The Young Turks - Sponsored By AIPAC

Episode Date: January 10, 2025

Elon Musk walks back his vow to find $2 trillion in wasteful government spending. Trump's Inaugural , Awash in Cash, Runs Out of Perks for Big Donors. The 119th Congress, Brought to You by AIPAC. Breakdown on Republican VS Democrat AIPAC funding. Hochul Seeks to Limit Private-Equity Ownership of Homes in New York. Hosts: Sharon Reed & Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, welcome to the end Turks, Jank Yugar, sharing with you guys. here, not exactly from the Polymarket Studios, as we've been all week. Just to give you guys a quick update, yeah, our studios knocked down a little bit, and Anna did have to evacuate her apartment. So that's why Sharon and Brett are going to step in today, and we appreciate that. She's fine. We're all fine, but a lot of things did burn down. We are going to talk about that in the second

hour when Brett joins me. So two folks from Los Angeles, and Brett's lived in L.A. his whole life. multi-generational family here. So there's some context for you guys as well. Plenty of blame to go around, both on Democrats for what they actually did and for Republicans for how they're responding, which is quizzical. So that's one way you're putting it. Okay. So we got a lot of news on Trump, Biden, and Elon Musk. So Sharon, take it away. All right. Yeah, I've been thinking about you guys out there. So it'll be good for people, our number two, to get just up to the minute update there. Thank you, Jank. We'll begin with lowering the bar, we'll call it. Watch this. Have you identified some cuts that you're really looking at that you think will be successful?

Do you think the $2 trillion is a realistic number now that you're looking more closely at it? Yeah, well, I think we'll try for $2 trillion. I think that's like the best case outcome. But I do think that you kind of have to have some overage. I think if we try for $2 trillion, we've got a good shot at getting one. There you have it. Elon Musk, who Trump has tasked with leading the Department of Government Efficiency or Doge, is starting to realize that his goal of slashing $2 trillion from the annual federal budget is unrealistic to say the lease. Some might say laughable, but in this recent interview with Mark Penn, Democratic poll.

turned marketing exec, must seem to acknowledge he probably would not be able to reduce our $6 trillion budget by a third, but that's not what he's saying, or at least that's not what he said a few months ago. We'll put it that way. Here he is on the campaign trail in October. How much do you think we can rip out of this wasted $6.5 trillion dollar Harris Biden budget? Well, I think we can do at least $2 trillion. Yeah! Yes. Two trillion.

Your money is being wasted, and the Department of Government Divisioncy is going to fix that. So even though he's changed his tune since that pep rally just a few months ago, must still stands by his claim that he'll be able to cut federal spending significantly. Listen. It's not saving money in the government. Well, as you, as you know, it's a, it's a very target rich environment for saving money. Like if you look at any direction, it's like, people's like, where will you find places to save money? I'm like, it's like being in a room full of targets. Like you could close your eyes and you can't miss. So there's just a lot of waste in government because especially the federal government, you just got a situation where the checks never bounce. Like they've got like the infinite money computer. Yeah, but here's what's interesting, right? Elon Musk, the Republicans seem to care so much about government waste and federal spending. Yet the main goal going into the Trump administration this time is to do more tax cuts. So let's remind you. Extending the 2017 tax cuts would add $5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, according to an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, CNBC providing the details there. It's just, it's alarming. at this point, Jank, what they put out there versus the truth. Yeah, so look, all right,

there's one way to look at this. Vince Lombardi, legendary football coach, who once said, we try for perfection, knowing that we can't ever achieve it so that we may hit excellence. Okay, oh, that sounds pretty good. Here's another way of framing this. Yeah, so in other words,

you were just another lying politician. So keep it real. Keep it real. So look, when he said we're going to cut at least two trillion out of a $6 trillion budget, anyone that knows anything about politics knows that that is absurd and totally and utterly undoable. And why? Is it because, oh, wow, I love waste, fraud, and abuse? No, I hate it. In fact, I have specific suggestions on how to cut it and what to cut, and we'll get to that in a second. But no, if you've never followed politics before, you haven't followed it closely, you won't have seen dozens of politicians in the last 25, 30 years saying, oh, we're going to cut ways, fraud, and abuse. And they almost never do. There is one

exception, which I'll get back to. And what they always say, oh, we're going to cut a huge number, and then they cut like $3. Because for two reasons, by the way. One, it's not easy to cut Social Security and Medicare. The American people love those programs, and they are a giant part of the budget. It's not easy to cut defense because the politicians and the military industrial complex loves defense. And that's a giant part of the budget. The last part is the debt. You got to pay the interest rate on the debt. And that is also gigantic. So when you take those things out, which you shouldn't, you shouldn't take out defense. I'll come back to that. But when you take those things out, there's like $17 left. And so they, yeah, I'm going to cut welfare and I'm going to

cut education. Oh, I'm going to punish the poor and whatever. Okay, all right, great. It still doesn't come anywhere near one trillion, let alone two trillion. There's almost no chance he's going to cut a trillion, let alone two. But I think I have so much more to say out of it. But, Sean, I think the real key is, are they going to put anything on that list that's real? Like a $30 billion in oil subsidies. It's totally unjustifiable. It goes to the richest companies in the world. That's for nascent industries. The oil industry has been around forever. Are they going to cut anything from the bloated Pentagon where they can't possibly pass an audit says they don't know where the 400 billion is, et cetera. Maybe they do some of that because some of their base pushes

forward a little bit. And then, hey, whatever they cut, that's legitimate. I'm going to give them a world of credit on. But if they don't cut those things, I'm going to point that out and tell you guys, oh my God, they were so full of crap. They're just the most standard politicians you've ever seen make giant promises and deliver nothing. So that jury's out, but it began to come in today, Sharon, when Eli was like, did I say two, two trillion? I meant maybe, maybe one trillion. Oh, okay, all of a sudden. Yeah, and that's where my focus is. I don't believe for a second they're going to cut any of those things that you mentioned where it's so bloated and an audit would not turn out favorably for the Pentagon and so on and so forth.

But I just wonder, you know, it's not like he said this two years ago. He said it a couple of months ago, you know, and it's been played over and over again. And then it's just the grace that this guy and the rest of MAGA world is allowed here. No one's calling him out saying, wait a minute, you moonwalk back about $4 trillion here and counting. And nobody's holding them accountable. And I just don't understand how you can go from that pep rally to still being in their pocket and saying, oh, Elon's the greatest thing ever, you know, this trust fund baby Elon Musk. Yeah.

So look, this one, I actually don't think that a lot of people know about this interview that he did with Mark Penn. Because I give a right-wing a tiny bit of credit on H-1B visas. They did push back against Elon Musk and Vivek Ramoswamy. And by the way, later in the show, we're talking about how Bernie Sanders agrees with the right-wing base against Elon Musk and Vivek Romo-Swami on H-1B visas, or at least partly agrees with them. And I love that people are having thoughtful, open-minded conversations. But on this one, I am curious to see how they'll react if they ever see it. Because the only place they can see it is places like the young Turks, because right-wing media is not going to go and emphasize, oh, my God, he was full of crap. He cut it by 50% overnight, right?

Like, meaning his goals and his ambitions, et cetera. And I don't know when the right-wing is going to get tired of right-wing leaders lying to them. I know they got tired of Democrats lying to them. and I know they got tired of some established from Republicans lying to them, but will they get tired of Trump and Elon Musk lying to them? So that's a good question, right? And so, and then, but what's interesting is that mainstream media doesn't cover much either. And, and I'm a little worried that mainstream media took the exact wrong message away from this election. So my message is hold everyone accountable. Hold the Democrats accountable. Hold the Republicans accountable. Hold the Republicans. public's accountable, whole Biden accountable, whole Trump accountable. I'm worried that the press got the message, no, these guys won, and it is we no longer think it's a fluke, so must switch to accommodating power. Because this should be a giant story, Elon Musk's backpedaling on a trillion dollars

worth of cuts. And by the way, if you don't know, the only people who actually delivered on that was Bill Clinton and Al Gore. So Bill Clinton said that he put his vice president Al Gore in charge of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. And they actually did. And they actually balanced the budget. Only president in my lifetime that's balanced the budget. So Bill Clinton had many other issues, but always credit where credit is due.

And by the way, so how did Donald Trump do compared to Clinton? Because Clinton balanced it. So I'm sure Trump being the fiscally responsible gentleman that he's been his whole life, balanced the budget last time around, right? because he had four years, not like he had a year, it's not like he didn't have a chance. He added, oh my God, don't tell me he added one trillion, and now they got to cut that trillion he added. No, no, don't tell me he added two trillion. Yes, to the debt overall for the four years, he added $8.4 trillion to the debt. So right now he has a track record of failure and hypocrisy.

Elon added a little bit to that today, but hey, jury's still out. I got an open mind. The credit where credit is due and discredit where discredit is due. So that's coming in either direction. Yeah, and the credit where credit is due part. You mentioned Bernie Sanders. You listen, when he can agree, he's going to agree. Obviously, we know Bernie Sanders, when he doesn't see it that way, he's not shy about explaining himself. Can that help credibility-wise? You know, you talked about the media, mainstream media, just kind of rolling over. He won. There's nothing we can do. Let's just, if not accommodate, just take a back seat. If Bernie Sanders and others say, look, John Alsop, I said it too. I'm going to work with them where I can. I'm going to sit down. I'm going to talk. And I'm going to be vocal where I can. Can that help with this credibility issue with everyday voters, even progressives?

Yeah, look, I love the Bernie Zune. But it's easy for me to agree because I'm doing the same thing, right? And I almost wanted to play a clipbook. Obama. That's why I put it to you. Well, thank you, Sharon. I appreciate it. I almost wanted to play a clip today of Obama talking to Trump during the Jimmy Carter funeral and laughing and smiling. So apparently, traitor, racist, fascist.

No, of course, you have to talk to the right way sometimes. And you don't have to yell at the top of your lungs at all times, says a guy who is used to yelling at the top of his lungs. So if I could say, hey, maybe we shouldn't yell all the time, then maybe we all can say. So that's great. And look, if they do go towards cutting, I would much rather have them cut the Pentagon than Social Security. So if we can, let's all be smart like Bernie Sanders and push it in that direction. And if it turns out, we have an interesting agreement on some portion of H1B visas. That's also super interesting. Actually, Bernie got me to start changing my mind on that. So we'll save that for later on the show. But I want to add one last thing about this story. He's not a Mark Penn. A lot of you might not know who Mark Penn is. And that's a curious show. too, because Mark Penn is one of the most establishment people in my lifetime. He was the number one pollster and consultant for Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was an enormous part of the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign. So Elon Musk likes Mark Penn. I thought they were anti-establishment.

It doesn't get any more pro-establishment than Mark Penn. And it's interesting that Mark Penn is cheerleading him on in terms of cuts, because there's no way he means the Pentagon. Mark Penn being the establishment, you know, theoretically Democrat, but he's so right-wing. He's like he's as close to Mitch McConnell as you get in the Democratic Party. What Mark Penn has always wanted to cut is Social Security and Medicare. So that is a dangerous conversation. Yeah, I agree. We'll take a break right now.

I think we're going to take a break. and get right back with you. All right back on TYT. Jank and sharing with you guys. All right, I'm tempted to get more into the comments, So let's do the show. We've got a lot of news stories. All right, Sharon, what's next?

It's a perk problem. That's what's next, Jack. It seems that Donald Trump is just so popular with mega donors because his inaugural committee has run out of perks, if you can believe it, for those who donated millions to his fund. All that money and some won't get as much. According to a report from the New York Times, Trump's inaugural committee is no longer selling tickets to donors

for his swearing in ceremony. And the events during the January, 20th weekend. Last month, the inaugural committee announced the following benefit packages. We'll run them down for you. Committee members who gave a million or raised two million received six tickets to inaugural events such as the Make America Great Again Victory Rally, an event with Trump's cabinet, dinner with J.D. and Usha Vance. And one America, one light Sunday service with Trump and Melania. So that's where they're at. They've given all they can, despite all the the money. You see the schedule there. It was released to donors last month, and there was originally

a deadline of January 10th to RSVP here that brings us to today one day prior to the original deadline. The committee has raised more than $170 million, according to people briefed on the conversations. The hall is so big that some seven-figure donors have been placed on waiting list or have been told they probably will not receive VIP tickets at all because the events are at capacity. Perspective donors began to be told early this week that no more seats were available for certain events around Washington. According to the people briefed on the conversations, personalized donation link that fundraisers had circulated to their networks of major contributors no longer worked on Tuesday and Wednesday. Now, meanwhile, there are reports that are still coming in about additional top name donors, but now it's unclear if they will be able to attend the exclusive events or will have to get a free ticket to the swearing-in ceremony. This morning, it was announced that both Google and Microsoft are contributing $1 million each to the fund.

Meta and Amazon offered the same amount last month. OpenAI, Sam Altman, contributed a million bucks individually, and it was reported last week by Apple. Axio's Apple CEO, Tim Cook, would do the same. Google is pleased to support the 2025 inauguration with a live stream on YouTube and a direct link on our homepage. We're also donating to the inaugural committee. That was Google's global head of government affairs and public policy. What does this all mean? So much money, not much left to give.

I mean, wildly popular. It's either that or he, you know, pulled a Kendrick Lamar and bought up all the tickets, you know, the opposition did, and it'll be empty there. But it does seem like everybody is scrambling to at least show loyalty, pandering something to Donald Trump and this incoming administration. Yeah. So the people who give money to the inauguration, that is 100% ass-kissing. I want to be clear about that. Because, This is not, hey, I like the guy, or I believe in the guy, and that's why I'm giving him money so he could win.

This is, after the win, this is presenting gifts to the king, right? Oh, we beseech you, dear sir. This is in your honor, sir, right? It's just, I hate it. I hate it through and through. And I know that they got to do an inauguration. I think they should always use government money. Oh, but that taxpayer money, yeah, it's better than having a whole bunch of donors that

for giving a million dollars, they're going to get a billion or a trillion back one day, right? So, and then, you know, on the live stream of Google, bless their hearts. You know, it's a perfectly fine news event to live stream. I could have gone, but I think the inauguration is so boring, no matter which president it is. Like, they literally do nothing. This is the do this, like the Queen of England and stuff. So I, what's the interesting part? I've never understood.

The only thing that I've ever seen in any inauguration that was in any, any way interesting was Bernie Sanders of Mittens. That's it. Okay. Like that was gold. And by the way, if you asked her inauguration of moments, does anybody think of anything but that, except when Melania was pretending to smile to Trump and then as soon as he turned away, you know, she went like this.

That was also fun. So those are literally the only two moments that I remember, right? And then as we're going to get to next, the discrepancy with which these are covered, drive me crazy. Because should you criticize Trump for, you know, receiving these gifts? I mean, I guess, but it's mainly that you should criticize Bezos and Zuckerberg, et cetera, for giving the gifts and then later wanting favor is like, hey, make sure the FTC doesn't regulate my company and declare it a monopoly.

And that's what this is all about. Let's keep it real. But you should, I wish the press would do likewise for Biden, Democrats, and other republicans like Bush when they did the same exact thing. Yeah. But I don't think you're, I think you're right. People don't pay attention to this and the media doesn't overly report it. And so a lot of people don't understand what goes on here. But, I mean, this is a record-breaking amount for inaugural fundraising currently on pace to reach 200 million.

despite benefits being halted for donors here. Trump's 2017 inauguration raised $107 million. So it's twice. It's going to end up being twice that amount, maybe even more. Compare that to Biden, who raised $62 million. This chart, we'll put it up there, was made prior to Google and Microsoft confirming they are, again, donating a million bucks each. And it's just astounding.

tech companies, CEOs, they all want a piece of this thing compared to Joe Biden, and what does that mean? What does it mean? What does it indicate? Additionally, with Biden, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, two of the nation's largest defense contractors gave a million apiece to the inaugural committee. FEC filing show that. So did the ride sharing behemoth, Uber, Telecom Giants, Comcast, A&T, other major corporate donors, including Pfizer, Bank of America, Qualcomm and PepsiCo, The Hill reporting this. So, look, it's a lot of money if you, no matter which administration incoming you look at.

But again, I understand that both parties have their issues with money and influence. But the fact that there is so much willingness to me means because Donald Trump's put it on Front Street and been not shy about it, quite proudly announced. He said the quiet part out loud that pay to play, you give and you shall receive. Am I wrong? Is there no difference? It's just call it inflation. No, no, there's a difference. So you're right, Sharon, but we're both right, right?

So first off, when Biden or Bush, by the way, a corporate Republican, took a ton of money for their inauguration. They take it from these giant companies like Lockheed Martin. Boeing, are those companies doing it for charity? Are they doing it for patriotism? Uber was so patriotic they decided to give to Biden's inauguration. No, they're doing it for favors that they're going to get from the government. That's obvious. It's open and brazen bribery.

And especially after an election, you can't even claim, well, we happen to have aligned interest. No, this is just you saying, here's some money. I'd like to kiss your ass, please give me goodies later. And by the way, this is all for your ego, because it doesn't go to anything like winning an election or getting a bill passed. It goes to how much pomp and circumstance you're going to get. So now having said that, Trump has gotten a lot more than even Biden and the other people.

So Sharon's definitely right about that. But more importantly, this is an extra layer because Trump has said both carrots and sticks, right? So to Sharon's point about carrots, he's like, look, I told oil companies, you give me a lot of money, and I'll give you whatever you want. And then he comes out right after the inauguration. It goes, drill baby drill. He said it during the campaign. He said it after the campaign. And he's just brazen about it.

He's like, do oil companies give me money? I give them favors back, right? Elon Musk, I was against electric vehicles. Elon Musk gives me money on four electric vehicles. I was against TikTok. Jeffias gives me money. Now I'm for TikTok. He's so brazen about the bribery.

And so that's why it's so ironic that a movement that started with Drain the Swamp and that I actually believe some portions really are against corruption, don't mind it when Trump does it. And it does, I'm maddening, it's maddening to me when Democrats don't mind when Biden does it and when Republicans don't mind when Trump does it, right? And then finally, there's a sticks part, too. I mean, he's threatened to arrest Mark Zuckerberg. So Zuckerberg then goes and pays fealty to him, bows down, gives a million dollars, some incense, and whatever else they came to baby Jesus.

I don't know. I forget what the three kings gave him. But the three kings of social media go there and present presents to him like he is baby Jesus. And they're obviously doing that so they don't go to jail, which is a hell of a threat, by the way, and totally and utterly out of bounds by Trump. And so that they get goodies like being able to kill off FTC investigations. Just, I just wonder when, and I mean, I just, I don't know, when Americans are going to wake up and put in their own words, what you just said, both parties, you know, when when you put it like that, Biden did the same thing, $67 million, nothing a sneeze at. But we're just fine with that. All of us have been just fine with that.

on the left. And now that Trump's doing it, there's something more. In a way, it almost feels right that he's at least acknowledging it. At least he acknowledges it. Yeah, yeah. No, that's such a, like, funny and ironic point, Sharon. But it's so like it's, he's worse because he's making the carrots and sticks so much more obvious. You give me money. I will give you favors in return. If you don't give me money, I will arrest you. I mean, it just doesn't get any worse than that, right? Biden and Bush and all the other previous presidents, they were at least more subtle about it, right?

But then that's, so that's the downside. But in an ironic kind of way, it's also a small upside, as you're pointing out. At least we know for a fact he's doing it. And if you're right wing and you deny it, you seem comical, right? And in fact, by the way, just last thing on this, when, you know, now me going on right wing shows apparently, you know, a fairly well-known fact. And when I do, and I talk to him about TikTok and Jeff Yaz, let alone Elon and

electric vehicles, et cetera, they're like, yeah, yeah, that's true. So even they can't deny it. Who would have thought? Early in 2025, everybody's being a lot more, more honest. Let's take a look at this next one, sponsored by APAC. APAC is not dedicated to peace. They're dedicated to inducing the maximum support in America, in the White House, in the Congress, and in the public media for whatever policies the Israeli government has.

at a particular time and they're extremely effective. Yeah, so now departed former President Jimmy Carter speaking truth to power there in a 2007 interview with Democracy Now. Mr. Carter, who has just laid to rest

at a state funeral today, called up the influence of APEC on American politics, and in the years since that interview, APEC has only strengthened its hold over the federal government. And we'll get to that in just a moment, but first,

what do you think of that? Carter Clifshank. He seemed to bravely, some would say, back then, again 2007, almost 20 years ago, say what we now know to be 100% true. If anybody had any doubt. Yeah, I mean, that's why we love President Carter. So, you know, you get into a long history of his record in the White House and his record afterwards. As I did it a little bit in my book, Justice is coming. He did wind up being a little bit. little too conservative on economic issues, actually ironically when he was president. But he's just got a golden heart, and he's done amazing things. And remember, he's Israel's best friend because

he actually got them peace. And if you love Israel, the thing that you really want is a safe Jewish haven, right? And that's what Carter delivered better than anyone by getting a peace deal with their literally their number one enemy, Egypt. And at the time, not only had Egypt led all of the Arab nations to war against Israel. But it was an actual government with an actual military, and Israel was worried about losing. Like Hamas and Hezbollah, they can do damage from time to time, but no one in their right mind thinks they're going to topple Israel, whereas Egypt actually could have. And Carter put that threat away. So no one has helped Israel more than Carter. But he's wonderful and honest. He's only, and look, I've been covering the news for a long time. So back then,

it was, you know, we said it and Carter said it. And we were just about the only ones. And as always, Amy Goodman on democracy now. She's been, you know, amazing on that throughout all these years. And so, yeah, of course, APAC completely controls our politics. In fact, we got receipts. We're going to show it to you. So if you point out that APAC is buying our congresspeople, that is not something against

Jewish Americans. Jewish Americans generally vote for Democrats or progressive, tons of them. are for peace and for and to protect, I believe in protecting Palestinian rights and are some of the bravest fighters, et cetera. And it also doesn't mean that you're against Israel. If you want Israel to be safe, you want them to get to peace. And APEC is now an enormously right-wing organization that answers to Benjamin Netanyahu. And they do not drive towards peace for Israel.

They drive for military conquest, destruction, and annihilation of their names. and they're a cancer to Israel, to the Palestinians, to the entire Middle East, and to our democracy. And again, we were about to show your receipts on exactly how much they buy off our politicians. So to your point, Sharon, I loved Carter for having the bravery to not just say it, but you're right, to say it back in 2007 when that was a thing that you were not allowed to say. Yeah. And to have even a former president emphatically say what he did, it to me helped keep Israel somewhat in check, at least that someone was going to speak out. And in the years since, you know, a lack of that perhaps has led to this. No single organization has ever contributed

as much money to congressional candidates campaigns as APAC did during the 2020, 23, 24 election cycle, sludge reporting that. This new reporting, so just how much did they spend on this election? Here are the numbers. Members of the 119th Congress combined received at least 45, $5.2 million from APEC, the PAC there during the 2020-23-24 election cycle, 349 representatives and senators, or 65% of the 535 total members, they got campaign funding during the 2020-23-24 election cycle from A-PAC. According to Open Secret, 62% of A-PAC spending, this campaign cycle was on Democrats, 38% on Republicans, PAC spend especially large sums on a few candidates in particular. We've reported on that. 93 members of Congress received more than $100,000 from the PAC. Three members of Congress received over a million dollars from APAC PAC. Wesley Bell, Democrat out of Missouri, nearly

3.2 million. George Latimer, the Democrat out of New York, more than 2.8 million. And Jackie Rosen, Democrat out of Nevada, almost 1.8 million. And finally, we will note that this corruption goes all the way up to the top of Congress, House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries. He got at least 933,000 from APEC, White House Republican leader Mike Johnson, got at least $654,000. And it is corruption. I mean, that's the right word for it. We know what happened to Cory Bush. We know what happened in New York.

I asked then if it was not just that the Democratic Party and their leadership were not helping enough, you know, these progressive representative, but we're actually seemed to be in cahoots working against them. Yeah. So congratulations to APEC. I didn't think anybody could outspend Big Pharma, but they did it. So driving corruption even more than Big Pharma or the military industrial complex. previously thought unimaginable. Congratulations, APEC. You're the champion of corruption and destroying our democracy here in America.

And look, I don't know what's worse when politicians serve these corporations that donate to them. And they're like, oh, yes, Pfizer, sir. Of course, charge as much as you like to Americans rob them blind and then we'll drive them into medical bankruptcies. Yes, sir. Or military industrial complex. We will invade countries that didn't do anything to us. you could all get rich while American service members die. I mean, those all sound pretty horrible.

But then APEC comes in and goes, hold my beer, okay? What I'm going to do is I'm going to have you all serve a foreign government. And if you think that's not what's happening, you're just denying reality. Here's the reality. 65% of Congress members getting bribes. Oops, I mean campaign contribution. You think APAC, that is American Israel, PAC or the Democratic majority for Israel did it out of charity or the general welfare of people

in America or did they do it for the thing that's in their name for Israel. So of course it's for Israel. Anyone who denies that is being a lunatic. And by the way, that's almost every mainstream media reporter. They never, ever, ever cover this. And then they say, if someone says, hey, APEC just bought 65% of Congress. Oh, how dare you. That is a fact.

You're not allowed to report facts. Don't you know you're in the news business? Okay. And by the way, if you're wondering, why Randall Bell and Latimer? Because Bell ran against Cory Bush and Latimer ran against Jamal Bowman. And they both criticized Israel, and you're not allowed to criticize Israel. otherwise APAC will come and buy your seat, and that's what they did. So Bell is the congressman from Haifa, and Latimer is the congressman from Tel Aviv.

They have nothing to do with Missouri or New York at all. They are completely and utterly bought by the state of Israel through their PAC, APAC. And again, technically, I want to be clear, APAC claims, and we'll have to take their word for it, because no one ever investigates them, it's apparently not allowed, that the money comes from American citizens who support Israel, maybe. And even so, it doesn't matter. What if there was an American citizen who said, you know what? I'm going to make everybody bow down to Turkey, okay?

I got a billion dollars, and I would buy 85% of Congress, and it's going to be Turkey first, and I'll throw in a random country, Pakistan second, and America, I guess you'll come in third, okay? Everybody would be absolutely outraged. But when, and what, what, it's an American citizen? Are you allowed to spend unlimited money in politics? Why can't I buy all of Congress? I don't want to give people ideas. That's basically definitively what AIPAC has done.

It is legalized bribery indisputably. These seats bought and paid for. New session of Congress will reset with this one has started, and they got right to work. They just voted on their second bill today. That bill will do nothing to solve any of the many problems that Americans are facing. Instead, what do they focus on? It's meant to protect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from the International Criminal Court. Do you think, and I don't even want to, well, I'll just ask it straight up, even though it sounds ridiculous.

Do you think Congress has its priorities straight, Jane? So what's the first things that they did? You know, they talk a big game about immigration and the border and crime and inflation, okay? And they got cut $2 trillion. Well, as we reported today, Elon was like, did I say two? I meant maybe one. And Trump came in and said inflation. Did I say I would control prices?

No, no, I don't know that I could lower prices at all. So instead, the first thing they did was cut IRS auditors who audit the rich. People are making about $400,000. Hmm. I wonder if the donors ordered that. And then the second thing they did is make sure that the war crimes of Benjamin Net and Yahoo are protected, because as we just reported, APAC was the largest donor in these countries. congressional elections.

Look at that. Two for two. They serve the donors right out of the gate 100% and give the voters absolutely nothing. The bill is titled the Illegimate Court Counteraction Act. The bill imposes sanctions against foreign persons, individuals, entities who assist the International Criminal Court in investigating arresting, detaining, or prosecuting,

certain individuals, a summary of H.R. 23. Those certain individuals include any U.S. individual, U.S. entity, or person in the United States. And number two, any foreign person that is a citizen or lawful resident of a U.S. ally that is not a state party to the Rome statute or has not consented to ICC jurisdiction. The bill even explicitly mentions Netanyahu, in case people are wondering, I mean, they want to make no mistake about this. November 21st, 2024, the ICC's pre-trial chamber issued warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and former Israeli defense minister Joav Galant, which should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. As justification for the arrest warrant, the ICC stated it found reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals,

Netanyahu and the former Israeli defense minister intentionally and knowingly deprived, the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival. That was food, water, medicine, medical supplies, as well as fuel, electricity from at least the 8th of October, 23 to May 20th, 2024, sludge with the reporting there. The ICC also found that the Israeli government deprived Palestinians of their human rights targeted them based on their nationality, intentionally attacked their subversive. population. And as you might have already guessed, the backers of this bill are supported by APEC. The bill is co-sponsored by several Republicans with heavy APEC backing, including

Michael McCall, 464,000 at least from that PAC during the 2024 cycle. Brian Mast, at least 213,000 from APEC pack during that cycle. APAC itself, also lobby Congress in favor of the bill. It passed with 243 yes votes, which is significant. 140 no votes, 45 Democrats, joined Republicans to vote for the bill. So again, bought and paid for bipartisan support for this and just so brazen, you know, mentioning Netanyahu by name, protecting him at all costs. There's really no incentive for there to be peace, for there to be change in the region, including, as you mentioned, previously for the Jewish people if this continues. What's the incentive for any kind of scale down?

Yeah. So first off, man, those Israeli elections are so important because they don't just pick the Prime Minister of Israel. They also pick the President of America. So because Netanyahu controls whoever is president, whether a Democrat or Republican, he had dog-walked Biden the entire term. And now Trump is, you know, on his knees.

you know, and so is the entire Republican Party. So look, the Democrats funded this genocide when they were in charge. And what do we tell you guys? You think the Republicans are going to change that? No, of course not, right? So the Republican Party comes in, completely bought by APEC and locks stock and barrel. And they're all like, yes, sir, we serve Israel, sir. We serve Israel.

Oh, what happened to the Alpha guys? But I'm an Alpha men, right? There's no Alphabet. What happened in America first? They're so full of crap, right? And then, of course, 45 Democrats, not to be out of done, are like, oh, no, no, no, we can seat you Israel. We will also take your bribes, Israel. We love you, Israel.

Shut off. A bunch of war criminals, and they funded the war criminals. They're now kissing the ass of the war criminals. They're not our representatives. There is Israel's representatives. So, last thing on this, look, I'm out on a limb, and I've talked to a bunch of shows about this, and I think that the right-wing base is eventually going to turn on this issue and go. enough, enough. And they're not going to do it out of the kindness of their heart.

They're going to do it because they think, they believe in America first, and they're tired of funding of foreign government, and all the wars that Israel demands of us and forces us into while being our special ally, right? And so, but I don't want people to misunderstand that. It's not like, I think, and that's why Republican politicians will come out of the gate and be like, oh, yeah, oh, I'm America first. I'm anti-war. I will stand up to Israel. No, their politicians are dogs. And so the only question is, who's going to walk that dog? Is it going to be Netanyahu or is it going to be MAGA? And so that's the challenge I have to MAGA, and let's find out, okay? And so I know a lot of people are totally don't believe me, and they think MAGA also will serve

Israel first and America may be second. So we're, look, I don't control the them. What I'm seeing is there's a growing anger in the right. And even Trump on true social the other day put out a video from Jeffrey Sachs, who's very much on the left, talking about how we got dragged into the Iraq war because of Netanyahu. And that's true. He was one part of the original neocons, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Benjamin Nantan. who demanded that America fight out war for Iraq when Iraq did not attack us on 9-11. In fact, Iraq was enemies of al-Qaeda who attacked us on 9-11, but they were also enemies of Israel and Netanyahu.

So the fact that Trump shared that is an interesting sign. It doesn't mean anything until you actually take action. And so the first action that the corrupt Republican politicians and 45 Democrats took was, yes, sir, President Netanyahu, we will serve you loyally, sir. Bought and paid for. But it's interesting your take that perhaps MAGA will take care of this at some point. I don't know, but it's something that I'm going to be thinking about. Much more to come. We'll be right back. Back on TYT, Jane and Sharon with you guys. By the way, make sure you're checking out Sharon on all of our shows, Rebel Headquarters. This is a great channel we got on YouTube where she is and Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Ritchie and Damage Report.

So Sharon's all over the network and we love for it. And speaking of folks, we love Nikki McDonald. Oh, boy. Uh-oh. All right. That is an interesting warning from the L.A. Fire Department. Okay. Anyway, I'm saying Nikki McDonald, thanks for joining.

We appreciate you. She had to join by and below. All right. What's next year? A shocking win, we'll call it. New York Governor Kathy Hokel has made a shockingly excellent move for a traditionally establishment Democrats. He's proposing measures that would limit giant investors like hedge funds,

private equity firms too, for buying up swaths of single family homes, a practice that's contributed to the housing crisis across the country. Before we get into the details, though, Jank, your initial thoughts here, I love it, but I wonder if it's too little too late. I mean, there's American cities all across the land that are just pigeonhole because of this. No, I'm shocked by this development, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. So I can't believe she's doing this. And it's definitely a positive development. So let's hear out the details and see if it matches. So here are the details in her proposal. The governor wants to prevent institutional investors from bidding on properties in the first

75 days. And that can be important because, you know, they do scoop them up quickly. The first 75 days that they're on the market, or plan would also remove certain tax benefits, such as interest deductions when the homes are purchased. New York Times with the reporting here, she said in her statement announcing the plan today, this, the cost of living is just too damn high, especially when it comes to the sky-high rents and mortgages. New Yorkers pay every month.

Shadowy private equity giants are buying up the housing supply in communities across New York, leaving everyday homebuyers with fewer and fewer affordable options. In our office's announcement, they explain why private equity has contributed to the housing crisis. These large entities can often outbid prospective homeowners with all cash offers, fast-track their ownership by waiving inspections, appraisals, and other common prerequisites that traditional homebuyers cannot afford to give up. They push rents higher, charge fees, often neglect their tenants, and they're just getting started. institutions own 700,000 single-family rentals, about 5% of the national stock, according to a

research paper from MetLife Investment Management. By 2030, MetLife estimates, they will possess rather 40% of single-family residences, roughly 7.6 million homes. Exact numbers in New York, specifically, they're not clear, but local officials in some upstate cities say investors are buying up dozens of homes at a time turning them into rentals. Investment firms have bought buildings in places like Brooklyn and Queens from families and smaller landlords. Now, Hockel's move is particularly surprising because the real estate industry has backed Hockel's campaigns, according to a Sledge report from April 2024. Since January 1, 2023, donors in the real estate industry counting a selection of executives, employees, companies,

and PACs have given Hockel's campaign at least $1.5 million. And naturally, they are not happy about this move. James Whelan, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, said his team would review the proposal, but characterized it as another example of policy that will stifle investment in housing in New York. So the likely suspects don't like this. It is a bold move for the governor,

of New York. What say you think about what she's doing here and why? Yeah, so governor's race is coming up and she's in a lot of trouble and her poll numbers are bad. And now they're not only worried about a primary, they're worried about losing the general election to a Republican in New York. And Trump did way better than expected in New York. That's the underlying reason. But I'll take it. And so it's a good policy. and it draws attention to this problem. So even if it doesn't pass, it has that win. And we've talked about this problem a lot.

In fact, it's part of our populist plank on t.com. Please go sign that. We'll put a link down below as well if you're watching this later on YouTube or Facebook. And so what it is is that eventually because our homes are the greatest wealth creation asset that we have as Americans, and it is what has built up the middle class into having the wealth that it does in America into having the wealth that it does, the bankers logically figured out, wait, why are we letting the average American buy the homes and create wealth? Why don't we take the homes from them, pay maybe a little bit more, but then we'll turn them all into renters and we'll create

wealth for ourselves instead of letting the American people do it. So this is a gigantic problem. And so it's a very populous thing for her to do to try to drive her numbers up. Now, of course, the number one thing, guys, is, is she actually going to do it? Can she actually pass the bill? And New York is controlled by Democrats. So if she really wants it, show us what you got. Pass the bill. And if you pass the bill, then you should get a lot of credit for it.

And if you don't pass the bill, were you really trying? Or was this just a campaign trick? I can't see how it passes considering the real estate industry and these equity funds and a lot of them with their base in New York. But who knows? Maybe it's gone far enough. The pendulum has swung in that direction and it'll actually happen. But I think it's a desperation move. But I agree with you, Jen.

Give her credit. And hopefully there will be other leaders and jurisdictions across the country. I mean, here in Atlanta, where I am, it's a huge issue. It's huge. And it just seems like a band-aids being put on it, but there's just not enough housing to go around, affordable housing for people in Georgia and beyond. Yeah. So last thing I'll say on it is, look, I'll give you context so you know how much credit to give her or not give her, right? Number one, credit for proposing it. Number two, credit for bringing a spotlight to the issue. Number three, credit for having the correct political strategy, whether she means it or not.

because at a minimum, you know, I tell Democrats, why don't you try to win elections? So instead of telling people how much you love your corporate donors, why don't you do something that's populist and actually popular, right? So she had enough savvy to do that. So I'll give her credit for strategy on that. But I want you to understand all that credit is like 10 to 15%. The real credit isn't actually passing the bill. So if she doesn't pass this bill or she doesn't really try, which is like the oldest,

corporate Democrat trick in the book, then we'll come back and give her extra discredit for being a liar about it, right? So fair is fair. Fair is fair. All is fair and love war and politics, apparently. Looks like that's going to do it. We are out of time, a little bit over. I've enjoyed spending my time with you, Jank, and keep sitting down, keep meeting with people, and being unapologetically you. Thank you, Sharon. Appreciate it. Everybody checking out Shannon on Rebel Headquarters and all of our other shows. You're awesome. And when we come back, lots on LA fires. What went wrong? What are the absurd Republican charges? What are the absurd Democratic defenses? And there's a hilarious, yes, we found one hilarious thing about the fire. We'll share that as well. All right, we'll be back.

Thank you.