The Young Turks - Stand with Ilhan

Episode Date: June 16, 2021

An AP investigation finds that the military has a bunch of weapons missing. McCarthy vows Republicans will remove Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs committee if they take power. Republicans just killed COVID unemployment benefits in these states. McConnell has Dems shook by pitching his plan (again) to block another SCOTUS pick from Dems if a seat is vacant near the end of Biden’s term… if Republicans win control in 2022. Texas’s ERCOT is now warning customers to not cool their houses in the current extreme heatwave, or the grid will fail them again - but Governor Abbott has been focused on signing an anti-choice bill into law. Newly released documents show that Trump and Mark Meadows tried pressuring the DOJ to take up election fraud claims in attempts to overturn Trump’s loss. Fox News pundit spells out how Republicans could steal the 2024 election. Violent and unruly passengers on flights have been on the rise, and it doesn’t appear to be ending soon. Charlie Kirk says home delivery of marijuana is ‘actually slavery.’ Trump is having trouble getting a book deal because he’s an enormous liar, so he’s fittingly lying about how many offers he’s getting for so much money. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Welcome to the Young Turks, Jake Higger and Annie Gersparing with you guys. Lots of news for you guys. We make it a lot of little ones. make a lot of big ones, some fun ones and some serious ones, as always. Guess who we're gonna do with you, okay? Thank you for being here. Like and share the stream. You know, just subscribe for free. Have fun. Subscribe. It'll be great.

We have a wail of a story in our bonus episode today that you do not want to miss. I can't wait to talk about it. It's a, honestly, almost like an old school second hour type story. It's not political. It has to do with animals and science. One of the more fascinating stories I've come across. So definitely tune in if you're a member. If you're not a member, you can become one by clicking that join button. If you're watching us on YouTube or by going to t.t.com slash join. Yeah. So that's a fun story. I like Anna's dad joke, which you'll understand in the context of the story. I might even tell you about how my daughter has discovered dad jokes. And now she's like, oh, it's a disaster. Baba, now's a dad joke. There goes all my jokes. Anyways, so that's, we'll do that in the member section. All right, oh, one last thing before we get started. Huge announcement later in this program. Not a big deal, but kind of a big deal.

You're gonna want to be there, literally. We'll later today, don't worry, go. You'll see. I know, but you'll see. But I should know what it is ahead of time. No, major announcement. All right. All right, okay, all right.

Well, let's begin with a very serious story that I wish was getting more attention, but this is the kind of reporting that I think is incredibly important, and it was done by the Associated press. So, a new associated press investigation has discovered that amidst all the gun violence that we've been facing in this country, the military certainly isn't making matters any better. In fact, the military in the 2000s, early 2000s, had essentially lost literally literally thousands of weapons and oftentimes had no idea that they had lost, many of them. So the army couldn't say how it's Beretta M9 got to New York's capital in Alberta.

Until the June of 2018 police, until the June 2018 police footchase, the army didn't even realize someone had stolen the gun. Inventory records checked by investigators said the M9 was 600 miles away, safe inside Fort Bragg, North Carolina. So what's up with this 9 millimeter Beretta M9? Like, what's what's up with this gun? Well, it turns out it was actually connected to four shootings in Albany, my bad, in Albany, New York. And so this is actually a widespread problem that has basically gone unnoticed by the military. Weaponry being stolen. In some cases, it's an inside job where lower ranking soldiers will know about some vulnerabilities. And hey, the military's got a lot of

of weapons, they're not going to notice, why not steal them and sell them on the private market. Now, an Associated Press investigation has found that at least 1,900 U.S. military firearms were lost or stolen during the 2010s, with some resurfacing in violent crimes because some armed services have suppressed the release of basic information. The Associated Press actually is undercounting, underestimating just how many of these weapons have gone missing or have been stolen. Now, while the AP's focus was on firearms, and this should concern you,

military explosives also were lost or stolen, including armor-piercing grenades that ended up in an Atlanta backyard. And I just want to quickly show you what the makeup of these weapons are. The Associated Press provided a graph that helps visualize what kind of weapons were stolen or have gone missing.

Rifles tend to be the top weapon with 1,179 missing. 694 handguns, you have 74 machine guns, 36 grenade launchers, 34 rocket launchers, and the list goes on and on, 11 shot guns. So this is obviously a problem, and I'll outline where some of these weapons ended up, and the crimes that they were used in, but also note that some of these weapons end up in Latin American countries. They end up in places where they're, you know, used for violence against civilians. And then we have these conversations about why people are fleeing violence in their own countries. We should have a discussion about how we, you know, contribute to that violence ourselves.

Yeah, now I know the lead is all these missing weapons that are showing up in crimes all across the country. And it's the incompetence of the military plus a sea of guns, plus tons of violent people and the glorification of guns in the country. But that subheadline is a hell of a thing, that 36 grenade launchers and 34 rocket launchers, holy cow, I mean, you saw the graph. That's 70, you know, basically shoulder-fired missiles. Like, that's unbelievable. So there's somewhere out there. And by the way, you know, the right wings says they have pretty much an unlimited right to arms.

They believe that cop killer bullets are okay. They think that people on the terrorist watch list should be able to buy weapons. So if there are no bounds to weapons and there are no bounds to who can get them, so presumably people on the terrorist watch list in America can get their hands on a rocket launcher or grenade launcher. And so there's no end to the madness in America. Look, I presume some of these were stolen to sell to other countries. Or gangs, which is disastrous, right?

But can some of them still be here, whether they were sold to gangs or not? Remember, if they're sold the gangs, the gangs are also here, right? So it's beyond disastrous. And I'm curious to see if the right wings, of course, they're not going to defend the theft, right? But if somebody starts using grenade launchers, they might be like, hey, right, the right to bear arms. It's arms, it's arms. I have an unlimited right. I'm an American. I mean, if there's tyranny in the government, how am I going to kill all those

cops and military people, the right wing might say, without having grenade launchers? You know, I got to say, in this particular story, the right wing really hasn't responded yet. So while I would love to go after the right wing, I think that there are actually other groups of people worth going after. And my main focus is really Congress and the inaction by Congress and their unwillingness to address these matters. You know, the military, had to report on missing weaponry to Congress, but the law that forced them to do that expired, and Congress did nothing about it.

And so that's exactly the reason why the Associated Press reached out to the military and wanted to see some documentation. They did this investigation through Freedom of Information requests, and the military was like, we don't really know, we're not really keeping tabs on all of this stuff, because guess what? They don't have to.

And one other thing I'd want to just quickly mention, I'm not making any excuses for anyone in the military who might steal these weapons and then sell it in the black market. However, I also want to just point out that it's thought that the lower ranking members of the military are the ones who are doing this. How much do they get paid again? They get about $19,000 when they first enter the military. All the support the troops that you've ever heard, and almost none of it goes to the actual troops. almost all of it goes to defense contractors and they're very, very wealthy executives. Those guys, of course, don't have to steal anything because they already stole from the American government.

Now before I give you some more details on this, I want to go to this fun video from a Senate hearing where, you know, there were some questions asked about this particular issue and what needs to be done about it. So in the wake of this Associated Press investigation, Army Secretary Christine Wormuth was, you know, telling senators what she thinks needs to happen. But I actually want you to pay close attention to the framing of the question from this senator. Watch. 1,900 arms, firearms is not exactly a small number. Apparently a substantial number are used in crimes, have been recovered at crime scene. would like to know whether you will commit, as the Pentagon used to do, sharing annual updates about lost or stolen firearms with Congress, whether you will resume that regular reporting.

You know, we do take these reports very seriously. And I absolutely commit to you to look into this and share what we know and get back to you on. I don't mean to interrupt, and I apologize. But will you commit to reporting to Congress, as was the practice? Senator, I think what I can commit to is we can share with you everything we in the Army understand about our weapons. And will you report, will you support a reporting requirement generally to the Department of Defense? I think we'd be open to a reporting requirement. So she says she's open to a reporting requirement. I just think it's fascinating that Senator Blumenthal, who is a lawmaker, is asking these tough questions and essentially passing the buck.

No, you're the lawmaker. The law that required the Pentagon to report on missing weapons expired. I mean, it's not like he's a new lawmaker. He's been in office for a while. Why is this an issue now? And why are you passing the buck onto an army secretary when in reality lawmakers need to pass. laws, they need to do their job. It's just, it's, Congress is really to blame for this issue. Now, are there security vulnerabilities within the military? Yes, clearly it's a huge problem

in the army where the majority of these weapons were stolen. Let's take a look at the next graph. It'll give you a sense of, you know, among the armed services, you know, the army has lost the most weapons. It's not even close. Then you have the Navy Marines and others. But overwhelmingly, it's the army. And they're not going to, they're not going to go out. out of their way to do public accountability unless they're forced to do it. And the only way they'll be forced to do it is if lawmakers do their jobs. Okay, I only have two quick things to say. One is actually reading a member comment.

Jay Brown writes in, shows our military is so overfunded. They don't even know when a weapon goes missing. We should redirect some funds from the military to fund things like Medicare for all or $15 minimum wage. Well, that sounds like a pretty good idea. Rather than having it go to rocket launchers that they then lose and or sell in the black market. Even Eisenhower warned us about this. You know, the guy who helped win World War II and was a Republican president, but nobody ever listens. And it's part of the giant

waste in the military. They have so much money and weapons. They almost literally don't know what to do with it. And so thank you to our members for participating in the show as Jay Brown just did. Great point. And finally, I just want to double down on what I said in the beginning, which is, look, we're sometimes tough on the press, including on the Associated Press, especially when they fire the wrong people for no reason because of right-wing pressure. Yeah, I mentioned that again. But here, fantastic investigative journalism. Thank you.

Good journalism is possible and credit where credit is due. Well, let's move on to our next story. And unfortunately, the pressure campaign against Representative Ilhan Omar continues. news. GOP lawmakers have been engaging in this pressure campaign threatening Representative Ilhan Omar for speaking out against the possible war crimes conducted by the Israeli government toward the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. Now the latest threats come from Representative Kevin McCarthy.

Let's hear what he has to say. I think Nancy Pelosi should remove Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee. This is an individual that has not once, but on numerous, occasions been anti-Semitic. Her own entire Congress had to rebuke her in the last one. But she's just not anti-Semitic. She's anti-American now. She's equating America to Taliban, to Hamas. She's discrediting our greatest ally in the Middle East Israel, the only democracy. But the Democratic Party and the leader of that party, the speaker, said on her Sunday show that she did not rebuke her. She thanked her. So the Democrats believe this

message, that is what's in doubt for me. I will promise you this. If we are fortunate enough to have the majority, Omar would not be serving on foreign affairs or anybody that has an anti-Semitic, anti-American view. That is not productive and that is not right. Now his interpretation of Nancy Pelosi's interview was inaccurate. Wow, what a shocker. It wasn't great, by the way. I didn't agree with Nancy Pelosi's statements, which we'll get to in just a second. But I do I want to remind the audience about the offensive remark that Representative Omar made because I don't find it offensive. She said this, we must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities

committed by the United States, Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I ask Secretary Blinken, where people are supposed to go for justice? Because the United States does not agree with the international criminal court and its probe into the Israeli forces, possibly doing war crimes against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. So if the US doesn't believe in that, doesn't support that, how exactly would the Israeli government and the Israeli forces be held accountable for that? That was her question. And Jenk, Pelosi actually did rebuke her real quick. Political reported that Pelosi's leadership team released a statement rebuking the remarks, and then later thanking Omar for issuing a clarification, and her clarification was simple.

I'm not trying to, you know, say that Hamas is, or the Taliban is equal to the United States, or Hamas is equal to the Israeli government. Although all the parties mentioned clearly have engaged in possible war crimes, and she wants to make sure that, you know, there's a fair system that looks into all of it. Okay, so first line, Kevin McCarthy, I've been trying to figure out who does he sound like? He sounds ridiculous. So I'm just going to make a fun point first before we get to the serious stuff. And then I figured it out.

It's the guy from boardwalk empire. So there was like a loser like hanger on and boardwalk. And he would talk like this. I remember that guy. Yeah, okay. And I was like, who talks like that? Nobody talks like that. He sounds so silly.

It was like distracting. It turns out I was wrong. Kevin McCarthy talks like that. Yeah, that's right. Exactly. That's a good one. Ilhan Omar. She's an anti-American.

Okay, anyway. Now on to serious stuff. So first of all, the Democrats are guilty here. They needlessly threw Ilhan Omar under the bus themselves for no reason. Twelve corporate Democrats got together, pretending to be outraged by non-existent anti-Semitism. So, and I could prove that. Let me just ask those guys, anybody, of course, the press will never ask them. But she is clearly referring to cases in front of the international criminal court. You guys are Democrats. Do you think that America and Israel should not be subject to the international criminal court as every other country is?

Do you think we should be above the law when we torture people, commit war crimes, etc.? It's an easy question because you're criticizing her. You're saying what? It's an anti-Semitic position to say that America and Israel should follow the international law on war crimes just like Hamas and Taliban should. So we're asking you a simple question, should we be above the law? Should we be allowed to torture? It's like, you guys, I get it, Republicans are in favor of torture and war crimes, but you guys are Democrats.

Yeah, they are in favor of those things. So let's just keep it real. By the way, I have an very good authority from a very good source inside Washington, that all of this was a stunt to distract from one of the corporate Democrats corruption scandals. And when he got caught with this hand in the cookie jar, by the way, David Dayan, it's Josh Gottheimer, okay? David Dan and the American Prospect wrote an excellent story about how he's financed by some of the financial industry, including the worst of the lenders that charge up to 3, 400% as that was going on. All of a sudden, Squirrel, Ilhan Omar made a comment that is perfectly legitimate, but we're going to pretend it's anti-Semitic.

Now, what is the cost of that other than the truth and decency? The cost is it allows the Republicans to paint all Democrats as anti-American, anti-Semitic, etc. And the Democrats willingly walked into that. It's not like they were like, oh, the Republicans would probably let it go. No, they knew they were gift wrapping a president for Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, Matt Gates, et cetera, right? And they, and Marjorie Taylor Green. And they did that because they thought rather smear the entire Democratic Party And definitely, Ilhan Omar, who's probably received the most death threats. And yes, it's definitely because of a race and religion.

And let's do it again. Let's double down. Let's be that monstrous just so nobody talks about our corporate donors. So that's who those corporate Democrats are. Everybody who signed that letter is abhorrent, absolutely abhorrent. So there is somebody who's guilty here, but it certainly ain't Ilhan Omar. McCarthy, look. McCarthy is going to McCarthy.

Exactly. Nobody's surprised by that. This is politics. They're gonna do what they're expected to do as the opponents to the Democratic Party. It's just that corporate Democrats make it so easy for them over and over again. And so Dana Bash of CNN decided to ask Pelosi about this, about rebuking Ilhan Omar. And here's what she had to say. Rashida Talib, one of her close friends, member of your caucus,

tweeted the following. Freedom of speech doesn't exist for Muslim women in Congress. The benefit of the doubt doesn't exist for Muslim women in Congress. Okay, you know, House Democratic leadership should be ashamed. But let me just say this. Yeah. We did not rebuke her. We thanked, acknowledge that she made a clarification. So before we go too far down the path, credit these aren't my words.

No, I understand that. I understand that. That's a member. Yeah. That's a caucus member. Yeah. So I just wanted to get your response to that. No, I'm not, I'm responding that we, the Congresswoman Omar is a valued member of our caucus. She asked her questions of the Secretary of State.

Nobody criticized those about how people will be held accountable if we're not going to the International Court of Justice. That was a very legitimate question. That was not of concern. Members did become concerned when the tweet that was put out equated the United States with Taliban and Hamas. Rashida Talib is accusing you, and, and then she clarified it. And we thanked her for clarification. Her tweet did not equate anything, and I think her tweet rightly called out various countries and groups of people that have committed atrocities that should be investigated.

So let me go a couple steps further here. So first of all, Dana Bash asked a lot of tough questions of AOC in that same. show, but credit to her, she also has tough questions of Pelosi. So now Pelosi's answer is at a bare minimum, awfully misleading. So number one, they did rebuke, and then they thanked her for the clarification afterwards. Now I can prove to you that Nancy Pelosi is bad intent. Now if you have someone who you were working with, you could do one of two things. You could rebuke them publicly and then ask her clarification, or you can ask her clarification

ahead of time. And you could do it privately. Oh, the tweet was in reference to the ICC. Oh, in the tweet you referenced Secretary Blinken because that was who your question was referring to. Oh, well, that clarifies it. We don't have to rebuke you at all. We did something very, very simple. We just asked you, right? They chose not to ask. That includes Speaker Pelosi because they wanted to smear Ilhan Omar. Not the Republicans. The Republicans are going to do it anyway. Nancy Pelosi giffrapped that smear and handed it to Kevin McCarthy. That's actually what happened. And why did she do it? Because you've got to protect the corporate donors. The donors must be protected. Payday lenders are given one of my

members tons of money. Godheimer's, I think, raised about $7 million, if I'm not mistaken. Read David Dayne's piece of the American prospect on it overall in his career, okay? Seven million dollars? Yeah, oh, these guys are unbelievably corrupt. Wait, wait, wait, from payday lenders alone? No, no, financial industry. Okay, got it. Okay. And if payday lenders are, final money, et cetera, right? And then the American prospect writes the story, and then they're like, oh my God, who should we throw onto the bus? Oh, pick the Muslim, no one cares, okay? Jesus. And so that's what Nancy Pelosi did. That's what she is. Almost everyone in mainstream media kisses are asked 24-7, and they will almost stoop to nothing to cover for her.

But that's why I'm giving Danabash credit. Those are tough, good questions. Always, guys, hold them accountable, but then give credit where credit is due. So, but, but They don't have a very large majority at all in the House, and Democratic leadership is horrible at politics. So it's very possible that they'll lose the House in 2022. And then they're good, the Republicans are going to kick Ilhan Omar off of the Foreign Affairs Committee so that one of the things that'll do is then you'll silence any voice of opposition against Israeli policy and American war crimes.

And one last thing I'll go further on is who are we? kidding. Israel and America do war crimes. So when you say, oh, how dare you compare that to Hamas's war crimes? What do you mean? They're both war crimes. There, I just dared it. And so that doesn't mean that Hamas's great guys or Taliban is great. Of course not. Taliban's monstrous to women, to non-Muslims, you name it, right? And we're not saying everything is equal. I'm not saying Apple pies as bad as Taliban. Okay, baseball, well, it's arguable. Okay, but right, but are

our war crimes just as bad as their war crimes? Well, it depends. What's the war crime? And in some instances, absolutely. And by the way, when Israel kills 10 times as many civilians, or America and Iraq kills hundreds of thousands of civilians, yes, our war crimes are just as bad and sometimes worse. Oh my God, he says something that's true.

pretend to get offended. You can't argue with the facts of what I'm saying. And we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Then we turn around, go, oh, can you believe a child died there? Let's go bomb people, et cetera. How many children did we kill in Iraq? Oh, no, you're not allowed to say that because that would show the ugly side of America. Well, is it untrue? No, it's 100% true. Yep. I mean, Obama murdered a U.S. citizen with a drone strike. No due process, no nothing. I'm not saying the guy that he did a drone strike on was innocent and a lovely person, but U.S. citizens are supposed to have their day in court. They're supposed to be given due process.

That is our constitutional right. And Obama not only murdered him in a drone strike, but then murdered his teenage son. And I believe one other child of his. The eight-year-old daughter. By the way, guys, you heard, so Anna says something that in media is considered very harsh. And I guarantee you any mainstream media person watching this going, how dare you? They say that. Are you challenging the powerful or are you comforting the powerful?

Because Unwar al-Lavlaki was absolutely murdered by the United States of America in an extrajudicial assassination. They did not check with any courts, they did not go to the courts, he was a US citizen. Now you can think he was a terrible guy, and I'll probably agree with you, although they never ever proved that he did a terrorist attack. They said he talked about supporting the bad guys. Okay, so, but I'm not going to litigate that because you know who's supposed to litigate that? A court.

Yep. But we didn't. We murdered an American citizen on purpose and said, yeah, but he's Muslim and talked bad things about us. And Eric Holder, specifically, the attorney general for Barack Obama said, no, judicial process, due process does not necessarily mean judicial process. That is as absurd and as terrible as anything Donald Trump has ever said. That means the executive branch can just murder American citizens if they're abroad, and maybe if they're home once you open up that door, without checking with a judge ever.

So that is abysmal, yes, Barack Obama did that. That doesn't mean that Barack Obama, every part of him is bad, that he eats his burgers the wrong way and he wears the wrong suits, and that he's not a very nice guy in other settings. I'm sure he is. But did he do that? Yes, he did, that's a fact. But the corporate media covers for corporate Democrats nonstop. And by the way, they claim that his 16 year old son was killed accidentally in a completely

different strike at a completely different time. And then they claimed that his eight year old daughter was also killed accidentally, all American citizens, at a completely different strike at a completely different time. Three different members of the family killed in three different strikes that it were spaced apart significantly. And two of them, one of them was just an execution with no grounds at all, and the other two were like, oops, so. Did we happen to kill his kids too? I guess so. Collateral damage. It was collateral damage. Remember how mad everybody was when Trump said we should kill the terrorists and their family?

Obama actually did do that. So if you say to him, the best case scenarios, golly gee, what a bad, bad, bad stroke of luck that he happened to accidentally also kill his family members. that's not a great defense. It might have been an accident, and it might not have been Obama. It might have been the CIA who did it. Under Obama's watch. Under Obama's watch, and then Obama covered for them. That is also not a great fact pattern. So we don't know who ordered the strikes and whether they were actually accidental,

but we do know those three American citizens are all dead, and no one ever asked the judge. So that's the reality. When we come back from the break, we'll discuss how red states have already. already begun prematurely cutting off recipients of unemployment insurance. We have that and more for you when we come back. All right, back on a young church, Jank and Anna with you guys. So I read two quick things. Pete Jacobin wrote in on Super Chat.

Anna, you rock, Jenk, you're the best. Thank you. It's just I want to send a love back. That's why I read that one. But it mainly on Twitch, Mike the Reiner Go Wolfpack writes in. Woot, sub anniversary. anniversary, I was at the protest of the treasury way back in the day with Cheng. See, that's why I love you guys. That was such a, it was such a good

effort on our part that it was so, it was about Goldman Sachs getting the money that they got on a backdoor bailout from AIG and we did a protest for the Treasury Department. I realized now looking back at it, oh my God, the mainstream media couldn't wrap their heads around that if their life depended on it. Totally. It was such an intricate minutia thing, but that was so important because they basically stole $13 billion from the U.S. government, right? And I love that you guys showed up and that you still remember that and you're still watching. That's what TYT's about.

Was that the enough protest? No, that was a different one. That was in L.A. And we used to do West Clark Jr.'s to come out with us. We were the enough t-shirts. We've been through so much and I love you guys for supporting us. And most importantly, in the things where we go try to make a difference of the world. And we also did a protest at CNN when Obama during the ACA debates decided to cave to Republicans and drop the public option.

So I remember that. That was fun. We just wanted the press to just finally cover it. They weren't covering it. Yeah, that was actually a big protest. That went really, really well. We still have some clips from that. But one of the one quick thing on that, it's because CNN had done a poll showing how popular the public option was. And then the very next day turned around and said that it was unpopular. That's what it was. Even though it was their own poll, it was like over 70%. And we're like, just, can you report on your own poll? Can you please stop lying constantly about how progressives are unpopular?

There are positions when your own poll indicates we're overwhelmingly popular. All right, anyways, more news. All right. In an effort to make Americans so desperate that they have no choice but to take starvation wages at a company that abuses them, red states have decided to prematurely cut off. unemployment insurance to unemployed Americans during the coronavirus pandemic. Now these, you know, federal subsidies to kind of increase unemployment insurance for people in various states was part of Biden's coronavirus relief package. It added an

additional $300 a week for each person who is unemployed. But you know, the business community wants to pressure politicians and the GOP is the first. to bite and take the bait. And so the governors of Alaska, Iowa, Missouri, and Mississippi all voluntarily ended their states enhanced benefits over the weekend, the first of 25 states that planned to end participation in the federal programs. Currently, by the way, the federal benefits account for an extra, as I mentioned, $300 per week, a lifeline for unemployed workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There are nearly 3 million people receiving the enhanced benefits in the future. in the 25 states ending the program. So this will impact three million Americans. And I just think it's fascinating to see the difference between how progressives are responding to this and how corporate Democrats are responding to this because Senator Sanders, Bernie Sanders, has said that federal law requires the U.S. government to make sure workers continue to receive gig worker benefits created by the COVID aid relief. and economic security act, but President Joe Biden has given his blessing to the red state cutoffs. In fact, press secretary Jen Saki, who gets a lot of praise, said this during a fairly recent press conference about the matter. Last month, the president was pretty adamant that he did not believe that these

enhanced unemployment benefits were playing a role or factoring into people's decisions not to get back into the jobs market. Today, though, he's underscoring that these benefits are simply temporary, set to expire in 90 days. So which is it? Yes or no, does the president believe that these unemployment benefits are playing a role here? Well, I think we shouldn't lose sight of some basic facts here, which is that those governors who have made the decision, as they have every right to do, to pull back on the unemployment benefits or not accept them, I should say, accurately, that hasn't even taken effect in any state across the country. So in terms of how we're evaluating the impact, we haven't even seen the impact yet. That takes effect in June. Well, I mean, it certainly has taken an effect, is in effect now with these specific states that I mentioned and the 25 states total that will prematurely cut unemployed workers off from this unemployment insurance. Now, what's the reality of the matter? Well, recent Department of Labor statistics and jobs numbers showed the benefits negative impact on economic growth was marginal.

Last month, in fact, the economy added more than half a million jobs. Still, in May, there were roughly 7.9 million fewer jobs than before the pandemic. So I think that there's also a misconception about the jobs available, right? Now, are there jobs in companies where they're having difficulty filling those positions? Yes. And you know what? We're seeing workers actually be able to exercise their rights or their power in this case and withhold their labor until they get appropriate pay for the work that they're going to do.

But even so, there's still a number of jobs that have not come back to the economy from the pre-pandemic levels. Yeah, so Republicans did something very similar during Obamacare implementation. The federal government provided a lot of money and Medicaid benefits that could have helped people get insurance and be covered in case they got sick. and the red states turned it down. So in this case, this unemployment money is in the COVID relief bill. It's the federal money giving those states that money to help their citizens. And it is a Republican politicians in those states saying, no, we do not want to help our citizens. Even though it is free money given from the federal government, it doesn't come out of our budget,

I'm still going to say no, because I actively do not want to help the citizens. Now, why would they do that? Well, the voters are all citizens, so that doesn't make much sense. I mean, are there Republicans who lost their jobs? Of course, there's 8 million less jobs now than there was in the beginning of the pandemic, their independence, etc. So what's the benefit, right? What, like, do they get some sort of joy out of it?

Do the Republican voters like them more if they're extra mean to people? Well, a little bit. I'm sure they probably get some joy out of it and and Republican voters love people who are mean especially to them I don't know if it's psychological or whatever but like oh you're gonna beat us up and take our money oh we love it as long as you own the labs right so there's a little bit of that but that's not the main driving force the main driving forces they're donors yep business interests go to the politicians and go drive them back to the minds and don't

pay them unemployment that is slightly above the poverty wage we pay them, we found out a way where we could unload their health care costs on you guys. We could unload a whole bunch of costs on you. We could have you guys eliminate our competition. And then we could pay them wages where they are barely able to exist. We have crushed their souls perfectly. Don't come in here with the federal government giving enough unemployment where they're not thoroughly crushed and desperate.

We need them in a desperate state. Drive them back to the factories and the mines by taking away anything that the government would have done decently for them. Right. And that's what Republicans are. Look, guys, it doesn't matter. All the propaganda doesn't matter. These are facts. They took the checks away for no reason at all, other than the one I just, if you think there's a better reason or a different reason, have at it, Haas. But the Republicans screwed you and they always screw you. Why? It's the donors. Follow the money. It's the easiest thing in the world. Okay, but I also want to make sure that we address the fact that what Republican lawmakers are doing right now, what the Republican Party in general is doing right now, in their nonstop crying on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which hasn't stopped crying since the beginning of the pandemic every time you hear anything about actually helping ordinary Americans. What, it's a target, right?

I mean, when you think about it, what they're doing is actually pretty unpopular when they put that in practice, I guarantee you that conservative voters, Republican voters are not going to appreciate it, because whether you're a Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. This type of behavior by our government impacts you, right? So what Biden could do, and what Democrats could do, is instead of immediately folding and accepting that they're likely to lose in the midterm elections, go on the offense. They're giving you something to target them on. But instead you have Jen Saki who's like, Republican governors have every right to crush their

workers. We're in favor of that. Great, great press secretary activity there. Yeah, 100%. Guys, look, I know, everybody's in camps. Some camps say Democrats can do nothing wrong. Other camps say Democrats do everything wrong, but Republicans are angels. These camps are nonsense, okay?

All that matters is facts, reality, and truth. And so in this case, Anna is indisputably right. You saw it with your own eyes. She's not a Republican press secretary. That's not Sarah Huckabee Sanders. That's a Democratic press secretary saying basically thanking the Republican governors. Oh, you're destroying the help that we gave the American people. That by the way, not only is a good thing from a decency and morality perspective, but is also great politics.

Oh, thank you for destroying that. And bravo, you have every right to crush your own citizens. And we applaud you while you're doing that. You're supposed to fight them. They're on the other side and they're destroying your bill that you bragged about. Nah, they're all on this. Look, the corporate Democrats and the corporate Republicans, this part is true. They are on the same team.

So yes, they have a nice kabuki theater about disagreeing on social issues. And yes, those social issues are important. They're not unimportant, I don't want the racists to win, right? I don't want people who hate gay people and don't want them to have any rights to win, right? But the core of government is about the money. And when it comes to the money, they all agree. Their donors should have all of it, and their voters should have none of it. And so if you hear anything from the mainstream media like that, just dive one millimeter

in and you'll see that all of their excuses are nonsense. Why are the Democrats helping the Republican governors destroy their own COVID relief bill? The only thing they've passed, and it might be the only thing they'll ever pass. We gotta take a break. When we come back, Democrats have already assumed defeat in the midterm elections, which is kind of disastrous given what Mitch McConnell just had to say about the Supreme Court. They're panicking about it. We'll tell you what the panic is when we return. Intoxic and Mario King, all just hit that join button below on YouTube. We do this show together and we're going to bring positive changes in the world together. Casper. The Democratic Party is panicking over Senator Mitch McConnell's statements about the possibility of blocking another Democratic Supreme Court nominee.

This time in the Biden administration, let's hear what he has to say. I think in the middle of a presidential election, if you have a Senate of the opposite party of the president, you have to go back to the 1880s to find the last time a vacancy was filled. So I think it's highly unlikely. In fact, no, I don't think either party, if it controlled, if it were different from the president, would confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the middle of an election. What was different in 2020 was we were of the same party as the correct. So clearly he's arguing there, but Trump was a Republican president.

The Senate was controlled by Republicans, and so he had the ability to nominate someone like Amy Coney-Barrant in, you know, the final hour, and we were able to confirm that nominee. But he makes it clear here that if it's close to the 2024 election and Republicans take control of the Senate, then they, in fact, will block a Supreme Court nominee coming from Biden, should something happen to a member of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justice, right? So now there's all this pressure for Justice Stephen Breyer to retire. And so let me give you those details. McConnell's remarks sparked immediate backlash from progressives, prompting new calls to expand

the Supreme Court and for 82 year old Justice Breyer to retire while Democrats control the Senate. But why are you guys already assuming you're gonna lose the Senate? I just, go ahead. Yeah, all right, so there's two parts of this, the Republicans and then Democrats. So on McConnell, when asked later in the interview, how about 2023, so if you guys win the Senate, might you basically block any Supreme Court nominee for two years? And he said, yeah, maybe, yeah, we're gonna definitely think about that. Okay, so. Not even maybe, they will do it. Oh, if he says we're considering it, that means they're doing. Okay, so now, the Republicans

confirmed a Supreme Court nominee a week before the 2020 election. Now they're saying they'll block a Democratic nominee for two years. Okay, one year, Okay, one year for sure and almost certainly two years. Now, if you're watching this, you likely know that Republicans are gigantic hypocrites that is an unbelievably unfair standard. It's not really a standard. It's something McConnell made up. And you're so frustrated that Democrats put up with it, right? Why don't the Democrats ever fight back?

Why don't we find a way to hold up their nominees? I mean, Schumer couldn't find a way to delay a nominee for one week, for one week. These guys find ways to delay people for a year or two years. Now, I know who controls the Senate is very important. But remember what McConnell said. He said it doesn't matter if they try to kill the filibuster. He said this a little while ago, right? There's so many procedures in the Senate that will grind it to a halt and you'll never be able to get anything done.

Well, if that's true, apparently Schumer could have used those to block Amy Coney-Barrant and chose not to, right? So finally, on the Republicans, and it leads back to the Democrats, because Anna's right about their weak attitude right now, but I want to also mention on another issue. So now if the Republicans are this dishonest, why are Democrats spending all their time trying to get a bipartisan agreement on infrastructure or voting rights with a party that they know to be this dishonest? Snaps. Everybody snaps to jank. I did not see those snaps coming.

Yeah. And so, and you know what the answer is like Manchester Cinema, Mark Warner, Chris Coons, so many others going around. Oh no, our Republican colleagues are wonderful. Our Republican colleagues will work with us honestly, and we will get bipartisan agreement on voting rights. They will want everybody to vote, of course. What are you doing propaganda for the Republican Party for when they're kicking your ass left and right? And the answer is because they're not kicking your ass, they're kicking our ass. You're not on our side.

You've always been Republican, and all you care about is your goddamn donors. That's the reality. Yeah, and I don't know. Maybe I'm nitpicking, and if I am, please let me know. Ed Markey's been wonderful on a number of different issues, especially climate change. But this statement of his, let me just give it to you. So he says Mitch McConnell is already foreshadowing that he'll steal a third Supreme Court seat if he gets, the chance, meaning if Republicans take over the Senate in the midterm elections, he's done

it before and he'll do it again. We need to expand the Supreme Court. I just, you guys are not gonna expand the Supreme Court. I'm tired of that debate, I'm tired of that discussion. It's nonsense, it's nonsense. If they're not willing to do what it takes to ensure that they win in the midterm elections or at least maintain their majority in the Senate in the midterms, why are we even having a discussion about when are we supposed to pack the courts? Is it going to be in between

the infrastructure bill negotiations and the American Families Plan, which will never happen? Is that when it's supposed to happen? And I don't mean to be salty toward Ed Marquis specifically, right? He's just the one who made that comment. But that's a comment that's shared by so many other Democrats. Instead of focusing on that, focus on maintaining your majority in the Senate, you guys can do it. In fact, Republicans are defending 20 seats compared to 14 for Democrats, including four open seats and two seats in states, one by Biden. They're also hoping to unseat Democrats in Georgia, Arizona, and New Hampshire, all states carried by Biden.

Like they act as if losing the Senate is a given. It is guaranteed. You guys have a loser mentality if you think like that. And it is guaranteed with that mentality. So look, I'll give you a contrast in a second. But in terms of the comments about, oh, well, let's, you know, expand the court. One, I don't even agree with that philosophically. And I'll tell you why.

Because that is a case where, like, I don't mind if we get rid of the filibuster and the problems gain control and they pass all the things they want. And why do I not mind that even though they will be disastrous? It's because that's called democracy. So don't vote for them, okay? But if we pack the courts and now instead of having nine people, there's 12 people, well, McConnell could come in and go, all right, now there's 25. And so, and they're all Republicans, this is going to get absurd real quick, okay?

So number one, it's a bad strategy. Number two, I don't even agree with it ideologically. But number three, the reason why they're proposing it in the first place is because they know that it's hopeless. They know that it's something to distract you, the Democrats, to distract you. Oh, we are huffing and puffing. We will pack the course. No, you won't. And by the way, that hurts you.

That's a rare Democratic position that is not popular. And so it's bad on every front. How do you, one of the, do you remember who came up with it originally? Pete Buttigieg. Pete Buttigieg of the useless proposals that you know will never get done, but makes MSNBC viewers feel good inside. Okay? And so now the reality is, what's the alternative?

Okay, we always try to stay constructive here. We might be aggressive, but we're constructive. So if Nina Turner were to win, for example, by the way, anybody could do this. But it's just, I don't have a lot of confidence that the others are. They've done a great job. Now, by the way, Bernie's saying, I'm a no on infrastructure bill, okay? That's great, that's awesome, we appreciate it, credit where credit is do. Anyway, if Nina wins, my guess is she'll go in and go, oh, McConnell says he's not going

to see someone for two years, no problem. Then I challenge Mark Warner, he's a guy who flies under the radar, total corporate Democrat from Virginia. I challenge Mark Warner, why are you still working with the Republicans? When they say they won't seat President Biden's nominee for two years, why are you working with those disingenuous liars? I'm asking Democratic Mark Warner. And you know what'll happen?

Tons of headlines, and in the beginning, everyone in the media will yell at Nina, and then afterwards they'll go, well, what is an interesting question? Why don't we go ask Mark Warner? Right. Okay, and that's how you win. There's a reason why you fight because it creates public pressure, which then highlights that you are actually right and they are actually wrong. Nina Turner.com slash hello.

All right, why don't we take our first hour break? When we come back for the second hour, unfortunately, Texas is added again. They're privatized, deregulated power grid is a giant problem, not just in cold weather, but also during a heat wave. We'll give you those details and more when we return. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t.

I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.