The Young Turks - Side Deal

Episode Date: August 3, 2022

 Kansas voters preserve the right to abortions. Alex Jones makes a fool out of himself during the Sandy Hook defamation trial. Environmentalists raised deep concerns about Joe Manchin’s new climate bill. Pro-sweat shop journalist, Nick Kristof returns to the New York Times. Ben Shapiro throws a tantrum about Beyoncé changing a word to her new song. Host: Ana Kasparian *** The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews 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. Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and we have a jam-pack show for you today, some good news, some bad news, as always, as you can always expect on this. the show, but you will not regret watching because it'll be informative, it'll be entertaining. I'll be joined by John I'd roll in the second hour, which I'm excited about. And we will also do a bit of a deep dive into some of the new information that we're learning in regard to the deal between Senator Joe Manchin and Senate Minority Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

There's also an update on Senator Kirsten Cinema and her reaction to their Now it's being called a climate proposal, some people call it a inflation reduction proposal. Nonetheless, we'll give you the latest on that front in the first hour. In the bonus episode for our members, one of my favorite stories of the day. Okay, we like to keep things lighter in our bonus episode. And today we're going to talk about the importance of garlic, or as my mother likes to say, garlic in South Korea and how unbelievably offended some South Koreans have become as a result of an advertisement that sexually objectifies garlic. I'm not kidding, is that even possible?

Can you even do that? Well, we'll talk about that later, a little bit of international news, you know, a little sprinkle of international news in the bonus episode today. Excuse me, but before we get to any of that, also want to remind you, we're going to do some extra coverage today on the Alex Jones defamation trial. He testified for the second day in a row, and boy, oh boy, the testimony was bonkers. So we'll get to that as well. But as always, please like and share the stream if you're watching us on YouTube. You could also click on that join button and become a member, which will give you access to that fun bonus episode today. And if you aren't watching us on YouTube, that's totally fine. We're on a bunch of different

platforms. You can just go to t.yt.com slash join. All right, well, without further Let's start with some pretty sad and tragic news involving a member of Congress who has passed away as a result of a tragic accident. Congresswoman Jackie Wolarski has tragically passed away following a car accident that she was unfortunately involved in. It was a car crash and she's not the only fatality reported as a result of this crash. The crash happened at 1232 p.m. Wednesday, meaning today. She's a lawmaker from Indiana, and that is where the accident happened between two vehicles near the intersection of SR 19 and SR 119. And a northbound passenger car apparently traveled left of center and ended up colliding head on with a southbound sports utility vehicle, all three occupants

in the southbound SUV died as a result of their injury, and Congresswoman Wollarski was one of those individuals. I should just note that the sole driver of the northbound vehicle also died. So everyone involved in this crash has passed away. In the vehicle with Wollarski, who was 58 years old, was two of her staffers. Her district director, Zachary Potts, only 27 years old, has also died. And so has Emma Thompson, 28 years old. She died as a result of her injuries as well. She was the communications director for the Congresswoman. And stories like this really do remind you of how fragile life is.

I mean, I don't want this to be political in nature. I don't want to talk about her policy, none of that really matters. The only thing that matters here is, you know, people unexpectedly died as a result of a car crash. It could happen to anyone, it really does demonstrate the fragility of life and how important it is to really soak in every moment, even as we're constantly being bombarded with bad news, with distractions, with all sorts of terrible things. There's all sorts of fighting in this country right now, a lot of division. But you see a story like that and you can't help but just feel

terrible, not only for her and her family, but for everyone else who has now lost a family member or loved one as a result of this terrible and tragic crash. So she, again, was in the southbound vehicle. The driver of the northbound vehicle was also killed. Everyone involved has died. So it's unclear what this means for that congressional seat. I think it's too soon to even really care about that at the moment. So even though she was a Republican lawmaker, just want to send our condolences over to her

loved ones and the loved ones of those who perished in this tragic car crash as well. Just wanted to mention that at the top of the show. But with that said, why don't we move on? Because there's other news today that is actually pretty good news worth discussing. I know it doesn't happen often on this show, but what happened in Kansas yesterday is fantastic. And it shows you where the country's heart is when it comes to the issue of reproductive rights. In good news today, Kansas has voted against removing the right to abortions in the right to an abortion is actually part of the Kansas state. Constitution, and the right wing in the state, and I should note, this is a reliably red state,

wanted to essentially do away with that constitutional right according to their state constitution, by adding an amendment. Now, the amendment is what the voters got to make a decision on. That is what they voted on. It was direct democracy here. And when you consider the fact that the majority of voters in the state of Kansas happen to be Republican voters, this is a pretty good sign. I mean, I'm liking this. So what happened? Well, the question was in this ballot initiative, should the Kansas Constitution be amended to remove protections of abortion rights? And as you can see from the results with 95% of precincts reporting, 58.8% say no, we do not want to amend our state constitution to do away with abortion rights. 41.2% said, yes, they want that.

But as you can tell, that is a very clear majority in the no category of this vote, which makes me very happy. Now, the amendment had it passed, would have removed the abortion protections from the state constitution. That doesn't mean that abortion would automatically be illegal in the state of Kansas, but what it did mean is that it would open the path for lawmakers in the state, Republican lawmakers, namely, who would start passing legislation that of course would restrict abortion and potentially ban abortion outright with very few exceptions. Now this is important for a number of different reasons. The implications are critical here. Because Kansas has really become one of these states that women travel to in order to, in order to

to access abortion in order to access reproductive care. And if Kansas had decided to vote in favor of this amendment, well then there would be women in many other red states surrounding Kansas who would lose one of the few options that are now available to them. Now registered Republicans far outnumber Democrats in Kansas. In interviews last week in Populous Johnson County, Kansas, a number of voters said, they were registered Republicans, but oppose the amendment, a dynamic that almost certainly played out across the state given the margin. In fact, I love this quote from 90-year-old Republican voter, Norma Hamilton, who said this, I like the women's rights. So she voted no,

she voted no, because guess what? She's a woman, Norma Hamilton, who likes women's rights, who thinks that a woman should get to decide what to do with her body. She believes that a woman should not have to explain herself to the government or have the government involved in the decisions that she and her doctor make about her own body and her own health. And this shouldn't be surprising considering various polls, national polls, that show upwards of 70% of voters, which obviously includes Republicans, are supportive of maintaining reproductive rights for women. So even with that information and all of that in mind, there was still some fear that this red state would do away with this constitutional

right. And luckily, they did not do that. Here's some more information. Many Kansans who support abortion rights say they feared that a total or near total abortion ban would be passed within months. Abortion is now legal in Kansas up to 22 weeks, okay? So again, this is a big deal. Not only is it a big deal because it shows where the hearts and minds of American voters are today, including Republican voters, it shows you that Republicans on a federal level are pushing for policies that are incredibly unpopular. And all Democrats have to do is incessantly call them out on it. Make it a big issue. Use it for your campaigning purposes. These are individuals who are not in line with what their own voters prefer. And the messaging needs to reflect

that from the Democratic Party and from Democratic candidates. Scott Schwab, a Republican Secretary of State, by the way, predicted that around 36% of Kansas voters would participate in this election because, you know, they would be galvanized by this abortion issue, though he later said there were signs turnout would actually be much higher. His office said that the constitutional amendment has increased voter interest in the election. So again, it had galvanized voters to show up, cast their ballot, take part in sharing their opinion on where this ballot initiative should go. And luckily, they believe that it should go in the trash. Now, it's important to protect abortion rights. through the state's constitution, because of what I had mentioned earlier, that so many women in

other states, other red states that have now banned abortion effectively rely on Kansas to get the reproductive care that they need in recent years. And especially in the week since Roe fell, meaning when the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, Kansas has become a haven of abortion access in a region where that is increasingly rare. Even before the Supreme Court's action, get a load of this, Nearly half of the abortions performed in Kansas involved out of state residents. So you've got women traveling to Kansas from Oklahoma, from Missouri, from states that have banned abortion or have severely restricted it. They're traveling to Kansas to get the care that they need, to get the abortions that they

need. And the idea of Kansas no longer being a state that provides that was going to be incredibly damaging for this women. And it could have cost lives. Let's just keep it real, right? Whether it would be through women taking matters into their own hands and doing something unsafe, back alley abortions, you know, we're back in that era in America where women didn't have options. They didn't have the ability to make decisions about their own bodies. And they would basically put themselves at risk in order to terminate a pregnancy that they did not want. Now the push for an amendment,

it's important to understand the context here in the history. The push for the the amendment was rooted in a 2019 ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court that struck down some abortion restrictions and found that the right to an abortion was guaranteed by the state constitution. That decision infuriated Republicans who had spent years passing abortion restrictions and campaigning on the issue. They used their supermajorities in the legislature last year to place the issue on the 2022 ballot. So the voters have spoken, And what's interesting is that the religious zealots in the state of Kansas aren't done yet. They're undeterred, right?

The fact that their ballot initiative fell here or failed here doesn't really matter to them. They will continue fighting to ensure that abortion is no longer available because, again, they love theocratic rule. They love being able to have the government control women's bodies and the decisions they get to make about themselves and their own lives. And so they'll keep fighting, but a really great way of mitigating whatever strategies they have in mind to ensure that they dismantle abortion rights in the state of Kansas. Yet that could be mitigated with the other side, with the opposition, shaming them. Because it's clear that the voters don't like the idea of banning abortion. So keep calling out the religious zealots who want to ban abortion.

Shame them for doing it. Call them out for doing it. Make politicians in the state of Kansas who are fighting for this, fighting to ban abortion in the state of Kansas, make them priors. You can do it. Republicans are real good at messaging. They're very good at convincing American voters that Democratic lawmakers are dangerous individuals who are engaged in pedophilia and child sex trafficking rings. I mean, there's no telling how low they're willing to go in order to destroy the opposition. I'd like to see a little bit of that fight from the Democratic Party. They're afraid to use the word abortion, which I think is strange.

They're afraid to call out their opponents on their deeply unpopular policies. And they got to start getting comfortable with doing it. Otherwise, they're just going to continue missing these layups. This is a layup. The voters have spoken. This is an example of direct democracy where these voters had the opportunity to vote directly on a ballot initiative pertaining to reproductive rights. So if you know where the voters are, you should use that to your advantage. And I just haven't really seen much of that fight from Democrats, either on a state level and certainly not on a federal level. All right,

we got to take a quick break. When we come back, we're going to do a deep dive on the proposal by Mansion and Schumer, I know I've been giving you guys info here and there about some of the downsides of that bill. But there is an update on that, in addition to an update on what Kirsten Cinema has to say about the proposal. So we've got that and more coming right up. Don't miss it. Welcome back to TYT, Anna Casparian with you. And we've got a lot more news to get to get to it right now. Senator Kirsten Cinema has finally weighed in on Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer's deal. It's a proposed legislation that is likely to go through many, many changes.

Some progressives are celebrating it as legendary action to respond to climate change. Others are more skeptical. I fall under that category. The proposed legislation as it stands today includes incredibly modest tax hikes. Things like closing the carried interest loophole, carried interest, something that overwhelmingly benefits hedge fund managers and private equity goons. It would do something about those loopholes to ensure that these individuals get taxed similar to how ordinary people working for wages, working for salaries get taxed. Again, incredibly modest because it only impacts some like a tiny portion of really, really wealthy people.

It includes some negotiations on pharmaceutical drugs, but not all pharmaceutical drugs, okay? And it also includes some money that would be appropriated for investment into renewable energies. But there's also a huge problem in that it provides all sorts of goodies for fossil fuel companies, which I've been talking about. I'm going to talk about that further. But what is cinema upset about? What is what is she raising a red flag on when it comes to this legislation? She doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich. The number one thing she's brought up according to Manu Raju over at CNN is the closing of the carried interest loophole. Because we all know who her donors are. We all know who she sold out too, even though she ran as this

fire breathing progressive. Nah, she got a little tasty taste of that cash. She loves that cash. So she's got to do right by the small group of billionaires who are upset over the thought of having to pay their fair share and taxes by closing the carried interest loophole. So my prediction, along with the prediction of other incredibly smart individuals who aren't brain dead and have been paying attention to politics, is that the final bill after it goes through the process of debates and negotiations will probably strip out many of the good provisions that progressives are trying to celebrate today. I have no doubt that that is what the end result will be. It's going to be similar to what happened to Biden's infrastructure plan,

which by the way, started off as one massive piece of legislation that included both social spending and also funding for physical infrastructure. Biden decided curiously enough to split that up into two bills, ensuring that the corporate handout part of his proposal would pass easily. And the spending would be completely decimated, cut out entirely. No universal pre-K, no permanent child tax credit, no free community and public college. I mean, the list goes on and on. No funding for elder care, no help with child care. All of those social spending provisions got cut out of the final piece of legislation. And that is exactly what's going to happen with whatever you might think we should be celebrating today with this deal that was struck between Mansion and Chuck

Schumer. So let's talk a little bit more about what this means for the climate activists who are excited, and they should be excited, that there are, there's finally some money being dedicated to, if this passes, the climate emergency. Well, there are other elements to this that I think are being under report and I want to share it with you because the real question is, will the bad outweigh the good? Will the positive climate provisions be outweighed or mitigated by the negative pro fossil fuel provisions? I'm just going to give you the details as reported by common dreams and Bloomberg law. Bloomberg, not a leftist organization, Bloomberg law, okay, you could decide for yourselves. Okay, maybe I'm being too harsh on Democrats.

Who knows? We'll see. The legislation whose scope and ambitions were dictated by fossil fuel industry ally, Senator Joe Manchin includes components that are helpful to our business. Rich Walsh of Valero, a fossil fuel company, said during the fossil fuel giant's earnings call on Thursday, referring to tax credits in the 725 page bill that could benefit the company. Homeboy is real excited. He's like, ooh, tax good. We're getting more. That doesn't sound like the appropriate response to a climate emergency, but let me continue. The bill, if passed, would tie wind and solar development to oil and gas lease sales.

That language is expected to undermine the Biden administration's plans to expand renewable energy on federal lands and waters, as well as greatly complicate plans to draw down oil and gas production that contributes during during directly to the climate crisis. Oh, but there's more. Okay, so how would this work? Now look, Mansion, as we all know, financially benefits from the fossil fuel industry. He loves it, he would never sacrifice that, and he's made that very clear. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that in order to get Mansion to play ball, without, by the way, using any sticks.

God forbid democratic leadership ever go after Joe Manchin with sticks. All he gets is carrots. I mean, you got Bugs Bunny running the Senate, running the country. All he gets is carrots, okay? They'll never attack him, but they'll keep giving him carrots with the hope that maybe, just maybe they can pass this dismantled, decimated piece of legislation that ends up benefiting fossil fuel companies more than our, you know, environment. But let me continue. The proposed legislation would block the Interior Department from issuing any wind and solar developments right of way unless it holds.

It first holds oil and gas lease sales. Onshore, the department would have to offer two million acres of federal land for lease annually. Let's pause right there. Do you guys understand that? 2 million acres of federal land annually. Federal land, meaning it belongs to the federal government, meaning it belongs to us, we the people. But we won't be benefiting from that federal land.

In fact, that federal land will not be utilized for abortion access, for women who end up, you know, being denied that care because they live in a red state. Biden administration said, no, no, no, no, we can't do that. We can't offer abortions on federal land. But what we can do with our federal land is offer fossil fuel companies the opportunity to rape and pillage that land for their own personal profit to the detriment of all of us, to the detriment of our environment. Okay, great.

But let me continue with that graphic. The department would have to offer two million acres of federal land for lease annually or half of all the land nominated for leasing and hold a lease sale within 120 days of issuing any renewables right of way. Do you guys understand what that means? That means if we're going to do anything that helps out companies that are focusing their energy on wind and solar, We have to ensure that we give fossil fuel companies all these goodies before renewable energy companies get any help from us. That is what that means. Let me continue. Offshore, that was just onshore. That was just onshore. Let's talk about offshore. Offshore, the department would

have to offer at least 60 million acres of federal waters in an oil and gas lease sale in the year prior to to leasing any waters for offshore wind development. You guys get the point here? And by the way, this is how the bill is written today. It is likely to get worse after people like Kirsten Cinema are through with it. Let me continue though. So you have an individual who serves as the president of the Western Energy Alliance. Okay, her name's Kathleen.

She got a got some wind of this deal between Mansion and Schumer. And she's real excited, okay? She represents major fossil fuel companies. Here's what she says. This provision was quite a pleasant surprise, said Kathleen Gama, president of the Western Energy Alliance, which represents oil and gas producers operating on federal lands. The alliance sued the Biden administration to force it to proceed with quarterly,

onshore lease sales, the bill forces them not to neglect oil and natural gas. And so you might be wondering, well, all right, but why does, why would Mansion care about oil and natural gas? Like, does he really profit from any of that? Doesn't he just profit from coal? But now you're right, he does profit from coal to the tune of half a million dollars a year from his personal investments in a coal company known as as inner systems. We've done extensive reporting on that. But he also has a vested interest in oil and gas.

And I'll give you a specific example right now. The bill would attempt to clear the way for the approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which would transport Appalachian shale gas about 300 miles from West Virginia to Virginia. This pipeline is a key priority of mansions. In fact, Mansion has made clear that he views approving the Mountain Valley Pipeline, pipeline as a top priority. Gee, I wonder if he could maybe have some donors involved with that project. Maybe that's why it's a bit of a priority for him.

Supporters have characterized it as a way to help make the United States an exporter, an exporter. Let me repeat that one more time, an exporter of liquefied natural gas, which the United States is sending to Europe amid the war in Ukraine. So when you hear all of these pleasant little stories about why we need to expand drilling for gas and oil in the United States to make us energy independent, just understand that that's BS because these natural resources, these fossil fuels don't belong to us, right? They belong to these fossil fuel companies who are looking to sell to the highest bidder. So yeah, of course they're looking to export. In fact, as it stands today, even before this bill passes, even before Democrats, let me repeat, Democrats assist in expanding drilling for gas and natural oil. I'm sorry, for oil and natural gas, understand that we're already the top oil and natural gas

producer. We're also the top exporter of oil and natural gas. So the idea that, no, no, we have to do this because Americans are suffering. Americans are suffering and we just, we don't want to fall prey to all these petro states. No, we love falling prey to petro states. Are you kidding me? that's the reason why you have Joe Biden constantly kissing Saudi Arabia's ass, and it's not going to stop. The reliance on fossil fuels will continue as long as fossil fuel companies get to engage in unlimited campaign donations, unlimited, legalized bribery. They run the country. So the idea that we can get incredible change through legislation, when the foundation of the foundation this system is rotten to the core is laughable. You don't have to be a genius. Okay, people

think that I'm just like, oh, I'm anti-democrat and I'm like somehow pro-Republican. I despise Republicans. And when I say Republicans, I'm not talking about the voters. I'm talking about Republican lawmakers. They are a lost cause. They've been bought off for a long, long time. My problem is that increasingly Democrats look more and more like the Republican Party. Their foreign policy is reminiscent of what we got during Bush, George Bush's administration in the early 2000s. Their love for the fossil fuel industry is pretty clear here. And the idea that we should be celebrating this as it stands today when it's all already a pretty terrible bill, I think says a lot about what the media's priority is because

there's a lot of pressure from the media to be celebratory in response to this. But keep in mind, this is before it's further watered down of some of the decent provisions. Now climate groups have been fighting the project that Joe Manchin is super excited about. They've opposed the project with a 2017 analysis by oil change international and advocacy group finding that that the greenhouse gas emissions from the Mountain Valley pipeline would approximate 26 coal plants or 19 million passenger cars. That's great, that's great. And you know who's doing some positive advertising to entice Senator Cinema to vote against the bill? But more importantly, to vote against the provisions that would increase taxes on the rich. The Koch brother

funded Americans for Prosperity. They put this ad out. Let's take a quick look at that. Now President Biden says they have a plan to fix it, and then they go after this bill, and they just try to get Senator Cinema to stop it. But I want to be clear, I want to be clear about what they want cinema to stop exactly. Because they're not talking about the provisions that are favorable to the fossil fuel companies. They're specifically talking about the taxes because you go to the YouTube version of that ad and that is what is written right there plainly in the description box. No new taxes. And guess what? Today, Senator Cinema made it clear. Not a big fan. of closing the carried interest loophole.

So it's a prediction, I could be wrong, but I would venture to say and predict that they will do away with those incredibly modest tax increases that only impact the rich. And they'll sell us pretty little stories about how they had to do away with it because they were worried about increasing taxes on ordinary working Americans, even though those provisions do not increase taxes on ordinary Americans. We've been through this a billion times before. And there's no amount of shame, shaming that can come from the likes of washed up comedians like House Sparks that can convince me that this bill that provides massive handouts to fossil

fuel companies and is likely to be stripped down of all its good provisions is a good idea. Especially when we take a good hard look at what was promised to Democratic voters in the very beginning of all of this. all sorts of social spending programs that would have materially improved the lives of countless Americans. All of that stuff is gone. It's not even up for discussion anymore, and we're supposed to celebrate. I'm sorry that I have higher standards for the Democratic Party. I apologize for that. I was under the impression, you know, through the campaign messaging that we got from them, that they were actually going to look out for the needs of American workers,

that they were going to make Americans whole, that they were going to do something about wealth and income inequality in this country, that they were going to offer assistance to women who want to get back to work, but they can't because they can't afford child care, that they were going to fight to ensure that Medicare can do something that they obviously should be able to do, which is negotiate for lower drug prices. But it turns out that they never were serious about any of that. They never fought for those things. And the first thing they did was point to all the convenient excuses that they had baked in to this disgusting corrupt system.

You can't complain about, oh, oh, well, conservative Democrats, what can we do? Stop endorsing them. Stop sending your establishment's money to their campaigns. There are ways to play hardball. But I think it's telling when Democrats refuse to do it. So if I'm the bad guy for being critical toward this weak sauce garbage that we keep getting sold by the Democratic Party, apologies. If it offends anyone in the audience that I'm not telling you pretty little tales about how wonderful this is, go watch House Spark's show. Seriously, I'm sure you'll enjoy it. This ain't the show for you. Not going to tell you lies.

Not interested in that. I could be making a lot more money doing just that. But I decided. to basically give that the cold shoulder to be able to do my job here and tell you the truth about what this legislation and other legislation actually entails. So I know it's a cold, hard world, isn't it? Sometimes we want to be told cute little stories, but you're just not going to get that here. We deserve better. Certainly the people who went out there and canvassed and worked hard to get these Democrats elected, they deserve better. That's it, end a story. All right, when we come back from the break, we've got an opinion writer over at the New York Times who has a long history of basically saying we got to bring the sweatshops back, y'all. So we've got that story and more. And we will get into some details about the Alex Jones defamation case.

Today was a big day for that trial, a bad day for Alex Jones. And as you can imagine, as someone who's as vengeful as I am, I loved every minute of it. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show. We've got limited time. So let's get right to our next story. that oath twice today in just those two examples, it seems absurd to instruct you again that you must tell the truth while you testify. Yet here I am. You must tell the truth while you testify. This is not your show. You just heard from the judge in the Alex Jones defamation trial. He's already been found guilty for defamation after he very clearly and repeatedly defamed the parents who lost their children as a result of the Sandy Hook massacre. He called them actors. He referred to that mass shooting as a false flag operation meant to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. And that led to all sorts of lunatics within his audience attacking the parents who were already suffering with the extreme emotion.

distress of losing their children as a result of a cold-blooded mass shooter who was on their campus. Now what's incredible about this trial, aside from the fact that it has taken years to get to this point, is the fact that much like other incredibly entitled individuals, Alex Jones has been caught lying under oath many times. He started testifying in this trial yesterday. His second day of testimony took place today, and it has been a complete and utter disaster for Jones. Now since he's already been found guilty of defamation, the real question now is what will the jury award the plaintiffs in terms of compensatory damages? How much money will Alex Jones have to pay? And that is what they're trying to determine through this trial.

Now, lying under oath I shouldn't have to tell you is a big deal when you are testifying, you have to tell the truth or else you perjure yourself. And apparently Alex Jones is a big fan of doing just that. Let's watch. Mr. Jones, you may not say to this jury that you comply with discovery. That is not true. You may not say it again. may not tell this jury that you are bankrupt. That is also not true. You may have filed for bankruptcy. I don't know that, but I've heard that.

That doesn't make a person or company bankrupt. You need to slow down and not take what you see as opportunities to further the message you're wanting to further. And instead, only answer the specific and exact question you have been asked. No asides. The comments about discovery, the comments about the larynx or whatever it was, the comments about bankruptcy, none of those were responsive to questions. None of those were responsive to questions.

And she specifically calls him out on things that he lied about while testified. during this trial. Now, he loves to bring up the bankruptcy issue because he purports to be broke. But what I thought was really fascinating about today's testimony was that he was asked by the plaintiff's attorney about the amount of money, the revenue that Alex Jones and his company brings in. And it's telling how Alex Jones has really a page out of the book of all these corporations who do terrible things, they get sued. And when it looks like they're about to pay out a massive settlement, they'll file for bankruptcy to avoid having to pay out a big settlement. He's taking a page out of their book

and he's trying to do the same thing. The question is whether he will be able to do that. And what I love about the plaintiff's attorney is that he's done his homework and he has revealed, it's incredibly depressing, but he's revealed just how much money Alex Jones brings in. somewhere around $740,000 a day, close to a million dollars a day, just by selling these garbage supplements that are not FDA approved, that have no evidence of its efficacy, it doesn't matter. Apparently there are enough people who watch his show and who are convinced that these supplements might make them Insta hard, that they spend their hard-earned money on the snake oil that this huckster sells on his programming.

There are other telling moments in his testimony that we'll get to in just a moment. It's the moment that I'm sure you might have seen already. But before we get to that, I want to give you some more context about who else testified in this trial. Scarlett Lewis and Neil Hesslin, who are the parents of Jesse Lewis. Jesse was actually killed in the 2012 shooting in Newtown Connecticut. They're seeking 150 million million dollars in damages from the Info Wars radio show and webcast host and his media company in a defamation trial. And they had a psychologist testify about what the parents have been going through. And imagine, I mean, look, you don't really need an expert to tell you if you're human

and you feel anything at all, it's easy to understand. Just losing your child the way that these parents have is horrific enough, is psychologically damaging enough. But to add insult to injury by making these victims, by making these parents targets for these lunatics who believe the nonsense that Alex Jones spews, of course it's going to cause huge psychological issues. And so a forensic psychologist who testified said Hesslin and Lewis suffered from PTSD. I mean, I'm not an expert, but I'd venture to say it goes well beyond PTSD, which is obviously bad enough. Now, there was another moment in the trial today that I thought was worth sharing with you all. And it was when Alex Jones was called out on another lie. Now, the reason why Alex

Jones was found guilty of defamation, it was a default judgment by the judge, who by the way, he has accused of being a child trafficker. Maybe not a good idea to do that on your programming when you're standing trial and the judge, you know, presides over this trial. But, you know, he's an idiot. So of course, he's accusing her of insane things like being involved with pedophiles. Great idea, real smart guy there. The reason why the judge made a default judgment here in finding him guilty for defamation is because during a lawsuit like this, a civil lawsuit like this, the plaintiffs ask for certain documents. It's part of the discovery process. And Alex Jones would not comply. He would not hand over those documents.

Alex Jones was asked under oath whether he had any text message exchanges in which he discussed the Sandy Hook story. He said no, no, not at all. I don't, sorry, he said that under oath. Okay, great. Well, today something interesting happened and it showed the incompetence of not just Alex Jones, but his own attorneys. So let's watch this moment where the plaintiff's attorney asks Alex Jones about, about those very text messages. On left corner, is that your phone number? Yes. So you did get my text messages. And I said you didn't.

Nice trick. Yes, Mr. Jones. Indeed. You didn't give this text message to me. You don't know where this came from. Do you know where I got this? No. Mr. Jones, did you know that 12

days ago, 12 days ago, your attorney's messed up and sent me an entire digital copy of your entire cell phone with every text message you've sent for the past two years and when informed did not take any steps to identify it as privileged or protected in any way. And as of two days ago, it fell free and clear into my possession. And that is how I know you lied to me when you said you didn't have text message about saying you go. Did you know that? See, I told you the truth.

This is your Perry Mason moment. I gave them my phone. Mr. Jones, you need to answer the question. Do you know this happened? No, I don't know this happened. No, I didn't know what this happened. See, I told you the truth, except I didn't. I lied under oath and said that I didn't have any text exchanges conversing about the Sandy Hook story.

He got caught. But what's amazing about that moment is how the hell did his lawyers make that colossal mistake of sending the entirety of a digital copy of Alex Jones's phone to the plaintiff's attorney. And then when they had an opportunity to make a big stink about that and prevent that from being, you know, presented in court, they passed up that opportunity. It's weird. I mean, maybe his attorneys have somewhat of a conscience and realize that he's a terrible person who did a terrible thing in further victimizing parents whose children were slaughtered

by a gunman. I don't know. But he doesn't need incompetent attorneys to lose this trial, because he himself is so unbelievably, it's either incompetence or honestly, a level of entitlement that I have never seen anywhere before because he seems to think that certain rules of the court do not apply to him. He's not supposed to talk about the trial outside of the courtroom and he has been talking about it on the show. He's not supposed to talk about the trial outside of the courtroom. Yet the second he leaves the courtroom, he talks to the press and he accuses the judge of all sorts of insane things. He even went after the jurors, claiming that these jurors, you know, they ain't with it.

I'm paraphrasing, but he even attacked the jurors. And that came up during this trial as well. I mean, this guy is his own worst enemy. He's like coughing constantly complaining about some sort of throat issue he has. It's a mess. But what you can't run away from, even with all of the side shows and even with all the circus atmosphere that we're seeing in this trial can't run away from the fact that there are hours and hours of this man along with his co-hosts and staffers lying and defaming the victims of

Sandy Hook for profit. It's really important to understand that because why would anyone do that? Like what's the incentive? Who in their right mind would feel any type of pleasure in victimizing parents whose little kids were killed. He's making a lot of money off of it. And then he has the gall to pretend that he's broke, that he's bankrupt, that he's really suffering, that he's the real victim here. I'm sorry, I don't think anyone's buying it.

Now, I don't know what the end result will be. This is the first of three trials to determine compensatory damages because there are several families who have been defamed by this man. or the sad excuse for a man. So we'll see what happens. The jurors being insulted by him, the judge being insulted by him, multiple examples of him lying under oath, I would argue does not bode well for Alex Jones. But for anyone who might have been persuaded by Alex Jones and his commentary,

for anyone who might think that he's a good guy and sometimes he gets things right, Understand that this trial has made it very clear that Alex Jones knew he was lying, he was intentionally lying, and he was doing it for profit. And if he's willing to do that in regard to victims who lost their children in a mass shooting, ask yourselves, what other stories is he willing to do that on? And I think that the plaintiff's attorney also did a fantastic job in outlining all of the other tragic stories, all the other tragic mass shootings, bombings that have occurred in this country that Alex Jones lied about, that Alex Jones claimed was a deep state operation. He claimed that the Boston bombing was some sort of conspiracy.

And it's because, look, I get it. It draws an audience. People have lost faith in our institutions. I think that's actually the root of the problem here. Why is it that someone like Alex Jones is able to cultivate the kind of audience that he's able to cultivate, that is a deeper problem that I think needs to be addressed. But there's no mistake. Alex Jones is definitely a symptom of that deeper problem. And he should suffer the consequences of what he has taken part in. All right, we're going to go a little over because I really want to do this story on my own. It'll be quick. I want to talk about language policing, and I might agree with Ben Shapiro a little bit, so let's do it.

totally bad horrible remove it offensive having full scale songs for children about the moisture state of your vagina that is Shakespearean wonder Ben Shapiro is not pleased with the fact that Beyonce has decided to concede to her critics who believe the word spas in one of her songs is ableist so she So she has decided, okay, people don't like the word, they're offended by it, I'm going to change the lyrics to the song. Well, Shapiro thinks that that's not okay. And he draws this false equivalency between the word spas and what Cardi B sang about in one of her songs, WAP. That song really does bother Ben Shapiro. It's come up several times for him. I can't imagine being that obsessed with any song, to be honest with you. you. But nonetheless, let's hear the rest of his argument. And I agree with some of what he says

here. So let's watch and I'll tell you what I mean. A representative for Beyoncé has confirmed to insider the lyric containing the word spaz and her new album will be changed as well. In the statement from Beyonce's team, they claim it was not used intentionally in a harmful way, which by the way is true. I actually, I can't believe I'm defending the Queen Bay here. I'm now one of the Praetorian guards for the Queen Bay, but apparently I am. It is amazing. These are the standards in our society. using the word spas in a song totally bad horrible remove it offensive having full scale songs for children about the moisture state of your vagina that is shakespearean wonder it is i mean that's just the stuff that you should play for our kids it's very empowering empowering

stuff so i feel like i feel the the left is very strict on its language and very loose on its morals and ideas so where do i agree with ben And I don't agree with the entirety of his argument. In fact, I think he gets several things wrong there. But where I do agree with him is, look, I don't think that Beyonce intentionally offended the disabled community by including the word spas. And to be sure, in the context of the United States, I don't think that the word spas is offensive. And anyone who is offended by the word spas, I think is looking for something to be offended by. I know, I know. Some of our audience probably will hate that. You can be mad at me.

We need, like, we need to move it along, guys. We need to move it along. Okay, like the idea that Beyonce is ablest is insane. It's just insane. When I use the word bitch, for instance, to respond to a little bitch like Matt Gates, for instance, I'm not being hateful toward women. It is a word that we use not because we're trying to refer to weak women or make a statement about women. It's a word we use to make a statement about the weakness and pathetic behavior of the individual we're attacking, right? So words mean different things in different contexts. And I think it's important to acknowledge that. Needlessly jumping up and saying, oh no, that is a word that offends me and it's intentionally meant to target.

me is I think it's just crazy and I I'm getting a little tired of like the nonstop like is this word okay, wait, is that word okay? Like constantly, constantly. Okay, intentions matter and also context matters. Not just in terms of the context in which the word is used, I think it also matters regarding the culture and country we're talking about. Because while I think in the United States, the word spas is really not a big deal for most people, apparently in the the UK and other places, it is used in a very derogatory way toward the disabled community. And I think that's important to understand, right? Because if we're looking at artists like Beyonce, who want widespread appeal, she's selling us a product at the end of the day. And it's not just

about the United States. She's trying to sell a product internationally. Well, she doesn't want to do anything that might turn off other fans in other countries. So if she wants to make that decision, Do you boo, right? I'm not going to get all up in arms about it. But I also want to note that while Ben Shapiro is critical of people who are mad at Beyonce and maybe he's mad at Beyonce for changing her lyrics, he also engages in language policing himself. And so which one is it? Do you like the language policing or do you dislike the language policing? Because number one, the Cardi B. Wop song was not directed toward children. I think parents get to parent, right? I'm not a parent. I mean, I have a dog and I'm a very

good parent to my dog. Let me just keep it real. But if I had children like human children, no, I'm not going to let them listen to WAP. I'm going to be super involved in what type of content my children are consuming. And I'd venture to say that most parents, you know, like to take a good hard look at what their kids are watching or listening to. And they censor things accordingly. That's what good parents do. I don't think Cardi B wrote the song wet-ass P-word with the intention of selling that song to children. And if children are listening to it, their parents should be a little more aware of what their parents, what their kids are up to, okay? But again, who is the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable in pop culture?

That's the real question here. And if Ben Shapiro doesn't want super sensitive people, on the broadly speaking left to dictate what kind of lyrics get to go into various songs and genres. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't then turn around and be like, I would like to censor Cardi B because the notion of moist vaginas makes me uncomfortable. No, you don't get, don't listen to the song. Move it along, move it along. Do you get what I'm saying, guys? And much like I get on the right wings case a lot because all they do is engage in endless culture wars, and I think it's meant to distract you from issues that really matter.

I think the same can be said about the super sensitive people on the left who are hyper focused on these very specific language policing social issues. I want to live in a country and live in a world where all our needs are met, and we can just focus on those things. But for now, I'm not interested in policing lyrics and where does it end? Because fact of the matter is, there's a ton of music out there that has a ton of lyrics that I don't like, that I do find offensive. But in the grand scheme of things, censoring the artistic expression of others, even if I dislike it, is just not really where I want the focus to be right now. I think there are more important things to focus on.

Now, with that said, for those who don't like the word spas, for those who live in a context where spas is constantly used in a derogatory way toward disabled people, I get their perspective. And Beyonce has a product to sell and she's going to do what she thinks she needs to do to sell that product. More power to her. That's called capitalism. The market has spoken. The market wants her to take that word out. She's responded to that. And turns out the market really likes moist vaginas because Cardi B is still doing real well, still able to sell her music with no problem. And so really this is an issue pertaining to personal preference. And what might offend you doesn't offend a lot of other people.

So again, who does the arbiter get to be? And I would venture to say that we should just accept and support artistic expression regardless of how we feel about a particular artistic expression. Obviously, there are limits. Let's be clear about that. But, you know, the idea of wanting to censor Cardi B, but not wanting to make a statement about a word like spas for Beyonce's music is kind of crazy. You got to be consistent. I like being consistent. Anyway, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, John Ida Rolla will be joining me for more news, including an analysis on Nicholas Christoff over at the New York Times

who thinks sweatshops are awesome. 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 slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jank Huger, and I'll see you soon.