The Young Turks - Smear Merchants

Episode Date: April 25, 2024

Trump’s lawyer tries to convince a stunned Sotomayor: President has immunity to order assassinations of rivals. Meadows and Giuliani are indicted in Arizona in the latest 2020 election subversion case. Police arrest pro-Palestinian protesters at USC, UT-Austin and Emerson College. "This is shameful": AOC and Moskowitz spar after Florida Democrat attacks Bernie Sanders. HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome, thank you. Donald Trump's a style icon. That's what I do. Begha! All right, welcome to me on Turks, Jane Huguer Anna Kasparan with you guys. Obviously we're going to cover the college campus story.

Obviously, we're going to cover all the Trump trials. And I have really bad news on one of the trials. So which one? The one we're about to start with, so don't worry. No, don't. No, don't. Guys, I sat and listened to the proceedings today. Don't buy into the mainstream media narrative that, oh, it was a great day for Trump.

They're gonna grant him immunity. I don't believe that for a second. No, no, I don't believe that either. Don't. Yeah. But nevertheless, that trial is in massive trouble. I'll explain why, but let's get go. Okay, then let's get started with that.

Let me just preface this by saying that, don't know. Donald Trump, of course, is seeking protection through presidential immunity. That is the argument or the defense in regard to these election interference cases. So with that in mind, let's get to the first story. If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official action? for which he can get immunity. Justice Sonia Sotomayor grilled Trump's attorney John Sawyer on the notion of granting president's absolute immunity, even in instances when the president is not engaged in executive

actions or carrying out duties, official duties as president. Now, previously, Sawyer had argued that the president could order seal team six to assassinate one of his political rivals and not face any consequences for it. Sotomayor wanted to revisit that argument, maybe give him a chance to change gears in regard to that argument, but here's how Sawyer responded. It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official. They could, and why? Because he's doing it for personal reasons. He's not doing it. Like President Obama is alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist, he's doing it for personal gain.

Now, to give you further context in regard to why the Supreme Court is hearing this case, it all has to do with Trump's defense in the election interference cases where he argues, and his lawyers argue that he enjoys executive privilege or immunity. and because of the fact that he was a sitting president at the time that the fake elector scheme was implemented, at the time the January 6th riots took place, well, then that means that he has the immunity that presidents typically enjoy. However, Sawyer's argument is not only unhinged because it has to do with the president's ability to assassinate political opponents. He also kind of fails to answer what Sotomayor is asking about in a way that makes her, please, let's pleased with

his take, right? So in response to what Sotomayor said in that last clip, he says, I agree with that characterization of the indictment. And that confirms immunity because the characterization is that there's a series of official acts that were done for honorable, for an honorable purpose, Right? And so, Jank, I want you to weigh in here, right? Because all day today, what the Supreme Court justices were asking about is what is and isn't protected. And what does give the president immunity and what doesn't give him immunity. There are private acts which typically do not enjoy immunity. And then there are acts that the president engages in as official duty, which happened to be protected under immunity. All right, there's several different layers to it as a lot of Supreme Court cases do. So first of all, does the president, president enjoy absolute immunity about anything and everything he does? No, the Supreme Court has already ruled. He doesn't, okay? So Trump is still making that case because he's not making a genuine case. He's just making a case to delay the trial until he can win the

presidency and pardon himself. This one is a federal case. He can pardon himself if he gets into office before and he could actually forget pardoning himself. If he gets a delayed long enough, he could just end the case as the leader of the executive branch right before they even reach a decision. They could be in the middle of the case and he could say the US government is withdrawn from the case. So he's just trying to delay it. His arguments are, in my opinion, ridiculous. Now, it doesn't mean that every immunity argument is ridiculous. And there's legitimate issues here. So I'll give an example with a Democratic president where you go, oh, that one's kind of tough. So with Obama, he ordered an American citizen to be executed abroad with no

judicial review. So that's an extra judicial killing, in my opinion, that is illegal, and it is a very, very serious crime. But you would really, I'd love to see an impartial Supreme Court. I know it doesn't exist. Tackle that subject. Is that his official duty, or did you go beyond the law and killing an American citizen without a trial, right? So those are legitimate, interesting issues. Trump is saying, well, when I use the fake electors, because that's what the charges are. They're not deciding whether the charges are true. They're deciding whether he can even face trial, even if the charges are true, okay? So in this case, using fake electors to basically plot a coup, he's like, that's within my official duty.

Now, you see why that's absurd? It's absurd on two counts. Number one, when he's asking for recounts, that's perfectly legitimate. But he's doing that as a candidate, not as the president. The president can't interfere with anything that's electoral, right? There's a hatch act, there's all these different rules that say don't use the power of the presidency to help yourself get reelected, right? So if the election's already happening and he's challenging the results, that's definitely as a candidate. That's already clear enough. But on top of that, he's saying, he's not saying, oh, I want to challenge the results. He's basically saying, I get to use fake electors to overturn the actual democratic results and I'm immune.

to do that. I have immunity to do that because it's my official duty to do a coup against America. It is an absurd, ridiculous argument. And that is why we're having conversations about, well, if you can do that, can you execute your political opponents? Because we're in la-la land right now, right? But guys, unfortunately, the last layer is the most important. Because these justices, two of them are gone. They're rogue. They're never, ever going to rule against the right wing under any circumstance. They're not listening. They've violated their own songhold principles a hundreds of times. Can I guess which two you're talking about?

Alito and Thomas. Exactly. Yeah. Alito and Thomas, I mean, to give you a sense of how absurd Alito is on this one. In the middle of this one, he's like, well, if you arrest someone for trying to steal an election, that's just going to give them incentive to steal more elections. And he's like, that's why it would be against democracy to try to protect democracy. Okay, you're not even trying, brother, that doesn't even make any sense on its base.

absurdity. So those two are goners. So the question is, are the other conservative justices going to be fair and say, let's finish up this trial because this is an absurd case? Or are they going to do the thing that is way more likely and almost certain at this point? There's one conservative exception, but they're going to say, oh, golly, gee, there are a lot of facts to determine here. I think we should remand this case to a lower court, which on average takes eight months, oh right, the election would be over. And so afterwards, then you could have the real trial, you know, after we adjudicate this issue. And so Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, it looks like Roberts are all heading in that direction. It's perfect for them because they want to support

the Republican, but they don't, they're not in the Alito Thomas camp where they don't care about the laws and principles and constitution at all anymore. They're not actively supporting a coup like those two are, right? So that way they get to punt on what would have to be a horrific decision to support Trump, but they help Trump avoid responsibility completely. So that's a perfect Robert's move. Interestingly, Amy Coney Barrett's the only one that seems to be saying, let's go straight ahead. Yeah, Amy Coney Barrett actually did something devastating in regard to

Donald Trump and his co-conspirators in the election interference cases. In fact, let's cue up the very final video because that's the video in which she asks a line of questions to Trump's attorney, this is Sawyer, where essentially Sawyer ends up conceding that Trump's co-conspirators had committed the crimes that they have been accused of and are not protected under immunity. Let's take a look. You concede that private acts don't get immunity. We do. Okay, and I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private. Petitioner turned to a private attorney, was willing to spread

knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results. Private? As alleged, I mean, we dispute the allegation, but that sounds private to me. Sounds private. Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge. That also sounds private. Three private actors, two attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort.

You write it quickly? I believe that's private. Petitioner is Donald Trump, by the way. So when she says petitioner and co-conspirator, she's referring to Donald Trump and his co-conspirator. And there you have Sawyer essentially conceding that immunity would not protect those acts because of the private nature in which they were carried out. So it's clear that it wouldn't protect anyone outside of the president. And what they're saying is, well, but when it comes to the president, even if it's a private act, it isn't because there isn't anything the president can do that's illegal. That's the Richard Nixon line that got him in so much trouble during and after Watergate. But now

Trump is going back and saying, yeah, I want to be king. So declare when I'm president. Well, by the way, that also applies to Biden and everybody, every other president. When they're president, they get to break any law, private, public, it doesn't matter. He literally, that's why he literally argued he can assassinate his political opponents that his lawyer did. Because we get it, guys, it's an extreme situation. By the way, a coup is also an extreme situation. And so, but they're saying, yeah, no, period, above the law. That's why it's absurd.

That's why the seven justices are not going to say okay to that, right? But mission accomplished when they kick it down to a lower court. If they kick it down. Yeah, but they're going to. They're almost definitely going to. Guys, the reason why the 6-3 margin is so monumentally important, there's two reasons. One is they have such a comfortable margin. They could lose a conservative justice on principle.

So what, they still win 5'4, so easy. You gotta flip two conservative justices. And the second reason why that margin is so important is because it allows them to do rotating villain slash rotating hero, okay? So, oh, and this one, Amy Coney Barrett's the hero for saying principal things, but golly, gee, the right wing won again, 5-4, and another case Gorsuch is the hero for being principled than Cabinot. And this has literally happened in a lot of the cases where one of them goes, well, on principle, I'll tell you what, I'm going to do this. But they keep rotating, rotating, rotating, rotating, and they always win 5-4-6-3.

And finally, Anna, that's why I told you, what do you bring the case two and a half years in for? Are you nuts? You know how many delays there are in a normal case, let alone in a case that involves the president with a Supreme Court stacked to try to help him? Merrick Garland is the worst attorney general we have ever had. He sat on his hands for two and a half years when a guy had trumped a coup attempt and refused to prosecute him because he's one of the elites. And then when they panicked when they found out he's running, they run this case way too.

too late. Now when they remand this, which I have at about a 90% chance, nah, nah, nah, if Trump wins, the coup never even gets adjudicated. And so not only does that- Don't say that. That's, Jake, you're being way too cynical here. And keep in mind that, sure, he might be able, if he gets reelected, which his chances are very good at getting reelected, I agree with you on that. Yeah, he would be able to pardon himself in the federal case, but he wouldn't be able to do so in the Georgia case. And the Georgia interference case matters greatly or the Supreme Court's decision and yes, if they kick it back to the lower courts, the lower court's decision, which almost guaranteed will not grant him the immunity that

he wants, is important because he wouldn't be able to claim immunity when it comes to the Georgia case. Anna, you're right about Georgia, no question. And Arizona also just launched a case. They didn't charge Trump yet, but he's one of an unindicted co-conspirator. So you'll have those. But guys, it's a federal case. He did a federal coup.

And so when you, and remember, it's not just that he could pardon himself. They might go eight months just discussing the law part. Then they have to actually actually have the trial itself where they do an adjudication of facts. Did he do it or didn't he do it? That's definitely going to stretch past the election. So he could just end it and go, nobody at the federal level, nobody ever ruled that I did a coup. Nobody ever said there was fake electors. The biased people in Georgia and the biased people in Arizona, they have their nonsense, but blah, blah, blah, right?

So yeah, there would be some adjudication, but he would get to avoid responsibility at the federal level. And right now, that seems very likely. So Merrick Garland, thanks a lot for betraying not just all of us and definitely not just Democratic voters, but the country. And the reason he did it wasn't to punish Trump. It was to protect Trump for two and a half years when he thought, well, I mean, if we prosecute Trump, then people might prosecute Democrats or other elites. And so he wanted to protect the establishment, and now we're all screwed because of it. All right.

I mean, look, my interpretation of all of this isn't as negative. Listening to the line of questions that were asked by the conservative Supreme Court justices was kind of shocking because they were asking good questions. And it seems like the way they frame the questions, they've had their mind made up about Donald Trump's argument of immunity, but they are concerned about how the way they rule on this case is going to impact cases moving forward, right? So I'll give you an example. Justice Gorsuch, who, yes, was appointed by Trump. He seemed to have his mind made up about Trump, but he was concerned about applying a standard that has to do with the motivation or motive of a sitting president, right? So every sitting first term president is focused on getting reelected.

So if that individual does something, like Obama is a good example, right? So you could argue that Obama carried out a war crime in killing an American citizen without due process. Now the argument is that he did it, not for himself, but in the best interest of Americans because of terrorism, right? This was a suspected terrorist. So Gorsuch is concerned that if you apply. a motive having to do with, oh, the president just wants to get reelected, and that is why they did

this act. Well, then if there's a case like the Obama case, couldn't you argue that that individual, Obama, would not be protected by presidential immunity and should face charges for his war crimes. Anna, but you see what I'm saying? Those are good questions. I think that those seven justices are worried about setting precedent. Yeah. But they're not worried about protecting Trump and punting the case. They're worried about setting bad precedent. So that same Gorsuch later said, well, look, we're not deciding these things on temporary basis. So we, you know, implying we have a lot of time to do this. He said, we're doing this for history. And this has to be a general ruling that is so important. That is a perfect, you know, pitch for remand the case. Let's take

our time. Yeah. Then Trump gets the walk. We're super happy pretending to be principal. Later, we'll say, of course, he couldn't have done it. That's absurd, but by that time it'll be too late. Yeah, his exact quote, Gorsuch's was, we're writing a rule for the ages. And I do agree with him on that, but I don't- Well, write it now. I didn't need to write it eight months from now. No, the whole remand thing's garbage.

They're definitely doing it to protect Trump, and I would be shocked if they didn't do it. So, well, let's see, we're gonna find out all together, but it doesn't, in my opinion, it doesn't look good at all. So there goes one of the cases, in my opinion. Well played, Merrick Garland, moron. All right, let's take a break when we come back. We'll give you an update on one of the other election interference cases. This one, Trump hasn't been indicted in.

It's out of Arizona. There are other indictments that we wanted to share with you in that case. Come right back. We'll share that and more when we come back. All right, back on TOT, Jenkinana with you guys, more news. Let's get to another case involving election interference, this time out of the state of Arizona. But he's been with Trump a lot. I mean, remember when he was on the plane going down for the Mar-a-Lago indictment appearances? I mean, he's of all these people still so in his inner circle.

Right, we're very much in his inner circle and very protective of the former president and protective to the point that Giuliani reached when, you know, he, you know, arguably sold his soul to protect the president under circumstances that were improper. That was former White House attorney Ty Cobb weighing in on new indictments that have been announced in Arizona having to do with the fake election. that the Trump camp attempted to implement to overturn the 2020 election results. Now we're learning about fresh new indictments in this case. Yesterday we reported on the 11 fake electors themselves who were facing indictments.

That list has now grown to include others, including Boris Epstein, who is a former White House aide and is an individual still very close to Donald Trump. He has not been charged before in connection to any of the efforts to reverse the 2020 presidential election. He is also so close to Trump that he was seen accompanying the former president to court proceedings on multiple occasions, and they allegedly talk multiple times a day. The other individual who has been indicted in the Arizona case is Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, Meadows, whose name is redacted in the indictment, but is listed as Trump's chief of staff in 2020, worked with members of the Trump campaign to coordinate and implement the false Republican electors' votes in Arizona and six other states, the indictment says, and was involved in the many efforts to keep Trump in power despite his defeat at the polls.

Facing an indictment in this case is Rudy Giuliani, Trump's former lawyer. The indictment in Arizona includes nine counts from conspiracy to forgery to engaging in fraudulent schemes. Because the indictment remains partially redacted, it is unclear what charges Trump allies such as Meadows, Epstein, and Giuliani face. So we don't know exactly what their charges are, but we do know that they are in fact indicted in this case. The names of others who have been, you know, indicted remain redacted, other individuals charged in the Arizona indictment but whose names have been redacted. The source familiar with the investigation told CNN include Trump allies Mike Roman, a 2020 campaign official, Trump campaign lawyer

Jenna Ellis, who has in fact flipped on Trump in the Georgia election interference case, and conservative attorney John Eastman. Now the indictments have all brought, I've have all been brought forward by the current Attorney General of the state of Arizona. Her name is Chris Mays, and she was elected for her role in 2022, something that maybe Joe Scarborough should have looked into before he had a panic attack about how long it took to, you know, file these indictments. But, Jank, what are your thoughts? Yeah, so I was going to say the same thing, because he's screaming about why did it take four years. This is the one case where it makes sense because she came in in 2022 and had to

prepare it. But Scarborough was actually really mad at Merrick Garland, but he can't say that because he's Biden's boy. Totally. So he has to do all of Biden's propaganda. So he has to take it out on this woman who didn't deserve it instead of Garland. Yep. And that's how this game is played. In terms of the case itself, very similar to Georgia, very similar to the Jack Smith case. And yeah, fake electors, coup attempt should be prosecuted, no ends ifs or butts. I don't know what their legal strategies are in regards to Trump since he's an unindicted co-conspirator. Maybe they're going to, you know, do the Jack Smith strategy of trying everyone else first. And then once you got those under done, then you go after the big guy.

So in Georgia, they're doing it the other way where they're trying everyone at once. So it's interesting to see the two different legal strategies. But overall, good case, important case, necessary case. Yes, we all wish it started away earlier, but it's not the prosecutor's false. in this case. And just to give you a few excerpts from the indictment itself, let's go to graphic five here where the indictment says in Arizona and the United States, the people elected Joseph Biden as president on November 3rd, 2020, unwilling to accept this fact, defendants

and unindicted co-conspirators scheme to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency to keep unindicted conspirator one, that's how you know that they're referring to Trump, in office against the will of Arizona's voters. The scheme, according to the indictment, called for the fake electors to fraudulently vote for Trump, falsely claiming to be the duly elected and qualified electors for president and vice president of the United States from the state of Arizona. Defendants deceived the citizens of Arizona by falsely claiming that those votes were contingent only on a legal challenge that would change the outcome of the election.

In reality, defendants intended that their false votes for Trump Pence would encourage Pence to reject the Biden-Harris votes on January 6th, 2021, regardless of the outcome of the legal challenge. And so I want to just make a quick note about that last excerpt that I read to you. You know, in one of these states that had implemented the fake electors, one of the fake electors was actually really smart because she's like, wait a minute, you guys want me to sign this document indicating, you know, that I am, you know, the real elector here. And you're telling me that this would only apply should Donald Trump win in the courts and be able to overturn the election, right? She's like, I need, I need that to be very clear

that that is what the contingency is here. And so she's not going to face charges as a result of being smart enough to understand that being a fake elector is illegal and you're going to possibly face criminal prosecution for doing it. The others didn't care. They signed the document and pretended to be the real electors when in reality they were not. Yeah. So a lot of the fake electors were lied to and that's real and I'm curious how their trials are going to go, right? And I like that they're here prosecuting the people, the architects of the scheme. And in some other states they're prosecuting the fake electors themselves. There's logic in that they signed false papers, that's definitely illegal, et cetera.

But some of them do legitimately look like they had no idea that they weren't the real electors. They were lied to, right? And the number one lie that Giuliani and the others used was, oh, don't worry, this is just a contingency in case Trump prevails in the courts. But they have documents showing, they didn't mean that at all. They were just trying to get other people to replace the actual electors, right? And some of the actual Trump, because remember, there's slates of electors on both sides ready to go depending on who wins.

Some of the real Trump electors said no to this scheme. They're like, no, you can't do that. You can't say that he won when he didn't win, right? So now last thing on this is, guys, number one, I think that the Democrats made a huge mistake in not calling this a coup. because a coup is something that's very understandable. Like fake electors plus the insurrection on January 6th, and they never connected the two. And we've connected it before for you guys. So you block the proceedings in Congress on that day so that if the plan had worked

and the reason it didn't is because of Mike Pence, Mike Pence says, oh, I can't certify the election. Let's bring it back to the states. That's where they have the fake electors ready to go and they send them in. That together is the coup attempt. And the guys who organized that aren't the schmucks on the ground that invaded the capital. They're Giuliani and Epstein, if they're correct in their charges, et cetera. Trump, most importantly, Eastman. And so if the Democrats had cohesively said, this is a coup attempt, these are the two different branches of the coup attempt.

It would have been an easier thing for most people to understand. I agree. I agree because look, this is how broadcast news works. Broadcast news doesn't actually care about, well, they do care about narratives, but they don't necessarily care about connecting the dots and helping audiences understand what's really going on. They're all about the spectacle, they're all about the video, right? And so they are hyper focused on January 6th because of the spectacle, because of the video, because of what they can help the audience see through those videos. And by hyper focusing on that, I think that they did a poor job in really diving in. into how that was connected to the fake elector's scheme and how the fake elector's scheme

was supposed to be carried out. Yeah, one last thing, every once in a while, Democrats online that don't actually watch the show will see me say something critical about Joe Biden, which is true, but they're like, no, you're supposed to lie on his behalf. Okay, now we're convinced, you're definitely going to vote for Trump and you're definitely trying to help Trump. If you actually watch the show, I think Trump tried a coup against America, there is no circumstance under which I would vote for Donald J. Trump. None. I'm not going to say,

oh, well, we only tried a coup once, right? So be careful what people are saying about us online as opposed to the reality. So you don't have to love Biden in order to know that this was a coup attempt. And so look at him and judge them one by way, one on the actual facts pertaining to them. And there is no, whether you think there's redeeming qualities of Trump, and I would debate that as well. This alone is reason to never vote for him. I'm not telling you who to vote for. I'm just telling you that I would never vote for Trump because he tried a coup against this country. And I love this country. the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus,

IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. All right, let's move on to what's happening on college campuses across the country. A lot of interesting narratives playing out in the corporate press, but we're going to cut through all of that and give you the reality. Let's watch. What's happening in America's college campuses is horrific.

Anti-Semitic mobs have taken over leading universities. This is reminiscent of what happened in German universities in the 1930s. It's unconscionable. It has to be stopped. It has to be condemned and condemned unequivocally. But that's not what happened. The response of several university presidents was shameful. Now fortunately, state, local, federal officials, many of them have responded differently,

but there has to be more. More has to be done. That was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is not the Prime Minister of the United States. He's the prime minister of a foreign country, Israel. And he feels the need to weigh in on what is transpiring on college campuses across our country. And he wants to squash those protests, he wants more to be done. We didn't vote for him, we don't support him here at TYT. So who is he to tell this country what they need to do in response to mostly peaceful protests?

I get that there is a narrative playing out in corporate media, totally understand what that's motivated by. But the fact of the matter is you go to campus after campus, you speak to protesters, the actual protesters, the demonstrators who organize the protests, many of those protesters happen to be Jewish themselves, but we keep hearing about how it's all anti-Semitic, because apparently criticizing Israel's slaughter of civilians in Gaza is anti-Semitic. It's the same thing as what the Nazis carried out during the Holocaust. Yeah, because if you're for peace and saving innocent lives, you're a Nazi, but if you're for slaughtering 25,000 women and children and saying, it's not enough, what are you then?

No one's allowed to say. Okay, so we're going to talk way more about Greg Abbott and we're going to give you the details of some of these arrests, almost all of which, not almost, all of which were outrageous and some of which have already been reversed. But so, but in the Netanyahu speech, he says, fortunately, and he's going to talk about how he's his political allies in America have already arrested anyone criticizing him. That's just, I can't, my brain can't handle how insane that is. Okay, so what he really should be saying is fortunately, A-PAC is about to spend $100 million

in this election cycle, and that's why we control about 80% of the politicians on the Republican and Democratic side, and they'll do as they're ordered. And so they're doing preemptive arrest without even knowing what the kids are going to say. Antisemitic, you don't even know. They're like, oh, kids are going to USC. Let's plan to arrest them, send the cops. They didn't even say anything yet. How could they be anti-Semitic if they didn't say a word?

So I'm gonna give you those details in the moment. They're not made up, it is true. There are literal arrests that have already been reversed as a result of the police realizing, oh wait, there's nothing to charge them with. Yeah, and so, and then at the end though, he says, I want more. You're gonna have to do more to please me. I'm the leader of a foreign country, but I rule all of you, not just Biden, who's my dog, because I told him to give me $17 billion extra of your money and he did it.

And now we're slapping him around. That's a different story today about now ministers in Israel laughing their ass up and saying vote for Trump. But on top of that, I want to be able to control Greg Abbott in Texas and New York and L.A. And I want every municipality to make sure that they pledge allegiance to Israel. That is insanity. Because guys, it is not, if they were doing actual anti-Semitism and these kids at UT or USC were surrounding Jewish students, I'd go in there myself to break it up. Are you crazy? We're not going to allow that.

We're progressives, we're all equal. We're gonna stand over our Jewish brothers and sisters. But that's not what's happening at all. You know what's actually happening? They're protesting for divestment. That's what you never hear in mainstream media. The most offensive thing of all, right? Exactly, you cannot take the money out.

How dare you, right? Arrest everyone talking about taking money out of Israel. That money is ours and we deserve it. Who the hell are you, Benjamin Netanyahu? Who are you to all? us. Ally my ass. So he falsely accused protesters of calling not only for the death of Israel and Jewish people, but for the death of America too. That is what he claimed the protesters are calling for. There were protesters, by the way, my favorite thing that I came across today

was local news because there are protests on college campuses in California. So I was watching local news, KTLA specifically. And they're trying to find examples of violence. are anti-Semitism, right? So they finally find a group of students who are chanting from the river to the sea. And that's it, that's all they've got. Because they automatically assume chanting that means that they want the slaughter of Israelis in Israel, which is completely false, completely false. Okay, guys, this is absolutely indisputable.

Benjamin Netanyahu said from the river to the sea just a couple of weeks ago. It's okay when he does it, though. Okay, so let's be clear, if you're going to arrest students for saying from the river to the sea, which is not a thing you can arrest somebody for in America, that's called free speech. And even if you think it means the China said, even if you hate it, it's, and you can't arrest somebody for that. But if we're being fair and going, okay, now we're arresting people if we don't like certain slogans, right? But Nanyahu also use the slogan. So are we going to arrest Nanyahu the minute he steps on American soil?

You know, no, he's ordering us to arrest his political opponents here, even though his top, his best case scenario is, they said the same thing as me. I want them arrested. And, but for me saying it, give me $17 billion. Insanity. 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 too. Visit square.ca to get started. Let's talk about what has transpired on some campuses. So in reality, the overwhelming majority of these demonstrations have been peaceful. You might come across an example or two of an idiot saying something that we obviously disagree with. We've shown some of those videos on the show, we have condemned them. But I love that they're picking on the exception to these peaceful protests.

The peaceful protesters, by the way, were met with some pretty harsh responses from police nonetheless. Let's take a look. We're on the wrong side. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators clashing today with riot police at the University of Texas in Austin. Students attempting to occupy space on campus were stopped by police and forced back. U.T., the latest school caught in a wave of protest on college campuses. In California, a rally at USC that turned tents, officials closing the gates to the campus. At Harvard, students race to set up tents.

There was a walkout today at the University of Illinois, and the encampment at the University of Michigan is growing. U.S.C. has canceled its graduation. Also at the University of Texas, University of Texas, Austin, you have 60 people who were arrested, including two members of the media. Literally, they arrested journalists, two members of the media who were just there to report on the protest. According to jail records, the people arrested all-faced criminal trespassing charges. And today, charges against 46 people, 46 of those people who were arrested were dismissed because there were, quote, deficiencies in the probable cause affidavits, according to the county attorney. The students say the police were unnecessarily harsh and brutal in their response. One woman said that she saw a large police officer place his entire body weight to detain a young woman protesting. Law enforcement was also seen kneeling on individuals' backs and necks, pulling their hair, and in one case, punching a protester in the nose. I'm sure Netanyahu finds that real titillating. He loves to crush protesters in his own country, loves to watch protesters who are opposing him get crushed here in the U.S.

The demonstration showed no signs of violence before authorities intervened, though police did order the attendees to disperse and warned many that they would be arrested for trespassing. And that's according to a local news outlet that reported on the protests. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, of course, just a few years ago had bragged about free speech. He signed a law to protect free speech on college campuses. Well, he actually cheered on the arrests and called for more. Arrests being made right now and will continue until the crowd disperses. These protesters belong in jail. Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated in Texas, period.

Students joining in hate-filled anti-Semitic protests at any public college or university in Texas should be expelled, failed to provide examples of the so-called anti-Semitism that was demonstrated at the university in Austin. But we've got updates on Columbia as well, Jank. Yeah, right wing, what happened? Cancel culture? Now, if you dare protest a different government, a foreign government, Abbott says you should be arrested because that's hate speech. Now, mind, you're not all foreign governments, you can say, and by the way, not even the American government. You can boycott America, like you can boycott American made products, right? I mean, the few American made products we have left, right?

You can totally boycott that. And in fact, no problem, no problem. You could criticize the war crimes that our military carried out, but don't you dare criticize the war crimes that the Israeli military carries out, unacceptable. And sometimes they even say, oh, if it's a union plan hiring American workers but a union jobs, that's bad, boo, right? So all these things you can say about America and American workers, and American voters, no problem at all, right?

But hey, you're criticizing Israel? I didn't even hear what it was. It doesn't matter what it is. I want him arrested, Greg Abbott said. That violates his own law. Now, but worse than that for the right wingers, he said anyone who's at those protests, protesting Israel is an anti-Semite.

So if you're a right winger out there and you don't want your money being sent to Israel, for whatever reason, you know, maybe you're like us or you think, Jesus, they killed 25,000 women and children, What more do they have to kill? Or you think I don't care about those people, but I don't want my taxpayer money, not going to the border, but going to some other country, right?

Congratulations, you're now an anti-Semite. According to Abbott. A Republican governor, yeah. So right wing, come get your boy. Do you believe in free speech or don't you? Because right now, Greg Abbott is the king of cancel culture. He's saying you disagree with Israel, I'm gonna call you an anti-Semite, I'm gonna smear you, and I'm gonna arrest you.

I'm gonna take away your freedom because you dare to disagree with a foreign government. I can't think of anything less America first than that. Meanwhile at Columbia University yesterday, Speaker Mike Johnson showed up to demand that the president of that institution resigned. The same president who did everything she could to placate Republican members of Congress, crush the protesters, wasn't enough, wasn't enough. NBC spoke to a Jewish professor. Let me just reiterate that. NBC News spoke to a Jewish professor from Columbia about her thoughts on how Speaker

Mike Johnson showing up to demand that police crack down on student protesters. Let's watch. Is it constructive to have the Speaker of the House on campus calling for the President's Asper? Absolutely not. Debbie Becker is a Jewish professor who ate Passover dinner in the encampment with protesters. Most of those Congress members have an agenda that is about taking down our higher education institutions that they think of as places of

woke indoctrination. Becker and other faculty in the sociology department signed a letter voicing their alarm over the NYPD's arrests on campus. They need to vow not to be using the security forces and discipline as a way to handle conflicts over complex challenging speech. I mean, what could possibly be more anti-Semitic than a Passover dinner, Jank? I mean, I don't want anyone to miss that point. Let's take a look at the next graphic because there's an image of that dinner taking place. Spent the first night of Passover at the student Seder in the Gaza Solidarity Encampment at Columbia.

The Jewish flank of the Palestine Solidarity Movement is growing and it is so beautiful to behold. judge for yourself, how unsafe these Jewish students look. Yeah, so to give you the sense of height of absurdity now, they're at peak propaganda. Because as we're gonna tell you later in the program, now Bernie Sanders, the most prominent and successful Jewish politician of all time is being called anti-Semitic. Of course, Passover dinner at a peace protest, anti-Semitic. Jewish protesters anti-Semitic because they realize they're on a different planet than the rest of us. In Washington world, no one disagrees.

Anyone who disagrees with Israel, whether they're Jewish or not, whether they're observant or not, it doesn't matter. We call them anti-Semites and we arrest them. That's so obvious to everyone in Washington, right? But to the rest of us, they don't get it, hey, you schmucks. We don't all watch mainstream media anymore. You don't get to brainwash us anymore with this establishment crap that you guys peddled, right? So look, finally, if anyone at a protest is doing anything that actually isn't,

Semitic targeting or harassing someone who's Jewish or saying stupid things supporting Hamas or whatever it is. Drive them out of the protests because all they're doing is hurting you. And oftentimes, and you know, every peace protest has people that are sent in to create trouble, right? And so I don't know if that's happening here. And oh, by the way, I should clarify, I said a couple of days ago that there was a lady holding an Al Qasam rocket and that she was an infiltrator and fake. I read more into that and there's good evidence on both sides. I don't know who she is, so I retract that statement. But does, can it happen?

Sure can't. My point though is whether they are or they aren't, if they're saying something against Jewish Americans, they're not one of us. They're not peace protesters, they're not people trying to protect innocent lives. So do not tolerate that. On the other hand, for 99.999% of these students that are protesting, thank you. You're American heroes who are actually fighting to save innocent lives. You're not the worst of us, as the liars on television say.

Exactly. You're the best of us. Exactly, exactly. The disgusting attempt to conflate peaceful protesters with the few examples that they've managed to muster up of people saying anti-Semitic things is absolutely disgusting, defamatory. And it is incredible to see how, I mean, it feels like an orchestrated effort. Corporate media is engaging in it. Every lawmaker with a few exceptions is engaging in it. Just smearing these college students using the exceptions as the rule, right?

The exceptions to make this, you know, argument that all the protesters are spewing hatred. They're not spewing hatred at all. If there are a few examples, there should be consequences for the few examples. But pointing to them to make a point about all the protesters is just absolutely disgusting. And that's what's been happening. Yeah, so the last thing for me is I know it's not coordinated. And I wrote about this in my book, Justice's coming. When there's a thing called group think, right?

And in the Washington bubble, for example, no mainstream media reporter ever talks about money when it comes to legislation. So they're past $17 billion for Israel, none of the articles mentioned the $100 million APAC is spending on politics. But it's not just about Israel APEC. They never mention it when it's oil companies, bank companies, any drug companies, any lobbyists are never, ever, ever mentioned when they're discussing legislation. Is it because all the reporters and the politicians got together in a cabal and a secret room? No, they have group think. They all think, of course the millions of dollars doesn't affect politicians, they're honorable people.

I was at a cocktail party with eight of them yesterday and we were playing ass laugh football. We love each other. It's group think. And so lastly, guys, don't think. the point of this protests is divestment from Israel. And what they're saying is if Columbia, University of Texas, et cetera, is putting money and investments into Israel when they have five and a half million hostages that they haven't released in 57 years, these occupied territories, these people are prisoners. No, our money should not go to this state that keeps five million

hostages. And that is absolutely right. And I think that it's a moral duty. of anyone who doesn't want these people slaughtered and occupied forever to stop doing all business with Israel. Don't travel to Israel. And by the way, when I say this, that is the number one thing that triggers the Israeli side. Because once you get into economic issues, that might work in making them stop. So they hate that kind of talk. So, but I don't care. Divest, boycott, sanction, do not do business with Israel until they stop the bombing and they stop the occupations. And then once they do, and we have a two state solution, great, then I'm happy to go back to Israel, do all sorts of business, and welcome them into the nations of the world.

But until then, they're a pariah state who has chosen to keep those hostages and humiliate them and bomb them and kill them anytime they want. And it is 100% unacceptable. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, insane accusations against Bernie Sanders. It's just disgusting. Coming from a Democrat in Congress who doesn't even know what our own Constitution stands for. That and more coming up, don't miss it. All right, back on TYT. Jane Hidanna with you guys.

Also fly rise studio ninja records. All right, good to see that you guys are here. And Lynn 77, and then these wonderful people gifted memberships, Bruce Salazar, Benjamin Moral, Katrina Lowe, and then Jesse and box gifted five young tourist memberships on YouTube. You guys are amazing. Hit the join button below, or if you want to donate, which we definitely need, t-y-t.com slash team. Anna.

All right, well, let's talk about the smear merchants in Congress, and we're going to focus on a Democrat here. House Democrat, Jared Moskowitz, and AOC duked it out on X yesterday after Moskowitz had the audacity to go after a Jewish senator, Senator Bernie Sanders, and accused him of anti-Semitism. So this feud all began when Bernie wrote the following post. post after his amendments to end offensive military aid to Israel. Now, he didn't say anything about defensive military aid to Israel, things like the Iron Dome. But nonetheless, here's with a tweet in question, it is a dark day for democracy

when the Senate will not even allow a vote on whether U.S. taxpayer dollars should fund Netanyahu's war against the Palestinian people. Now, Bernie's amendment would have touched the funding for for military aid having to do with offensive weapons, not defensive weapons like the Iron Dome, but that was apparently too much for Moskowitz, who wrote in response to Bernie, Bernie now do anti-Semitism, why so quiet? Moskowitz is a fervent supporter of Israel,

wants the military aid to go to Israel with no strings attached. Earlier this week, he had the nerve to compare pro-Palestinian protesters on university campus, to the white supremacist marchers in Charlottesville. So let's take a look at his interview and I'll break it down further. While there is protected speech, free speech, hate speech is not protected. And we are well into the realm of hate speech, right? I mean, let's just look at what's happening.

We were mad years ago when we saw Charlottesville and Jews will not replace us. And Donald Trump's saying good people on both sides or Mexicans or rapists, right? But somehow we don't have the same anger of go back to Poland. My grandfather's entire family was killed in Poland. He was the sole survivor, right? All Zionists should be killed, bomb Tel Aviv. I know the people saying this aren't, you know, white Aryan males with tiki torches, but they have the same message.

these students that are participating in this, and it's not all of them, but the students that are allowing this to go on with the Hamas flags, letting these people onto campus, the professors that are participating in this, it's the same message, which is Jews are not welcome. So, Jank, I'm going to let you handle this, but I just want to start off by saying one thing. He is a sitting member of Congress, a United States representative, who is unfamiliar with our own constitution. Whether you like it or not, the The First Amendment absolutely protects hate speech. It does.

Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment of our Constitution. Jank. Yeah. But okay, let's start there. So we're talking about hate speech. You know what I think super hateful is to say 25,000 dead women and children are not enough. I want to Israel to attack Gaza more. I want him to bomb and siege Rafa and kill way more women and children because they're the

most moral army in the world. It's moral to murder Palestinian women and children in the tens of thousands. I think that's definitely hate speech. So are we gonna arrest Moskowitz? Now he compares peace protesters saying please stop slaughtering innocent people to Nazis. I can't imagine anything more offensive. Now if you did it back to him, he would catch every feeling in the world. You know what sounds more like Nazis to me? Saying 25,000 dead women and children is not enough. It's not enough of a swatter. I want more innocent lives on the other side.

Ended. Who cares? Where's daddy program that Israel has? Confirmed by the Israeli press? They wait for a suspected militant picked by an AI program that they're not even sure as a militant at all, but they don't kill them when they find them. They wait for them to go home so they could murder their children and their family along with them. I know, but that's okay because they're doing it to Palestinians.

Yeah, but that's not hateful. But don't protest that. That's not hateful. That's not what Nazis would do. Nazis would be for peace. That's that's not my ideology. That's Muscoitz. Muscois is this lunatic who says, oh my God, the Nazis were really well known for peace protests.

Okay, okay. So now, who's this Moskowitz clown? Why would anybody take this moron seriously? Calling, implying that Bernie Sanders is anti-Semitic. It's disgusting. I mean, it's peak propaganda. And then Moskowitz is a pure establishment guy, okay? So you, and lobbyists need something passed, you go to Moskowitz, he'll deliver for you.

Now this one he's really got his, you know, heart and soul into. He doesn't need A-PAC and defense contractor, money, et cetera. He'll do that in all other instances, but to be fair to him, just like almost, every politician in Washington. But on top, the Sassman establishment really likes him because he's young and he wears cool sneakers. Like you, because if you're going to betray the American people and say they should be arrested if they disagree with a foreign government, it's okay if you wear cool sneakers. He's such a good example of mainstream media focus on optics rather than substance, right?

So that they think, oh yeah, you want to arrest people for disagreeing with your with the foreign prime minister or foreign government or hey, saying, hey, can we stop slaughtering innocent people? Of course we should arrest them because he has cool sneakers on. And Bernie Sanders, the most prominent, most successful Jewish politician in American history by a landslide, well, he doesn't like to talk about anti-semitism, right? I wonder why anti-Semitic Bernie Sanders? I mean, you'd have to be a lunatic to think that.

But no, in Washington, Bernie Sanders is considered the outsider radical, and Muscoitz is considered an up-and-coming star. You should never, ever vote for Moskowitz, ever. He says that Americans should be arrested if we disagree with a foreign government. It's about the worst thing you could say. So go ahead. Is this hateful, Moskowitz? I think that you're despicable, Muscoitz, and I think that you're the one filled with hate.

34 poor kids killed in Israel by Hamas on October 7th. We tear it into Hamas on the program. We said it was horrible, denounce them in every way, right? Easy, easy, easy, those poor 34 kids. 15,000 kids slaughtered in Gaza. And Muscoot says, not enough. And if you dare protest me sending money to kill those kids, I'm going to have you arrested because you're the hateful one.

Now remember, Moskowitz is irritated with Bernie for simply proposing an amendment that would stop sending offensive weaponry to Israel. By the way, after basically leveling Gaza, okay, after killing all of those people, hey, maybe we've given them enough in the form of offensive weaponry. Let's send them, you know, funds for defense, like for the Iron Dome, for whatever they need to enhance their self-defense. But let's stop aiding and abetting the slaughter of innocent people in Gaza. Which, by the way, let me just say one other thing. Since you mentioned the protests again, let me just mention this.

Israel's already carrying out military operations in Rafa, where you have more than one million Palestinians displaced and sheltering in this tiny, tiny, tiny, of land. Gaza was already densely populated. Now imagine that already densely populated enclave. The millions of people in that enclave, relocating to an even smaller area of land that's now being bombed by the IDF, which no one's talking about because we're too busy talking about the skulls that are getting crushed by police on college campuses, because the protesters have the audacity to be horrified and what we're all seeing happen in Gaza.

In fact, on the first day of the protests, when all this total nonsense propaganda began, 22 people killed in Rafa and yet another Israeli bombing, 18 of them children. But the US media didn't give a damn about that. Didn't mention all those dead kids killed by Israel, murdered by Israel, 18 kids. That's half of October 7th on the kids on the Israeli side. And just one day alone, no, oh my God, there was an agitator that it's not even a student outside of the Columbia protest somewhere in New York City who said something wrong. So shut down all of the protests, all of them calling for divestment.

Guys, this is never about Jew, Muslim, Christian, any of that. Some of the best fighters, some of the best protesters are Jewish. They had Passover dinner inside the camps. Bernie Sanders is the best fighter we have for peace, for all civilians. Jamie Raskin voted against this measure, and Bernie and Jamie are right. Protecting Israel with Iron Dome makes sense, because we're for protecting all civilian lives. We don't say, oh, protect the Palestinians, but not the Israelis. No, protect all civilian lives.

But when you say, no, you must send over offensive weapons to drop on the children of Palestine. That means you're a monster who has no moral core. You're a sick, depraved human being who don't think that Palestinians are human. human, you treat them like animals. And yes, that does remind me of Germany. Thank you for bringing that up, Representative Moskowitz. All right, we got to go. Let's take a break. When we come back for the second hour, we've got more to get into. We're going to move off the Israel topic and talk a little bit about some of the conflicts of interest within our Pentagon and how it benefits private military contractors. That and more coming up. Don't miss it.

Thank you.