The Young Turks - Right To Indict

Episode Date: August 28, 2024

Jack Smith re-indicts Donald Trump in the federal election subversion case. Kamala Harris finally agreed to do an interview with CNN. Harris campaign releases a new ad to highlight plans to build three million homes and reduce inflation. ""Thanks to Citizens United"": 50 megadonors have put over $1.5 billion into the 2024 election." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. I'm so upset. Oh my God. Let's see how Earth responds to that. Bega! All right, welcome the Young Turks, Jake U Granite Kusparian, live from the Polymarket Studio in L.A. So a lot of breaking news just happened.

We're going to tell you about Kamala Harris and her potential interview. Where is she going? Is she doing it? How is she doing it? We'll explain all that. Donald Trump is re-indicted and it feels so good, does it? All right, we'll discuss. And then our owner-donors, Washington Post, list the top 50 people that own this country

and that own all of our politicians. And so we will share some of that list with you guys so you know who's actually running the place. is as sure is in the politicians. All right, Anna Kaspari. Well, let's talk about the re-indictment of Donald Trump, and the details here are interesting, still developing, so there might be more news on this later,

but here's what we know now. Special counsel Jack Smith has filed a new federal indictment against Donald Trump over his fake elector's scheme. Now, the new superseding indictment was filed specifically to comply with the Supreme Court's historic ruling that essentially grants broad immunity to the president, in this case, former President Donald Trump. Now, Trump is facing the exact same charges that Smith brought against him in the federal election interference case last year. It's just that he needed to change a few things within the indictment having to do with certain evidence that was presented

to the grand jury in order to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling. So the charges for Trump were, and continue to be, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. So why is this being relitigated now? Well, why is the indictment, basically, why is there a new indictment filed in this case? The new indictment was filed in order to respect and implement the views and instructions of a recent Supreme Court decision granting former president's presumptive immunity for their official acts in office, special counsel Jack Smith said, in a separate court filing.

So the indictment was slightly changed in light of the Supreme Court's decision. So, for example, the new version has actually cut out some of the evidence that was used in the original filing. The new indictment removed all the allegations concerning Trump's attempts to strong arm the Justice Department into supporting his false claim that the election had been rigged against him. And the initial charging document had accused Trump of conspiring with Jeffrey Clark, a loyalist within the Justice Department, who had promised to launch investigations into election

fraud, even though other top-ranking department officials had warned him against it. And so the Jeffrey Clark portion of it has been taken out. He was referred to as co-conspirator number four in the original indictment. And again, because of the Supreme Court's ruling, a president's interactions with the Justice Department are considered part of his official duties. And as a result, those types of conversations enjoy, you know, presidential immunity. And so if you're wondering, okay, why is this coming up now? As some of you may know, Judge Tanya Chutkin is the judge presiding over this case.

And she actually gave special counsel Smith a deadline to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling. And that deadline was this Friday. And so that's the reason why he decided to file the new indictment in order to comply. Yeah, so I'm kind of in a cranky mood because of the silly stories in the news today. So I'm going to let a rip on this one. So the original problem here is the incredibly stupid and totally indefensible Supreme Court decision. So let me break it down for you, so you understand that's not like, oh, my God, he used a mean word, so that must be wrong. And the Supreme Court is so wise, they must have gotten this right.

No. So they say, an official act can't be looked into. All right, well, Donald Trump said while he was president, you know, after he had lost, but while he's still in office, that we should terminate the Constitution. He said, because of massive fraud, we should terminate all rules, regulations, and articles of the Constitution. So if an official act as president is to terminate the Constitution, terminate the U.S. government, and do a coup, we're not allowed to look into whether that's illegal? I mean, how dumb do you have to be? That's the craziest thing I have ever heard. They discussed for three hours in the White House, whether they should do marshal.

law, declare an insurrection act in effect, bring out the tanks against the American people. Well, he was president at the time. All right, so they didn't wind up doing it because his entire staff threatened to quit at once, but Trump very seriously considered it. General Flynn was the one advocating for it, among others. So what if they'd done it? What if Trump said, okay, my official act is president, his roll out the tanks and just fire on all American citizens who don't agree with me.

Official act, you can't look into it, he's got immunity. dumbest thing in the world. So the Justice Department, the one that they took out. Okay, oh, that he communicating with his Justice Department about election fraud. Okay, if you're having a normal conversation, did election fraud happen or not totally within your official duties? And there's nothing wrong with that, right? What if you tell the Justice Department, hey, go rig the machines and make sure that you

flip the results, you and I both know I lost, but I want you to flip it, so I won. Sorry, you can't look into it. He's got immunity. That's an official act talking to the Justice Department. This is just the Supreme Court saying, we're Republicans, we don't care, we want the president to be able to cheat. We know the Democratic presidents never cheat, but we know a Republican president could just declare fascism and then we'll be psyched, we'll be psyched.

So official acts can't be looked into, that's it. So he refiles, none of these are official acts. I don't know how this case is going to get resolved in the end because the Supreme Court has made a decision that is totally indefensible and unworkable. And of course, if I was Biden, I'd be like, oh yeah, official acts are immune, let's go, let's go. And I'd go do 10, all right, realistically two horrible things on purpose, and I would declare them on purpose, and then go, what are you going to do about it, huh?

I'm immune. But Democrats would never do that because they're scared, so this decision is going to stand. And this criminal, lifelong criminal, Donald Trump, who tried a coup against America will probably skate. Well, look, I'm gonna wait and see how this develops because Jack Smith obviously refiled the indictment. Donald Trump is facing the exact same charges. And so he was able to refile, have the same charges against Donald Trump, and allegedly comply with the Supreme Court's decision. Now, I'm sure this will be challenged. Donald Trump is on truth social right now. He's absolutely losing his mind about this. He's very angry about it. But I mean, this is really going to test

what the Supreme Court ruling really means. And if the new indictment stands and he's able to pursue this case, I mean, look, this is not going to be litigated and it's not going to go to trial prior to the election, okay? So if Trump wins the election, it's very likely that this will just be placed on hold until his next term is up. But assuming he loses the election, well, then he's going to go to trial. And I'm curious to see if this does, in fact, comply with the Supreme Court's ruling. And if it does, it shows that, yeah, it's going to be a lot more difficult for special

councils to pursue criminal charges against former presidents, but it shows that it's possible. Yeah, so I hear you, and I would love for it to succeed because he did a coup. They should have called it a coup from day one, and they should have prosecuted him from day one. Merrick Garland is the worst attorney general we've ever had. And so, but remember, if Trump wins, this case is not a little over. It's 100% over because Anna, yeah, he would dismiss it. It doesn't wait. No, once the federal government dismisses the case, you can't recharge him because that's double jeopardy.

You're right. So this is obviously a federal case, which means that if he wins, he would be able to pardon himself and it would never go to trial. Right? And just to be clear, he doesn't have to pardon himself. He wasn't convicted. Just as the federal government, he could dismiss the case. Yeah, dismiss the case. We're no longer pursuing this case.

And by the way, Republicans, you're so proud of his fake electors, right? You think where in the Constitution is the fake electors? You're so proud that he said, let's terminate the Constitution? No, I'm sure you got a hundred excuses. Oh, no, he said terminate the Constitution, but he was trolling or joking or taken out of context or, you know what? Who cares about the Constitution? Let's do a monarchy. I mean a king.

I mean a dictator, but he's not a dictator, except it's day one, except everything's taken out of context. He had fake electors. He hates, he doesn't care about this country. There's only one person he cares about Donald Trump. He's like, break America so that I could stay in charge. He's like, where's the question? Only a sucker or loser wouldn't betray his own country in order to stay in power. That's how Donald Trump thinks.

So go and support that if you like. Yeah, I think, look, one of the biggest disservicees by the corporate press is that they focused on the spectacle of January 6th rather than focusing most of their reporting on the fake elector scheme. Look, let's keep it real guys. And I'm going to admit this as someone who actually understands it, took the time to understand it. But that's my job, right? That is my job.

That is what I'm supposed to do. I don't think most Americans are even aware of the fake elector's scheme. I'm not just talking about Republicans. I'm just talking about Americans overall because I think the media has done a pretty terrible job in explaining what the real issue is, what the real coup was, right? The Trump supporters storming the Capitol, yeah, that was bad. And the media loved focusing on it because all they care about is video, video, video, video, spectacle, spectacle, spectacle. But that wasn't the end all be all of the attempt to overturn the election. That was one tiny, tiny part of it. Yeah, look, we're the, you know, I kid around about it,

but it's true. We're the fairest shown in America. So what are the Democrats do wrong here? Hey, idiots, focus on the fake electors like Anna's saying. So when you don't do that, Anna's right. I bet you the overwhelming majority of the country has never even heard of fake electors. And when you challenge the right wing on, hey, why did he have fake electors instead of his own electors? Because remember, Trump had a slate of electors. He didn't use them because they didn't want to break the law and do a coup. So he had to get fake electors. Did Democrats make that clear in all their grandstanding about what an unbelievable threat to their democracy Trump is,

which apparently they never believed, but I always believed because of this. Did they ever bother to explain the American people, the fake electors? No, oh my God, general thread, he's orange, a bunch of people came into the Capitol. And look, I don't blame the average American. Yeah, so that January 6 looks terrible, cops got hurt, et cetera, right? A lot of people got hurt. But guys, like the average American thinks, yeah, but it's not like that was going to work, that they were going to keep the building and then that's it.

We can't get it back from them. Oh, the three percenters are in there. The proud boys are in there. We'll never get the capital back, right? Everybody in their gut thinks, oh, it was a dumb riot. Okay, put them in jail for breaking the law, trespassing, all that stuff. And let's move on because they don't realize it was connected to a larger scheme to overturn the election through the fake electors. God, Democrats are frustrating.

Yeah, I mean, they held the hearings. The hearings were televised, but it was a multi-day process. and most Americans don't have the time of resources to sit down and watch all of the hearings to understand what was really going on. And they never explained that clearly. Jamie Raskin. It concisely, clearly just help people understand what the fake elector scheme was really about. Because again, look, I think that oftentimes there's a lot of hyperbole in politics, and when it comes to political opponents, both sides will engage in that hyperbole. But when it comes to Trump's efforts in overturning the election, that is not hyperbole. And it wasn't just about January 6th.

They needed to make it clear what the real issue was. And I just don't think that has happened. Yeah, Jamie were asking the best he could. And he's the only one that ever talks about it because he's a constitutional law scholar. Maybe they thought that Americans are just not, you know, they have a low view of Americans. Oh, they won't be able to understand difference between fake electors and real electors. But they'll understand shiny objects like people are attacking a building. Maybe you're projecting and that's the only thing you understand where,

every show I've gone on, right wingers are stumped on the fake electors because it makes no sense unless you're trying to steal the election. And in fact, as we showed you, Rudy Giuliani was on the show, we asked him about it. You know, there's barely any articles that even talk about the fact that Trump didn't even use his own electors, right? I know. Right? So we asked Rudy about it. He's like, yeah, of course, because half of them wouldn't sign the paper. That's kind of a big story. I know. Right? I know, but we were we were the ones conducting the interview. Yeah, I know. So press, take a load off. Yeah, exactly. Let's move on to something entirely different, and that is the question of whether or not Kamala Harris is going to finally sit down for an in-depth interview.

There's been a lot of questions about when you're going to sit down for your first interview since being the nominee. Do you have me up here on that? month, Kamala Harris said that she would, in fact, do a sit-down in-depth interview, and she would do so by the end of this month, by the end of August. And guess what? She actually made good on that promise because her first sit-down interview has been announced. In fact, it was announced about 40 minutes before we went live today. So Kamala Harris will do a joint interview with her running mate, Tim Walls, on CNN this week on Thursday. It'll take place at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific time. And Dana Bash will be the anchor who will conduct that interview. And guess what? It'll also mark the first time that Kamala Harris will do a sit-down interview since

Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race on July 21st. Now, Kamala probably tried to stall in doing an in-depth interview for a number of reasons that I want to get to in just a moment. But before I do, Jenk, I'm really curious what you think about the decision to have Kamala Harris do a joint interview rather than a solo interview. Yeah, I'm worried about it. So I'm worried about the whole thing. So up until now, they've been running a brilliant campaign. You definitely don't hear me saying that often about Democratic campaigns. I'm not sure I've ever said it. Outside of Ojetta and at almost one in West Virginia

and a couple other quirky campaigns that were amazing. So why did you guys let this drag out so long? It makes it seem like she's scared to do an interview. All that will do is create more anxiety for her and more pressure and more people looking at it. Whereas if it didn't bubble up to be an issue and you just did an interview right away, nobody would have even thought about it, right? You do a simple one, you do a five minute one, a ten minute one. I don't, there's a thousand ways they could have done this. But now I'm worried that she's nervous. And so, and that's why you wind up doing it with. And look, again, Ferris show in America, when Trump and J.D. Vance were doing it together. I said Trump is leaning on J.D. Vance, especially because the

Biden switch had just happened and Trump is still using old talking points and he's leaning on JD for the new ones because his brain already problematic is struggling, right? So you don't want to give off the same vibe and energy so you don't need Tim Wal's to back up there. There's alternate theory here that I don't believe is, oh, you do the one together so that then Tim Wall's doing interviews by himself makes sense. It makes sense right now, that doesn't make any, yeah, that's nonsensical, I don't believe it.

shouldn't have waited this long. This particular interview is, like the person it's with, CNN, Dana Bash, totally fine. I don't care. It could have been any of them. By the way, if you guys don't know this, all the anchors and the networks behind the scenes promise to be as soft as they possibly can, then they pretend that they didn't promise that. And then half the time, they halfway betray their promise, right? Yeah, look, to be fair, I have my issues with some of Danabash's coverage lately, especially as it pertains to Gaza. But she's done some tough interviews. Yeah, yeah. That's a good person to pick if you want, you know, at least the appearance of a tough interview, maybe an actual tough interview.

And by the way, the proof is in the pudding. We'll see the interview. We'll see if it's tough or not, right? But I don't think any of these mainstream media guys ever do a tough interview. Because look, if I was doing an interviewer, the first thing I'd ask is, you know, why should we bother even listen to any of your proposals? Because the Democrats almost never deliver on their promises. Look, I think the reason why Kamala Harris stalled on the interview is because she's kind of in an impossible position.

So she is going to be asked to defend policies that have not been popular in the Biden administration or failures of the Biden administration. Okay, she's going to be asked about Gaza. That is a difficult issue to talk about as a politician trying to garner favor among the electorate. She's probably going to be asked to comment on the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. That's been getting a lot of news lately because of the anniversary of that event. But it was, look, I was in favor of pulling out of Afghanistan, obviously the way that it went down and the number of Americans who were killed as a result was awful. So she's going to be asked about that. She's probably going to be asked about the failures with the border crisis.

She's probably going to be asked about inflation and what her plans are. And look, she has, in my opinion, struggled in the past in doing sit-down interviews. Like, Tim Wall's number one, does not have that problem of having to defend the Biden administration. Kamala Harris is in the Biden administration, so that's going to be a challenge. And Tim Walz is kind of comfortable and natural and conversational when he sits down to talk to reporters. Kamala Harris has not proven that she can do the same thing. And so I want to provide one example.

This is the example that gets a lot of attention. But this is what I'm personally concerned about when it comes to Kamala Harris. She just kind of freezes up. And I know that she has like some issues with anxiety. And I feel like maybe that anxiety is really, really showing itself when she does these types of interviews. Let's take a look. Do you have any plans to visit the border? I'm here in Guatemala today at some point.

You know, we are going to the border. We've been to the border. So this whole thing about the border, we've been to the border. We've been to the border. You haven't been to the border. And I haven't been to Europe. And I mean, I don't understand the point that you're making. Has she really never been to Europe? I find that hard to believe.

But anyway, obviously that wasn't a great way of handling the question. There's other examples as well. But one other thing that I'll mention, Jank, is, I mean, I would be shocked if Danabash didn't ask Kamala Harris how much she knew about Joe Biden's mental decline prior to that debate. So that's going to come up too. So I look, she's on cloud nine right now. They've been campaigning well. She's increasing her lead in the national polls.

She didn't want to do an interview that could actually, you know, potentially sacrifice some of the good vibes that voters are feeling toward her. Yeah, no, this is a big problem. Okay, so I'm going to give one more comment in favor of her, one of our members, Gordon Biggie has a different theory. I don't think that's why she's doing the joint interview, Jen. She's doing a joint interview because Tim Walls makes her look good. Perfectly plausible theory, no problem.

Love doing the show with you guys. Hit the join button below to be part of the show and be a member. Okay, now having said that, look, guys, overall issue, we baby our politicians. We baby them so much. Yeah, we deserve better. So, like, all the things that Anna's talking about, yeah, those are tough for a politician because we baby them. and their main talent is sucking up donor money, right? So the Republican Democrat doesn't matter.

So if we had, if we were old school and your main talent needed to be convincing people to vote for you, instead of convincing people to donate to you, right? We'd have killers there. And then just none of this would be a problem, right? So if you ask me any of those questions, I just bat them one way. It's no big deal at all. Okay, hey, Lester, going to a border and looking at a line in the sand doesn't make a difference. What makes a difference is me being here in Honduras,

and trying to fix the core of the problem, right? I can do that on any given issue. It's super easy, and we're worried that our presidential candidate can't do this super easy. So I'm worried because there's two things that could be potential problems. I said this as soon as they got momentum, and I'm like, look, it's tied. Now she's got a little bit of a lead, but the two giant problems are war, if it happens, in the Middle East, and word sounds. So that was a problem for her for about three and a half years.

four years, the word salads, if they reappear, oh boy, okay, then it's a different dynamic and we're in a world of trouble, right? And why am I worried about it now? Because they made such a big deal out of it. And it seems like they're nervous about it. They were asking political reporting that they're asking other reporters, who should we do it with? Who's just, no, look, guys, here's a correct approach. Do hundreds of interviews. You say, oh, well, oh my God, you might make a mistake or two. That's right. But meanwhile, you're scoring and scoring and scoring because you're constantly on the offense and you're putting them on the defense and then they're you know Trump he's going to run the wrong direction score against

himself go on the offense and stay there every interview is millions of dollars in free media like these giant ones are tens of millions of dollars in free media what are you raising all that money for you're doing you're raising it to have ads the ads are not as nearly as effective is actually the content when you're in the show right so and all these guys in the They all do it for like, oh, she should do an interview with me. She should do the interview with me, right? Look, I don't think she should do an interview with us. I don't think she can survive an interview with us.

I'm being honest, okay? So it just has nothing new with personal interest. Other than win the goddamn election. If you want to win their election, take, do dozens of interviews. You and Tim Walz, have them do like hundreds of interviews. So you get hundreds of millions of dollars in free media to make your case. If you can't make your case, you're not the right person. And I'm now, I'm a little worried.

Let's see how it goes, I'm not massively worried, she hasn't done anything wrong yet. The interview hasn't happened, it's on Thursday night, let's see how it goes. All right, well, we gotta take a break. When we come back, we've got more news, including one of Kamala Harris's new political ads that focuses on the housing crisis. She tackles some really interesting issues in that ad that I'm in favor of, some critique on the ad as well. So come back, we'll show you the ad and more, don't miss it.

I did everything right, and they indicted me. All right, Jank, Anna, and Amy with you guys. Amy was a beautiful person who had to join button below the video on YouTube. We appreciated these wonderful folks helped out through. through t yt.com slash team which we definitely need and we definitely appreciate just get us through this tough times and I'm calling I know I'm not supposed I don't know why I'm not supposed to say it but I'm not supposed to say anyway I'm going to call everybody gives a hundred bucks or more through t yt.com slash team and people still don't believe it I called them and they're like holy crap

you actually did all right anyway 30 odd six deer creek freak El Pisani and Nikesh Parmar They all donated and I guess Lipassani is getting a call. Thank you. We appreciate all you guys. All right, let's get into housing. One of my favorite topics. I know what home ownership means. And sadly right now, it is out of reach for far too many American families.

That was just a tiny little snippet from Kamala Harris's new political campaign ad, tackling the housing crisis, something that Americans across the political aisle care deeply about. And what I was curious to see is whether or not she proposes solutions that actually get to the root cause of our housing crisis. And I'm happy to report that she did. Let's take a look. For most of my childhood, we were renters. My mother saved for well over a decade to buy a home. I was a teenager when that day finally came. And I can remember so well how excited she was. I know what home ownership means.

And sadly, right now, it is out of reach for far too many American families. During the foreclosure crisis, I took on the big banks who exploited people in the housing market. And today, corporate landlords buy hundreds of houses and apartments. Then turn them around and rent them out at extremely high prices. I will fight for a law that cracks down on these practices. We will end America's housing shortage by building three million new homes and rentals. We should be doing everything we can to make it more affordable to buy a home, not let. I'm Kamala Harris and I approve this message.

I have a million things to say about this, but before I do, Jenk, initial thoughts. Housing is a huge issue. I'm thrilled that the Democrats figured that out and they're campaigning on it. That is a correct strategy. Proofs in the pudding. Let's see if they actually do anything. Number one thing they should do is ban private equity from buying homes. But private equity is a giant donor to both parties, but especially Republicans. So I'm going to just go back to her DNC speech because there was a lot in her DNC speech that I liked some elements of her DNC speech, particularly foreign policy related stuff that I hated. But what we had to get through before the interesting part kicked in was her biographical stuff, which I get it. It humanizes

her, but she's got to stop leaning into that direction too much, right? So like, she loves talking about her mom, she loves talking about her childhood, but you have to remember the first few seconds determines whether or not the viewer is going to be hooked onto your message. And so if you start off with your biographical stuff, I feel like some people are going to tune out. Just a little critique about how the ad was put together. Putting that aside, her solutions make sense. And finally, there's a politician on the national scene who is addressing the root causes of our housing crisis.

Now, the private equity stuff is a problem. That is not the root cause, but that is a problem. And I like the fact that she mentioned that and said that she's going to tackle private equity firms snatching up single family homes that would typically be bought by middle class families, right? She doesn't outline how she would do that. And to be honest with you, when you look at the campaign money that she has raised in just a few short weeks, I'm a little bit worried that the donors will probably stand in the way of her actually pursuing any type of proposal against Blackstone or any other private equity firm buying up single family homes. But the bigger issue, Jank, the bigger issue is the lack of inventory in the housing market. And she addressed that. She mentioned that she wants to build 3 million new homes.

Subsidizing housing, meaning giving people assistance, financial assistance in order to pay for the down payment of a home, that doesn't address the housing crisis. Because we don't have enough homes for people to buy. So I like that she's addressing that. I look forward to seeing what her detailed proposal is. Yeah, so I know why she does the biographical stuff because one of the most important things in politics is being quote unquote likable and new poll out showing she's increased her ratings in terms of approval and specifically in the likable category. She's passed Donald Trump on that and she's tied Donald Trump on strength.

That's a different story we'll get to. So I get it, I respect the game, I don't have a problem with it. The policy proposals make a difference. Number one, I want to defend her because everybody keeps saying she didn't have any policy. She doesn't have any policy. That's not really true. She has a housing policy with some level of specificity. Actually, I think a lot of specificity, $25,000 for the new homeowners, building three million new homes, going out for private.

These are all very specific, right? And then you've got the issue of the prices. She's got policy proposals there. Meanwhile, do they do the same thing for Trump? Trump's policy is me good, everyone else bad, me love corporate tax cuts, me and my rich friends, eat that up. That's it. What else he's got? No, I mean, look, let's be fair, okay?

He does the same thing that in this case, Kamala Harris is doing, right? He'll say things like, we're going to seal the border, right? Like, so it. But that's way less specific. I mean, look, Kamala Harris says we're going to build three million new homes. Okay, great, how? How are you going to fund it? How are you going to build it?

which developers are you going to give grants to? There's no way any candidate is going to get to which developers are going to give it to. It hasn't even passed. I know, but I just want to be clear. At this stage in the election, and I'm not in favor of this, I'm actually 100% against this, very light on policy on both sides, just a lot of aspirational talk about what they'd like to accomplish without explaining how they're going to accomplish it. I don't know.

I think that her policy proposals are very much in line with what people normally do. So, but everybody's got a different opinion on it. But okay, my problem is completely different and arguably worse, which is, doesn't really matter because the Democrats almost never do their proposals. So, so I mean, if you're a Kamala Harris supporter or your Democratic Party supporter, I love you, but I'm gonna break your heart a little bit. Guys, think about it every single time, Biden proposed like 100 things, 80 things, right? And then he goes, and then if you said anything about those proposals during the election,

Every Democrat in the world would yell at you at the top of their lungs, how dare you? Joe Biden is a good, decent man, and he's going to do all of that. And then he does like four things, and then they go, so unreasonable of you to expect more than four. Well, then don't object when I say he's not going to do the 76 other ones. Because they never do, and then every Democrat then turns around and forgets today. When they're proposing the policies, later they'll say, well, of course, she couldn't have done any housing policies. She didn't have enough votes in the Senate. She didn't have, she needed 78 votes in the Senate and the parliamentarian objected.

Of course she wasn't going to do it. Well, if she's not going to do any of them, why are we having this debate? Why are we having this discussion? So to me, I would rather have like three or four proposals where she goes, I'm staking my career on this. Okay, hold me accountable, because I'm going to get this done come hell or high water. Then I go, okay, now we're having a conversation. But instead you get a lot of loose talk, right? And then later, everyone will pretend that she never promised any of these things.

and disincentives. And this is something we talk about on the show quite often, so much so that it almost sounds cliche. But if you want to determine whether or not a politician is actually going to carry out the policies they purport to want to carry out, look at who's funding their election. Look at who's funding their campaign. Kamala Harris has raised half a billion dollars in a few short weeks. Okay, there are billionaire donors who are donating to her campaign. Now, the Harris campaign has been bragging about how, oh, well, one third of our donors are actually first-time donors, and the majority of those first-time donors happen to be, you know, teachers and nurses. And that's great, but that's only one-third of her donors. And so where's the rest of the money coming from? It's coming from big donors. It's coming from billionaire donors. And these are not individuals who are interested in seeing their taxes get increased. These are not individuals who are interested in seeing more regulations as it pertains to private equity firms and their ability. to snatch up residential buildings and houses. And so I look at that. Instead of judging whether or not the politician is a good guy or a bad guy or good girl or bad girl, woman, whatever.

That sounds fun. I know, sorry. I didn't mean to call her a girl. But like, you know, you get what I'm trying to say here. Just look at the incentives and disincentives. And really, the incentives always have to do with the legalized bribes that play a huge role in our electoral system now. So two things more about this. One, to your point, we're going to have a story a little bit later in the show about the top 50 donors and at the very top of the list in the top 10, there's like four private equity guys, gigantic private equity guys, all in favor of Trump. Because why, Trump says to them, I'll let you do whatever you want.

They're going to buy up all the homes, yeah, go ahead, buy them, what do I care? Are you, am I getting any piece and buy, well, it's going to screw over there. American people, it's going to make housing completely unaffordable. Who cares? You're giving me money? Great. I'll let you rob the place blind. You just reminded me of something I've been wanting to say on the show. So thank you for bringing that up. You know, the Republican Party has been spending a lot of time judging individuals who either made a decision or just simply can't have children. And the argument that they make is, well, these are people who don't have any type of investment in the country's future. Okay, number one, these are also the same people,

who say all of our societal problems start at home with crappy parents. But okay, there are Americans who do have an investment in the country. And oftentimes it comes in the form of owning a home, right? The biggest investment that you'll make in your life as a working class American. And snatching that opportunity away from Americans, ordinary Americans, hardworking Americans, it leads to a lot of anger, it makes you wonder like, well, why do I care so much, right? Like, what's my investment? What's my investment here? What's my investment in this community? Anna, you mentioned building more homes is arguably more important than private equity buying them.

If I understood you're right, I actually don't agree. I think private equity is a steamroller. They're going to buy all of the homes. No, you're right. You're right about that. So if you don't deal with the private equity question, because remember, private equity is, You have all these investors who go to a private equity firm. So the private equity firm can invest in different things other than the stock market, right? And so they're investing in real estate because there's a lot of money to be made with real estate. And so if they have the capital to just buy up the homes outright, they don't have to worry about taking out mortgages, which is why if you're an ordinary American, you're going to have to take out a mortgage. You're going to have to finance buying a home.

You don't, you're, there's like no competition there. Private equity firm is going to snatch up the home. So you're right. Both of them kind of go hand in hand. Both of those issues go hand in hand. We do need to increase inventory, but we need to have, for lack of a better word, red tape in the way of these predators who come in and snatch everything up for themselves. Yeah, look, it's just called laws, right? We used to have laws against loan sharks, against so many different things that were, would take advantage of the average American.

and screw them over. So this is not a hard law at all. If I was in charge, I would drive all private equity out of private residences. Guys, that's the number one way we build wealth for the average American in this country. And they're going to snatch it away from you, and then you're going to have to rent from them at whatever prices they said, it'll eventually be an oligopoly that is controlled by a few companies. And you won't get to build any wealth. And you'll be paying all of your salary in rent to these private equity.

Yeah, to your slumlords. So now last thing's on Trump, look guys, so Kamala Harris's policies are fine. I don't really quite believe them. You have to be concerned about her donors, et cetera. But whenever he had Trump, he's always so much worse than everyone else, right? So his donors are almost, well, they're not almost. They are the largest private equity funds in the world. And he says, I'll give you anything you want.

So he's going to totally screw you over on housing. If you're a maga and you don't believe it, yeah, okay, you'll believe it when you don't have a home. and then see how it turns out for you. You think Trump's an angel and he's, oh, even though the private equity guys are giving him all that money, he's not going to deliver for them, get out of here, okay, so I'm not in the mood for irrational people. Then you ask Trump, hey, what are you going to do about housing? So okay, if he's going to take on private equity or build more homes, this is time to say it.

He said three things so far. One is, I'm going to end illegal immigration, I'm going to seal the border. The undocumented immigrants that are coming to this country because they don't have a dollar in their pocket, they're buying up all the homes. They bought the homes in the suburbs? What the hell do they come here for if they had that much money? Okay, that is so dumb. You could say, hey, close the border.

I love that and I want that. That's fine to have that opinion, but it has nothing to do with housing. Maybe he drives up rent a little bit around the edges, but they're owning the homes. They don't have enough money for it. And then his second idea is, I'm gonna let them do anything they want on federal land. We could build more houses too, because he mainly wants to drill on federal land. Is it that we're lacking land? We're not lacking land. We have all the land in the world. That's not the issue.

And that's his best proposal. His third one, which he mentioned to a supporter on Fox News, we covered that clip. The guy said, look, I got eight kids. Five of them are having trouble paying the rent. What can we do about it? He comes back and goes, drill baby drill. I'm going to let the oil companies drill more. My God. What does that have to do with housing? He's just going through a laundry list of here's my donors. We deserve. Oil companies are my donors. Drill baby, drill. open up federal land. Okay, oh, you guys are probably worried about the border. Remember that three and a half feet of wall that I built with six months left because I forgot about it?

Yeah, that plus that'll fix housing. No, it won't. Guys, don't vote for a moron, okay? So like people ask me every once in a while, hey, are you thinking about Trump or whatever? No, no, I would never vote for someone for president that wasn't at least in double digits in IQ. It's one of the dumbest people alive. I'm not going to put that guy in charge of the nukes again. we barely survived last time. How much more are we going to prove? Like the idea that like, oh, all of our problems have to do with the fact that we're not producing enough energy, we're the top producer and top exporter in the entire world.

It's not our oil, guys. It is our oil. It is. But then they take it. They pay us at patents. Do you know I looked into this? That the oil companies pay us half the royalties. They pay other countries.

Yeah, because they can get away with it here. So when they go to drill in other countries, whether they're developed countries or not developed countries, non-developed countries get beat down more by the oil companies. But even they get higher rates than we do because we legalize bribery. So the oil companies just come to a crook like Trump and they go, we're going to give you a lot of money for your campaign. Then you let us take all the American oil and we'll pay you less, the American taxpayer less than we pay Somalia or Finland or wherever we're taking the oil from. Let's treat him by like a bunch of suckers. And then let's poison their community.

Let's create climate change. As long as you get paid, right, Donnie? And he's like, yeah, I'm in. Suckers and losers, American people, right? Give me more. You want to vote for that, son of a bitch? Okay, I got no interest in Donald Trump. One of the worst people there is in politics anywhere else.

Totally selfish, egomaniac, idiot. Well, we'll get into the political bribes and all of that when we come back. Don't miss it. that's on YouTube, obviously. Jesse gifted five memberships also on YouTube. You're beautiful. Labrador Cobal 88. Thank for the contribution on t.yt.com slash team.

You got to call it. Dono? Dono? That's what the kids call it. What, the donors? Yeah, the donos. Okay. Thanks for the don't know. I didn't know that.

I will now overabuse it. You will overabuse it. He loves to overabuse that kind of stuff. It's true, but I don't know if I'll overabuse that one because it sounds too close to donor. And that's kind of a dirty word for me as you were about to do this. But don't know sounds fun. It does. But it also sounds too much like donut makes me hungry. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Anyway, last thing is, um, pharmacist. Thanks for becoming a member. You guys are great. T.Y.T.com slash team. By the way, look, guys, that's it. Get everybody to watch

a live show. Weekday 6 p.m. Eastern. Okay, spread the word. It hits different live. Speaking of what the kids say, huh? You did it. Come on guys, let's go. Let's get everybody to watch live because you know why I want a communal atmosphere here where we're all sharing together. It's like kind of a water cooler. So we have a common bond, you know, unity among all of us. Let's watch together. You know the show's 6 to 8 o'clock Eastern every weekday. Like that stream, by the way. Like it, share it. Sharing is caring. Liking is something. Smash the button, ring the bell. Liking is biking. No, that doesn't know. All right, just do all, do you do, I'll ring the bell like that, okay, smash it. All right, go ahead. All right, well, let's talk about those sweet, sweet bribes in our political system. We have new reporting on how big of a financial boom last week's convention was for the Harris campaign. Folks, these numbers are huge.

$540 million. Wow. The campaign says that they've raised since Harris launched her campaign just over. over a month ago. And of that, 82 million was raised just in the past week during the DNC. Former First Lady Melania attended that Florida event that in part looked to mark Mr. Trump, now winning the support of some major Republican donors who have been reluctant to back him. Well, we say this every election cycle, because every election cycle, we hit a new record. But a new record has been hit when it comes to campaign donations being funneled into the campaign coffers.

of the two presidential candidates and the two political parties, Democrats and Republicans. So as you saw in that video, Kamala Harris has already raised more than half a billion dollars for this race. And Donald Trump ain't doing so poorly himself. So we're going to get to that in just a moment. But the Harris campaign does brag that about a third of her campaign contributions come from first-time donors. And of those first-time donors, the majority of them, they claim, are teachers and nurses. But remember, that's just one third of the donors who are the rest of them. And we're going to get into that. So the Washington Post analyzed some federal election commission data. And they found that the 50 largest donors in this cycle have collectively funneled

$1.5 billion in political committees and other groups competing in this election. And most of that money went to super PACs, which, well, we all know what that means. Money to Super PACs. can be unlimited. There are no limits to how much an individual can contribute. And so I want to get into the top political donors, the big money donors for both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. But before I do, this is Jank Uger's wheelhouse. Jank. Yeah. So this is why I formed Wolfpack, wolf dash pack.com, because money in politics is everything. What's frustrating to me is when people go, oh, well, that's an issue and it's an arcane issue. I don't know if the American people are going to be interested in it.

You know, there's a lot of technical, no, no, that's all ways of avoiding it. It's not complicated at all. It's called corruption. It's the number one issue in most elections throughout the world. People hate it. It happens all the time because the people at the top want to stay at the top. So they start doing corruption and buying off the government. So the way that they buy off the government in other places and what used to be here is

they bring duffel bags full of cash and they buy off. Now in America, you don't have to do that anymore. In fact, you couldn't even fit any of it. of this in a duffel bag or even a truck, because they're giving so much money. They'd have to, you know, bring in an 18 wheeler full of cash to account for all this money. Because in America, we are, unfortunately, and this breaks my heart more than anything there is, became the most corrupt country on earth when we legalized bribery. And that's what the Supreme Court did in 76, 78, the Citizens United, McCutcheon, and so many other cases, okay? So now these guys,

you're going to see, or just simply buying both the politicians, left and right, literally, right? And the idea that after they give $50 million, they're not going to want something back, you would have to be a mainstream media reporter to believe that, because that's the most ridiculous, insane thing I have ever heard. No real person on the left or the right believes that they're paying all this money so they could purchase U.S. policy and have it benefit them and not you guys. And I mean, it's worked out real well for them so far. And so we're going to get a to the crypto industry in just a minute. Before we do, though, let's take a look at the top donors for both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Let's begin with Donald Trump. For this election

cycle, his top donor and the top donor to the Republican Party happens to be Timothy Mellon. He's a Wyoming-based businessman. And if you can see, he has already contributed $165 million in this election cycle. That is insane. Of that money, $125 million went to the Make America Great Again PAC. Obviously, that is the PAC supporting Donald Trump. He also donated $25 million for the American Values 2024 PAC and another $10 million for the Congressional Leadership Fund, which of course helps to get Republicans elected into congressional seats. Also donating to Trump and the overall Republican Party is hedge fund manager Ken Griffin, who in this election cycle has already spent 75.7 million dollars. Then you have investment company owners Jeff and

Janine Yass, who have spent 73.9 million dollars and a mainstay in the election cycle for Republicans. You have Richard and Elizabeth Euline who have spent $70.7 million in campaign contributions in this election cycle alone. Now, if you look at the numbers and you look at the donors and how much they've contributed, it is pretty clear that even now, you still have the majority of big money donors, like pouring their funds into the Republican Party. But there are definitely big money donors for Democrats as well, and I want to get to that. Yeah, so the Ken Griffins and all the private equity guys, that's just another word for Wall Street. So big pharma used to be the biggest donors.

Now they're getting outshine by Wall Street. And because Wall Street's got a lot of interests, right? They run a lot of the pensions for the state governments. They want deregulation. They want to be allowed to do mergers. But mainly, they just don't want you to check it in on what they're doing at all. And why so that they could take higher risk with your money? That's what led to the 2008 crash.

Because when they take higher risk, they make more money. But the risk is not theirs. It's yours because it's your money. So that they bribing government officials to be allowed to take risk is their go-to move, let alone the fact that they're now also buying up all of our homes and they're going to make renters out of all of us. It's just the worst case scenario. If the press was doing their job proportionally, like in a, and then by the way, to be

fair, that also applies to us, we don't do it proportionally either, okay? Because if we were going to cover politics proportionally, 90% of our coverage would be about money in politics. Actually, over 90%. Because the rest of it is just driven by the money. It's not like they're having a real debate about housing or a real debate about Israel or a real debate about anything. They're just having a competition of who's getting bribed more. Okay, I totally disagree with you. I feel like you never miss an opportunity to tie every story we do to money in politics.

Because that's what decides it every single time. So that critique was not fair. of us. Okay, all right. I just want you to take that critique back. Okay. Look, my point is, it's an overwhelming issue. Yes, we touch on it often.

Let's leave it at that. And of course we touch on it more than every show combined, right? But for mainstream media, they never even talk about it. Like, okay, God bless Washington Post for running this story. I appreciate it. And you should always give credit where credit is due. And that's a print publication. But every time they go to talk about housing now, do they go, hey, who's your private equity donors?

Yeah, for real. Dana Bash is not going to ask Kamala Harris that. Nobody's going to ask Trump. Everybody's going to take it for granted. Well, of course, Kamala Harris has done a great job of raising all this money. Oh, but here comes Donald Trump. He's also raising a lot of money. They make it sound like it's positive.

No, they're having a race over who can get bribed more. That's not a good thing. That's a terrible thing. That would be such a great question. And I'd be so fascinated to hear how Kamala Harris would respond to that. right? If Dana Bash did her due diligence, I mean, she's got resources, she's got producers, they can do the research. If they find that there's private equity money being donated to her campaign, okay, well then tell me how that money would influence your decision on housing

related policy and regulations on private equity firms buying up single family homes. Really curious. I mean, I might be a Danabash stand if she asked that question, but you're right. She'd never ask that question. Anyway, let's get to Kamala Harris and look at the kind of money that's being donated to her campaign and the Democratic Party overall. So the top donor for Kamala Harris and the Democrats is actually Michael Bloomberg. Okay, so Michael Bloomberg has already contributed $41 million, which looks like nothing compared to the $165 million that Timothy Mellon is giving to the Republican parties and Donald Trump. But still, $41 million is no joke.

He has given $19 million to the Harris campaign, $10 million to support. Democratic House candidates and $7 million to every town demand a seat. That's a pack that he gave $7 million to. Now, other Democratic donors include Tech Guy, Reed Hoffman, who absolutely hates Lena Kahn, and his wife, Michelle Yee, who spent $31.6 million so far on this election. You also have hedge fund founder James Simon's wife, Maryland. Now James Simons has passed away, but his wife has spent $24.4 million on this election cycle. But what's also really interesting, Jank, is the industries getting involved. Industries.

Now, what am I talking about? Well, let's take a look at the next video and you'll get a sense. Nearly half of all the corporate money flowing into the election this year is coming from the crypto industry, according to a new report from the nonprofit watchdog group public citizen. Coke Industries is a distant second place in 2024. sector heavyweights like Coinbase and Ripple, as well as the VC firm Andriesen Horwitz, which has a sizable portfolio of crypto companies, are giving tens of millions of dollars apiece to try to elect candidates who are friendly to the industry. Now, most of that corporate

money being raised is going to the popular and bipartisan pro-crypto super PAC called FairShake, which is one of the top spending packs this year. I spoke to their team last night to get the latest numbers on the four largest donors to Fairshake and its two associated packs. Coinbase has contributed $49 million, A16 Z and Ripple have given $47 million each and then jump crypto put in $15 million. In total, it's raised around $169 million with more than 90% coming directly from corporations. That's a lot of money. And obviously they don't want any congressional bill or any regulation to slow their role. So it doesn't surprise me at all that they're donating as much as they're. They're donating and they donate to both political parties to be sure.

Yeah, so the crypto guys are being logical. And by the way, I mean, on a political level, I loathe it in so many ways. Same thing with the APAC guys, they mainly target progressives that don't take corporate pack money because they think, oh, those guys are honest, that's gonna be a giant problem for us. Okay, let's make sure we feed all the corrupt people. And of course, Donald Trump comes to the top of the list of that. So what do they care about? They care about a lot of things.

Number one thing they don't want is regulation, just like the traditional companies like Wall Street. They don't want regulation either. Why regulations are, there's another word for them, it's called laws. And if you're a crook, you don't like laws. You don't want any cops that are going to enforce the laws. So you go for deregulation for freedom. I mean, who doesn't love a nice pump and dump scheme? Yeah, of course.

And so look, if there's no regulation of crypto, I mean, you get it. It's already running wild and people lose tons of money all the time. Whatever, I'm not getting into a debate on crypto. Bottom line is, though, I think their number one ask is, oh, use the Federal Reserve to back up crypto. Oh, my God. So that way you turn our funny money into real money.

And we've got trillions over there. So what difference does it make if we give you $200 million here besides which it's crypto money? It's going to happen. Yeah. It's going to happen. So there's, they're giant, enormous, well, let's call it operations. If you don't want to call it scam or con or whatever it is, I don't know what it is, are going to get legitimized when the government goes, okay, here, you guys now exist.

And whatever that horse crap was is now real. But I don't, this, I blame the system, not like, I can't stand what they're doing. But if they didn't do that, they would be irrational. It's so easy to buy the government. It's just the crypto guys found out. They realize it. They're like, oh my God, look, Israel's buying the government. Big Pharma bought the government a long time ago.

The banks bought the government. Why shouldn't we buy the government? They're all corrupt. They all take bribes. Let's give a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of our ill-gotten gains. Then maybe some of them weren't ill-gotten. You'd have to get into the details, right? And let's make sure they never regulate us.

and so we can do whatever the hell we want. And if you, somebody loses money in crypto, do bad we already bribed the Republicans and the Democrats. It's a logical play and we're all screwed. All right. I'm just going to try to deal with the feeling of impending doom during the break. But when we come back, we're going to talk about dirty Jesse Waters, doing what he does best, being a scumbag.