The Young Turks - Republican Senators' Hypocritical Demands Of Kavanaugh Accuser

Episode Date: September 21, 2018

Republicans demand responses from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's legal team as an FBI investigation is probably kaput. Donald Trump Jr. and Dinesh D'Souza slut-shame Kavanaugh accuser. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, welcome the Young Turks. Janky, Granite and Kasparin with you guys. Chris Lizan, CNN, put out an article about Alexandria Ocasor-Cortez again, again on the $40 trillion number. just a little while before we got on air.

So we didn't have time to prepare the story, but it has put me in a mood. So if you like Angry, Jank, you're going to get some of that today. And Susan Collins, of all people, will unleash some of that. Her reaction to people actually contributing against her. But small dollar donations, she finds it unacceptable. She believes that the only kind of corruption that should exist is corporate corruption, which she participates in. And by the way, if you actually care about an issue, she says, no, no, no, you're the ones

doing corruption. It's maddening. Anyway, we'll get to that a little bit later. Campaigning while black, what does that mean? Well, a couple of different stories on that as well. And on Rebel headquarters tonight, Cameron Kasky, he is one of the founders of March for Our Lives. He was also on the damage report today, so check out the damage reports.

podcast, and you can get that on our app. And of course, if you're a member, you get all these shows. Don't miss any of them. TYT.com slash join to become a member. All right, Anna, take it away. All right. The big question as to whether or not Dr. Christine Blasey Ford will testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday remains unanswered.

And there is a back and forth currently taking place between senators. Chuck Grassley, other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the lawyers representing Dr. Blasey. And so first, let's begin with the update indicating that there is a deadline for Dr. Blasey, and that was determined by Senator Chuck Grassley. So Senator Grassley set 10 a.m. Friday as the deadline for Christine Blasey Ford's legal team to respond to his request for her to speak to the committee. That's not Friday of next week, that's Friday of this week, meaning tomorrow.

tomorrow by 10 a.m. Yeah, that's absurd. And it does, it means something, but it means that we're really going to go on without you on Monday. That part, I believe, and that is very important. It'll be the crux of what we discuss in a minute. Does she really have to meet it by 10 o'clock on Friday? Of course not.

If she, by at 11.30 in the morning, if she's like, all right, fine, I'll testify. We'll be like, no, sorry, you missed the deadline. Both sides are trying to be tough guys when there's an issue, you know. I think one side is trying to be tough guys, one side that's trying as hard as possible to push a confirmation through at any and all costs. But we'll get to that in just a minute. So by the way, Grassley is also calling for the unredacted version of the letter that Ford had sent to Feinstein about the alleged incident.

I think that's fine, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Now the response from Blasey's legal team, they have indicated that she would be. be willing to testify next week so long as senators offer, quote, terms that are fair and which ensure her safety. And that's according to an email that the lawmakers sent to committee staff members. But they also included the following message. Ford continues to believe that a full nonpartisan investigation of this matter is needed, and she is willing to cooperate with the committee.

However, the committee stated plan to move forward with a hearing that has only two witnesses is not a fair or good faith investigation, there are multiple witnesses whose names have appeared publicly and should be included in any proceeding. So there was another person named in these accusations, another person who allegedly witnessed this, according to Dr. Blasey's recollection of the alleged assault, and that was Mark Judge. And so I think it makes sense for Mark Judge to testify as well. And if he wants to deny it, okay, but do it under oath. One other thing, look, if you stand by Kavanaugh and you do not believe Dr. Blasey's allegations, wouldn't you want the FBI to get involved? Again, this wouldn't be a criminal

investigation. This would be an investigation to look into the allegations and see if you can get to the bottom of the truth. But they don't want to do that, which I think is just fascinating. So I think there are three different things that are factors here and different actors in the play. So there's the Republican Party, Democratic Party, and then Dr. Blasey. So the Republican Party wants this to be resolved as soon as possible, with as little stain on Kavanaugh as possible. As you're going to see in a little bit, Grassley's staffers have already said, oh, yeah, we know he's the right guy and he's the one telling the truth. then why do you need the hearings? Okay, so you apparently made up your mind already.

And of course, of course they're playing politics, and of course they want Canada to get confirmed. And if they're worded if there's a delay, it will go past the election, in which case Democrats might regain control the Senate. Now, the Democrats are also playing politics, and the Democrats want to delay. It's true. And an FBI investigation would delay it longer. Now, Dr. Blasey, the person affected here, her interests are in a fair hearing.

So she's saying, look, why don't you do a nonpartisan investigation, and the FBI is not partisan. And it's a background check. They've done one on Kavanaugh before. They've done one on every one of these Supreme Court justices. And they have done new checks when new information came out, as they did with Clarence Thomas in the in India Hill controversy. And I'm asking you to have hearings where we hear from other witnesses, and you might have more witnesses if you allowed the FBI to investigate.

Chuck Grassley turns around and says, oh, no, no, no, the FBI, quote, does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee. No, no. Which is a lie? No, well, it's a half a lie. Yes, the FBI does not do the credibility assessment, the Senate does. But the FBI collects the information for you to be able to do the credibility assessment. So Grassley is either saying the FBI is never involved in this process, which would be,

to Anna's point, a total lie, or he's saying the FBI is normally involved, but I don't want them involved in this case because I don't want new information to assess. Look, my point in arguing that he's lying is that he's trying to make it seem as though it's unusual for the FBI to get involved in this process when it is not unusual. unusual at all, at all. That is exactly what happened in the Anita Hill hearings. And so they don't want to get to the bottom of the truth. They don't want to know, they don't want to add Mark Judge to this hearing.

They don't want to hear his testimony. They don't want any of it. They don't want any part because for them it is purely political. And yes, do Democrats have a political motive? Sure, right? But I don't care about what the intentions are. What I care about is what they're calling for and what they're calling for is being a being a is beyond reasonable.

We're not talking about, you know, a temporary position for someone. We're talking about a lifetime appointment as a Supreme Court justice. And so we need to do our due diligence. The Senate should want to do its due diligence and make sure that they're confirming the right person for that job. And that's not what they want to do. And so the politician's hypocrisy is, of course, as usual, maddening. So the same Mitch McConnell's and Chuck Grassley's who said that we should.

should wait 14 months and not have a single hearing on Merrick Garland to become the Supreme Court justice. Now turn around and go, no, we have to do immediately. Times is of the essence. How could they possibly delay this? This is an outrage. I mean, come on, guys. Even if you're a Republican, you have to say, well, they're obviously full of crap.

I mean, they don't think time is over the asses. Otherwise, they wouldn't have waited 14 months on Merrick Garland. So they're playing politics. Period, period, period, period. Now, if Dr. Blasey's interests diverge from the Democrats, she shouldn't give a damn what the Democrats think. That's their job is to play politics on the other side, okay? So, but right now, she wants a fair hearing.

The Democrats want a longer hearing. They happen to be aligned on that. They don't have to be aligned, right? And if the Democrats thought they could delay by having some investigation that Dr. Blasey didn't She can say, no, I don't want that. By the way, yeah, and sorry to interrupt you, Jank, but I want to be clear with the audience about how I would personally react if the shoe was on the other foot, because I think that's important.

Because for me, this isn't political. For me, this is about getting to the heart of the truth, right? If the shoe were on the other foot, we're still in the Obama administration, he nominate someone, and let's say a right-leaning accuser comes out and accuses a Supreme Court nominee of sexual assault, right? And that accuser calls for the FBI to get involved. Damn right, I want the FBI involved. Yeah. Because I want to get to the heart of the truth, right? But that is not what they want. Yeah. So, and so that's where we are today. So, but the, now the super important question is, will she go to testify on Monday? Because if she doesn't, they're now saying that they

will probably cancel the hearings altogether. So, I think she's. she should go. We've had this debate or discussion before. I don't know where you stand on it today, Anna, but I think that from a, there's a couple of different perspectives here. I think the Republicans have now circled the wagons and we'll get to say, hey, listen, we gave her a shot and she just wouldn't come. And that'll probably play okay in terms of politics. So, but then when you turn to the actual substance of the issue, so how does that play out for Dr. Blasey, who's the potential victim here? Well, then she never gets to tell her a side of the story, and Kavanaugh gets confirmed, and we're done with it. Well, I don't want that. Not that

Kavanaugh not being confirmed, I don't want him confirmed for other reasons. He's pro-corruption. I can go on and on, right? But I want her side of the story told, and I don't want this to get railroaded, and it looks like the Republicans are going to do that. They feel like they've protected their PR flank enough that if she doesn't come, they are going to plow forward. And I don't think they should. I, if they are unwilling to allow the FBI to look into this, I do not think she should testify. And let me be clear about why.

Okay. Because under these conditions, when she does testify, they will smear her, okay? You will have a group of middle age to elderly men, okay, asking her all sorts of humiliating questions, very similar to what happened to Anita Hill, maybe worse. And I'm gonna give you an example of something that proves my point. They've made up their minds. They don't care about her testimony, okay? And she'll give you some evidence of that.

Let's go to Graphics 7. So there's Mike Davis who had recently tweeted something and then deleted it. He's the committee's chief staffer for nominations, and he tweeted twice overnight about his key role in the committee's review of Christine Blasey Ford's allegation, as well as criticism of Ford's attorneys and his desired outcome of the process. So here's what he had tweeted and then later deleted. Unfazed and determined, we will confirm Judge Kavanaugh, hashtag confirmed Kavanaugh, hashtag Scotis.

He also wrote, I personally questioned Judge Kavanaugh under penalty of felony and five years of imprisonment if he lies, I'm still waiting to hear back from the accuser's attorneys who can't find time between TV appearances to get back to me. Look, he's made up his mind. They have made up their mind. So, okay, so she's gonna go and testify for what? For what? So they can smear her publicly in front of everyone and make her out to be the bad guy

because she came forward with these allegations? So look, I'll make the case against that and then I'll help your case a little bit in some factors. But I want everybody to know you guys can participate in this too. We brought the polls back because this is such an important question. And I, as always, genuinely care what you guys think about this. I'm curious what you guys think about this. So it's tyt.com slash poll.

Should Christine Blasey testify in the Kavanaugh hearings on Monday? So yes or no, we'll have those options for you. It's very easy. T.R.T.com slash poll. We'll have the link down below in the description box if you're watching later on YouTube. or Facebook. Okay, so Anna, I know that they, I'm not naive. It's not like the Republicans like, hmm, grassy's like, gee, I don't know which way I'm

going to go with this. This is the guy I wanted on the Supreme Court for a long time and I'm, you know, anti-choice and I want him. I think he's going to overturn Roe versus Wade. But, oh, I care deeply about some sexual assault allegations. We didn't care when Trump did it. He didn't care where Roy Moore did it, et cetera, et cetera, right? So, of course, they've made up their minds.

But there are a couple of important senators that are still can be swayed, and they will decide whether this goes forward or not. So there's Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, who are Republicans who claim that they are pro-choice and that they are pro-women's rights. Jeff Flake a little bit, Bob Corker, a tiny bit could be in play in terms of those senators. Now, Flake and Corker are retiring, and they don't like Trump, so that gives you a tiny bit. tiny percentage chance that if they, that they're genuinely listening, and if they have a good enough reason to believe her, that they might vote against Kavanaugh.

Collins and Murkowski might lose their seats if they vote again, if they vote for Kavanaugh after hearing compelling testimony from Dr. Blasey. So it's not, I'm not thinking, oh my God, Mitch McConnell might change his mind. Of course not. Cruz might change his mind. Of course not. But there are, but it depends on the testimony. And yes, will they attack her. Some of them will attack her probably viciously. Yes. But that also it doesn't mean that they will win on those counts. The country will get to see it. And when the country sees it, the people who are already hate, you know, the idea that women can protect themselves

and should have equal rights, et cetera, will be like, yeah, we knew it. She once had a good time at a party somewhere else many years later, it's her fault, she had it coming, right? Yes, there are people already saying that. And there are people on the left who are decent people who won't see that way at all. And there are people in the middle, like some Kansas moms that are out there who voted for Republicans in the past that'll see it and go, I relate to that. I think she was honest. And why are they attacking her like that? And that'll piss them off. Well, in 19- And so that, look, that is one way that it could play out. The only reason I give you all those options is because it is not a foregone conclusion.

It's, you know what I'm saying? So Collins appears to be, look, she's not strongly supporting Kavanaugh, but based on the comments I've seen from Collins, she seems more supportive than not. She talks about, you know, speaking to Kavanaugh one-on-one and saying that the conversation was excellent. And so I don't know if any testimony is going to convince her. But you do make a compelling case. I don't know if I even really trust Flake and Corker. But we'll see, right? I just worry because if she agrees to do this on their terms, meaning the Republicans

in the Senate Judiciary Committee, if she does it on their terms, they know what they're doing. They've already made up their mind. They're going to smear her. And I'm worried that they'll smear her so effectively that it will. won't even matter that she's testifying. And the very people that you're hoping she'll swing or, you know, convince will remain supportive of Kavanaugh. That's what I'm concerned about. And so nothing will get accomplished. And, you know, they'll keep attacking her. They'll keep smearing her. And I think it makes all the sense in the world to just do the investigation.

And the fact. But they're not going to do it. That's a fact. And that's the thing. I'm so tired of constantly just accepting that. We need to talk about a relatively new show called the Republic, or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical

episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must learn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the

propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. Like, these guys are terrible people and they don't want to do the investigation because it's all political for them. So, all right, we got to accept it and now we gotta decide, now the ball's in her court. I know, I know, we're in a tough spot, like what else do you do? But I'm just sick of caving to that.

So the two points that I'll make on your side is it's easy for us to say she should do it, but we're not her. Look, she already had to go into hiding and the attacks against her will be not only vicious and over the top, but potentially perpetual. Excuse me, we've barely seen her face now. But then everybody after these hearings, she'll be one of the most famous people in the country, and there will be a percentage of the right wing that will despise her and say, at a bare minimum, say terrible things about her.

And look, there. Attack her, attack her family. Look, they're still, remember, the thing that haunts me is, the lunatics who believed in Alex Jones's Sandy Hook conspiracy, they made some of those family members, the Posner's that are now suing him, they lost their six-year-old kid in that tragedy, and they've had to move seven times because lunatic right-wingers keep harassing them and threatening them, threatening their lives. So that's what she's got to look forward to for the rest of her life.

And somehow people think she did this, what, for her own advantage? Are you insane? Okay, so it's easy for me to say she should do it, but it is a hell of a personal toll that it is going to take. And then the other thing is, look, the other side also gets to participate. The Democrats could defend her. On the other hand, they're Democrats. Oh, yeah.

Democrats have a great track record of being strong and defending people and doing the right thing. I mean, that's the thing, right? If I was a Democratic senator on that committee, man- We're here because of the Democrats. Like, let's just be honest about it. We're here because of the Democrats, okay? I don't know how Republicans would have done it, but I guarantee you that if they were in

Obama's shoes and they had the ability to nominate someone with 14 months left till the election, they would have done something. I don't know what trick they would pull out of their back pocket. It's super easy. They would have gotten it done. They would have done what they did with Gorsuch. They would have just killed the filibuster immediately. We're done with it, and now we have the seat.

What are you going to do about it? It took, like, a second for them to do that. God, Democrats are such suckers, and on purpose, we've talked about it before. So if there was a strong progressive on that committee, they'd say, not on my watch, and, you know, and they'd counterattack, and they would defend. But these are the Democrats, so you will get a tepid defense very likely. And so you're going into a line. And I acknowledge all this, Anna.

You're going into a lion's den and you've got these weaksau senators who are on your theoretically kind of, I say on your side, but not really, they're on their side, right? And so they have a different agenda than she does. So that's another factor. But all that being said, this is your only chance to tell the story and this is the chance to make a difference. And so if it happened, you got to go tell the truth there. You got to tell people what happened so that we don't have a lifetime appointment go in the wrong direction.

So that's why I vote, yes. There's only one vote that matters, which is hers. But it is a tough case. That's why we're interested in what you think. And it also sets an example for other women who might have been victimized in a similar way, right? If you're going to come forward and you're going to challenge someone in a position of power by bringing forth allegations like this, you're the one who will be punished, 100% guaranteed. But on the other hand, it also gives you an opportunity to finally fight back. And I don't know that it's going to make a difference at the end, and I can't promise that.

But all you can do is give your side, give your case, and fight. And at least that is a form of justice. So I hope that that is what happens and that people get to hear from both sides. And that we, to the best of our abilities, through this terrible political system that we have, unfortunately, where no one cares about the truth anymore. They care what their donors want. And they have their marching orders. And 98% of them are never going to change their minds, no matter what the things. facts are. But maybe, maybe we just arrive at a little bit more truth than justice, if she

testifies. Let's take a break. When we come back, more updates on the Kavanaugh story. And later on, we will discuss the spending bill that the Senate just signed off on. All right, back on a young Turks. Lots of comments. YouTube super chat real quick. Lazarath says, Dr. Ford is asking for the smallest thing when demanding an investigation. I don't want a Supreme Court justice who has potential allegation. Who knows what else they might find with a fine-tooth comb. And in fact, of course, that's exactly what they might be afraid of. Now I'm going to read a bunch of member comments.

Rebel Dragon says the third person in the room doesn't want to testify because he knows under oath, he would have to testify to not recalling the incident. But he can't confirm that it didn't happen based on his drinking and blackout history. That's an interesting take on it. That's on Mike Judge, who was a third person in the room who's backing Kavanaugh but says he doesn't recall. Vicious Kree says, and this one I relate to the most, if I was innocent and knew it to the effect that I rounded up 60 plus character witnesses to try to back me up, that's the letter that they did, I'd be begging for an investigation in an effort to clear my name.

Kavanaugh acts guilty because he is. So I don't know, of course, for a fact that he is, but I would be begging. I would want an, if I thought the investigators were honest, I would definitely want an investigation. Absolutely, because look, without the investigation, let's say the Republicans get exactly what they want, he gets confirmed, right? If he didn't do it, you have a huge portion of the country believing that you did, because there was no investigation done to clear your name. Yeah, Winnipeg, Craig says Ford testifying isn't just about his nomination.

It's about forcing the Republicans to show who they are to the public. It's about every future nomination in election too. Now I wouldn't blame her if she decides not to, but if she does, she could change the future of the country. Okay, thank you guys, great comments by the members as usual. And if you would like your comments moved up, then become a member as well, t.t.com slash join. We're trying to give more and more benefits to membership, including behind the scenes. So we've done some, a lot of super fun behind the scenes videos that you guys should check

out to if you remember. All right, Anna, what's next? All right. The smears aimed at Dr. Christine Blasey Ford continue and the latest example was in the form of a blog post, an anonymous blog post that Dinesh D'Souza decided to tweet out. And all it does is essentially slut shame, the accuser, and also other female students who went to the all-girls school that Dr. Blasey went to, Holton Arms. Now, DeSuzza tweeted the following, no one in the media is covering the culture of hookups

and binge drinking the accuser was part of. By the way, no evidence that she was part of that. Here's what they're trying to cover up. And in that tweet, he links to a blog post. This is not a news article. This was not something written by the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN. It's a blog post, okay? And it's for this website called The Cult of the First Amendment.

DeSuzza tweeted that link to this article. And it accused the Kavanaugh accuser of taking part in binge drinking and promiscuity while in high school. No evidence of that, by the way. Yeah, I mean, look, Anna emphasizes his blog posts, not because you can't have perfectly good opinions on a blog, et cetera. But there's no evidence in there. So he's linking to it as if it's an authoritative source.

What he's linking to is some dude's opinion backed up by no evidence at all. No evidence. So if you read through it, I mean, I encourage you, go ahead, read through it, okay? There is nothing linking Dr. Blasey to these allegations. And even if it did, even if there was evidence that she was drinking or having a good time or partying in high school, who cares, who cares? You think that that's enough to clear Kavanaugh of any wrongdoing? Look at how, but this is what I mean when I urge conservative women to really reconsider

the political party they're supporting, okay? Sometimes I've said that in not so nice terms, but let me just try to be as diplomatic as possible. This is what they think of you. If you were a victim of sexual assault and you come forward with your allegations, they are going to pour over your past to see if there's anything they can use to smear you, including partying, which is something that. Everyone does when they're younger.

So if you've ever partied in your life, then what, you deserve to be sexually assaulted? I don't get it. And by the way, they found nothing on her. So Donald Trump Jr. retweeted this. He thinks, oh, yeah, let's go smear her. That's great. Now, in the blog post, they talk about the clothes that other girls in that high school war back then.

So, they don't have any pictures of Dr. Blasey. They don't have anything on Dr. Blasey. First of all, they looked and they couldn't find anything on Dr. Blasey. Let's just note that, okay? So whenever they did go to do these smear jobs, if they got a tiny little thing, that means they looked and looked and looked and couldn't find a big thing. In this case, they couldn't find anything. So they did guilt by association, but is it even guilt?

So they're questioning what the girls wore when they were 15 or 16 from back in the In 1983. It's amazing. So does that mean that if they wore the wrong kind of skirt that somebody could rape them? No, no, I really want to know the logic. I want to know the logic. When they were 17, if they drank at a party, does that mean that any guy in that party could rape them?

Well, what they're trying to do is make it seem as though, well, the girls who went to this school were promiscuous, okay, they were sexually. So if this happened, it was because she wanted it. That's the way that it gets interpreted, right? That's what he's implying. There was drinking, there was promiscuity. So she wanted it. It was probably a consensual thing.

So they're trying all different avenues at attacking her. Every high school has some degree of drinking and some degree of promiscuity. That isn't the issue. For example, we have now said a thousand times in the last four or five days that Kavanaugh drank a lot in high school. We don't care. That isn't the issue at all. A lot of people drank in high school. That's not the issue. The issue is what he did on that day, which appears to be, the allegations are, of attempted rape. That matters, not the drinking. So not what she wore that day, not if she had a drink, not if he had a drink. We're not going

back to 1983 and judging every little minutia of either side. We're talking about only, and by the Wait, we have excellent credibility on this because on the very first day before we knew what it was, I said, we all said, it depends on what he did. It was high school. If it was a small thing, a mid-sized thing, you can't go all the way back to high school. It would have to cross a very high bar. That's literally what we said on day one. And it turns out it was attempted rape, that crosses the high bar.

So what do they do? They say, oh yeah, yeah, you guys are going back there? Oh yeah, well then I'm gonna go back there and judge everything they did today. Not her, but did anybody else at that high school ever have a drink? Did they ever wear the wrong kind of skirt? Are you kidding me? So that's who they are. Yeah, and I, look, this is just my opinion, but I wouldn't use a convicted felon as an arbiter

of criminality ever. So it's very ironic that he thinks that he could be the judgment of good behavior. I mean, this guy is a convicted felon, period. That's Dinesh D'Souza, he went to jail over it. Of course, another lifelong criminal eventually pardoned him. That's Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr.'s father, obviously. But no, he was convicted, and he went to jail, and he's a felon. And so, but the Republicans still talk about him like, oh, well, he did a movie about

the corruption of Hillary Clinton. You know what Dinesh D'Souza went to jail for? corruption. He did, he violated campaign finance laws and try to get around them and give more money than he was allowed to give to a candidate that he liked. There's a colloquial word for that. It's called corruption. But they're like, oh, bravo, the corruption of Hillary Clinton, Dinesh D'Souza. They think that they're the party that is of family values and morality. And here they are trying to excuse attempted rape because young girls have. had it coming because they also at some point drank at a party. It's effing gross, man.

All right. A lot of attention is being paid on, let me start that again. A lot of attention is being paid toward Senator Susan Collins, whether or not as a moderate Republican, she would be willing to vote in favor of the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. Now, she says that things have gotten a little too difficult, a little too heated, and she's dealing with threats. And a Democratic lawmaker mocked those threats. And we're going to get to that in just a minute. But before we do, I want you to hear from Susan Collins yourselves and hear what she has to say about those threats.

Take a listen. That's just not a good way for us to end. So I think she needs to come forward, and I think we need to provide her with any protection that she may ask for herself and her family. I would note that Judge Kavanaugh also had true through some threats and goodness knows, and I don't mean to acquaint myself with either of them, but my office has received some. pretty ugly, voicemails, threats, terrible things said to my stuff, and so this has been a very ugly process, and I think that's very unfortunate. So remember that Senator Collins is a moderate Republican. Everyone's pretty unsure as to how she's going to vote in these confirmation hearings.

And so I just give you that note because while I believe that she is getting threats, I mean, in today's political climate is definitely possible, there's no indication that those threats are only coming from liberals or only coming from Republicans. There are conservatives in the country who really want Judge Kavanaugh to be confirmed. And so I think that there's some panic involving Collins and whether or not she would vote in favor of his confirmation. So just keep that in mind. But then you have Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, and he heard

about these threats and decided to share his own opinions on them and got a lot of heat for it. So he said the following on Twitter, boo-hoo-hoo, you're a senator who, you're a senator whose police will protect. A sexual assault victim can't sleep in her home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? Ford's on her, fords on her own while you and your Senate GOP colleagues tried to rush her through a hearing. So he later delivered. and apologized for those tweets because they were interpreted as mocking the fact that Collins is dealing with threats. But with that said, while I think it should be taken seriously that she is dealing with threats,

the heart of what he's saying there is right. I mean, you have the accuser here, Dr. Blasey, in hiding. She had to move out of her home. Her family is afraid. She had to hire private security. And so, yeah, there are death threats all around the country at all time. times. But people like Blasey Ford don't get the protection that someone like Susan Collins gets. So, first of all, Anna's right. We have no idea if right wingers might have been calling

in to say, don't you dare vote against Kavanaugh. They're the ones that far, far, far more consistently threaten violence, do violence, because they believe in violence. As progressives, we don't believe in violence. And so if you are a progressive who called in, don't ever threaten violence. Now, by the way, we actually have no idea of anyone on the right or the left threatened violence at all. They just, her office, and you heard her, the senators herself say it, but our office also said the same thing that the calls and messages were, quote, ugly and abusive. That could mean anything. That could mean I don't like you or what.

And so now we're stuck in a situation where there's two different rules. And so on the one hand, I don't want anybody to threaten violence ever, ever against anyone whether they're Republican or Democrat. Now on the other hand, we and online and all of you who've ever dealt with any trolls or anybody online gets threatened nonstop and no one cares. So there's this uneven rules. If you touch someone inside the club and you are not quite so nice on a voicemail, then it's a five alarm fire.

And if anybody ever says anything about it, the club gets super mad and they're like, how dare you? That's our beloved Susan Collins, right? Whereas everyone else online can be viciously attacked, nonstop, death threats galore. And no one can the club cares? That's just you guys. So I'll give you guys an example. And I think this is one of the more important examples because these are people who

were already victimized. The parents who lost their young son in the Sandy Hook shooting. After Alex Jones accused them of being crisis actors and accused this of all being a false flag operation to take guns away from Americans. They were harassed so incessantly that they had to move seven times. And by the way, do you think there's anyone helping them financially to do that? Do you think there's anyone protecting them? They had to move not only seven times. Finally, they ended up in a secure community, a gated community with extra security just so they can stay safe because the threats were so specific. And that's the reason why they're now suing

Alex Jones for the defamatory claims he was making on his show. But I bring that up because they're on their own, right? Whereas you know, you're a U.S. Senator, you're not on your own. You get that protection added as part of your job. And I'm glad that you get that protection. But the five alarm fire, as Jank mentioned, is just fascinating coming from someone who has that extra security. And sometimes this uses a ruse.

I don't think in this case it is. I think Collins has been so sheltered in her life that she's, I don't know if she's ever gotten an angry comment in her life because they live in such a bubble, right? But you know, there's a Democratic candidate in the middle of the country, this woman running and they, a couple of times people have taken a shot at her. What they're unaware of is there are right wing fanatics in this country. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies there are. taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data.

But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But Listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash T-Y-T, you can get three extra months

for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. who believe in violence, and they threaten it all the time. And so if you do it against a senator, you're going to be in a world of trouble because they're powerful, they're rich, they're elite, okay? You do it against somebody who's just a candidate who's running in the middle of the country. Man, she's on her own. You know, you do it to the Sandy Hook parents.

They're on their own. I pulled a random video to make this point earlier on a similar story where I just looked through a couple of pages of comments on one of our YouTube video. And there's 60,000 of them on just one. And we had half a dozen death threats on just two pages of one video. And every video has dozens and dozens of pages of comments. And so is anybody here to protect anybody online? No, you're on your own, right?

So that's why when someone leaves a quote unquote ugly comment on the voicemail of an elite, All of a sudden, the elites are like, how swell, well, how dare you? We must protect the elites. But the rest of you, good luck. So that's what's frustrating. Susan Collins should be protected, so should the rest of us. But unfortunately, that doesn't exist. And in this case, and to be fair to Susan Collins, again, no disrespect towards her.

I don't want anybody to threaten her in any way, shape, or form. And in this case, she's saying, hey, we should go protect her. Dr. Blasey too. Right, right. And she heard her on the tapes. Yeah, to her credit. She said we should provide security and they should. The government should have stepped up immediately to provide her security.

But they should on many instances. There's a case to be made that they should do it for the Sandy Hook parents. They definitely should do it for that candidate in the country. And I don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican. If people are endangering your life, then the government needs to protect you. That's the whole point of the government. Right. For me, this is much less about Susan Collins.

more about the double standard, you know, and the differences in treatment when it comes to the elite versus the rest of us. And so if that's why Swalwell had a whirl of hurt poured on his head when he said this, and then he had to backpedal and said it was stupid and he apologized. If he'd done it to a regular person, nobody would have cared. Yeah, all right. We gotta take a break, but when we come back, we have a different Susan Collins story that I think is important. This one has to do with her own double standard in regard to money and politics, loves it when it supports her, hates it when it doesn't.

Yes. Now, if you thought I was angry with the Dinesh D'Souza story or this story, wait until you get a load of me on that next story. Can't remember to get the whole show, t.com slash join. That goes to the heart of what gets me the most angry. and her pot. Here we kind of halfway defended her. There, we will not be defending her at all because she proves what an elitist she is and how ridiculous this whole system is. I will come right back. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t.t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free section. All right, back on a young Turks, just a couple of comments here.

Smooth writes in, Collins is academically a liberal conservative. She, Hillary Clinton, and Feinstein are really close in ideology. That's largely true. They all want wars, they vote for wars, they finance wars, they all want tax cuts for the rich, they all vote for tax cuts for the rich, and finance those, and on and on and on. And that is why Susan Collins is beloved by the mainstream media, because she is for the establishment and the status quo. So we're gonna get into that and it's just a second.

FD. Costa Rica writes in, can the Dems also question Kavana on this issue on Monday? Whereas Ford, the only one that gets hammered and can the Dems show some balls and demand to question him? So that's a really good point because they're thinking of, now if Dr. Blasey shows up, yes. the Democrats can question Kavanaugh, and they will. But if she doesn't come, they're considering canceling the whole hearings. Wait, why? Kavana would have a huge advantage.

He's the only one that we get to speak. Shouldn't you go and make his case anyway? Why would they cancel the hearings? Because they don't want the Democrats asking questions of Kavanaugh. So, by the way, if they do have the hearings, we're going to carry them live on the Young Turks. So make sure that you're checking us out on Monday. If it's happening, we're going to come in really early to make sure we're doing play-by-play on all the hearings.

And obviously, we'll see if they get confirmed and we'll give you more details as we go along. And just two quick YouTube super chats here. Yazin Yusuf says Ford is a hero for coming forward. The fact that she is the one asking for an FBI investigation lends credibility to her story. I hope she prevails. and Cory Price simply says, Semper Fidelis, young Turks. Thank you, brother. Okay, let's go forward.

Okay. Liberal activists in the state of Maine have gotten together and fundraised $1 million in an effort to convince Senator Susan Collins to vote no on Brett Kavanaugh. Now, the way that they're doing this is they're telling Senator Collins, if you vote yes and help to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice, we will take that $1 million and use it to help support your opponent. And Susan Collins is not happy about this. So just to give you the exact statement that's coming from this fundraising platform, Senator Colin votes no on Kavanaugh and you will not be charged and no money will go to

fund her future opponent. Senator Collins votes yes on Kavanaugh and your pledge will go to her opponent's campaign once that opponent has been identified. So right now there hasn't even been an opponent identified by this platform. But the fundraising effort is being done by Maine People's Alliance, Mainers for Accountable Leadership and activist Addie Barkin. And again, they've raised $1 million from 37,000 pledges as of the government. Tuesday.

So that number might have gone up by now. But Collins is not happy about it. She is arguing that this is essentially bullying her and trying to bribe her to do something that she might not want to do, right? So I think it's a genius idea. It's very similar to the one that we discussed recently where Congresswoman Pramelo-Jyapal said, hey, let's raise money to support candidates that are for Medicare for all. The health insurance companies participate in the process and give millions upon millions

of dollars to people who will kill Medicare for all. So why don't we use actual American citizens to raise money for politicians who support Medicare for all? Genius. You could have unlimited money, we could have unlimited money. Now, you're gonna have more money than us because you have all the corporations backing you, et cetera, but at least we could fight back with whatever means that we have available. I think this is a great idea by the people involved.

By the way, it's very similar to what one of our sponsors does, downticket.com. They do something really, really similar to this. You should check them out too. And the idea is to even the score. So you already know they're gonna get all their corporate money. But if someone does something you don't like, again, look, it just happens to match. But down-ticket.com's idea is, well, if they vote the wrong way, well, let's make sure that you know who their opponent is and you can mark it down for when she does have an opponent

to finance that opponent. That's democracy. That's exactly how it's supposed to work. But what they, bribery, are you kidding me? All right, so do you know how much Susan Collins has taken in campaign donations in her career? No, tell me. Over $21 million. But that's not bribery guys.

But that's not bribery. No, no, no, that's okay. Because that comes from corporations. That's just speech. Yeah. And those corporations and really, really wealthy Americans, they have your best interest in mind. You don't have your best interest in mind. You, when you care about an issue that is critical to your life, well, you're the bad

guy who's trying to do bribery. When a corporation wants a tax cut, wants to make money and directly, legally bribes a politician, says, here's a million dollars, give me what I want. I want a billion dollars, and she does it, she's done it her whole career. That's the whole point of Susan Collins' career, is bribery. What do you think, Susan, that they're giving you the $21 million for for their health? No, they're giving it so they could have a return on investment. Your career is to take bribes.

You do it every single day. Am I calling you corrupt, Susan? Yes, yes I am. You are institutionally, systemically corrupt, like almost all of the politicians in Washington. And now you have the nerve that when Americans, real Americans, contribute five bucks, ten bucks at a time, 37,000 people donated to this to turn around and go, real Americans, how dare you? You don't get to voice your opinions, only Koch brothers do, my corporate friends do, the Super PACs do, but you never get to voice your opinions.

She accused, accused them of threatening her, which, no, no, no, so this is an official statement released by her spokesperson, so let's go to Graphic 31. Anybody who thinks these tactics would work on Senator Collins obviously doesn't know her. Colins will make up her mind based on the merits of the nomination. Hilarious. Threats or other attempts to bully her will not play a factor in her decision making whatsoever. So, okay, I wish that money wouldn't play a role in her decision making whatsoever, but that's, as Jank pointed out, that's not the case.

And by the way, look, we're only talking about Susan Collins here because this story has to do with Susan Collins. But we don't mean to just single her out. This is a virus throughout our political system, and it infects pretty much every politician right now with a few exceptions. And so this is the way our political system has been working. We've had people in positions of power making excuses and defending it, but when it comes to small dollar donors, you know, doing something that they believe in, no, that's unacceptable.

By the way, the Washington Post went and spoke to some ethnic, experts to see-hilarious. No, no, no, it's funny, to see what they have to say about it. And so they did find one ethics person who was like, oh, this might be illegal. And I want to give you the quote, at least one ethics expert consulted by the Washington Post said that it very may well violate federal bribery statutes, which prohibit giving or offering anything of value to government officials in exchange for any acts or votes. Great.

That is, I wish that were really the case, like, but this happens all the time. There's 535 members of Congress. You could easily arrest 500 of them based on that definition. Exactly. There's only a handful that don't take corporate pack money, that only take small dollar donations. The rest of them do that for a living. Do you think, I mean, name a corporation, do you think ExxonMobil is giving money to these

politicians or Lockheed Martin is giving money to these politicians for charity? Is anyone, no, I'm sorry, but I guess is anyone that stupid? Are you stupid? You think Lockheed Martin's like, oh well, no, look, look, I think Susan Collins is not going to just give me her vote, but I've given to her once, twice, 28 times, a thousand times. And I never got a return on investment, but I'm doing it because I care about the well-being of the American people, no, they would like to sell more weapons.

And it doesn't have to be a bad guy company. Apple, I have an iPhone, I like Apple, Apple, Apple gives money to politicians, why? Because they don't want to pay taxes, they don't want to pay taxes, so what do they do? And our system allows it, so they bribe all the politicians. And now, but the minute you do it, they're like, no, no, you're a real citizen, you're not part of the elite, you're not allowed to participate. Wait, I thought it was speech. The Supreme Court, when the corporations did it, said it was speech.

But when an actual human being does it, it's no longer speech. Now it's bribery. And by the way, I want to give a recent example to kind of prove your point, Jank. Look, the Koch brothers are now getting all their rich cronies together and talking about how they no longer want to help fund the political campaigns of Republican politicians because they're not able to check the president on these tariffs. They hate the tariffs and they hate some of the activity and behavior coming out of the White House.

And so they're like, nah, we don't like it, so we're not going to donate to them anymore. Like that proves your point, they don't donate out of the goodness of their hearts. They're not donating out of charity. They're donating because they expect to get something in return. So Collins and the Washington elite say, but this is not a particular issue, and you're not allowed to do it on an issue and try to get her to vote in a certain way. But to Anna's point, the Koch brothers just said, no, I don't like your position on tariffs. So I will no longer give you the bribes I used to give you.

Well, what is that? Are we gonna go lock up the Koch brothers? Of course not. No, there's no talk of that. They are the beloved Koch brothers in Washington. So, okay, here's another issue, money in politics. So Wolfpack goes and says, hey, you got money, we got money. We're gonna raise money, and if you vote to keep money in politics, we're gonna raise money

in politics and spend it against you. And man, they howl, we did it in Connecticut, spent $50,000 in a race. And unfortunately, so much of the media is in groups. think, and they've lived in Washington and they've lived this system too long. So even the media's like, how dare you spend money against an establishment candidate in Connecticut? God damn right we are. So look, wolf dash pack.com slash stick, because there are carrots and sticks in politics.

And this is purely political, purely part of the Democratic movement. So they have money, you give Wolfpack a million bucks. Do you have any idea what they could do? They could do what those super PACs could do with $100 million, with a billion dollars, okay? And we get it five bucks, ten bucks, a hundred bucks at a time from you guys. Wolf dashback.com slash stick. So the next time Susan Collins or anyone else says, oh my God, the regular people should not be allowed to give money, only my corporate friends should be allowed to give money.

We go, oh yeah, sorry, we're gonna raise money and we're gonna spend it against you and we're gonna make sure you never ever, ever win another. election. But it's not about Collins. They're all corrupt. You think Mitch McConnell's any better? He's worse. He's the one that says money in politics is great. Great. Give me a million dollars. You know how badly we would crush Mitch McConnell? Because the Democrats, all they do is play softball. Well, how do they run against the Mitch McConnell's of the world? How do they run? By the way, it implies the Democrats to Feinstein fundamentally corrupt on the Democratic side. Right. And what did the Democrats? ever do? They play patty cakes. What do progressives do? What do conservatives that care about this issue? You're all shut out. And on the progressive side, we have nothing but the weakest,

weakest politicians in America. So let's raise money. And yes, on Medicare for all, yes, on getting money out of politics, yes, on this Kavanaugh vote. And yes, we can use our money, too, and we should do it immediately. God bless the people who did this in Maine. And if Susan calls votes in a way that is against the interests of those people, of course they should spend money against her. And if you don't like it, Susan, there's a great way to fix it. You could vote for an amendment that gets money out of politics, then they wouldn't be able to spend that money.

You want to do it? Mitch McConnell, you want to do it? Diane Feinstein. You want to do it? No, because you love the money in politics as long as it comes from your corporate friends. Yeah. I want to leave you though with one quote from a different ethics expert. This is Jordan Lieberwitz.

He's a spokesperson for the center of ethics and responsibilities. He says, it seems kind of icky, but it doesn't rise to the level of bribery because there's no agreement. It's just the way money and politics tend to work these days. There's nothing icky about it at all. No. I agree. I agree that there's nothing icky about it.

This is what happens in politics every single day in the U.S. every single day. We can raise a million dollars at a time. They just raised a million dollars. We could raise it in getting money out of politics. We could raise it on Medicare for all. And these knuckleheads, they're used to just wasting it on consultants. They're used to the largest of their billionaire friends. We're unbelievably efficient on the progressive side for the real fighters.

Our money is worth ten times their money. So let's go raise it on all these issues that we care about and make them cry. Make them cry and howl. All right. Let's take a break. Let's calm down a little bit. 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 at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.