The Young Turks - SCOTUS Signs Off On Trump's Racism

Episode Date: September 13, 2019

Trump got exactly what he wanted from the Supreme Court. Ana Kasparian, Emma Vigeland, and John Iadarola, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five star rating. Thank you.

Welcome to the Young Turks, I'm Anna Casparian, and this is Thursday. Jank isn't here, he's in Houston. This is Thursday. What's going on? I don't know, I'm so excited about tonight for some reason. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, we're gonna have a great show ahead. John Iderola and Emma Viglin join for the first hour.

We're gonna have a completely different panel for the second hour. Brooke Thomas and Nando Villa will be joining in. And then later today, as you know, the Democratic debate will be taking place in here. Houston, and we will be providing special debate coverage. We are not going to watch the debate along with you, but as soon as the debate is over, we will come back on the air and give you our analysis. John, Emma, Jenk, and Nanda will be joining in. Jenk will be coming in from Houston, obviously, that's where he's at.

And in the second hour, we're also going to take a live hit from Jenk, just to get some of his predictions, his thoughts, and I'll probably grill him a little bit about the fact that he's been gallivanting around town having fun while I've been holding it down here at TYT. And can I just really fast on that? I know that there's been some people who've been frustrated that we've been doing the commentary after the debate. I mean, we would, like, trust me, we would love to do it live, but you can't legally do that.

You can't legally do that. You can't legally do that. Yeah, it's a copyright infringement issue that we got away with earlier, I guess. Yeah, we had a nice run. I was about to say, but you're not allowed to do that. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, it's taken more seriously now.

People are actually paying attention to us now. Okay, well, that's a good thing. So, yeah, it is. Up sides and downside. Anyway, with that said, let's get started. Lots of news to get to today. This is a story that unfortunately broke too late yesterday for us to cover, but I do want to make sure I fill you in today.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Donald Trump by temporarily allowing the Trump administration to implement its new asylum rules while the courts decide whether or not this new move by the Trump administration is constitutional. This is likely gonna work its way back up to the Supreme Court, but understand that this latest ruling is temporary. It's just meant to allow Trump to do it he wants to do now as this case works its way through the courts. The Supreme Court, in a brief, unsigned order, said the administration may enforce new rules

that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country. So essentially, if you are an asylum seeker and you have to travel through a certain country to get to the United States, under these new rules, you would have to apply for asylum in the country that you're traveling through. And it isn't until you're denied asylum in that country that you can apply for asylum here in the United States. Of course, this is an effort to halt all asylum seekers from Central America, or at least

most asylum seekers from Central American countries. Well, it makes it really inconvenient because as they're working their way up, into Mexico, it might take a while for the application process go through, so presumably they just have to get an Airbnb for like three months or something like that. Because they have lots of resources and they can afford to just wait around for the government to get back to them. And also understand that what Mexico is doing is it is trying to prevent asylum seekers from coming into their own country. So they literally have armed members of their military at their southern border to prevent Central Americans from coming into Mexico. because it essentially puts the onus on the government of Mexico to deal with the asylum seekers. And they don't want to do it.

So they're guarding their southern border a little more closely. They're carrying a lot of our loads here with paying for the wall and now paying for these asylum seekers who actually want to come here. Obviously, that's sarcasm. They're not doing any of that. It's absurd that Trump even wanted that to go through. But just the thing that sticks out to me most is Merrick Garland. This would be happening if Merrick Garland were on the court. It would be at least stymied in some sort of way.

But we have Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland, and that all has to do with the obstructionism of the Republicans. So once again, when we hear Nancy Pelosi come out today and say we need a bipartisan agreement before we impeach Donald Trump, a reminder of who we're dealing with on the other side. It's incredible, it's really incredible. So I want to give you some more details on what the Supreme Court has given Donald Trump during his first term, just a few months ago. In July, the court allowed the administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money

for the construction of a barrier along the Mexican border. Last year, the court upheld President Trump's ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries. Now, there were two justices who dissented in this latest Supreme Court decision. Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissenting, saying the court's action will quote, upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution. Sotomayor wrote that the court's ruling also sidesteps the ordinary judicial process to allow the government to implement a rule that bypass the ordinary rulemaking process.

So what she's saying there is, look, you have an executive branch who is making decisions without going through Congress. I mean, we have that branch of government for a reason. These are supposed to be the lawmakers, and Trump is supposed to either veto or sign legislation. But in this case, you have Trump acting unilaterally, and then the Supreme Court, because of how it's now stacked against common sense policy, will protect him and will help to implement those policies, even as it's working its way through the federal court system. Yeah, and the law is incredibly clear.

If you're a migrant, you're allowed to apply for asylum. This just only subverts the law, that's the point of it. I know that conservatives love to say that it's the letter of the law. We just check, we're textualists, we like to look and see what does it actually say? Super clear here, but what's equally clear is they have the numbers. And so they can do whatever they want. When it comes to these immigration issues, as you pointed out, they're always going to side with them.

And so while again, as you pointed out, it's going to work its way back into the Supreme Court. If you would like to believe that they'll change their mind between now and then, you're free to do so. There's no evidence that that's actually going to happen. And this is gonna screw over tons of people. This is literally a life or death issue for many migrants. People will die as a result of this. You could argue that's the entire point actually.

Stop them from coming from the Middle East, screw people coming from Syria, people in Bahamas, you can stay there and die if you want. Even if you're an American citizen in Puerto Rico, we're gonna leave you there to die, we're not gonna help you out at all. Central America, you can stay there and you could die. They call it America first. Of course, at the same time, he's screwing over his own people too. So it's not really America First, it's just definitely middle fingers to everyone else around the world.

That's exactly right. And I do want to read a little more from what Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, because it was strong and she made great points. And unfortunately, we don't have as many thinkers like Justice Sotomayor or Justice Ginsburg in the Supreme Court right now. But she makes such a great point. I mean, look, it's frustrating. It's frustrating, the case itself is frustrating, but it's really more about our system of government

and how it's supposed to work and how this really just flies in the face of all of that. She writes, unfortunately, it appears the government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal. Historically, the government has made this kind of request rarely, now it does so reflexively. She also writes, once again, the executive branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution. I read that part earlier, although this nation has long kept its doors open to refugees, and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher, the government implemented

its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law. Yeah, of course, and I hope that everyone who thinks that the Supreme Court is this neutral arbiter of laws and that they're just completely put away from. or they're isolated from politics takes a long look at what's happening right now. We still pretend like these judges are isolated from the political machinations of the day, and that they are really just acting as they see the letter of the law and how they read the Constitution and the text and their own judicial philosophy.

It's this myth, this American myth that's been going on and on and on for the past few decades when it's impossible for them to be isolated from politics. We have TV, we have the internet, we have news, everywhere, every single day. So let's move beyond this myth that just kind of aggrandizes the American system and makes it seem like we're something better than we are. This is the reality, let's deal with it now. It's a politicized court, as are all the politicized courts, and the Democrats, as are all the

courts, and the Democrats better catch up because as you look at the lower courts, they're stacked with conservatives. So while the Democrats are still pretending in this old school myth about American exceptional The Republicans are quietly stacking courts with very dangerous conservatives who are doing things under the guise of constitutionalism. With very little pushback from Chuck Schumer, which is incredibly frustrating. I mean, he struck a deal with Mitch McConnell when it came to confirming many of these federal judges.

And just to buttress your point and reinforce it, the reality is when it comes to this particular case, an Obama appointed federal judge struck this new asylum rule down. and then you have a Trump appointed judge saying, no, it can stand. This is constitutional, I'm fine with it. So, yes, there are activist judges. There's no question about it. They're all activists, both on the left and both on the right. And that's okay, that's the new reality.

Let's just acknowledge it and stop pretending. Let's move on, because while the liberals are pretending, the Republicans are the ones who are doing the dirty politics per usual. Yeah, and by the way, Sotomayor said that this was, that they're doing this reflexively now, and you should expect that that will become more common, because they have set up an inherently undemocratic but potentially sustainable situation where the executive branch and the Senate are set up in a way that artificially increases the electoral power of Republicans. It's much easier, thanks to the electoral college and the way that the Senate benefits

small rural states, that they can control that. That gives them the Supreme Court, by the way, because they have the Senate, and so they have the majority there. So the president can simply make executive orders, knowing that the Supreme Court is going to protect him, taking over the Senate is going to be incredibly difficult because of the way the system is set up. And even if in the one branch, or part of one branch in the House, where it's not set up in a way that's as easy to manipulate, they're still trying with voter suppression and things like that, gerrymandering. But it's harder, okay, well, then you can take control of that.

And we did, but it doesn't matter if the Supreme Court and the executive branch are working hand in hand. It's not a democracy, it's just not. Yeah, it's a great point. I found these results. I found a result too and it's that we lost their democracy. Okay, John. All right.

My phone's in my pocket. It's talking to me. Let's move on to some other news. This one's a doozy. New reporting indicates that the Trump administration did nothing when it discovered that there were spying devices near the White House and in other sensitive locations. Research indicated that those devices were placed there by the Israeli government, and again, Again, Trump has responded with absolutely nothing, no action whatsoever.

The miniature surveillance devices known as stingrays mimic regular cell towers to full cell phones into giving them their locations and identity information. Formerly called International Mobile Subscriber Identity Catchers or IMSI Catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use. Now this information is definitely important when you consider the fact that Donald Trump insists on using his personal cell phone, and he uses that personal cell phone in order to communicate with some of his informal advisors. And so there is likely sensitive information in those discussions, and to know that he had

been spied on and he did absolutely nothing about it is a little concerning to say the least. Now before people start freaking out and hit me with the what aboutism, yes, I know the United States also does spying, the United States has also spied on Israel. So I'm not making excuses for that, but understand that when you know that someone or a government is spying on your government and your government's doing nothing about it, just kind of brushing it under the rug, it's a little problematic, especially with the irresponsible behavior by our own president. Well, we've spied on Israel, but Israel's spying on us and we're the ones giving them billions

and billions of dollars in AIDS. So it's a little bit ridiculous. Can you imagine if a spy or a device from Jordan or Nigeria or these other random countries that we give aid to had a spying device and was trying to spy on our president? We would cut aid to them immediately. And according to this piece, according to Politico, we didn't even give them a private or public scolding because Israel, as Ilhan Omar said, has a significant hold over our public officials, especially in the Republican Party.

So let me give you more details. How did they find out that this was, or these were devices placed by the Israeli government? Well, it was based on a detailed forensic analysis. The FBI and other agencies working on the case felt confident that Israeli agents had placed the devices. The devices were likely intended to spy on President Donald Trump, as I mentioned, as well as his top aides and closest associates, though it's not clear whether the Israeli efforts were successful.

So we don't know how much information they obtained through these spying efforts. Luckily it was discovered that they were attempting to spy and hopefully those devices were destroyed. These allegations are absolute nonsense, according to a spokesperson with the Israeli embassy. Israel doesn't conduct espionage operations in the United States period. But a former intelligence official says the reaction, meaning from Trump, was very different than it would have been in the last administration. But the current administration, there are a different set of calculations in regard to

addressing this, and the intelligence official continues to say, I'm not aware of any accountability at all, going back to what you are mentioning, Emma. I just, I wonder how different would it be? I mean, I'm sure he would say something, give a speech, it's unacceptable, and then just go back to doing whatever you want, we're not going to step in, we're not going to actually influence it at all. Well, President Obama did challenge it in Yahoo at the very least, in some regard. I mean, it wasn't this buddy-buddy relationship that we're seeing with him.

Yeah, it wasn't buddy-buddy, but it felt substantively pretty similar. In terms of what you're saying, I get what you're saying, but the degree is a whole another level. I mean, only now are we having the discussion that it's not anti-Semitism to criticize our connection with the Israeli government and the way that we show complete deference to them. I mean, Sheldon Adelson gave $123 million to the Republican Party for the 2018 midterms. And now we're talking about it what it is. It's corruption, it's these far-right evangelicals who have, who want the Jews to return

to Israel so that they can have Armageddon in this completely anti-Semitic biblical nonsense trope that they already are exerting over our foreign policy. So I think that it's a different dynamic because one of the silver linings of the Trump presidency is now the entire country is being awoken to that dynamic that we're talking about. subtle, I guess, is my argument. Yeah, and well, look, I wouldn't expect any administration to come down hard on the Israeli government over these spying efforts.

But I think that in the very least, it should be a teachable moment in maybe being a little more measured and careful in the way you conduct business and the way you communicate with your advisors. If you're using a personal cell phone and you're being incredibly dismissive of the potential, you know, vulnerabilities as a result of doing so. I mean, I don't understand why he doesn't ever take any advice. And his password is probably 0-0-0-0-0. Or 1-2-4, possibly.

Okay, there's two options and those are the two options. Definitely. Yeah, no, if you were one of his supporters, like, okay, you're gonna keep supporting him no matter what he does, he could start nuk in American cities, he can still love him. But don't you want him to be at least a little bit more careful? Like, use a secure phone, I'm sure they can secure an iPhone and he can still have the same keyboard he's used to, he doesn't have to learn anything. They claim that they have secured his iPhone.

I'm personally not buying it. Okay, beyond that, he should probably care if spying devices by any country are being placed in government buildings. And if these were there, and for God knows how long, God knows where else they might be. But also, he's revealing classified information in meetings with foreign ambassadors. He's tweeting out classified photographs. That is his right, apparently. He's able to burn foreign agents if he wants to.

But you should care about that because there is a cost to that. It's not a cost that Donald Trump pays, but it is a cost that Donald Trump pays. but it is a cost that we pay. Absolutely. All right, we got to take our first break. When we come back, though, we're going to talk about how Trump is unwilling to do anything about gun control, but he is going to ban e-cigarettes.

We'll be right back. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-E-F-E-R-Unging 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 on 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. Welcome back to TYT, Anna, John, and Emma with you. I just want to say thanks to you everyone who's watching and everyone who's a member of the show.

You guys are incredible. And, you know, there's a story today. I don't know the details. Emma mentioned it during a break about how the Washington Post laid off some workers. And we wouldn't be here without you. So thank you. Just wanted to give you that note of love. And I forgot to read tweets during the break.

I was just thinking that, actually. So I will read double tweets. And member comments when we come back to the next break. I apologize for that. I had to get things in order for this segment. But nonetheless, this segment is going to be bonkers. So let's get right to it. That's how the first lady got involved.

She's got a son together that is a beautiful young man and she feels very, very strongly about it. Donald Trump breaking news and apparently telling the world that maybe he isn't the father of Baron Trump. I don't know, that was a really weird way of putting it. The way they pan out and she's just sitting there like, what? If you look at her face, she does not seem happy there or ever. Now we'll get to that in just a second.

But that was a snippet of Donald Trump explaining his decision to potentially ban e-cigarettes moving forward. Now, this was in response to concerns that Melania Trump apparently has about e-cigarettes. She had tweeted earlier, quote, I'm deeply concerned about the growing epidemic of e-cigarette use in our children. We need to do all we can to protect the public from tobacco-related disease and death and prevent e-cigarettes from becoming an on-ramp to nicotine addiction. for a generation of youth.

Now, there have been some reports, and they're alarming, I will admit that, about sicknesses or illnesses related to e-cigarettes. As many as six people have been reported dead as a result of using e-cigarettes. But the story is a lot more complex than I think it's being portrayed in most media outlets. Now, six people have died, they've all been adults. The reports are coming in from as many as 30 states, and there's reason to believe that these products have actually been purchased on the street. And also, it's not the jewel product that's been, you know, in all these controversial stories

lately. Yes, there are young people using these products, they shouldn't be using these products, they're not healthy, but does it make sense to ban e-cigarettes? Is that really going to solve the problem? Let's open it up for debate. Well, go. No, no, it's just banning drugs doesn't work. So banning e-cigarettes, these massive corporations that have so much money and are going

to find other ways probably around it or whatever isn't going to work either. People are still going to try to find the products that they want on the black market or on the street. And then it's just going to exacerbate the existing problem that you just talked about, Anna. Yeah, you're exactly right. I mean, look, I think if your only goal was let's stop kids from getting it, I think that this will probably to be mostly effective. If that was your only goal, you're not concerned about personal freedom or personal responsibility

or whatever, the kids are gonna have trouble getting it, sure, this seems like if the reason is because of the six deaths, this is definitely an overreaction. And it also, considering what you said, that the ones that were apparently causing the death were THC related and were illegally produced, they were sort of counterfeit, then this, this to me feels like invading Afghanistan. It's like, is this, are you really doing it for the reason you said, or did you just kind of want Or the preemptive war in Iraq where, you know, there was allegedly weapons of mass destruction, but it turns out that we had a government that was- This is the same thing.

I mean, it's not the same thing, but I think it's based on ignorance, right? It was government action based on a lack of information and knowledge. And if you don't believe me, look at this video, it features Donald Trump explaining his reasoning for why he wants to move forward with this ban. Vaping has become a very big business, as I understand it, like a giant business in a very short period of time. But we can't allow people to get sick and we can't have our youth be so affected. And I'm hearing it. And that's how the first lady got involved. She's got a son together that is a beautiful young man and she feels very, very strongly about it.

She's seen it. We're both reading it. A lot of people are reading it. But people are dying with vaping. A lot of people think vaping is wonderful, it's great, it's really not wonderful. That's one thing I think we can say definitely, Commissioner. It's not a wonderful thing, it's got big problems. Not a wonderful thing, it's got big problems, so let's go ahead and ban it. I do want to give you some actual information about what's going on, though, in case you're concerned.

Now, how would this ban happen? Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar explained that it would take several weeks for the FDA to release its final plan for banning the products, after which there will be a 30-day delay until the new policy goes into effect. Azar says, quote, at that point, all flavored e-cigarettes other than tobacco flavor would have to be removed from the market. Now, I want to be clear about something. These products do not have tobacco in them.

You're not burning tobacco oil. They do have nicotine in them though, so it is very addictive. And part of the problem is the marketing behind it. So I do have a problem with the way that it's marketed because kids can get their hands on it since it's not tobacco. So maybe do better regulation so they can't purchase it. But more importantly, like this is something, it's a product that's used by people who smoke cigarettes and they wanna wean themselves off of using cigarettes, which are of course

incredibly terrible for your health. And many people die as a result of smoking cigarettes. So banning it doesn't really make sense. Maybe rethinking the way that it's marketed makes sense. I don't know if it makes sense to ban all the different flavors. Is that really gonna solve the problem? I just think banning things, it never really works out. The idea is that it appeals more to kids.

But hypothetically, I think that you're doing something about the advertising. And by the way, there's a precedent. They did that with cigarettes as well. Just regulated. But they don't believe in government. That's what we're missing here is conservative Trump is so simplistic. He's like, oh, we either allow it or we don't allow it, right? Then let's ban everything.

Let's ban. Fine, ban cigarettes, right? Banned cigarettes then too, because then banning justice, cigarettes doesn't make any sense at all. If his entire reasoning is just to harm, is that it creates harm for people, then cigarettes create even more harm or whatever. There's been so many people that. But we talked about this the other day is just he doesn't believe in bureaucracy or government.

So he doesn't even understand. that we could regulate things because the middle ground just doesn't exist in his mind. Yeah. Well, he doesn't even understand what's happening now with this story, right? Like he, listen to him talk about it, he's not knowledgeable about- About his son. About his son? Who the dead?

The decision he's about to make. She has his son together. Yeah, I do, look, I think that, I looked at the numbers and like, apparently within the last month, 25% of high scores or whatever have used one of these products. Which is devastating, especially coming off of a period where cigarette use had been going, significantly down, that doesn't necessarily mean that you should ban it, though. And also, I don't know, I think we should at least consider the possibility that this could, they said it's going to take several weeks, okay, maybe they don't do it.

How often does Donald Trump announce something and then everyone just forgets about it? Every time there's a mass shooting. Yeah, exactly. So I don't want to go into that now because I think that's important to discuss. Because you're right, Emma, he is a very black and white kind of guy. He, I don't know if it's, I don't think he's sophisticated enough to think about it as, oh, I don't like too much government bureaucracy. I just think that he shoots from the hip and he does what he thinks is popular at that given

moment. But he's like the base id of the Republican Party, which is why it manifests itself. He's definitely not sophisticated enough. It's just like, that's what he is personified. But the one thing that he refuses to ban is high capacity magazines, certain types of assault weapons. I mean, he'll say that he'll do it right after there's a mass shooting and there's an outcry. But then he has a friend little conversation with Mr. LaPierre and things change.

All of a sudden he remembers the tens of millions of dollars the NRA gave him during his election and changes course. So you're right, I think that it's definitely possible that the American Vaping Association is gonna pull him aside and be like, yo bro, how much do you want for your campaign? And let's move on. No, Jule has so much money and the tobacco industry in general has so much money. So I guarantee you there's gonna be a conversation within the next week or so in the will be over.

Yeah, I wonder, I guess I could be wrong, but wouldn't these products, aren't they pretty popular amongst his base, amongst conservatives across the country? Like, maybe their love for Trump will trump their love for ESIGs, I don't know, I definitely know, and we said it on the damage report this morning, that if Obama had done this, this, there would be holy hell right now on Fox News. But, and we're gonna talk about guns, I would say something that's even closer, theoretically, although less doesn't kill as many people, but if the fear is, kids are consuming something, and it's causing disease and it's harming them.

I mean, sugar is completely unregulated. Even the Obama era attempt to let you know on labels how much added sugar there was, Trump reversed that. And that kills countless Americans over the course of your life, all the different health problems caused by- All right, we know, we know, you go to the gym every morning, you're super built now. No, the reason I'm an expert on this is because I eat a lot of sugar. Oh my god, okay, I have the addiction, that's why I'm an expert on this.

No, but it is really devastating. It is particularly bad for kids. It's particularly advertised towards kids. Many of these products, is Melani not familiar with that? Or is the whole Melania thing just a big ruse? It doesn't have anything to do with that. I would not be shocked if the Melania thing was a big ruse. I mean, the relationship is a ruse, obviously.

That's a shame. Everything about Melania is a ruse. She's a hologram, guys, we already can see. Makes sense. Well, let's move on to a similar angle, but in a different context. So, now that the Trump administration is considering banning e-cigarettes, it does raise the question, why is he willing to take such drastic measures when six people have died, when in reality there are far more dangerous elements to society, like unregulated guns?

That certainly kills more people in America than e-cigarettes do. Well, Cuomo invited me on his program, Cuomo primetime last night, to debate this. And I was debating with a gentleman who I was actually not so familiar with. Steve Cortez is his name? Yeah, Steve Cortez. And you still are familiar with him. He didn't make much of an impression. Okay, but anyway.

Do you know the host name? He's just Cuomo, singularly. So let's go to the first clip. I want to show you this because it was the first time I realized in real time I was being mansplained to and it was pretty hilarious. Take a look. Here's the problem, I think, with trying to draw the parallel here, Chris, between vaping and guns. You know, I'm no constitutional law scholar, but when I read the drug rights, I don't find vaping anywhere in there,

but right after the very sacred First Amendment is the equally sacred Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. So we're talking about a constitutional right versus a, you know, a cigarette, basically. But it is not an absolute right. It's not an absolute right. We do have constitutional rights. No right is absolute. I want to note that for some reason, we keep forgetting the second part of that constitutional protection, which means we need a, you need gun control, well regulated militia.

I don't think that the situation we have in place right now is a well regulated militia. There needs to be every single constitutional right has its limitations. And in this case, for some reason, while we have even limitations on the First Amendment, We have a party in this country, the Republican Party, who refuses to acknowledge that there are meant to be limitations in the Second Amendment. Well-regulated militia. Let's repeat it again. Well-regulated militia. If you're going to keep repeating that, you have to know what it means.

And you have to know that it's in the context there. And no, I don't think you do because a well-regulated militia meant at that time of the right of the Constitution, it was any male who was healthy was considered a member of the militia. So every citizen is part of the militia by the definitions of the Constitution. I understand that, but I'm talking about the well-regulated part. Well-regulated. I'm a militiamen in that regard. And we also know from the- I'm not questioning the militia part of it. I am talking about the regulation part of the Constitution that for some reason everyone seems

to forget. Yeah, so he actually landed on a worse version of that. Because if he didn't do his all-mails thing, then he would just say, oh, well, then that only means that the militia has to be well-regulated. But he just said, it means every man, wait, needs to be well regulated. Exactly. Yeah, that's a weird move for him to make. And also, let me just say, conservatives are the ones who say that they are the constitutionalists,

the ones who believe in the literal interpretation of what the Constitution says. And so, all right, it's literal. If you want to say it's literal, well regulated militia. That's your interpretation of the militia part, good sir, good man, who I forget, I forget your name already, just like Anna. Steve. Steve Cortez. Yes.

Cortez, sure. So yeah, I mean, that was painful when he tried to explain that to you. Also, my favorite part, and I didn't really notice it until rewatching this clip, was Cuomo responding what, what was it? I'm not, I'm not a constitutional expert. True. Like, without skipping a beat, that was pretty incredible. He did his research.

He was sure about that one. That one. He got that Washington Post fact checker, called him up real quick, true. Yeah. But you know what, let me just say one other thing. I really, I appreciate the opportunity to have these types of debates. It's fun and it's a great way to share your perspective and also, I mean, look, this hasn't happened for me yet, but who knows it could?

Like maybe I have a blind spot and it's an opportunity to have a discussion. And oftentimes the two people in the discussion, none of them represent. our side, ever. So I love the fact that we have the opportunity to do that. It's great. Yeah, and so it was great of you to make the comparison with guns. I also think that considering the two pieces of news that came out in terms of drugs that are consumed this week, comparing it to the opioid issue is also pretty good.

Like six people apparently died, not even from the products that are being banned, but six people died, so we banned the product. With opioids, I mean, how many tens of thousands of people have died? And the leading family who developed them, marketed them, made sure that they were over They were overprescribed and all of that, they're getting a $3 billion slap on the wrist. They have $13 billion between them. They have to pay it over seven years. They're gonna make far more money over those seven years.

They don't have to apologize, they don't have to take any responsibility. They really should have done, yeah. They had to take some responsibility. Well, the monetary responsibility. The monetary, yeah. Okay, take a tiny portion of their net worth and let them continue living their wealthy, well-privileged lives. Yeah, and I agree with you in that it's not enough, and you're right.

I mean, I love that you compared the e-cigarette ban with the opioids because Trump isn't willing to take drastic measures when it comes to those painkillers. But to be fair, I also do want to note, there are people who have chronic pain who do rely on that prescription medication. And unfortunately, because of the misuse and the overprescription of these opioids, those chronic pain sufferers are suffering even more because it's even more difficult for them to get a drug that they should have access to. And I do thank audience members who have given me that piece of information,

because that isn't really covered much in the media. I do have one more clip, but before I get to it, did you want to make a point, Emma? No, no. Okay, so let's go to the last clip. I don't even remember what's in this one. To be honest. All commercial transactions should be checked, and then he wouldn't have slipped through. Steve, I'm saying the logic there is.

I think that's a good idea. And I think we're going to end up there, and the president has said that he is open to it. But my point is, even that when the guy got dinged on the background check was he exercised the loophole and he bought it privately. And that's why we're saying all commercial transactions should be checked. And then he wouldn't have slipped through. Steve, I'm saying I think that's a good idea. And I think we're going to end up there. And the president has said that he is open to it. But my point is, even that. Not if Wayne LaPierre keeps having conversations with him because while Trump says, you know, he is for common sense gun legislation. He says this after

every mass shooting. All that happens afterwards is Wayne LaPierre will pull him aside, have a conversation, and remind him of the $30 million the NRA spent on getting him elected. And Trump immediately changes course. I mean, the NRA Twitter account brags about it. They had a pinned tweet from Wayne LaPierre talking about their conversation. So look, Trump is easily corruptible. He might have the right instincts right after a mass shooting, but at the end of the day, money talks and it influences him. And that's why we don't get the regulation. Anna Casparian says it's not going to happen. Let's end on that. True. True. Yeah, that was pretty devastating. He was like nodding along with you and it didn't, it seemed like he was like, yeah, you're, yeah, you got me. No, it was just so good

because, I mean, you gave him the credit for having the right instinct after a mass shooting because he's not a career politician in the sense that he's not constantly reflexively cowing to these interests that don't make entire logical sense that actually make the counter of that sense. But then as soon as he has a conversation with one of the people in the Republican establishment, one of the people he surrounded himself with, he just completely goes the other way because the empathy that he feels or the reaction that he feels from a mass shooting doesn't last longer than 0.5 seconds for him because he's not a normal dude. Not only does it not last long, but who does Trump care about more than anyone else on

the entire planet? Trump. Donald Trump. And so even though he does have these very brief moments of humanity, where he does seem to have empathy, at the same time, then he remembers what about my best interests? And that $30 million, that's a lot of money. And when you're running a reelection campaign, you don't want to lose that support. Yeah, and that particularly, we always, after mass shootings, we always have the conversation,

Like, what could have stopped this? What sort of legislation might have influenced it or not? This is like, if you had asked for the most obvious, clear example of how a failure to do what's needed, allow this one person to get one gun and commit one act, it is so obvious, so clear. And as of right now, we're just like hoping that maybe in a month something is done. And so who is rushing to exploit that loophole right now while we're having this conversation? Which person is buying the gun they're going to use for a terror attack that we haven't seen

yet. It happens in a week or in two weeks, and they use the same loophole, the same loophole at the inaction of especially Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, but also everyone else effectively is allowing them to exercise. Yeah, it's a great point, and it's devastating, and it happens over and over again. And you just begin to feel helpless. That's why it's important to elect someone whose primary goal, number one goal is to get the money out.

Because if you don't get that money out of politics, you're not going to accomplish anything. You know, there can be all these promises and all these great policy proposals, but those policies are going nowhere unless you get rid of that virus that infects our democratic process. And there are so many Democratic presidential candidates who are talking about gun control and this issue specifically, but talking about it in a vacuum is not going to do anything. We have to elect someone who knows it's a part of a larger systemic problem of money in politics because just wearing orange doesn't mean anything when you don't tackle the larger issue. Absolutely. All right, we're going to take our break. When we come back, oof, we're going to do another segment of these are the days of our lives because the soap opera and the Trump administration continues, more drama, Pompeo,

Bolton, head to head, what's going on? I'm going to give you the details. 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 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 EX, P-R-E-S-S-V-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today.

We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content, while support. reporting independent media become a member at t yt.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free segment. I always deliver. I promised I was going to read as many member comments and TYT lives as I could when coming back and I'm going to do that right now. So let's start with member comments. Pedro, not Pedro, says the following. We should be encouraging Trump. Go ahead and ban. Next stop, guns.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think that a ban on substances make sense. So I want him to ban certain types of weapons, assault weapons that people shouldn't have access to. But I think when it comes to substances, people should have some freedom to decide what they do with their own bodies. I don't really care if someone wants to smoke pot or use heroin, it's your business, it's your life if you're an adult. But I do want it to be legalized and regulated, right?

So at least when people purchase it, they purchase safe substance. I mean, relatively safe. It's not like laced with a bunch of other stuff. The restless progressive says, Anna, you're talking to Republicans. It's an all or nothing mentality they have. Peter Giel says, at that time, back to muskets then. So referring to the Second Amendment and when it was written. Zoolander Establishment Dem says, John is like a reverse Superman.

He puts on his glasses and becomes a progressive powerhouse. I like to think I was before the glasses, but thank you very much. It's very nice of you. Nope, before you were at the corporate show. Are those real glasses or is there's like costume glasses? You think I'm wearing costume glasses? People do that. Does he get them to give you the vibe of someone who cares enough to wear pot?

I mean, I need something new for my Instagram. Is he wearing sneakers? It's debate day. No, I'm not actually today. It's debate day, so I wore my one suit that I like. A few two lights. No, I am near sighted, so I'm wearing glasses now. And now I feel incredibly.

No, they look good. They look really good. Steve says, these are TYT lives, by the way. You already need identification and a minimum age to purchase ESIG liquid in person and online. I didn't know that. So how are all these kids getting their hands on it? I go and buy it for them. You stack kids three high and a trench coat.

No, not really. It's just fascinating because it seems like they can buy it so easily, whereas alcohol and cigarettes. I mean, fake IDs. Yeah. But there's so many, there's, I forget the exact percentage, but it's a giant percentage of minors using e-cigarettes. It's not like, oh, 10% or something. Yeah.

Anyway, Dominus says, I don't think Donald Trump is black and white, I think he's more orange and white supremacist, good one, I like that. And Felix Vasquez says, thank you, Anna, a well-regulated militia. Thank you. All right, so let's move on to the rest of the news. This is one of my favorite stories. He's somebody that I actually had a very good relationship with, but he wasn't getting along with people in the administration that I consider very important.

That's Donald Trump, justifying his, well, he claims firing of John Bolton. But now the Trump administration is considering replacing National Security Advisor John Bolton with Mike Pompeo, who is currently the acting Secretary of State. Now, he would keep his position as Secretary of State and absorb the position of national security advisor in addition to it. Now, that would make Mike Pompeo the second person in history, according to CNN, to have both jobs at the same time. The first, Henry Kissinger, was already President Richard Nixon's National Security Advisor when

he was appointed Secretary of State back in 1973 and filled both roles for two years. Now, I just want to note something, Pompeo was very giddy on the day that Bolton resigned. And it was evident in the press conference he had with Steve Mnuchin. And there is some reason to believe that he is excited because A, they didn't get along. And I'm gonna give you the details in just a second. But B, maybe this is going to increase his influence and his power within the administration. Now, if you don't remember that press conference, I wanna show just a little snippet of it now. Take a look.

So last night, the president asked for Ambassador Bolton's resignation, as I understand it, it was received this morning. Was it because of this disagreement? I would say this, the president's entitled to the staff that he wants. Were you two blindsided by what occurred today that he's no longer with the administration? I'm never surprised. Well, let me ask you. And I don't mean that on just this issue.

He is running from ear to ear. I don't think I'd ever seen Mike Pompeo laugh or smile like that. It's kind of fascinating. And disturbing. So he and John Bolton did not get along. There was some drama. So I want to read this CNN report to you because this is what really stood out to me. Tuesday night, attending a Washington charity ball with his wife, Pompeo laughed with friends

about Bolton being fired. The two were often at odds with each other and had even stopped talking to each other outside of formal meetings. Pompeo was jovial and his mentality was, what a day. what a life, what a job, explained to source who was at the event. And then he pressed a button on his phone and drone strike to a wedding, killed a bunch of people, laughed maniacally in the air. Hashtag blessed.

But here's where, there's always a twisty twist, right? And here's the twisty twist to that. Remember who Trump is, guys. Trump wants you to be one of his yes men, but he does not want you to outshine him and he does not want you to be overly ambitious. And so the source also said, with a dual role, Pompeo risks becoming too powerful for Trump's taste. Yeah.

Yeah. Delicious. It also, it seems to me, I guess by getting rid of Bolton, you become in his absence more influential, I suppose, because you don't have to go head to head with him in front of Trump, I guess. But in terms of having more influence over Trump, maybe if you're in more meetings, but I don't think Trump cares at all about, he doesn't care about your expertise, your experience, he certainly doesn't care about what titles you're currently holding.

He calls up Sean Hannity every night. Like he's getting his advice from people that he likes on a very narrow basis, usually for a short period of time. I don't see why it would give him more influence directly over Trump. I don't think that he's looking for influence over Trump. He wants more influence, period, more power. And being able to absorb national security advisor and simultaneously continue working as the Secretary of State.

That gives you influence, that gives you power, that gives you stature. And remember, the people who are willing to work in this administration are obsessed with power. I mean, you know the stakes are high, you know what you risk by working for this guy. And they'll do it anyway. Well, it puts them in the company of one person who use both positions to great detriment to the entire world. And apparently is BFFs with Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger. So that doesn't spell good things for the world and for the country.

That's someone who has that ambition, that someone who is that blindly ambitious in that way, has now achieved that position or might actually go and absorb both. The national security position didn't come about until the 50s, and it was a Cold War apparatus, basically. But then Kissinger came in, cemented it, made it so much more powerful than it was, national security advisor when he absorbed both, and then it kind of became a de facto arm of the Secretary of State position. And so we could see another expansion upon that power, which is still.

scary because Mike Pompeo is someone who really is, even though he disagreed on tone with John Bolton, is not as brutal and hawkish, but pretty close. And so that's what's scary about the entire thing. If he's able to achieve this, this isn't a done deal yet. It's not, it's not, it's a consideration by the Trump administration. There are other people that they're considering Trump says, oh, there are five people who very, very much want the job and they're very, very strong, and I'm very, very, very very much considering them.

He said something along those lines. We'll see what happens, but I do find it hilarious that this administration continues to be one of the most chaotic, like internally chaotic administrations of all time. I mean, the backstabbing, the drama, the soap opera-like behavior, it's incredible to me, and amusing. Yeah. It would be even more amusing if, you know, our national security and just like the health of this country weren't at stake, but- Right, it would be a fun office drama, like a

sitcom with everyone stabbing each other in the back, a la like, it's always something in Philadelphia where everyone is narcissistic. It would pretty much be that. But the stakes are a little bit higher than network ratings. Definitely. Well, let's get to some of the other backstabbing that's going on in regard to Bolton. Now that John Bolton has stepped down as national security advisor in the Trump administration, Trump is sharing some of his views on Bolton.

And I have to admit, I don't think I've ever seen Trump attempt to be sarcastic. And he does a pretty good job here. And at the same time, just pay close attention to the way he looks around for validation after he shares his sarcasm. Take a look. Frankly, he wanted to do things not necessarily tougher than me. You know, John's known as a tough guy. He's so tough, he got us into Iraq.

That's tough. It's honestly good. It's honestly good, and we got to give him credit. The look at his face after he does it, though, like that. I know, well, that's how I feel would I make a joke? Like, I just looked into the booth at Gricor to validate my joke before. Thank you. Look, Trump, let's just get this out of the way.

You should know by now, but just in case there's any mistake, Trump is a terrible person, I can't stand him. However, it does feel nice to see John Bolton get his comeuppance, especially for his support for the war in Iraq. What, John? So, the whole thing is so stupid. Yes, everybody knows that it's good that Bolton has gone. That's 100% true I'll agree.

We need to celebrate our wins when we can get them. I understand that, but the issue is that the person who chose John Bolton is still sitting there cracking jokes. You're absolutely right. The only thing, best case scenario, he found out about who John Bolton was after he put him into a powerful position in the U.S. government. Because when you think about John Bolton, the only things you think of, anybody, is that he's a massive war hawk, got us into disastrous wars, that's all. That's his only qualifications for any position.

It's like hiring Jared and then firing him because he ate all your sandwiches and he's a nasty perv. Those are the only things we know about him. And yet you still chose him. That does not give me much confidence. I thought you were talking about his son-in-law for like 10 seconds. Well, I can't attest to that, Jared, in particular, but I mean the one who's better known. The subway guy, yes. Well, I agree, it's great that he's gone, but he never should have been there.

And I worry that him getting rid of Bolton buttresses this, it's been around for a couple years, this insane belief that Trump is a dove, which is not true, not in rhetoric, not in actions. He's not a, I wouldn't call him a dove, that's crazy. But he does have more of an instinct to approach matters from a more diplomatic perspective. And that's a good thing. The main disagreement that he had with Bolton was the fact that Bolton was a hawk and he wanted to go in and invade North Korea, he wanted to invade Iran. There were significant disagreements there and that's a good sign.

Again, yes, Trump is a bad guy. And yes, I agree with the majority of your rant. But now that we've gotten the downer part of this story out of the way, let's go to the longer version of the video I showed you earlier because it's hilarious. John is somebody that I actually got along with very well. He made some very big mistakes when he talked about the Libyan model for Kim Jong-un. That was not a good statement to make. You just take a look at what happened with Gaddafi.

That was not a good statement to make. But we were set back very badly when John Bolton talked about the Libyan model. And he made a mistake. And as soon as he mentioned that, the Libyan model. What a disaster. Take a look at what happened to Gaddafi with the Libya model. And he's using that to make a deal with North Korea. And I don't blame Kim Jong-un for what he said after that.

And he wanted nothing to do with John Bolton. And that's not a question of being tough. That's a question of being not smart to say something like that. Okay. Well, he said that in 2018. so why not fire him then? He said that in April 2018. So, I mean, I agree with Trump saying, like, we don't want Kim Jong-un to be sadomized with a bayonet in the way Gaddafi was.

It was brutal what we did in Libya and what we agreed to do. And the aftermath and the aftermath and what we have done and destabilizing and putting our nose where we shouldn't be putting our nose and funding militant groups where we don't have a full understanding, completely agree with him on that. But that is not the sophistication of his analysis for sure. Yeah. Yeah. And can I be a downer? Go ahead.

Yeah, yeah. So my issue is, so one of the reasons I've tried to tamp down people's expectations whenever the issue of North Korean meetings with them go up is not just because it's almost certainly not going to accomplish anything. Obviously it'd be good if it did, but it's probably not going to all the evidence points in that direction. It's that Donald Trump uses these high profile meetings with dictators to hide all of the other incredibly hawkish damaging and murderous things that he does.

So he goes and has a meeting with Kim Jong-un, and people say, oh, look at that. He's not going for war, even though no U.S. President tried to start a war with North Korea. That's hardly a bar that he's passing that no one else did. And then at the same time, he's massively ramping up bombing in Syria, drone strikes, killing far more people. He's selling weapons of Saudi Arabia and allowing them to continue killing Yemenis, just rampant, whatever they want. And so all of this that he's doing in these areas that aren't being watched as much

are even more pushed into the shadows when he has a sit down with Kim Jong-un for a while. And it pretends that he's a diplomatic guy and a pro-peace guy when he's not. Yes, he does have meetings with some dictators. It is frustrating when people are considered pro-peace when they're really not. Like, I get it. And it is frustrating. But look, at the same time, we have criticized him for his involvement with Saudi Arabia and not warring him incessantly, and we will continue to do so.

However, we were very close to following through with an airstrike on Iran. I don't know what led- Who okayed the airstrike? I know, I get it. I get it. Again, like the winds are so slim, John. So with the fact that he hasn't been, he's too dumb to actually recognize the power of the national security apparatus and blob and military-industrial complex. It's not coming from an ideologically sound place, but it's coming from he's too stupid

to see that apparatus place, that's fine with me. And he'll be impulsive in the right way. I'm going to take it for right now. He doesn't deserve credit. I'm just going to take the small run. It is a win that Bolton's gone. He is as hawkish as hawks can come. And I'm glad that he's gone.

Again, this is just a small win. And we have to keep applying pressure. We need to apply pressure, especially to lawmakers, to do something. And I know they tried to pass that resolution. I know they tried to get us out of Yemen. That's a genocide. We are participating in a genocide in Yemen right now. And you're right, John, we shouldn't let that issue go.

And we're gonna continue talking about it until hopefully something is done by our lawmakers. It's super fast, Bernie Sanders deserve, I mean, there were other politicians as well, both in the House, and Mike Lee, I guess, randomly. But Bernie Sanders deserves so much credit for all the work he did over more than a year and trying to get us out of that conflict. I don't think he gets nearly enough credit. And yeah, don't think for a second that I was criticizing you for not covering it, you have covered it constantly on the show. No, I mean, Rok-on, again, Congress passed it, but Trump vetoed it, guys. So this isn't really our lawmakers' fault in this one. And since this is Donald Trump's.

Yeah, and look, I'm not, yes, it's the administration's fault, but I get that they failed because you vetoed it, but you got to keep going, you got to keep pushing, because our sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, everything that's happening right now with our relationship with Saudi Arabia is just beyond immoral, we should not be fighting their war for. for them, and if you're one of these anti-war, anti-intervention individuals, you should be fighting and applying pressure to get this administration to stop. If you're a Trump supporter, most Trump supporters, his base, they claim that they're anti-intervention. How much of your tax dollars are being spent on helping Saudi Arabia in that war in Yemen?

Think about that. So apply pressure to the Trump administration, I guarantee you he'll listen to the base. All right, we gotta take a break. When we come back, Brooke Thomas and Nando Villa join in for hour two. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.