The Young Turks - Sick and Twisted

Episode Date: February 14, 2025

Hegseth And Trump Announce Their NEW Strategy For Ukraine And Russia. SHOCKING Report Reveals Musk CASHED IN $400 MILLION From Trump Admin. Did Trump Just Legalize Foreign Bribes? Senate confirms RFK Jr. as Health and Human Services secretary. Hosts: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com 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. This episode is brought to you by Square. You're not just running a restaurant. You're building something big. And Square's there for all of it. Giving your customers more ways to order, whether that's in person with Square kiosk or online.

Instant access to your sales, plus the funding you need to go even bigger. and real-time insights so you know what's working, what's not, and what's next. Because when you're doing big things, your tools should to. Visit square.ca to get started. You know, welcome to our Trash Revolution. I'm so upset. Oh, my God. The guy! Well, the Young Turks, the online news show, Jake Uga, Anna Kasparan with you guys.

Lots of news, a little bit of interesting, maybe positive news, maybe. negative news, of course. So we make a lot of big ones. We make a lot of little ones. But there's one quote in today's show that I do not want you to miss. I think it's the most telling quote by a politician in a long time. All right. Now having said that, Casper, take it away. Well, there has been some movement in regard to a possible peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. We shouldn't get too excited yet, but there's definitely more progress at the moment now compared to what we were seeing with the Biden administration. So without further ado, let's get to all the details. If the war were to end, he says he wants guarantees of security.

We'll see what that means. We have, I think when the war ends, one thing he was very strong about, he wants if it ends, he wants it to end. And as President Putin said that, he wants it to end. He doesn't want to end it and then go back. back to fighting six months later. We talked about the possibility. I mentioned it of a ceasefire so we can stop the killing. And I think we'll probably end up at some point getting a ceasefire.

President Donald Trump believes that Russia and Ukraine are inching closer to a possible peace deal. And he is willing to step out of, you know, conventional methods of securing an end to the bloodshed in a war that started nearly three years ago in February of 20. Now, one thing that Trump has done that former President Joe Biden was unwilling to do or even consider was have a phone call, a private phone call and discussion with Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, without Ukrainian president, Vladimir Zelensky, involved. Now, he called Putin specifically to negotiate the possibility of a peace deal. And it's also pretty clear that Trump's diplomatic relationship with Putin. Putin also had something to do with the fact that Russia was willing to release an American

by the name of Mark Fogel. Fogel was a middle school teacher who was in Russia at the time that he was jailed. Now this is back in 2021 and he was facing drug charges. He was eventually sentenced to 15 years in prison for marijuana possession. And luckily Donald Trump was able to secure a release for Mark Fogel. And look, the idea of someone spending 15 years in prison for marijuana possession is laughable to say the least. But, Jank, before I get to the details of what Vladimir Zelensky is saying and what the likelihood of this peace deal is, I'm curious what you have to say. Yeah, there's some significant downsides here.

And Pete Higgs says something he should not have said. And then Trump backed him up when he should not have backed him up. And I like that that brother came home, but we paid a serious price for it. And I'm a little worried about that price. We'll explain all that in a minute. So Vladimir Zelensky, president of Ukraine, is not at all pleased with the fact that Donald Trump was willing to have a phone call directly with Vladimir Putin. And he argues that if they negotiated something without Ukraine present, I am unwilling to accept whatever the terms of that negotiation happens to be. In fact, let me give you his statement verbatim.

He says, we cannot accept it as an independent country. any agreements made without us, I articulate this very clearly to our partners. Any bilateral negotiations about Ukraine, not on other topics, but any bilateral talks about Ukraine without us, we will not accept. Now, the Ukrainian president does have some leverage in these peace talks, in these negotiations. For instance, Kiev had hoped it would convince Donald Trump to work out a common position on bringing Russia to the table to negotiate a peace deal and had offered access to its reserves of rare earth metals in return for U.S. support. And namely, the Ukrainians are concerned that the United States, under the leadership of Donald Trump, will essentially

back out of its security guarantees for Ukraine. And some of the messaging that we've heard from the Trump administration and Pete Hegsick so far does make it appear as though the U.S. is going to kind of back off providing, you know, direct security and support to Ukraine. And we're going to get to what Hegs have had to say in just a minute. Some Ukrainian soldiers, though, are welcoming the negotiations between Putin and Trump, one soldier from Ukraine's 53rd brigade fighting in the eastern Donets region, specifically told the Associated Press that she felt that it was actually normal and a good thing for Trump and Putin to speak to each other one-on-one.

Let me give you the direct statement. If dialogue is one way to influence the situation, then let them talk. But let it be meaningful enough for us to feel the results of those talks, the soldier said, insisting on anonymity due to security risk for her family in occupied Ukrainian territory. There are even some dates that are being considered for a ceasefire. The Financial Times reports that senior Ukrainian and Western officials said Trump and Putin would probably try to secure a ceasefire by one of two significant upcoming dates. Easter, which is the Orthodox and Catholic churches,

will both celebrate on April 20th this year. Or May 9th, when Russia celebrates the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, Putin will want to deal on a notable day like this, according to a Ukrainian official. But there are some significant demands coming from Russia that do seem a bit unreasonable. So Moscow is demanding that Ukraine seed control over four southeastern regions, none of which Russia fully controls and expects the West to lift all sanctions imposed since 2014. Also, Putin told Trump that he wanted to settle the reasons for the conflict, indicating that Russia had not dropped its goal of stopping Ukraine's ambition to join the West and rolling back the post-cold war security order. So this obviously has to do with NATO.

Now in regard to NATO, defense secretary Pete Heggzith weighed in on that during a meeting with European allies at the NATO headquarters in Brussels. Let's hear what he had to say. We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering. The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed.

as part of a non-NATO mission, and they should not be covered under Article 5. To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine. Now, interestingly enough, while Pete Hegzeth clearly threw cold water on the notion of Ukraine joining NATO, You know, Bill Taylor, who was the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under Bush and Obama, says that it's not necessarily off the table. So I want to go to what he had to say about it. And then I'll go back to you, Jank, to get comment on it. No one wants to reward Putin for illegally invading a sovereign nation. You can listen very carefully, though, to what the defense secretary said. he said that NATO membership would not be part of this discussion, these negotiations.

Of course not. Of course, we're not going to negotiate Ukraine's membership in NATO with the Russians. That will never happen. So the secretary is exactly right. That's not part of this negotiation. That will be separate. That will be a decision for the Ukrainians and NATO. So, Jang, I'm curious what you think about what Bill Taylor had to say. what his interpretation is of Pete Hegg's statement. Do you think that there's a possibility that they might negotiate Ukraine joining NATO after they negotiate a peace deal? I think that's a lot less likely. But let's break it down. The whole thing. So first of all, Trump is making an effort at peace. Is that a good thing? Yes, that's a good thing. Biden didn't even really try. And the reason for that is not his general incompetence and the fact that he had dementia and

barely did anything. It's because he didn't want peace. The intelligence agencies and national security interests in America wanted to bleed Russia dry. And they've kind of been using Ukraine to do that. So Russia's militaries depleted, their economies and tatters. So American national security folks, you know, thinking in the old school way, oh, that's great. They're now weaker, we're stronger. So they didn't really want peace. Let's be honest about it. And they never made an effort towards peace. In fact, they help scuttle peace talks with Boris Johnson in the past. So now that doesn't mean that Biden is at fault for the invasion. Russia did the invasion. They're responsible for it. They're at fault. Okay. Now, Trump, when he first came in, didn't immediately give away

Ukraine to Russia, the provinces that Russia already is occupying. And I was pleasantly surprised by that. I thought he'd just give it to Putin right away. But I had a super, low bar, right? So now we're back to kind of giving away the store, if you ask me. But there, but there are nuances, as the ambassador points out. So, first off, everybody's outraged that Trump and Putin are meeting by themselves without Zelensky or the Europeans. And this is a big, big breach of protocol and totally unacceptable. No, if you remember, I was super concerned and continued to be concerned when Trump and Putin meet, but Trump rips up the notes of that meeting afterwards and does not allow American translators

in. That's mental. There's no reason for that at all unless you're doing something wrong and in your own personal interest. But just meeting with a foreign leader that isn't average seri in a lot of ways, there's nothing wrong with that. So they say, oh well, you know, Zelensky should be involved. Yeah, and the final negotiations, of course Zelensky should be involved. Of course Ukraine should be involved. But this is not necessarily final negotiations. And for me, I always believe in talking to the other side in peace. So whether it's Israel saying, I'll never talk to Palestinians because of Hamas or Dick Cheney saying we won't talk to Iran because we don't speak to evil, all absurdities.

So no, nothing wrong with Trump and Putin talking as long as somewhere we have the notes of what happened. Okay, but the real problem here, and there's a couple of folks here, see, Ali Collega, he's one of our members on YouTube, hit the join button below and become part of the show, wrote in everything to appease Putin. That's why he was willing to meet without Zelensky. Maybe, brother, maybe it is appeasement. And I don't want to say that lightly. It really might be. But on the other hand, a conversation is not the end of anything. It's the beginning of something. So when they actually get to the policy, that's when we should either be elated or mad or somewhere in between.

So that's where my issues are. I'm going to give you one member. now from t yt.com, don't shoot on the goalkeeper says any quote unquote peace deal that involves Ukraine giving up land isn't worth the paper the deal is printed on. It's not Russia's land to steal. Now look, I hear you brother, it's not Russia's land to steel. But at this point, Russia has it and we we have to get to peace somehow. And I don't know a great answer. In fact, I don't know anybody that has a great answer to that. So how do we get to peace while getting Russia to leave. It's a nearly impossible task. So for example, you see how upset I get at Israel over Gaza, right? But the Palestinians desperately want. It's one of the central demands is right

of return from 1948, for everybody who was kicked out in 1948 to go be able to return to Israel, vote in Israel, et cetera. Israel's never, ever, ever going to agree to that. It will end every peace deal. So as incredibly painful as that is, they have to give up right of return to get to a peace deal. So we have to do something painful, but I don't know what it is. So what's my criticism of Trump and Hegsith? Well, brother, if you say Russia's going to get the land they're occupying now and Ukraine isn't going in NATO, what leverage do you have left? I mean, those are the two massive issues. And maybe you make a trade there, but if you preemptively give away both of them before the negotiations begin, well, then what are the negotiations about?

That is kind of a preemptive surrender to Russia. So Hegs had walked it back a little bit and then Trump then rewalked it in. It was just a disaster, in my opinion, on those grounds. So Anna, that's why I think that the actual substance of these talks not off to a great start. Yeah, I mean, look, I hear what you're saying, but let's also just address the elephant in the room. Russia has been winning this war. They have managed to take more territory, Ukrainian territory specifically, obviously. Ukraine thinks that they have leverage because they've managed to occupy like a tiny, tiny bit of Russia's land. But when push comes to shove, Russia is winning this war and a lot of people have died.

There are Ukrainians who are being forced to fight in this war who do not want to fight in the war. They're now literally asking, you know, pretty old individuals in Ukraine to fight to defend Ukrainian territory and they keep getting killed. And so I hear what you guys are saying in regard to the unfairness of allowing Russia to, you know, illegally invade a sovereign country and then essentially get what they want in taking over some of the Ukrainian territory. But there's no indication that Ukraine is going to win this war. And the idea that U.S. taxpayers should keep shelling out hundreds of billions of dollars in military weaponry to Ukraine. And just so they can continue losing more territory also

doesn't make much sense to me. And look, the one thing I will say is, you know, Donald Trump actually does have some leverage over Russia. So we don't know what the end of this, you know, what the terms are going to be in the end. But I do want to go back to a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, because he kind of notes the leverage that Donald Trump has and how Trump is willing to cite that leverage as part of these negotiations. Take a look at that. President Trump does have leverage over President Putin. President Putin understands that. President Putin's economy is fragile. President Trump referred to that.

President Putin is ruling his country. President Trump referred to that. So this is an indication that President Trump does have the capability to bring Putin to the table and make him make a deal with the Ukrainians. The last thing on the business about not taking back all of the 1991 borders by force, this is also what President Zelensky has already said. He has said he's willing to stop the hot portion of this war and not. not try militarily to take back all the territory to the 1991 borders.

And he's willing to do that negotiating. He's willing to do that diplomatically. He though, this is an important point, Kristen, that is President Zelensky will never recognize, nor should the rest of the world ever recognize the Russians' illegal annexation of that part of Ukraine, that 18% of Ukraine that Putin now occupied. So just for comedy's sake, I have to juxtapose Bill Taylor's optimistic outlook and clear urge of going toward a peace deal with this image of John Bolton, a notable warmonger. I just love the photo of him, but they use for this thumbnail and the title's perfect. Trump has effectively surrendered to Putin. I mean, look, honestly, even if Russia was willing to let go of 10.

percent of the Ukrainian territory that they're now occupying. It still wouldn't be good enough for Bolton, anything to continue the war. So look, I think that the right solution is somewhere in the middle. Obviously, don't give Russia everything they want. They do need to sacrifice something as part of these peace negotiations. The idea that they don't have to sacrifice a damn thing is also incredibly unjust. But Ukraine also has to acknowledge they are losing this war. It is not fair to U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill.

for this war. And they need to sacrifice. They need to compromise just like Russia needs to. We need to meet in the middle and find a peace negotiation that's fair to both sides or as fair as it can be. Yeah. So look, I'll take Bill Taylor over John Bolton any day of the week. But I think he is being a little bit unrealistic in some ways. So he says, well, we might let them in the NATO later. But Trump just gave a speech at the White House where he said the problem was that Biden said he'd let them into NATO and that's part of why Russia invaded and Biden said that he a minor incursion might be okay which by the way it was a massive mistake by Biden that is true okay so Trump has made it clear no he doesn't think Ukraine should go into NATO and that he

thinks if you let him into NATO that it would cause more conflict in war so it seems like that ship has sailed so look a lot of you are writing in saying it's so fundamentally unfair You are right. It is unfair. Yeah, it's an enormous, gross injustice. Russia going into Ukraine, taking land by force, it's imperial, it's colonial, it's every bad word there is. It's totally unacceptable. Now, having said that, guys, I always look for constructive solutions.

Again, using the Israel-Gaza example, I, you know, whenever anybody asks, nobody has any solutions. But I do, and I explain, and some others do, like Rule of Tripreal, actually, did a wonderful job the night on cable news explaining it. The Arab League has proposed something that is totally workable, where the Palestinian Authority would take over Gaza Strip, the Arab states would pay for the reconstruction, etc. In this case, I have to be honest, I haven't heard one person give a constructive solution as to how Ukraine could get that land back, and Russia would be okay with it. And we could end the war and get to peace. If one exists, I would love it. So if you're a member on t yt.com or YouTube write in. Tell me if you have one that I haven't heard of.

If you're watching the show live, which you should every weekday, 6 to 8 p.m. Eastern, write it in the chat, et cetera. But as far as I've seen, that solution does not exist. So we've got to deal with super uncomfortable realities. And yes, an injustice that Russia might get away with to some degree. And Anna, I hear what you're saying about the U.S. taxpayers. And it is a burden on us, and we keep carrying the burden. And so when when Hegseth and Trump talking about, wait, NATO should pay, the European countries should pay into NATO at least their fair share and maybe even more because we're defending them, we're paying a lot of money to defend them. I want to defend them, but I think they're right, they should pay their

fair share and maybe even a little more, right? Now, having said that, you know, I hate that they preemptively gave away these, you know, terms that are so important in this negotiation. So I think they've so far on day one, they bungled the negotiations. But I just, I don't know how to get to peace and still have justice for Ukraine. I wish we had that answer, but I don't think we do. And so back to the U.S. taxpayers, if I thought that answer existed, could I say, okay, all right, maybe we pay another $10 billion, $20 billion, $100 billion, as long as I think we're actually going to get the land back for Ukraine, and not just for justice for Ukraine, but as a precedent to the rest of the world that you can't get away with that kind of aggression.

That precedent is so important, yes, I probably would pay that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if we spent $100 billion or a trillion dollars that we could accomplish that mission. So if we can't accomplish the mission no matter what, then we have to get to a point where unfortunately we have to get more realistic about how to get the peace. That's super painful, guys. And whenever you're doing negotiations for peace, both sides lose things that they do not want to lose. And unfortunately, sometimes the aggressor gets rewarded for their aggression. And I hate that.

I hate it. But tell me how we fix it. So far, literally no one in power has said, any suggestion that would work. And I want to just come back to the hostage for one second. Mark Vogel was basically a hostage that the Russians took. And they had a purpose in taking it. Now, they're returning him. They're going to return one more guy. Belarus is going to return three guys. So what are the Russians getting in return. And this is what I'm worried about. They're getting, it looks like Alexander Vinnick, who is a cryptocurrency money launderer. Now, that rewards them taking hostages. I think that if you go to Russia and you're an American citizen, you should have your head examined. They're going to kidnap you and trade you for their money launderers and

their spies. Okay. So, but, so I hate rewarding that kind of terrible behavior, having I said that the other part of this that is extra bothersome is that here we go again. And other cryptocurrency money launderer that's set free or the SEC and the FBI have had their cryptocurrency regulators and cops taking off the beat. So for some of those crypto guys, this might be a win-win. Oh, we get one of our money launderers back and Russia wins. So again, so painful, I want Mark Fogel back, I want those hostages back. but that price is a heavy price for paying.

Yeah, it is a heavy price. I think I would have made that deal. We got to get our Americans back. I mean, Biden had effectively abandoned him entirely, and did any and all conversations with Russia, and to abandon an American citizen who's being held hostage by a foreign government is unacceptable. But, you know, to be fair to Biden,

he had a lot of experience with that. Whether it's, you know, in Russia or in, you know, Gaza, it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. Yeah, I mean, look, he was in a lot of ways asleep at the wheel. So if you're frustrated that they took this guy on your watch, which they did, and you don't want to give back this money launderer, I hear you, I hear you, but you've got to make some sort of effort to bring the guy back, offer something else, have a negotiation, do, offer not just carrots, but sticks, but do something. And that's why Trump right now is actually still relatively

popular with the American people, because unlike Biden, they see him, whether it's for good or bad, and a lot of it is for bad, but they see him taking action, whereas Biden just coasted for so long. Totally. All right, we have to take a break. But when we come back, we're going to talk a little bit about a story involving Tesla allegedly getting a $400 million contract, but but did they so lots of twist and turns it's one of the most fascinating stories in the rundown today come right back and i'll tell you all about it for a limited time at mcdonalds enjoy the tasty breakfast trio your choice of chicken or sausage mcmuffin or mcgrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax

Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. All right, back on TYT, Jenk, and Anna, with you guys. Casper, take it away. Well, we got to talk about this story involving Elon Musk, Tesla, and a possible $400 million deal from the federal government. Is it true? Well, there's twist and turns. Let's get into it. Well, now as the top campaign donor to U.S. President Donald Trump,

Elon Musk has apparently somehow convinced the United States government, specifically the United States Department of State, that the taxpayers of the United States of America should spend $400 million buying, quote, armored Tesla production units. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow covered that alarming story on her show last night. But she's leaving out some pretty crucial details about that massive Tesla contract. And we'll tell you what the details are after you watch the rest of what she had to say. Since I think the only supposedly armored production vehicles Tesla makes are these hilarious trucks,

This really appears to be the State Department announcing, putting in writing, that it's going to spend $400 million by buying these paperweights from Elon Musk. This is a line item in the latest procurement forecast for the U.S. Department of State. So this is where the story actually takes some twists and turns. to say that the producers over at the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC were fully aware of the dates involved on this procurement documentation. So bear with us as we go through the details. Ryan Grimm of DropSight News first reported on this contract yesterday, but what Grimm reported is a little bit different from what Rachel Maddow reported. So let me give you the relevant portion of Ryan Grimm's reporting here where he says,

that the State Department's procurement forecast revised as of late December 2024, list Tesla as the recipient of the largest expected contract with Marco Rubio's department planning to buy $400 million worth of armored Tesla. The procurement forecast is listed as having been modified on December 13th, 2024, a month after Donald Trump's election. It was a month after Donald Trump's election, but it was obviously before he had been inaugurated, before he was officially in office. In other words, the State Department would have issued that contract under Biden's

administration. So I'm sure Rachel Maddow is going to correct that on a subsequent broadcast. I can't wait to see it. But after Grimm's initial report, the Trump administration did something. interesting. So Grimm reported this morning, let's take a look at this. After drop site news revealed Tesla was forecast to be given $400 million of $400 million contract for armored Tesla. The State Department altered its spreadsheet to obscure Tesla's role. Metadata shows the spreadsheet was revised several hours after our story published. And the twists and turns don't stop there.

So after that post, the State Department reached out to drop site news directly, which sounds kind of scary, but it's not, because they wanted to say that the Tesla contract is actually now on hold. Drop site news then updated their reporting accordingly, and they also reported that the new information about how the contract came to be. They say that the acquisition plan was set in motion by the Biden administration last year as part of a move to convert the Bureau of diplomatic security's fleet of roughly 3,000 armored vehicles into zero emission electric vehicles by 2023. And in April of last year, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security issued a request for information to see which electric vehicle manufacturers would be interested in taking on that

request. Now, according to the Trump State Department, only one company showed any interest in this contract and that one company happened to be Tesla. The State Department stated that the next step in the process would involve an official solicitation being sent out to vehicle manufacturers to bid, adding that, however, the solicitation is on hold and there are no current plans to issue it. So, Jank, what do you make of this story? All of it, because, you know, there's some suspicion that the Trump administration is going to give Tesla that contract anyway. but they don't want it to appear as though, you know, Elon Musk's conflict of interests are playing a role in the decisions that are being made in the Trump White House. I'm curious what you

think. Yeah, of course, as usual, I have fairly strong feelings about it. But first, God, I love our poll on this one. So this one's in the live chat shows live six o'clock Eastern every day. Who's the biggest villain here? Elon Musk, Rachel Maddo, Donald Trump, Joe Biden. It's a really good question because Joe Biden's the one that made the deal for the Tesla's. So, I mean, how can we blame Trump? That's the most irrational thing in the world. I mean, we can. We just call him a racist for no reason. I don't know. But like, Biden's administration is the one that did this contract. Anna, I'm not missing it, right? There's no dispute over that. You are not missing it. Based on the documents, this deal was.

made under the Biden administration. And based on the updates to this story, which was reported by Ryan Grim on drop site news, a source that we trust, the Trump administration has put this whole, you know, this whole thing on hold entirely, the notion of buying the EV armored vehicles. I mean, if he cancels the Musk order, the Tesla order, then you actually have to give Trump a lot of credit. Like Biden wanted your 400 million to Tesla. And Trump is saying, No, I don't think he'll cancel it. I think there's an easy layup for him because he'll get to say, well, I didn't give it to him. Biden gave it to him because Biden did give it to him.

So look, I'd be surprised if they didn't go forward with this. And then, you know, again, the source matters here. And Ryan Grimm is one of the most trusted reporters in the country cares deeply about the facts, et cetera. So if it turns out that it's also true that there was no other bidders, I hate no bid contracts. but if there's no other bidders, what are you going to do? Right? So look, I'm curious what Rachel's going to do about this, because look, I've criticized her from time to time for just doing Democratic talking points. I remember back in the day when we worked out Air America together, she was a real, you know, progressive and an honest actor, et cetera, in my

experience. At MSNBC, she's criticized Democrats a total, in a what, a couple of decades, a grand total of, I think, zero times. But maybe she did it two or three times just to be cute. Like, oh, what, what? Back in 1987, I once said something about Democrats. So, but this is a bridge to it. She's got to correct this. I'd be super surprised if she didn't correct it.

And it would be really embarrassing if she didn't correct it. So that's my sense of, because this is not a little scrope. I mean, you do a whole segment and you're like, ah, ha, ha, laughing. Like, I like, I got to trump it. And it turns out it was Biden. You got to do a correction. Yeah, I totally agree. And I'm going to give myself credit because that story actually

You go on with your bad self, Anna. Hold on. So the story broke yesterday. And based on the headlines, it did appear as if the Trump administration had handed this giant contract over to Tesla. But I wanted to dig into it a little bit more before covering it. So I held off on it. I just simply mentioned it briefly during our bonus episode. And I'm so relieved that I did. So oftentimes when stories break, not oftentimes, but sometimes, a story will break. It'll have a super provocative headline, but there's more to the story than what's being reported at the moment. So sometimes it's better to wait and see how that story develops to see what the actual facts are. Yeah, no, I'll give you further credit. And now that we're in the credit business,

you did a correction earlier this week that I was a little bit painful, right? And I always see a jerks online going like, ha ha, she did a correction. Yet that's what you're supposed to do in the news business. Yeah, I do corrections all the time. So like you can't win with critics. Like I can't believe you're not doing a correction. Ha, ha, you did it correct. Which one is it?

Right? So guys, what's important is actually our obligation to you, the viewers. Because our job is to deliver things that are true to you. If we're not, if we're not being honest and we're not delivering the actual news to you, then what's the point of a news show? So I remember at Rachel Maddo that also believed in that. So I'm actually going to have a little bit of faith in her that she is going to correct this. Yeah.

And also, you know, mocking people who want to do the right thing and offer corrections to ensure that, you know, any misinformation is corrected. What they're essentially doing is discouraging people from doing corrections, right? Totally. It's not going to discourage me. I don't care about them at all. But and my responsibility is to the audience. But at the end of the day, there are people who will feel discouraged from doing that.

And that's a shame. So, all right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we're going to talk a little bit about what Donald Trump has done in essentially allowing American corporations to bribe foreign governments. There were rules against that, but those rules have now been torpedoed by Trump. I'm going to give you all the details and more when we come back. Back on T.I.T. Jankana with you guys. Also, David Rojas, David, you're a bit of an American hero.

Hit the join button below to make that happen. And look at Johnny Diamond, gifting five memberships. John, from now on, your name is Johnny Diamond, just so you know. I see you, David Rojas. I see you on Twitter. Things are being seen. Things are being seen. I'm just going to say, I appreciate you. I do.

All right, that's awesome. All right, guys, join buttons to become part of TYT, participate in the show, get everything we do anytime you want, all the benefits of membership, right? But subscribe button is totally free, still helps the show, ring the bell, helps the show, totally free, both take about five seconds. Hit subscribe first and then ring the bell. And by the way, if you want to get membership with a little bit off, annual membership on tyt.com, gives you two months off. So check that out too.

All right, Casper, what's next? We've got to talk a little bit about the loosening of rules and regulations pertaining to corruption. Let's get into it. Next, we have an executive order relating to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It sounds good on paper, but in practicality, it's a disaster. Yeah, it's a disaster for American corporations that are looking to bribe. foreign governments and foreign officials. And I mean, Trump wouldn't know anything about that, would he? Now, President Donald Trump is correct that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act does

sound like a pretty good guardrail to have. And it looks pretty bad when you pause any enforcement of it. But that's exactly what Trump has decided to do by signing an executive order on Monday. Now, let's hear him explain why he wants to temporarily stop. enforcing the act. It means that if an American goes over to a foreign country and starts doing business over there, legally, legitimately or otherwise, it's almost a guaranteed investigation, indictment, and nobody wants to do business with the Americans because of it. Nobody wants to do business.

They say, look, we can deal with China. They can do whatever they want. We can do with Russia. We can do with anybody. And we have a normal life. You deal with America. The FBI gets over there. don't investigate death and murders on the street.

In New York and Los Angeles, they go over and investigate a business guy trying to do business. So it made it very, very hard. So we'll sign this and it takes courage to sign it because you only get bad publicity when you sign it. It sounds so nice, the title is so lovely, but it's an absolutely horror show for America. So we're signing it because that's what we have to do

to make it good. Now, notably, U.S. government officials are also barred from taking bribes from foreign agents or foreign governments. In fact, we have a Democratic senator who's currently spending some time in prison, that's Senator Bob Menendez for taking bribes from foreign nationals. But look, you just heard Donald Trump spin on this. Let's actually talk about what the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act actually does and how it actually protects from the type of corruption that we should be against. Now, the FCPA became law back in 1977, barring all Americans and certain foreign issuers of securities from paying bribes to foreign officials. The law was amended in 1998 to apply to foreign firms and people who caused such bribes to take place. within the United States. Now, violators of the FCPA do face a maximum possible criminal

sentence of 15 years in prison and a maximum fine of a quarter million dollars or three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value demanded by a foreign official. The Department of Justice back in 2024 announced enforcement actions in 24 cases related to alleged violations of the FCPA, there were more, there were 17 such enforcement actions announced the year prior in 2023. Jank. Yeah. So the reason why it sounds like a disaster is because it is a disaster. This is about the 18th thing in a row that Trump has done that is pro-corruption. I mean, Eric Adams' pardon was just like no other reason than, oh, you took a bribe too? Great. I'm in, yep. I love it. You're a Democrat. I don't.

care. You agree with me, don't agree with me. Don't care. You pro corruption. I love it. So he's pardoned anyone and everyone who's committed any act of corruption. Rod Blagoievich for no reason. A former Democratic governor of Illinois totally corrupt. So this is another pro corruption one. And this one has some history behind it. This is one of the things that Sheldon Edelson demanded back when he was alive. Now his widow Miriam Edelson carries on his torch of corruption, bravely going forward, willing to be unpopular. Well, not really, because she also got the presidential medal of freedom for her corruption. That's what Trump gave her in the first term.

As I've told you many times, that family has given Trump $337 million in campaign contribution. So Sheldon was up on this charges based on this act because, now I forget, I wrote it in my book, Justice Coming. You see the exact number. But I think he did a bribe of around $60 million. And the thing that he must have gotten must have been so valuable that he gave a bribe of $60 million, right? And you're supposed to triple it as you saw in the graphic that Ann, I just read you. So that would have been $180 million at a bare minimum.

Trump let him go with a $9 million fine. It's like a slap on the wrist. He could have gotten to jail for that. He should have gotten to jail for that. And he didn't. So now who's doing business in other countries that might benefit from a little bit of corruption? Oh, right, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Okay, let alone every other businessman he knows, let alone maybe one day himself, let alone the rest of his family. No, this is unmitigated, terrible. Yes. Now, this isn't a complete

reversal of the act, the FCPA will be paused for 180 days after which Pam Bondi, the attorney general, will revise enforcement guidelines for the act. We'll see what those revisions will look like. But prior to Donald Trump signing the executive order, she basically said that enforcement actions would prioritize international cartels and criminal organizations as opposed to corporations. We got to look out for the corporations, shank. The poor, poor corporations. I mean, they just can't get anything done, you know, with these difficult regulations and laws.

I mean, how the hell would they make any money or turn a profit if it weren't for the weakening of the enforcement mechanism when it comes to foreign corruption? Yeah. Well, you know what's really populist supporting corporate corruption? I mean, as populace as a guy, the very opposite of populism. So, yeah, we're here to tell you what reality is. Well, there's a lot of other news today, including some of Donald Trump's cabinet nominees getting confirmed. So let's talk about the latest.

That was Republican Mitch McConnell, the former GOP leader, someone who just put out a scathing statement about RFK Jr's views about the issue of vaccine. He goes on to say that referring to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a record of trafficking in dangerous conspiracy theories in eroding trust in public health institutions does not entitle Mr. Kennedy to lead these important efforts, referring to efforts to try to treat illnesses and disease. Now, former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, might be the saltiest Republican in Congress at the moment because he has voted no on quite a few. of Donald Trump's cabinet nominees, Jink, thoughts? Yeah, I think this one's complicated. So he's terrible on vaccines, but he could do something that would be heroic. So let's talk about that in a second. All right.

So let's talk about how many of the senators voted to confirm RFK Jr. As the Health and Human Services Secretary, so the 52 to 48 vote was largely along party lines. Though Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky once again joined the Democrats to oppose the nomination, McConnell has now voted against three of Trump's cabinet nominees, more than any other Republican senator. So the other two that he voted against include Pete Heggseth for Defense Secretary and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Tulsi Gabbard was also confirmed yesterday for her position.

Now getting back to Kennedy, he will now serve. as the nation's top public health official. And while he certainly has some issues, many of which we've talked about on this show, especially in regard to his views on vaccinations, this little excerpt from Politico is pretty interesting. So they write that from drug makers to doctors' organizations, groups thought to have the clout to steer policy and funding in Washington because they enjoyed bipartisan support and huge lobbying budgets. have remained silent about Kennedy.

And that's not because they aren't worried, writes Politico, but because they didn't think they could stop him or think the cost of speaking out would be too steep. Five people representing health groups, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said, by staying mom, they hope to limit fallout if Kennedy follows through on his plans

to strip the industry, meaning the healthcare industry, to the studs. So to be sure, pharmaceutical companies and the healthcare industry is actually really worried about him and they should be because something that you and I have noticed, Jank, that I think a lot of people still don't believe us on and I don't blame them, is that there is this faction of the Republican base that wants things to change similar to how the left wing base wants things to change. So I'm going to give you a very specific example. This was during my interview on Megan Kelly's show yesterday. I brought up the issue of Medicare and how our Medicare system is unable to negotiate drug prices. And I want you to pay close attention to how she reacted to this. Take a look.

But he would go down as the most popular president in American history if he allowed for Medicare to negotiate drug prices. So Americans and our Medicare system wasn't being price gouged by pharmaceutical companies. Why won't he do that? I mean, I know why he won't lower the retirement age for social security and he doesn't want to make any Medicare cuts or do anything that's going to increase costs for seniors. But why wouldn't he allow Medicare to negotiate costs? Honestly, I think if this issue was brought to him by anyone in a very serious way, he would attempt to do it. He doesn't really care about what is or is it allowed, right? So yeah, I mean, that would be incredible. I don't think that he's paying attention to that. But I think if you talk to him and ask him to work on that issue, it could really save the American drug peers a lot of money. That would be fantastic. I think he should. This isn't something he spent a lot of time on, but this sounds like something that wouldn't typically be done because most people are beholden to the drug companies who don't want this. And RFKJ is not beholden to the drug companies. That's one of the great things about him. That's one of the things the left hates about him.

but he, you know, technically oversees Medicare now and, well, when he gets confirmed, which is going to be tomorrow. And Dr. Oz directly oversees Medicare and Medicaid. And so, like, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they actually will touch the untouchable. Oh, it would embarrass Democrats so much if they managed to do that. It would be the most embarrassing thing for Democrats who claimed, who claimed under the Biden administration that they were going to do it.

But they're beholden to the pharmaceutical companies as well. So look, some people might not take kindly to the framing, but you got to frame things in a way that speaks to the right. I just find it hard to believe that right-wing voters want to be, like, scammed by the pharmaceutical industry and price gouge when it comes to our Medicare system paying for pharmaceutical drugs for the elderly. Like, I'm sure they don't want that. So let's work together and actually get something done because the methods that we have relied on so far, which is relying on corrupt politicians in Congress to do it, has not really worked out. so well and to draw attention to the fact that, you know, there are corrupt members on both sides of the political aisle and that we need to do something about that in order to actually accomplish the right policies as it pertains to Medicare. I think it's the right way to go about it. But we'll see. We'll see what happens. So I want to get back to your framing in a

second. And I want to tell you this story actually is one of the most telling quotes of all time from a senator. So I'm going to come back to that too. First, starting on what you told Megan Kelly. I think that's exactly right, Anna. And so I did a tweet that was very similar. And so well received by Megan Kelly, really well received by MAGA online. You know why? So we might get super frustrated at them on social issues and other issues, etc. But they're also American citizens. And they also pay drug prices, high drug prices. And I don't know anyone who's like, oh yeah, I'd like to pay more so that giant pharmaceutical companies, by the way, charging us like four times more than other developed nations, 10 times more, 20 times more so that they can

get richer. No one's actually in favor of that other than the corrupt, right? So when you talk about framing Anna, that's exactly right. Who's in charge right now? Is it Democrats or Republicans? Whether we like it or not, it's Republicans. So if you're framing you, you guys suck, man, you suck. Oh, you'll never do it. You're racist. just how does that help if you say hey guys do you hate drug prices being this high and for no reason they go yeah I hate drug prices being high do you like the the fact that the drug companies can set their own prices does that sound like free market to you guys no doesn't sound like free market you know why because it isn't free market it's total and

utter corruption and you're absolutely right so what it's bipartisan so the idea that like Somebody wrote online to comment on my tweet that, oh, this is just the Republicans that do it. And then somebody else wrote, no, it's just the Democrats that do it. That's not, no, they both, both definitely take gazillions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies. This rule exists because both sides are infinitely corrupt. George W. Bush started this. Barack Obama made a deal with the drug companies to maintain this so that he could pass Obamacare. they're so powerful. The president has to negotiate and say, okay, I'll let you be corrupt and

rob the American taxpayers. Honestly, by the end of this, trillions of dollars. Why? Why does Obama need to do that? Because he knows not only were the Republicans corrupt at the time, but his own party in Congress would have never passed the bill because they would have asked for permission from their donors and would not have received that permission. The quote I'm about to give you is perfect example of that in a second. So, but, but, We have the populist plank on t.com, and it's six things that all, almost all Americans agree with. And there it is, negotiate all drug prices. Okay, so that, that is in the 80s in approval.

And if people knew exactly what it meant, I think it'd be at 98% in approval. And I would say to Republicans and the Trump administration, NRFK Jr. and Dr. Oz, why not be a hero? Why not do the most popular things first? Why make yourself unpopular by going, oh, I'm going to go after the polio vaccine or something nuts like that? You'll lose the whole country. Why don't you do things that are intensely popular first? And would it embarrass the Democrats?

Look, Biden, to be fair to him, did negotiate drug prices on 10 drugs eventually, kind of maybe. Insulin immediately, yes, that was true, okay? 10 out of tens of thousands of drugs. Obama didn't lift a finger, right? Trump in his first term didn't lift a finger. All that populous talk and he didn't do anything either. So this time around, this is what the test that we have to ask,

MAGA, Trump, and everyone else, are you guys real populace or are you enormously full of crap? The only thing we could do is pose that question. They're the ones who are going to answer that question. Now let me get to the senators quote because it's just perfect for describing how Washington works. So this is Senator Tom Tillis from North Carolina. He's a Republican. He said about the pharmaceutical industry and their lobbyists. Quote, I believe that silence is consent, meaning that they're not objecting to RFK Jr.'s nomination. Quote, the fact that they haven't opposed Kennedy publicly

suggest to me that folks that I'm instructed by are okay with this nomination. Oh my God. I told you. Okay, so these senators are the most corrupt people in the whole country. They're not the best of us. They're the absolute worst of us. But thank you for the confession, Senator Tillis. The people I am instructed by, that is who the lobbyists are.

So if you ever wonder why those six enormously popular things in the populous plank never passed, even though the overwhelming majority of the country is in favor of it. Overwhelming majority of Democratic voters and Republican voters are in favor of it. It's because the senators get instructed to not pass popular bills by the people who control them through legalized, unadulterated bribery. Yes, in fact, not a lot of members of the private health care industry were willing to go on record for this political piece. There was one guy, though. His name is George Benjamin. He's the executive director for American Public Health Association, which is a group that basically looks

out for the financial interests of the private health care industry. So he says in this political piece that the health care industry thinks RFK Jr. is the wrong person for the job. With good respect to all my buddies, they're making the false assumption that if they stay silent, they will get something in return. Now Kennedy has suggested that hospitals, doctors, and drug makers work together to keep Americans sick, argued that the industry influence needs to be ripped away from federal policymaking, insinuated that health institutions intentionally bury inconvenient evidence and proposed lopping off entire parts of the health regulatory structure.

Now, all of that sounds good with the exception of the very last part, because what does that mean? What kind of regulations are we talking about lopping off? But during his confirmation hearing, he also criticized the influence of health care companies over the Department of Health and Human Services. He complained about the high cost of pharmaceutical drugs. And he also called out the overprescription of pharmaceutical drugs by doctors. But look, I want to be as like clear as possible and comprehensive as possible as we do this story because this is not some sort of done deal. And while there's reason to be somewhat optimistic in regard to what RFK Jr. might do in regard to pharmaceutical drugs, there's also some foreshadowing that you should know about. So big pharma is hoping that Kennedy is more bark than bite. And there's reason why they're hoping that.

So Trump took three hours to dine at his Mar-a-Lago club with Kennedy and executives from pharmaceutical giants and later said Kennedy would work with the industry, not against it. Kennedy has more recently partied with representatives of companies that make the weight-loss drugs he once railed against. So, look, Big Pharma is highly influential and humans are deeply, deeply flawed, while people like you and I, Jank, don't really. care much for the cocktail parties. In fact, I would rather not be at the cocktail parties. Others really do like and value being invited to those shindig. So we'll see how it plays out. But for me, it's not so much the various individuals who have been nominated by Trump to serve in his administration. This is about people power. This is about working together with like-minded Americans on specific issues and applying pressure on our politicians to actually

serve us what's in the best interest of Americans. And in this case, what would be in the best interests of Americans is allowing the Medicare system to negotiate for lower drug prices. So we're not all getting fleeced by big pharma. Yeah, last thing for me is, look, it's a topsy-turvy world. I mean, if you told me a decade ago that Megan Kelly was going to agree with you that we should force Medicare to negotiate drug prices, when the entire Republican Party was a lot of against that idea, 100% of the Republican Party was against that idea. I would have told there's no way. A decade from now, Megan Kelly turns into a raging progressive. But now, she's not a raging progressive. Which she is. Yeah, no, no, no, no. I don't want anybody

to mistake what I'm saying. That's my point. She is not a raging progressive. Yet she agrees with us on that. So please note the interesting realignment that's happening. Like, I know that people that are in the old world, left versus right, Democrat versus Republican, they can't get that out of their heads, they're all evil, everything they say is evil, et cetera. But how about when they say something that we're saying, how could that be evil? I don't mean we as in the young Turks, I mean we as in the left. So take yes for an answer. Now, last thing is, guys, it doesn't mean they're going to do it. It's a giant if, right? And so the only people who could answer that question is them. So, but should we give them credit if they actually get this done?

My answer to that is, of course, of course. So what are we, like, but there is, there is a real line of thinking here that if Trump does something we always wanted, we should yell at him anyway, and we should be upset about that because Trump's going to get the credit. I honestly I hold on Anna I that that means says to me that you don't care about the American people you don't care what bills actually pass and affect their lives you don't care that their drug prices are too high and some of them can't even take those drugs and they wind up dying it means you don't care about the voters at all all you care about is BS political partisan games and I don't care about that at all if Trump passes all the things we want

I'll give him infinite credit. Is that likely to happen? No, it's not likely to happen. We'd be super lucky to get two or three. But if he passes those things that we wanted, hell yes, I'm gonna give him credit. And anyone who doesn't is fundamentally dishonest. I totally agree.

All right, we gotta take a break. When we come back for the second hour, we'll talk a little bit about one of the most shocking updates on what the GOP, what the Republicans are considering, in regard to the carried interest loophole. They might scrap it. We'll be right back.