felony. But he was totally reformed and just was working in the nonprofit sector. And this was like another, he had two jobs in the nonprofit sector. And part of our job was

a handout food to people at lunch and dinner time. So we're doing our, food handout. And there was a unit where there was two women that had three children between the two of a minute. And one day, and their mom was there as well. One of their moms was there in the facility. So it was kind of a generational hangout in one of the rooms were handing out dinner. And the guy I'm working with looks and sees the, what will be the grandma, he's like, hey, girl, and just talks to her real casually. And he goes, looks and he goes, I got to talk to you. And we go into our

our lobby, the communal lobby, where everybody can come talk to us. And he goes, the daughter, I knew when she was three. And when I was doing dope and committing robberies, I was doing it with her mom and her father. And she was in the car with us. That girl had no chance. She had two children that were in the facility. She had more children out in the world. One was a 12-year-old that had stopped going to school at second grade.

And one was six. We're teaching how to, both teaching both how to read at around the same time with the schooling. And when you understand that, that's not everybody is on the same, what's the word I'm looking for? Yeah, I mean, there's definitely no one, right, exactly. I mean, it's not an even playing field for everyone from the beginning, right? People have, yeah. It's infuriating. It was infuriating for me because before I knew that, I would have to deal with with her.

and deal with the, and I didn't mind dealing with the kids to a certain extent. I'm a dad of four, but it would make me mad at the way she dealt with things, but finding out the story, the backstory, it's a reminder. And what I always say is if homelessness doesn't frustrate you, you're not close enough to it. But you should always be walking a frustrating line of, man, I hate this, but it's, you have to have a certain level of understanding because a lot of times we otherize people once you're homeless, once you're mental ill, then you're other. Yeah.

No, I think you're right about that. So final question for you, from your experience is obviously you notice that there were some flaws, right? So if you had all the resources and you could create a supportive system that's actually way better. It's reimagined. It's kind, humane. It does more than just put a roof over people's heads. I mean, housing's important, but clearly the homelessness issue is, it's so much more nuanced than that because people come from so many different stories, so many different issues, whether it be an abusive relationship or drug addiction. So what would you want to see in an ideal program or system to give folks the help they need to get their lives back on track?

First and foremost, I wanted to be somewhere where people felt comfortable in the sense of they weren't on the cusp of constantly losing something for not following a certain rule or having the right paperwork. Number two, I'd want not just counselors in the facility, but the counselors also have outreach help as well because we don't want to burn people out constantly. I would want there to be some sort of communal staff in the sense of people can learn how to cook, not just for themselves, but for everybody. So we do do things communally. Education, that's also communal. One of the greatest things that we did was when we got to have the school, it wasn't we brought outside teachers. It was the people that taught that had lost

their home for whatever reason, got to teach again. And there was something about that vibe that whenever that people would see, because I always did this things in the space where people could see when we had the personal training, the physical therapy. People had had injuries for 20 years and they couldn't move arms and legs and they were finally able to get range of motion again. And even the yoga was kind of one of those things. It was like, I never thought I'd be doing yoga. So can I create a, can we create a place that's kind of like a resort and change the way we view this instead of looking at it as warehousing a problem

of ne'er-do-wells. If you want drug counseling, here it is for you. Definitely, we have needles for you. If you need in sharps, we know what the biggest problem we had? We lost so many janitors for. There was no place for people to throw away

needles. And we had a lot of people had HIV and hepatitis. And the maintenance staff was getting needles stuck into their shoes. Man, this country is in such a massive crisis. And, you know, I don't think, first of all, thank you for coming on and sharing your experiences.

Because, yeah, I think it's really easy for people to otherize and to just want to throw people away or warehouse them. But it doesn't solve the problem, right? It's more than just putting a roof over people's heads. And I think that you raise a lot of interesting issues. In fact, hopefully we can continue the conversation at a later date. In fact, on October 23rd, you and I are going to be doing a live show with Ben Burgess in Los Angeles. So get your tickets if you're interested.

If you're in L.A. or near L.A., you should come see the live show. Again, it's on October 23rd, which is on a Sunday. And I could talk about this with you for the entirety of the show, but unfortunately, we're out of time. And everyone check out the This Is Revolution podcast. It's hosted by Jason Miles, and it's fantastic. Jason, thank you for being generous with your time and coming on today. Thank you for having me. All right.

We're going to take a brief break. And when we come back, we'll talk about how Democratic members of Congress are skirting the opportunity to pass a ban on trades of individual stocks. I love that story. Don't miss it. We'll be right. I love hearing from our members. Trista wrote in from our member section to say that she loves live interviews on the show. So I promise that we'll do more of it, especially these topical issues that have such a huge impact on communities.

So thank you for that comment. Thank you for being a member. We love and support you guys. and we couldn't be able to, we couldn't do what we do without you. All right, well, let's get to our next story. Nancy Pelosi has had months and months and months to bring this thing to a floor, to the floor. September 30th, that's when you all go on recess.

You got a little over two weeks. Is there any chance Speaker Pelosi brings this thing to a vote? You can't blame Republicans on this one. I can't believe I'm saying this. But Stephanie Rule is speak in truth. And that was a conversation specifically about legislation that is meant to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks. And this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart because while we certainly do talk

a lot about how money in politics corrupts our politicians and makes them even more disconnected from the constituents they were elected to serve, the issue. with them also profiting off of the very companies that they should be regulating is a huge issue that we need to address. And there's been a lot of backlash toward reports that members of Congress have been trading individual stocks that they have been weighing in on legislatively. So there are conflicts of interest there. And I also think that there is some insider trading going on. So there's been backlash in regard to that as well. Now, Stephanie Rule was speaking to a Democratic representative, a congresswoman by the name of Abigail Spanberger.

And I think it's important to hear what she has to say in response to the question and statement from rule. Hey, you guys are in charge. You guys going to do something about this? You can't blame Republicans. Here's what Abigail Spanberger had to say. If the speaker wanted to bring it for a vote this week or this month, she certainly could. And so we've seen kind of stall tactics along the way. There was going to be a committee here. there was. There was going to be additional legislation introduced. We haven't seen that. The House Administration Committee was going to take action. We haven't seen that. It's very straightforward. There are many industries, many places, many journalists who in fact can't buy or sell individual

stocks because of the potential conflict of interest depending upon the subject matter that they cover. Yeah. And let me be clear. It's not a potential conflict of interest. It is a conflict of interest. As a legislator, it is your job to ensure that corporations aren't being abusive to their workers. You're supposed to keep your constituents, the American people, safe from exploitative behaviors from corporations. Like, that's part of the job. And it's really difficult to do that when the reason why these employers, the reason why these companies and corporations are as abusive as they are to their employers is because they're always looking to cut costs associated with labor to do what? Maximize profits. And they maximize the profits for their shareholders.

They literally have a fiduciary responsibility to do just that. And so if you have members of Congress invested in individual stocks, they're going to want to protect that profit motive. They're going to want to protect an employer's ability to maximize profits. It is a massive conflict of interest. And let me be clear about something else. Look, sure, I would like to see the House pass legislation that would ban members of Congress, their spouses, and their staffers from trading individual stocks. Now, do I think it's going to happen? No, I don't think it's going to happen. Maybe, maybe the House will pass something. There's a Senate version of the bill in the works as we speak. But does anyone really think that there's any,

possibility that this kind of legislation would pass in the Senate considering the filibuster. So unless we do something about that legislative filibuster that requires 60 senators to vote in favor of something in order for it to pass, we're never going to get legislation like this through Congress, period. That is the reality of the situation. So when you see Democratic politicians boast about how they're introducing this legislation, It's really important to understand that it's really nothing more than a little PR stunt. Because you've got to focus on the first order of business.

And the first order of businesses, okay, what are the obstacles in the way when it comes to attempting to pass this legislation? So I want to go to Nancy Pelosi now, because if you can recall, Nancy Pelosi in the very beginning of this whole debate, was very dismissive of the idea that members of Congress should be banned from trading individual stocks. In fact, she was asked about it during a press conference, and here's how she handled it. Insider just completed a five-month investigation, finding that 49 members of Congress and 182 senior congressional staffers have violated the Stock Act, the Insider Dreamwalk.

I'm wondering if you have any reaction to that. And secondly, should members of Congress have their spouses be banned from trading individual stocks while serving Congress? No, I don't know to the second one. any we have a responsibility to report in the stock on the stock but I don't I'm not familiar with that five month review but if people aren't reporting they should be because this is a free market and people we are a free market economy they should be able to participate in that yeah we're a free market economy so we should be able to participate in massive

conflicts of interest by personally investing in individual stocks that would, of course, corrupt us and lead us to pursue our own personal financial, you know, priorities over the best interests of the people who elected us into office. So, like, that was an abysmal, terrible response. But then she changed, right? All of a sudden, her rhetoric softened when it came to this issue and she said that she was far more open to the idea of passing such legislation in the House, although that legislation hasn't been introduced, it hasn't been debated, it hasn't been voted on, what gives? Well, Pelosi was asked about that today and here's what she had to say about it. Just because somebody introduces a bill doesn't mean it becomes the law of the land.

There's been discussion about it and this morning, just recently this morning, actually, the committee, we've been going back and forth and they were refining things and talking to members about what they think will work. And we believe we have a product that we can bring to the floor this month. Okay. So a lot of excuses there, but her rhetoric has softened on the issue. And I would, this is my opinion, I would venture to say that the reason why her rhetoric has softened is because, A, she got a lot of backlash after she said, it's the free market, we should be able to participate. And B, she knows that this is not ever going to pass unless something happens with the legislative filibuster in the Senate. Now, as I mentioned earlier,

the Senate is working on its own version of this legislation, which is unlikely to pass because there's no way 60 senators would vote in favor of it. But to further prove my point that Nancy Pelosi isn't really serious about wanting to pass this kind of legislation, She called on Representative Lofgren, of course, another Democrat, to essentially reconcile the Senate version of the bill and the House version of the bill. And if you look at the stock activity of Lofgren and her husband, conflicts of interest, not the person that I would put in charge in making sure that, you know, we reconcile both versions of the bill and get something passed. And it's because I don't think they're serious about getting anything passed. Now, I do want to get into an investigation, a good investigation, actually, done by the New York Times on this issue. And I love this kind of data because it just shows you how corrupt Congress has become.

And again, it goes beyond money in politics. It goes beyond campaign donors. You also have to focus on their own personal financial interests, right? So let's take a look at the first graphic here because they looked at stock trades between 2019, I'm sorry, 2019. and 2021. And they found that from 2019 to 2021, 183 current senators or representatives reported a trade of a stock or another financial asset by themselves or an immediate family member, meaning their spouse or their dependent children, right? Or not dependent children, they're just their children who live with them. It doesn't even have to be someone they cite as a dependent.

But if you break it down further, the New York Times found that more than half of those members of Congress sat on congressional committees that potentially gave them insight into the companies who shares they reported buying or selling. And again, this is analysis by the New York Times. So that's 97, almost 100 current senators or representatives who have reported trades of individual stocks, either by themselves or members of their immediate family, that intersected with the work that they do in the committees that they serve. So going back to Abigail Smanberger and like, oh, it might give the appearance of a conflict of interest. No, it is a conflict of interest.

It's a massive conflict of interest. And I want to provide specific examples of that, okay? So over the three-year period that the New York Times looked at, more than 3,700 trades reported by lawmakers from both parties posed potential conflicts between their public responsibilities and private finances. So let's go ahead and look at their trades. Let's look at their trades, okay? And by the way, this is a bipartisan issue, okay? This is not a let's attack Democrats, let's attack Republicans.

It's a let's attack all of them because they're all doing it kind of situation, okay? So Representative Allen Lowenthal's wife disclosed that she had sold Boeing shares on March 5th of 2020, which was, oh, conveniently one day before a House committee on which he sits released damaging findings on the company's handling of its 737 MaxJet, which was, of course, involved in two fatal crashes. Yeah. I don't know. Timing seems a little shady here.

Could there be, number one, of course, conflict of interest, but also insider trading, which If we were accused of insider trading, we would be prosecuted. Okay, and it wouldn't be by a Senate Ethics Committee or a House Ethics Committee. It would be by, you know, the Federal Trade Commission. They would be investigating to see if there was any insider trading happening. Even if you're a celebrity like Martha Stewart, you engage in insider trading, you will be prosecuted and you will spend time in prison. In this case, you have the leaders of this country, the people making decisions about critical legislation, potentially engaging in insider trading and just kind of getting away with it

because they get cleared by ethics committees, not interested. It's like the same thing that you see with police departments or specific cops who have been accused of excessive force, getting investigated through an internal group of people, an internal investigation. I'm not interested in an internal investigation. I'm interested in a real investigation to see if there's criminality here, if there's insider trading going on. Let me continue. Dr. Deborah Malumid, the wife of Lowenthal, the Democratic lawmaker, Alan Lowenthal, bought or sold Sun Run, which installs solar energy systems in homes on 97 occasions during a years-long period.

During that time, Sun Run shares experience two rallies, one that the one that began late. in 2019 and extended into early 2020, keep this timing in mind, it's important, and a second much bigger one after a market-wide route caused by the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in March. Now, in 2020, Lowenthal got real busy, okay? Promoting what? Mm, renewable energy. So in 2020, Lowenthal, a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources and the chairman

of an energy-related subcommittee was part of a bipartisan. group that pushed for the inclusion of renewable energy companies in pandemic relief measures, many of the protocols eventually passed last month as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. And guess what? That, of course, is going to mean, especially if you're invested in renewable energy companies like Sun Run, you're going to profit off of it because the government has just passed policies that prioritize renewables, including solar energy, wind, and And in this case, companies that Lohenthal's wife had invested in. Now, in June of 2020, he also co-sponsored a bill to provide tax incentives for using renewable

energy, but that never received a vote. Now, Sun Run shares began rallying about that time by October. They had reached what at the time was a company high of $80 per share. They cost only $9 per share when Lohenthal's wife bought those shares earlier that year. So you can understand how much of a profit they made. But again, it's not just Democrats. Republicans are involved in this shady activity as well. Representative Mike Kelly's wife, Victoria Kelly, bought $15,000 to $50,000 worth of stock in the mining company, Cleveland Cliffs.

Just one day after Representative Kelly's office learned that the Commerce Department would initiate a tariff investigation that might benefit the company. Representative Kelly had lobbied Trump's administration officials for additional tariff protections. According to an ethics office report, Kelly or Kelly's purchase was the only trade she made in an individual stock that year, record suggests. She took a nearly 300% profit when she sold eight months later. No, no, I'm sure it's totally innocent. I'm sure there was nothing wrong with that, those stock trade. I'm sure. It had nothing to do with insider information that obviously we're not privy to. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that, you know, we're talking about an individual

who gets to weigh in on policies that have impacts on the companies that he's invested in, his wife is invested in. So look, it's a necessity. It's incredibly important to pass this legislation. But we also need to be real about whether it's going to pass, how it would, pass, and any Democrat who purports to be in favor of passing this legislation, but fails to address the very real problem of that legislative filibuster in the Senate, is full of it. Again, it's nothing more than personal marketing for their campaign purposes and nothing more. I would like to see an actual fight to get that corruption out of Congress. And so far, haven't seen much of that.

All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, John Iderola will be joining us to cover stories that. that I missed in the first hour because we ran out of time. So we'll be back with conservatives losing their minds over what Lindsay Graham did yesterday and proposing a federal abortion ban. We'll be right back.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks, support our work, listen ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.