The Young Turks - Republicans Pump The Brakes On Impeaching Rosenstein, Trump Bans CNN Reporter

Episode Date: July 26, 2018

A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from July 26, 2018. For more go to http://www.tytnetwork.com/join. Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian. Inside the GOP’s push to impeach Rod Rosenstein. CNN reporter gets banned from White House event. Trump admin accuses Twitter of shadow-banning Republicans. David Clay Johnston and Michael Avenatti comment on Trump’s affairs. Betsy DeVos proposes restrictions on Obama-era loan forgiveness. Someone sets Betsy DeVos’ $40 million yacht adrift. 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. Thank you for watching or listening to this free podcast of the Young Turks. We want to make sure that you get some portion of the show every day. But if you want the full show, which is actually five segments, come become a member and support independent media as well. TYT network.com slash join. Meanwhile, enjoy the free podcast.

All right, welcome with the Young Turks, another day in America. And Donald Trump is in even bigger trouble. We're gonna get to that in a little bit. There's some chance that soon he will have to. Show me the Batuk. Perhaps he might have already done that with Latimer. Anyway, you're not supposed to say that, you're not supposed to say that. We got a lot of amazing news for you guys throughout the program today.

If you miss any of it, you know you could become a member, get it all at t-y-t.com slash join. Okay, I have breaking news for you guys right off the top of the show. I'm going to do that, and then we'll talk to you about Hawaii, okay? Hawaii. All right, breaking news, Facebook has suffered the most devastating loss in American history in the stock market. No exaggeration, no joke. They lost $100 billion in market value today. Wow, that is a stunning amount of money to lose.

Biggest one-day loss for any company in U.S. history. So what happened? Well, they released their second quarter earnings yesterday, and it was deeply disappointing, and the market reacted very poorly to it yesterday, and then the sell-off accelerated today. They are declining in both growth in users and in revenue. That does not spell good news, obviously, for Facebook. But there's another problem, which is that regulators in the U.S. and in Europe, particularly, are coming after them to affect what is the core of their business,

which is to collect data from all the people that use Facebook and then sell it to advertisers. And so if it affects the core of their business, on top of the decline, In declining growth and revenue, now investors are worried whether it is going to be sustainable. So now, look, the market goes up, it goes down. You can't explain why, to quote Bill O'Reilly. No, yes, we can't explain why. This is why. So it might rebound.

It's not to say that it's all over for them, but they lost 19% of their value in one day. Now, that means they still have 81% left. And some investors might look at it as a good buying opportunity for a business that's still has an enormous amount of users throughout the world in a way that we have hardly ever seen in the history of the planet. So you could look at it in both different ways, a good buying opportunity, or it is a point to get out further because you're worried about the sustainability of the business. I just want to let you guys know, and I have no value judgment on other than I'm blown

away by the size of the loss. Facebook devastated in the stock market today. A hundred billion dollars in loss in one day. Wow. Okay, that's all I got on that. Okay, my analysis on that was cogent. It consisted of, wow. Okay, but soon they might have to show investors. Show me the bottle. Biggest loss in the history of America. Okay, probably shouldn't have too much fun with it. Anyways, let's go over here. Okay, there's a race in Hawaii, and Hawaii is one of the most progressive states in the country, and what is amazing about the race is there's four candidates that are challenging here

and have a legitimate chance of winning. One of them is very, very progressive, Kanyella Ng, and he does not take overpac money, and he's uncorrupted, et cetera. But what I'm amazed by is his three opponents and how incredibly conservative they are. Why, on God's Green Earth, would one of the most progressive states in the country elect one of these guys? So I'm going to give you all four of their backgrounds so you can make a decision on your own. So the currently leading is Ed Case. Now, Ed Case was a former Democratic representative from Hawaii.

So you might think, well, I mean, Democrat from Hawaii is probably pretty liberal. wrong. He was a blue dog Democrat. Blue dog means a conservative Democrat, and boy, did he prove it while he was in Congress. What did he do? Well, first of all, I should let you know after he left Congress, he proved how conservative he was further, and to the great benefit of his pocketbook, he's a current lobbyist for the largest non-union hotel chain in Hawaii, and he has made only $1.16 million in the last 18 months by being a lobbyist. You're gonna elect a lobbyist for your congressman? All right, so what was his track record when he had a chance to prove himself?

Well, unsurprisingly, he voted for tax cuts for the rich. So he wanted to abolish the estate tax. So if you're incredibly, if you're a billionaire in Hawaii, I get why you'd want to vote for Ed Case. You're a regular person in Hawaii, this guy's not for you. He voted to support lower taxes on, average rate is no, investment income. Why? rich people have more investment income.

Okay, that's two times he voted for the rich to lower their taxes or even to eliminate them. And then the Bush tax cuts. I mean, that was $3.5 trillion of tax cuts, mainly to the rich. He voted for it. What's the point of sending a Democrat to go vote for these tax cuts that the Republicans come up with? So would he have voted for the Trump tax cuts?

Maybe. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and they were larger than the Trump tax cuts. Apparently, Ed Case has not met a tax cut for the rich that he does not love. Which makes sense. He's rich. He got rich by being a lobbyist. So, okay, why, why on God's Green Earth would Hawaii send that guy to represent them when he doesn't represent them? He's way more conservative than the voters of Hawaii. And he's currently leading in the polls. That's incredible. And I know a lot of it is name recognition. But understand who Ed Case is. This is who he is. I'm not done with him yet. He said as recently as 2006 that he would have voted for the Iraq war. As recently as But by 2006, even Republicans were saying, oh, that was a disaster. 2006, he's still saying, I would have voted for it. So he's pro-war. Hawaii, what do you, are you?

Who would consider this guy? He should be dead last. Another reason, he voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. You send him at your peril, Hawaii. You send him to Washington. This guy has a huge track record of voting with Republicans over and over on almost every issue you care about. Wait till you get a load of what he did in 05 though when he was in Congress. He voted with Jeb Hanserling's amendment. First of all, Jeb Hanserling, one of the most

conservative politicians, the whole country. But wait until you get a load of the amendment. To eliminate funding for PBS, NPR, Title 10 family planning, and money for Planned Parenthood. You're going to send that guy back to Congress? No way. No progressive, no Democrat in Hawaii should for Ed Case. This guy is one of the most conservative Democrats. Now if he came from Nebraska, even then I wouldn't want it. I wouldn't want it from Alabama, but from Hawaii? No way, no way.

Now look, let me give you the Conella's record as a juxtaposition before I get to the other guys. So Conella Ing is the only candidate who doesn't take any corporate PAC money. The other guys take corporate PAC money, you don't know who they're working for. They can be working for the corporations. In fact, they are working for the corporations. In the case of that case, literally, also Doug Chin, which I'll tell you about in a second. So Kanyele doesn't take any corporate money, so he represent you guys.

He is the only candidate to support Medicare for all. Well, that polls incredibly well in Hawaii. Why would you send the guys who aren't in favor of the policies you're in favor of? He's got a plan for housing for all. He's, I'm gonna show you a clip where he tells you how Democrats and progressives should actually fight for their own side. I'll show you that at the end, but he actually cares about the homeless one. wants to actually solve it, and there is a way to solve it.

And I can go on and on, but I'll give you one last one. He does same day voter registration. He's the one when he's a state representative in Hawaii, pushed for that and got it passed. He championed that legislation. By the way, one of his opponents, Beth Fukumuto, who was a Republican until about three seconds ago, voted against same day voter registration. She voted for voter suppression with the Republicans, why? She was a Republican.

So let me tell you more about her. She was a former Republican, but hey, look, let's be fair. Decades ago, I was a former Republican. Was it decades ago? Oh, no, it was in 2017 that she switched. Until 2017, she thought the Republicans were absolutely right. She thought George W. Bush was right, apparently. Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Jeb Hanserling, Dick Cheney.

She lives through Dick Cheney and thought, Republicans are awesome. She wasn't just a Republican voter. He was in the Republican Party. She was a former House Minority Leader until 2017 as part of the Republican Party. She signed up for that. Here, let me give you more about her. She voted no on Obamacare implementation in Hawaii. We're done with that.

In Hawaii? I mean, we need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-B-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-B-The Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by 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 and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must have learned 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.

Along with Rhode Island, competitive for the the most progressive state in the whole country. You're going to send somebody Congress who voted no. on Obamacare implementation. No, Obama care's bad. Again, she was a Republican, so of course she voted that way. She agrees with all those Republicans. She says, well, now they went a little too far. No, Republicans didn't go a little too far, and they didn't just do it. They've been way, way too far for decade after decade, and you know that in Hawaii. But my favorite about her is she said that same-sex marriage was, quote, the greatest concern for my generation. Oh, well, okay.

she's a millennial. Some people will say, oh, that's exciting young candidate. And so look, at least she's right on some issues, right? And really concerned about same sex. No, she was against same sex marriage. In 2013, she voted against it and said that it was the greatest concern of her generation to make sure that it never happens. Hawaii, you would send this person to represent you? The most progressive voters in the country is going to say, send this person who it took till 2013 to figure out that not only was same-sex marriage was not a bad thing, that it wasn't the worst thing there is, but wait till you get a load of Doug Chin.

So, I mean, this is a murderous row of horrific conservative candidates that have no business representing Hawaii. So Doug Chin now is known a little bit for opposing Donald Trump while in Hawaii. That's a layup. Anybody could oppose Donald Trump. That's the easiest thing in the world. But what do you actually stand for? Again, on the issue of same-sex marriage, I'm gonna go to a video here.

Now, it's an old video, it's from the 90s, so I'm giving you a fair context for it. But understand, like Fukamoto, until 2013, he was still against same-sex marriage. Not 1993, not 2003, he was against it all the way to 2013, also a former Republican. So get a load of how much he couldn't stand the idea of gay people loving each other. This is a sermon that he gave. To think that you know better than the creator of the universe on how to deal with your family. But my family taught me something different. My family taught me something different from what the Bible teaches.

Well, okay, the Bible is right, your family is wrong. Is there any shame in that? Okay, what's so bad about that? God is right, your family's wrong. Is there anything wrong? That's fine, okay? Let's do something constructive with that, amen. No, there is shame in that.

So if a family member is gay, you're gonna tell him or you're gonna scream at him, God is right and your family's wrong. What's wrong with that, he asks? Well, there's a lot wrong with that, and if you can't see that, that is deeply I don't know if he's ever switched on same-sex marriage or if he switched on it a day ago or a year ago. I do know until 2013 he was totally against it. Now there's a lot of people because they'd like to win in Hawaii pretending to be progressive. Oh yeah, yeah, I'm super progressive.

I kind of don't like Donald Trump. I decided a little bit later I did that I don't love every one of his policies. Hey, Hawaii, you want to vote for me? No, no, no, these are former Republicans and so now, but this is the capper. You're thinking about Doug Chin? Okay, he's also a former lobbyist. Who did he lobby for? Correction Corporation of America, now known as Core Civic, Private Prisons.

Did you know private prisons arrest and incarcerate native Hawaiians at higher rates? How much money did he take from them? $100,000. And then he became Attorney General of Hawaii. And I'm sure in a shocking coincidence, Corpic. received $45 million annual contract for private prisons in Hawaii. Look, I don't know that anyone can show for 100% certainty that he takes $100,000 to be a lobbyist for private prisons, and then all of a sudden they get $45 million contract.

Maybe it's a coincidence. Do you want a private prison lobbyist who got paid to lock up his fellow citizens right or wrong? And if you don't think those private prisons care about their profit motive and they care about justice, you ought to have your head examined. Now, they don't care if you're guilty or not guilty. They get paid on incarcerating you. And this guy got paid to represent them. And the most progressive state in the union is going to send a private prison lobbyist to Congress? Hell no.

No, no, no. If you live in Hawaii, you have got to get out there and vote in the primary. It is coming up. In fact, you can start voting right now. You have got to get into this fight right now, okay? So look, I'll give you right now two different things you're doing that. I'm going to show you a clip of Conella Ng, so you get a sense of who he is. So number one, you can do JusticeDemocrats.com slash Conella Ing.

That is a way for him to hire staffers so that he could coordinate the volunteers. Because the other guys, I don't know if they got any volunteers. They got a lot of corporate money. I don't know if they have any volunteers. Connella has volunteers. And by the way, you can volunteer for them all across the country. Making phone calls is the most important thing to do. And the elections right now, people are mailing in ballots right now.

So get on the phones. You progressives all across the country, you can make a difference. Don't let conservatives take Hawaii. That's insane. So the person who's going to help him was Allison Hartson. She ran for office here in California. Now she's been going around the country helping fellow progressives. She helped Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

She's in Hawaii right now helping Kanyele-In. Go volunteer through Allison-Hartson.com slash now. Allison-Harson.com slash now. Volunteers are the most important thing for these uncorrupted candidates. So now all the other three are unbelievably conservative. How about Kanyella? Well, in the middle of a debate, they asked them, should you work with Republicans and reach across the aisle?

Now, the other three, you know their answer. Oh, we'll reach out to the Republicans. That's how we're going to get things done. And here was Conella's answer. Bipartisanship in Congress, like let's not kid ourselves. I don't think any of us on this panel can sit across from Donald Trump and hash out something that will actually work for working people in Hawaii. Maybe we could tack in some few things in infrastructure spending, but it won't be through compromise. It'll be through fighting vigorously and fiercely for working people.

And that's what we need. I mean, look at Affordable Care Act. Obamacare, great. A lot of people rely on it. But we made 40 Republican amendments for what? Zero Republican votes. And then after that compromise, they come in there and say, that's your position. Here's our position. Even though we already compromised it, let's stop getting had by Republicans to start leading with an affirmative vision. So when we're saying like restore net neutrality, we should go bolder net. We should say public broadband, high speed across the nation. We shouldn't just say protect ACA. We should say Medicare for all now. And not just affordable housing, but housing for all. If we can afford $30 million condos in Kaka Aco, we can afford to house all of us here in Hawaii.

Scarcity is a political choice. We need the will to take it. I love what he said at the end there. Scarcity is a political choice. So when they want to find one and a half trillion dollars in tax cuts for Donald Trump, all of a sudden they find it right away. When they wanted to find $3.5 trillion in tax cuts for George W. Bush, not only did they find it right away, but Ed Case helped them find it.

But then when you say, hey, let's provide homes in Hawaii or let's provide health care in Hawaii, all of a sudden, it's scarcity, I choose not to give it to the people of Hawaii. They keep choosing to give to the richest people in the country and to their donors, but not to the people of Hawaii. Conella Ing is right. Scarcity is a political choice. He's right. All the three of them want to work with Republicans?

Two of them were Republicans. The other one voted with the Republicans nonstop. And what did we get? We got nothing back. We got no compromise from the Republicans. You're getting 40 amendments on Obamacare and got no votes. How about we fight instead? Hawaii, I am so proud of the state for being one of the most progressive states.

Bernie Sanders won crushing victories there. Tulsi Gabbard's an amazing representative from Hawaii. You deserve someone as progressive as you to fight for you. That's Conella Ing. Get in the fight right now. All right, back on a young Turks. Just two quick comments for you guys, Jank and Anna with you guys. Captain Jiggle Pants writes in, TYT should do an event in Hawaii to get the message out, get crowds, force the media to cover it, make noise.

We should do an event in Hawaii. I am, I will be the top reporter for that event. I will be there. Just let me know when. Look, Anna was willing to make sacrifices, you know, to take one for the team. Look, I would have loved to have gotten to the rallies in Kansas. I would love to go to Hawaii and putting together, but putting together events is very expensive. I want to make sure Kanye Lang spending all this time and effort on getting volunteers

to call and every person in that district knock on their doors. That's how you could beat big money. And in terms of us, I mean, we're also doing this. But I appreciate the idea. And look, get involved. Please volunteer through Allisonhearsen.com slash now to help Conella Ing in Hawaii. It makes all the difference. And anyway, I'm going to read one more comment here. It's from YouTube super chat. Whitney Nelson says, I joined TYT because of Anna. After the last post game, I wanted her to know she has an enormous impact on my views.

Don't let the bad actors get you down when you inspire so many like me. Love to you and everyone. at TYT. Thank you. It's really sweet. Thank you, Whitney. Really appreciate it. In today's post game, by the way, at TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies 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 cybercriminals. 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 TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today.

We are going to discuss the reporter, CNN reporter who got kicked out of covering Donald Trump. We have that in the show, but in the post game, I want to give you some facts about her you might not know and introduce a fun conspiracy theory. We're not like the right wing. We're kidding around about the conspiracy theories. But it is, it's an interesting note where she came from. Right. So t-y-t.com slash join to become a member and you at the post games. All right, Anna, what's up?

All right. A breaking news story from yesterday indicated that congressional Republicans were planning on impeaching Rod Rosenstein. Now, he is the Deputy Attorney General, and he is serving as the Deputy Attorney General after Jeff Sessions recused himself following information indicating that he, had contact with Russians that he did not disclose. Now this all has to do with the special counsel and the investigation into Russian meddling and Trump's alleged obstruction of justice.

Congressional Republicans hate this, Trump hates this, and so one of the things that's been abundantly clear is that Trump wants to get rid of Bob Mueller. And the way you get rid of Mueller is by having an attorney general or deputy attorney general who's willing to fire him. He's the only one who could do that. Rod Rosenstein has been clear in his refusal to do that. So this is my speculation, but there's reason to believe that these congressional Republicans want to get rid of Rosenstein so they can replace him with someone who would be willing to

fire Mueller. Yeah, that's barely speculation. I mean, they've said over and over again that they don't think that they should be doing the investigation. So this whole thing's a fig leaf to say, oh, yeah, oh, I'm worried he's not turning over documents, I want him to tell me in the middle of an active investigation what specifically they are so we can leak them. So the reasoning that these congressional Republicans give for wanting to impeach him is

completely bogus and we will prove it on the show today. No journalist, as far as I've seen, has discussed whether there's any validity to the claims that these congressional Republicans are making. But we looked into it and we will give you the details on that in just a minute. Now, Mark Meadows, who was one of the leaders in pushing for articles of impeachment, has changed his tune a little today. So first, I want you to hear from Representative Mark Meadows himself, and then we will give you more details.

Really, for nine months, we've asked for documents, and that's all we want, are the documents. And what we found is not only have subpoenas been ignored, but information has been hidden. The efforts have been stonewalled. And I guess for us, it's all about transparency, so the American people can judge for themselves. And so, you know, they may be able to ignore Congress, but they can't ignore the American people. So that was what he was alleging earlier. He was clear that he wanted to move forward with the impeachment. However, he is changing his tune a little today.

Representative Mark Meadows is tabling his efforts to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. After having meetings with Republican leadership stating that he would instead pursue contempt if the Justice Department does not turn over documents Congress is seeking. Okay, so the allegation is they're not cooperating with Congress, they need to hand over documents that we want, except they don't have to do that, okay? Now later, we're going to hear from Paul Ryan who says that they are cooperating, even though they don't need to, but just to be abundantly clear on this, let's go to Graphic 49, the special counsel is not charged with providing a public accounting of his work.

The results of a criminal investigation are typically publicly revealed only if a prosecutor brings criminal charges and presents evidence in court to prove those charges. Now, judicial precedent, this is based on rulings in the courts, suggests a possible path for Congress to obtain access to that evidence at the conclusion of the special counsel's investigation. Historically, the Justice Department has not provided to Congress investigative files concerning open investigations, even in response to subpoenas, for two principal reasons. So I'm going to get into the reasons really quickly before you jump in, Jank.

First, under the federal rule of criminal procedure, Justice Department attorneys have a strict legal obligation to protect the confidentiality of matters concerning before the grand jury. Second, the attorneys have a broader duty to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations and to prevent congressional pressures from influencing the course of an investigation. Department participation in publicity about facts under investigation could also jeopardize any indictments that may be filed possibly leading to dismissal. So those are the facts. But even so, it appears based on what Paul Ryan has said, that the special counsel and

Rod Rosenstein have been cooperating with Congress, even though they don't really need to. the congressional Republicans say, hey, listen, I have subpoena power, so I want your materials, so period, end of discussion, you need to comply with my subpoena. So if you stop paying attention at that point, you might think, oh, well, Congress does have subpoena powers, but can they subpoena out anything they want? The answer is no. Now, Anna just explained to you, but I'll put it in layman's terms, right? So, okay, so for example, maybe they're investigating someone who turns out to be innocent,

But you got, and everything that goes to Congress gets leaked, just keep it real. And they're planning to leak it. That's the whole point, right? So if it's damaging, so they could start countering it ahead of time, if it's exculpatory to immediately leak that to the press, these are politicians, you know how they are. And by the way, both sides will leak. If they have access to it, the Republicans will leak and the Democrats will leak. And they'll make it political.

That's the whole point of this so-called, you know, look into evidence and we want to know. But you know at the end of the investigation, if you know in the middle and then you start leaking stuff and then they don't ever charge a guy, in this case it's Trump. If they don't charge Trump, but the Democrats start leaking information about him that seems damaging. Well, that's not fair to Trump in this case. But the other possibility is also very real here. Now, imagine they're investigating someone you care about, a family member. They're looking into your dad, you love your dad. When you go, okay, then I'm in Congress, so what?

I want to subpoena your investigation of my dad. And then I want to destroy that investigation by leaking anything that's to my advantage. Every rational person would say, no, you're not allowed to do that. And the law says you're not allowed to do that, right? In this case, Trump's their daddy. And they will do anything for him. So they're abusing the subpoena power here, which they have no right to. But they just play this political theater here and pretend to be the victims, which is, of course, conservative 101.

You want to know what a conservative is going to do, they're going to cry. And they're going to say, oh, my God, the Justice Department will not give us things that we have no right to. By the way, in this case, the Justice Department is Republican. Rod Rosestine is Republican. And again, for the most part, based on what Paul Ryan is saying, cooperating with congressional Republicans. So look, what is really going on here? So, do these Republican lawmakers genuinely care about Trump? Do they really think Trump is a good guy, a smart person, a good leader?

No. What they do care about is the political ramifications of not speaking out against this investigation. So I'll give you an example. Right now, Paul Ryan is not seeking reelection. He will no longer be House Speaker as a result of that. So Republicans need to find a new House Speaker, and a bunch of people are putting in their We have Steve Scalise, who wants to be a House Speaker. We have Kevin McCarthy who wants to be House Speaker.

And we have other lawmakers who are considering doing this. Jim Jordan is putting his name in the hat as well. Now, they know that in order to get voted or get the support of the House Freedom Caucus, they need to support Trump and go after the special counsel, go after the Russia investigation. And that is exactly what we're seeing. So let's hear from Jim Jordan, who, you know, is puffing up his chest and trying to be a warrior against this Russia investigation. We've sent numerous letters to Rod Rosenstein.

They haven't complied with. Two subpoenas they haven't complied with. We've caught the Department of Justice hiding information, redacting information that they should not have redacted. We know that Rod Rosenstein threatened House committee intel staffers, threatened them chilling impact when they were trying to do our job, our job of getting doing the constitutional oversight we're supposed to do. And we all know what the Justice Department did with the dossier. Never forget, Rod Rosenstein signed the third renewal, signed that, which was based on the dossier, which we know came, parts of it came from Bruce, or high-ranked official through his wife, Nellie, the whole ordeal.

So we're tired of the Justice Department giving us the finger and not giving us the information. We're entitled to do to do our constitutional duty. More importantly, the American people are sick of it. So I want to quickly rebut everything that he said there because he just flat out, lied about a number of different things. First of all, just a quick point. Again, he is puffing up his chest, much like Steve Scalise is, in regard to this investigation and trying to impeach Rod Rosenzine.

Also, the whole FISA debate that's going on, right? So he just said, Rod Rosenstein signed that FISA warrant, okay, but that FISA warrant was approved by a judge, and each FISA warrant that got extended, right, or the FISA warrant that continued getting extended were, it was extended by a judge who found problem. cause. They're talking about the FISA warrant on Carter Page. Carter Page, it says in the affidavit, it's over 400 pages long, confirmed by everyone who investigated it, including all the Republicans in the Justice Department who investigated it, including every single judge, was a foreign agent for the Russian government.

So that's why they did a warrant. They're like, well, we have a foreign agent working in one of the major campaigns. And by the way, it could be that Carter Page was working by himself for the Russian government, and maybe even against Trump. So of course they did a warrant because they know he's, they suspect that he's a foreign agent, they have probable cause, yet a warrant, it might be that you're protecting the campaign from having a Russian agent inside of it. So there's no bias here at all, it's total nonsense.

They just say, oh, by definition, he did a FISA warrant against someone inside the Trump campaign, so he must be guilty. That's not logic, that's just partisanship. they want to appeal to the House Freedom Caucus to ensure that they will get the support necessary to be the House Speaker. So again, that was the case with Jim Jordan. Another representative is Steve Scalise, and I want to read you his statement in regard to this whole ordeal.

Let's go to Graphic 19. He says, I would, meaning I would vote in favor of impeachment. Because right now, Rosenstein has not done his job in complying with Congress. Not true. If he wants to comply and turn over the documents, we won't have to. this conversation, but if he's not going to do the job that he's required to do, he's not required to hand anything over, and comply with the subpoenas from Congress, there are other tools that we have to use, and what they're referring to there is contempt.

They're going to pursue him and say that he is in contempt. So the House Freedom Caucus is filled with maniacs, these 30 incredible right-wingers who say, no, Trump's right about everything, I don't care, I don't care, just fire everyone who might investigate Trump and the leader of that group, along with Mark Meadows, is Jim Jordan. He's the one that actually put together this insane idea to impeach a fellow Republican Rod Rosenstein Deputy Attorney General for doing his job. By the way, one of the things that he mentioned in that Fox clip was, oh, he is threatened other prosecutors.

Yeah, he's like, you are not allowed to give evidence that we are compiling in an active and open investigation to political hacks who will then leak it. Of course you're not allowed to do that, right? So he's done his job. So look at me, giving credit to a Republican for doing his job, okay? So now these extreme right-wingers, like Jim Jordan, they go, oh, no, no, no, hey, Scalise. And Scalise is also crazy in his own right, but he's not part of the leadership of the House Freedom Caucus, et cetera. Scalise, all these other guys, don't worry, come here.

Just be as, you know, pro-Trump as we are, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. And what do they do? Like, we're not going to support you anyway. We're just going to run Jim Jordan. So Scalise isn't going to get their vote. All those other guys aren't going to get their vote. They're just going to back Jim Jordan because he's the biggest maniac of them all. And by the way, as he runs for Speaker of the House, look, I didn't make a big deal on this.

We covered it. You can go see our video on it. This guy's accused of covering up sexual assault. Sexual assault when he was a wrestling coach in Ohio State. Look, I got mixed feelings about that case. It was a long time ago. He didn't do it. It was a doctor.

And the Hill, by the way, now the media, the way that they work with the Republicans is maddening. Now, in the Hill story, they said, some of the students came out and said Jim Jordan did not know about the abuse. Yeah, that's true. And some of the students came out and said, he did know. He told us that he knew. But the Hill didn't even write that. They're so conservative. It's unbelievable.

So they're covering for Jim Jordan. So look, if you say, hey, look, I don't know where to come out on that Jim Jordan story. I hear you because that's because you're a fair person, okay? Or you say I do know where to come out on and he covered up for that. And there's so many of those students who said, yes, he definitely knew, right? But think about if it was the shoe was on the other foot. Oh, we know what would happen. If there was a Democrat who might be Speaker of the House and they were accused of covering up a child sex scandal, a real one, okay?

What do you think they would do? Every ad in the country against every Democrat would be that this Democrat wants, This child abusing, supporting cover-up monster to be the Speaker of the House. But hey, Republicans are really, really sensitive. They don't want to trigger them. They need their safe space because they will cry and cry and crying, liberal media. Why won't you report our illegal requests from the Justice Department, from our own Justice Department that we appointed?

Why won't you let us do these political hatchet jobs? Exactly. Well, we're not gonna let you get away with it. Right. Now, to give you, shockingly, some voices of reason in response to all of this, we have Paul Ryan and Jeff Sessions standing by Rosenstein. And so I want to go to Ryan first and pay close attention to what he says about people complying with what Congress wants. Do I support impeachment of Rod Rosenstein? No, I do not. I do not for a number of reasons. First, it takes, I don't think we should be cavalier with this process or with this term.

Number one, number two, I don't think that this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanor. So a really high standard. Number three, we, since I got involved, have been getting a lot of compliance from DOJ on the document request. We do not have full compliance and we have to get full compliance, but we've been making tremendous progress to that point. So three things there, number one, he's like, they're giving us everything, they've given us a lot of documents, that's the leader of the Republicans in the House saying that, right? Number two is, he says, does this rise to high crimes of misdemeanors? That's what you impeach people for. You didn't allow us to look into your active investigation, which is the correct interpretation of the law.

That's a high crime and misdemeanor. And point number three is, he's like, let's not be cavalier in this process. You know what that means? He's like, knuckleheads, you go and impeach Rod Rosenstein on nothing. Well, you just set a precedent that we could impeach people based on very, very little. That's right. So if the Democrats get control of the House, they wouldn't do anything. Let's keep it.

I mean, you know the Democrats. The corporate Democrats will do nothing. They'll just lie down, go kidding about the resistance. But they could use that precedent and go, hey, you just impeached your own deputy attorney general over nothing. Wait until you see what we got on Trump. So Paul Ryan's like, you idiots, no, we do not want to go down this road as Republicans. So let's also hear from Jeff Sessions.

My deputy, Rod Rosenstein, is highly capable. I have the highest confidence in him. You probably know, not only did he go to the Wharton School of Business, but I graduated from Harvard right here in this area. So what I would like Congress to do is to focus on some of the legal challenges. that are out there. We need Congress to deal with the immigration question. They are loopholes in our laws that are being exploited. We need to get them focused, and are we pleading with them to do so? Our job and our enforcement officer's jobs are far more difficult than they need to be. Common sense legislation can make a big difference. That's where I'd like to see them

focus their time. This isn't a side note, obviously, but leave it to Jeff Sessions to make you a little happy by saying something reasonable and then immediately punch you in the face with his nonsense. Yeah, no, but that goes to the point we're making, which is that, look, Paul Ryan's not a good guy. Yeah. He's given everything to the rich, and now he wants to cut Social Security and Medicare. Jeff Sessions is a terrible guy. He says, look, I don't want him doing this basically what is in essence a witch hunt, funny enough, right? Instead, I want him cracking down on immigrants. Let's go back to Republican 101. We hate immigrants. Can you pass me a law that says that so I can crack down I'm even tougher. None of these guys are remotely moderate, let alone progressive or anything

like that. They are deep right wingers. And they're saying, of course you shouldn't impeach him over this. This is so stupid. Finally, on a super side note, I am am amused that now apparently there is one sign of credibility. And I get this online from time to time. They're like, you call Donald Trump stupid. Well, you didn't go to a school like Wharton. You're right. I didn't go to a school like Wharton, I went to Wharton. So apparently, the new Republican ideology is if Rosenstein and Trump went to Wharton, it must be awesome. And anyone who went there is really smart. I'll take it. Thank you. All right. So let's take a break. When we come back, the whole debacle involving a CNN reporter getting banned from covering the White House.

You're right in the middle of this podcast. We've got another great segment coming up for you. If you'd like the full show, which is actually five segments, go to t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. You become a member, you support the show, you support independent media, and you get the whole two-hour show ad-free every day. Let's go do it now. All right, back on a young church. Jen can Anna with you, Adam Sean Taylor with a really nice tweet. Today I'm 25. I've been watching since I was 17 years old.

Last week, I became a Wolfpack volunteer. here and my final in classes on how to get an Article 5 convention. I love it. And all thanks to Jenk and Anna, who will forever be a huge influence of my life, much love. Well, thank you, Adam. That is very, very nice of you. We appreciate it. Look, I know some of you guys grew up with us. One, that makes me feel old. But two, that's amazing. And thank you for sharing a part of your lives with us. We do greatly appreciate it. And we all do this together. We're not the Young Turks, you're the Young Turks. So let's do one more thing together. Let's have a little bit of fun here for today. The Streamies, it'd be great to win these awards. The Young Turks in News,

you have to nominate us. So if you could nominate us, that would be amazing. The main site overall is streamies.org slash fans. If you, and you write in the Young Turks and then you select the category of news, write in True North, and select the category of overall documentary, and you're seeing the t-y-t.com handles on those as well if you want to use those. Write in the breakdown and choose pop culture as the category and murder with friends and the category is non-fiction series. So if you can do that, that would be amazing and we would greatly appreciate it. We have won 20 awards here, almost all because of you guys.

So, and we get to put in our, you know, different, you know, decks and stuff, award-winning young Turks. You guys are awesome. All right, what's next? All right. A CNN reporter was punished by Trump administration officials for asking questions that Donald Trump did not appear to like. Caitlin Collins is the name of the CNN reporter.

And a white, she's a White House correspondent for CNN. And she said that she was called into the West Wing and chastised, by administration officials for what they deemed inappropriate questions that she had asked of Trump during an Oval Office photo opportunity. She was quoted as saying, they did not like the questions I asked President Trump about the news of the day. Now, other reporters who experienced the interaction said that she didn't do anything out of the ordinary, she did what most journalists do when they ask the president a question

during a situation like this. To give you a sense of how it all went down, there is, of course, video footage of her asking these questions, so let's take a look at that. Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. Why is Limerickin not accepted your organization? Keep going. Come on. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, everybody. Let's go. Come on, guys. Thank you very much. We're done. We're done. Let's go. We're done.

Mr. President. Thank you. Okay, so let's note a couple of things here. So they said that there three complaints about her was it was inappropriate questions. I don't know what in the world could be inappropriate. about those questions. Michael Cohen's in the news. It's an enormous part of the news cycle around Donald Trump.

There's tapes of him talking about paying off of his mistress. Nothing could be more newsworthy about a president. Did you imagine if Obama had done likewise and someone asked, hey, Mr. President, why did you pay off your mistress? She didn't even say it that rudely, right? She just asked about Michael Cohen's tapes. I literally can't think of a more relevant question in the news cycle. There was nothing rude.

I mean, she was not rude in asking those. He didn't like the questions, which was evident in the expression on his face as those questions were being asked. That's why I was kind of laughing when we came back from the video, because he was like, yeah, because he's a child. He hates it. I get it. You don't like, you're the president, though, and it is a reporter's duty to hold a person in a position of power accountable for his actions. The second question was about Putin. You invited him to Washington. He chose not to come. So, I mean, what else do you ask a president? If Obama had asked the leader of China to come and he had said no, or he changed his mind. You'd ask him about that.

There's nothing more appropriate and relevant. Okay, number two was they said she was too loud. You guys just saw the tape. Everybody was loud. There was chaos in the control room. That's right. I mean, like she was closer to the mic, so we heard her slightly more clear. But there was a cacophony of noise in there.

I mean, then I guess everyone should be banned because everybody was too loud, right? And then the third thing they said is that she wouldn't leave the room. You saw her in the room with everyone else. It's on tape, it's right there. They're asking everybody to leave. It's not like everyone had left and she's the only one there and chained herself to the desk. Right, everyone is slow to leave because everyone wants to ask questions. They're reporters, that's what they want to do.

But she eventually left. She didn't get into some sort of physical altercation or verbal. altercation with anyone. And so she was shocked to find that the administration officials had called her into an office and essentially told her, you are not allowed to cover a Trump event that's open to reporters later today. So let's hear from Caitlin Collins herself. She recounts this whole situation in the next clip. Then later, I was called into the office of Bill Shine, the president's latest hire, who is his right-hand man for communications. It was him and the press secretary, Sarah Sanders, who told me that I would not be invited to an open press event here in the

Rose Garden moments later at the White House because they thought the questions that I posed to President Trump were inappropriate and inappropriate for that venue. Okay, so as soon as I saw this, it broke right after we finished the show yesterday. And I thought, hmm, this is a little extra. I wonder what's going on here. And then I saw Bill Shine's name in one of the articles. I was like, boom, of course that's what happened. So Bill Shine used to work at Fox News.

He was on the top executives there. He was involved in the scandals there, et cetera. He left. Now he's the newly appointed deputy chief of staff communications. This has got Bill Shine written all over it. So as soon as I saw that, I was like, bang, that's the answer. Now, some people say he might have just been doing Trump spitting because Trump, as you saw on the tape is so mad, he might have just told him, I don't care, ban her.

Well, Mr. President, it's not a good idea. I don't care. That does sound like Trump, so that's certainly possible as well. But this is a Fox News maneuver, right? And now, to be fair to Fox, they are now standing with CNN's reporter. But this is old school, Roger Ailes, Bill Shine, Fox News thing. We punish our opponents. You ask the wrong question.

Not only am I punishing you, I'm sending a message. Hey, everybody else, you better watch yourself. Because if you ask questions we don't like, maybe somehow you lose access. And then you can't do your job as the person covering the White House, if you don't have any access, you can't cover the White House, you just lost a great job. This is a shot across the bow, and it has Bill Shine written all over it. And by the way, later you find out, as she just explained, yeah, she got called into his office. He's the one that led this. So let's hear from Bill Shine.

I mean, he's gotten a lot of backlash as a result of this. And here's what he has to say about it. You ask her if we ever use the word ban, I've seen it on lower thirds. What would you say? What word would you use? When you ask her if we ever use the word ban, then I will answer that question. You provident her, what's the word you would do? If you ask her, focus now, you ask her if we ever use the word ban.

No, why don't you just tell us what you allegedly said to her if you didn't use the word ban? No, that was great. It was, it's both cocky and it shows as ignorance all in one fell swoop. It's such a fair question. Oh, you say you didn't use the word ban. I'm a reporter, you're coming out to clarify because you're mad at how I'm covering it. So I'm gonna do the most natural thing in the one. Okay, great.

And I'm actually doing you a favor. How do you want me to cover it? What actually happened? What was the word that you used? I'm not gonna tell you, you should ask her first. Okay, I got it. I got it. So you told her that she couldn't come.

Maybe you didn't use the word ban, but you said prohibiting. or you're not allowed, what difference does it make? And you just revealed it by saying that you won't tell us. Exactly. So I also want to, of course, point out to the fact that Trump himself has been very aggressive in going after media outlets, specifically CNN, who he believes are going after him and criticizing him too much. Now, for me, personally, it's hilarious that CNN is the news organization that he

targets the most, considering the fact that CNN goes out of its way, out of its way to be overly fair to him. And what I mean by that is they don't, they try to pretend like they don't have any type of bias. They're neutral, meaning if Republicans are caught doing something wrong, they won't say it. Far too often, they'll go ahead and defer to the Republican side of the story and then just kind of let the viewers decide, oh, who's telling the truth? We don't want to appear like we have a bias. They're so afraid of offending the president that they've gone further to the right if you

watch any of their content. In fact, can I just say, Anna, I mean, look, Caitlin Collins, I support her completely in this situation, and I support CNN in this situation. It's about freedom of the press overall. But Caitlin Collins comes from The Daily Caller, which is a massively right-wing blog. So, I mean, we'll talk more about that in the postgame. T-y-t.com slash join become a member, get all of our shows, including the postgame. I want to talk about that.

So I'm not criticizing her for it, but here's CNN reaching out to a pretty disreputable blog on the website that's massively right wing to get a reporter. And then does it work? No. And by the way, again, I'm not criticizing Caitlin Collins. She asked good, tough questions that a reporter should, right? But did it work in appeasing the right wing? No, it never works.

He calls you an enemy of the people anyway. Exactly. And, you know, to go to Graphic 25 and just really drive this point home, at a rally on Tuesday, Trump encouraged his supporters to ignore coverage of his administration saying what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. He hates when journalists do their jobs. He hates them. And he has been attacking the media incessantly ever since he came in.

Before he came into office, as he was campaigning. He doesn't like any negative press, even though he's deserving of negative press. I mean, that's, I don't know that there's anything more Orwellian than don't believe you're what you see. He just literally said, don't believe what you see. What are you going to believe? Me or you're lying eyes? It's the most brazen thing I've ever seen in my life.

And the reason the right wing does not like anything that brings you information is because they would like to replace it with their propaganda. They don't want you to learn the truth, that's why they are against the media, that's That's why they're against universities and professors. That's why they're against scientists. And so it's not at all surprising. But to be fair and give credit where credit is due, all the rest of the media backed Caitlin Collins, which is great, including Fox News, including their new head of Fox News

and their chief political correspondent, Brett Bear. So credit to all of them for doing the right thing. Yes, and quick clip from Brett Bear, showing his. his solidarity with Collins. Take a look. As a member of the White House press pool, Fox stands firmly with CNN on this issue of access. So far, no response from the White House. Okay, I'm amused by his kerchief. But other than that, way to go, Brett. That was the right thing to do.

Yeah, okay. And look, it's in some ways a layup for Fox News because they don't want to get banned under Democratic presidents. But still, when you do the right thing, you should be applauded for it. Exactly. All right, well, there's one person who is unwilling to do the right thing, so let's get to him. Following news of White House officials retaliating against a CNN reporter by the name of Caitlin Collins for asking Donald Trump tough questions, a number of members of the press came out in support of Collins. They said that they stood in solidarity with Collins. The president of Fox News said that Fox as an organization stands behind Collins, even Brett Bear. covered this on his show and said that he supported Collins and disagreed with what the Trump administration did. There was one person who rent, rogued, by the way. And that person is Lou Dobbs, who is one of the anchors on Fox business. So he actually agreed with what Donald Trump did.

Of course he did. And we have a video to prove it. So let's hear from Lou Dobbs. CNN issued a statement saying in part, quote, this decision to bar a member of the press is retaliatory in nature and not indicative of an open and free press. We demand better. I guess my question would be who the hell are you? The president does insist on respect. Now that's what that's what the White House has to put up with. Are you kidding me? Anyway, all I have to say about that is it's about time. There were consequences for disrespectful behavior in the white. White House. Okay, so there's Lou Dobbs saying she was being disrespectful, it's about time, a president retaliates against that form of disrespect, unacceptable, I stand by the president.

That is what Lou Dobbs is saying there. He's very clear, Adam. Very clear. However, he did not have the same standards for our former president, Barack Obama. No, really? So let me set up this situation for you, okay? So back in 2012, Obama's giving a speech, and there was a right-wing reporter who decided to start interrupting him as he's giving this speech.

So to be clear, this situation is different from what Caitlin Collins experienced. Caitlin Collins was in a chaotic, oval office situation where she was basically questioning the president and was denied any answers, but it wasn't as if Trump was in the middle of giving a speech. In this case, back in 2012, Neil Monroe, formerly of the Daily Caller, drew a lot of attention when he tried to ask Barack Obama several questions on immigration in the middle of his address. And so here is how it all went down. We have a video of it. Take a look. It is the right thing to do. Excuse me, sir. It's not time for questions, sir. Not while I'm speaking.

And the answer to your question, sir, and the next time I prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question, is this is the right thing to do for the American people. Bebeke, I didn't ask for an argument. I'm answering your question. It is the right thing to do for the American people, and here's why. Here's the reason. Okay, so I want to explain the context.

of how reporters normally conduct themselves. Okay, so you know that we at the Young Turks, we're for more aggressive reporting, and we hope the journalists are more aggressive overall, right? So, but you do need some degree of decorum. So if you don't let the president speak at all, then that's counterproductive. But when it is time for questions, you should go as hard as you can. So if that same guy, Neil Monroe, had asked the same exact questions when it was time for questions, great, and shout it, scream it if you want, and there's nothing wrong with it.

So in the context of what Caitlin Collins did, she was representing the whole TV industry because they pool reporters, because you can't fit everybody into that room. So, and they take turns. So sometimes it'll be NBC, sometimes it'll be Fox News. In this case, it was CNN, and Caitlin Collins was the pool reporter for all of television. And her job, as soon as the event is over, like the others, and you see it in the tape, the newspaper guys ask questions, and they shout out questions. The TV guys shout out questions.

That is exactly the right way to do it. That is the right form for it. That's the right time for it. In the case of a president giving a speech, if all the reporters start asking questions in the middle of the speech, he can't give the speech. And that's what was happening. No other reporter was asking any questions there except Neil Monroe back in 2012. So that's why it was not the right context.

Otherwise, I have no problems with his questions, and I don't care that he's right-wing. Right-wing gets to ask the questions as much as anybody does. Of course, they almost never allow any left-wing people into the White House, whether it's Obama's or Trump's, but still, I don't care. They're allowed to ask any questions they like. Now, the question is, we have the same exact standard. Did Lou Dobbs have the same standard? Well, you would be shocked to find out that he did not have the same standard.

And even though Monroe was clearly interrupting Obama during his speech, Here is what Lou Dobbs said on his show. He said, quote, this is Graphic 32, well, the fact is after he made his statement, the president took no questions. Okay, let's stop for a second. He did answer his question, which was clear in the tape that we showed you. I don't know if you had the opportunity to go on Twitter and listen to the clucking of all the people going, it's against the decorum of the White House and it's rude to the president.

What's rude is the president not speaking to the American people and taking the questions of the White House press. It's amazing, man. Like Lou Dobbs, I imagine, unless he's got on C now, which is possible, but, or never really had a mind to begin with. But he's gotta know, 2012 was not in 1982, it was just six years ago, that he said about Obama like, yeah, of course you should interrupt the president, it's rude not to interrupt him.

Then he turns around now and goes, how dare they ask her question, he didn't even interrupt Trump? She didn't interrupt Trump at all, right? How dare she asked the question? It's about time there's consequences for rudeness like that. How do you say that with any degree of conscience? But that's the answer is he doesn't have a conscience. These guys who support Trump unquestioningly have no shame at all. So that is 100% hypocrisy.

It is hypocrisy. And I think that the primary reason why that hypocrisy exists is, you know, the partisanship and his support for Trump versus his disdain for Obama. So I'm not trying to minimize that. I think that that's front and center of his reasoning, right? But I also wonder if, I wonder if the gender of the person asking the questions also either consciously or subconsciously plays a role. Because Lou Dobbs is just from a different time, right?

When you don't have women aggressively asking a man in a position of power questions about his conduct or, you know, controversies. And I don't know, I just, I thought that that was interesting. Because I'm naive in a lot of cases. I don't really think about my gender and how it impacts me when I'm asking someone a question or if I'm going after someone aggressively in a story that we're doing. But like recently I've become more and more aware that, you know, when a male colleague does the same thing, it's strength. But when a woman does it, it gets, you know, misconstrued as something completely different.

So I'm just wondering, I'm just throwing that out there. Okay, but look, let me add to that because there is a cowvahs of factors, and it's we don't live in the same black and white world that the right wing does. Like it's either sexism or it's not sexism, it's either great or it's terrible, right? So maybe that's a part of the influence of Lou Dobbs. Other things that matter are what publication you're from. Right. And so it's CNN, so the whole press rallies around them.

By the way, when Obama once did two different things, he didn't sit down for a Sunday interview with Chris Wallace when he was doing the other Sunday shows, which has every right to do. He could choose whoever he's going to get interviewed by. But one time he did do something wrong, in my opinion, they banned Fox News from getting interviewed in a pool reporter situation, similar, not exactly the same, but similar to Caitlin Collins, and in which case, I don't think that was right. See, we're actually honest about that. But, and then everybody rallied around Fox News.

Part of it is because these guys who work on cable news think I might one day work for CNN, and I might one day work for Fox News, and they have some solidarity, but overall it's a good thing they have solidarity. But when Jorge Ramos was asking tough questions of Trump, in a perfectly appropriate setting after he was done speaking, they did not rally around Jorge Ramos. And I remember a lot of the cable news guys coming out and going, well, that seemed a bit rude the way Ramos was aggressively asking questions. So it depends on your publication.

The Daily Caller, oftentimes, even though they're conservative and oftentimes make-up stories, right, including right before an election, they clearly have an agenda, they don't admit their agenda, and on top of that, I mean, there are serious, significant charges about how they fabricated news to try to affect elections. They are conservative, so generally more welcome in Washington, whereas progressive outlets at- Yeah, I mean, is there a single progressive outlet represented in, you know, that group of White House reporters? A single progressive.

But Washington despises progressives. In their worldview, of course, they would answer, what do you mean? MSNBC. Look at Joe Scarborough, lifelong Republican but criticizes Trump, okay? I mean, and MSNBC filled to the rim with corporate Democrats, right? And almost all of them argued against progressives like Bernie Sanders. But in their world, they're like, how much more left can we get than Joe Scarborough? So that gives you a sense of the different playing field there is.

So that might have been a factor. There's a lot of different factors that go into it. The one thing that is inescapable is Lou Dobbs' hypocrisy. Yeah. Right? No matter why he did it, it's super clear that he doesn't give a damn. I don't like Obama, you interrupt him. All you like, I love Trump, I will defend him no matter what.

You ask him perfectly appropriate questions and how dare you? Yeah. All right, we gotta take a break. When we come back, more news. Thanks for watching. We're listening to this free version of the Young Turks podcast. You know that the full show is at t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. If you become a member, you get the full show ad-free.

We love you for watching or listening either way. There's going to be a new free podcast tomorrow. You can keep on doing that. But if you want to get the full show ad-free, t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. 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.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.