The Young Turks - Summer Breezes

Episode Date: April 25, 2024

Airlines required to refund passengers for all canceled flights and those delayed over three hours. The FTC just banned non-compete agreements: The Federal Trade Commission has issued a final rule making it illegal for bosses to make workers sign noncompetes in any scenario and voiding nearly all existing noncompetes. Summer Lee beats primary challenger after facing pressure over Israel-Gaza. Israeli soldier speaks out on war in Gaza." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. The new BMO ViPorter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks. More points. More flights. More of all the things you want in a travel rewards card.

And then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter Master. and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit bemo.com slash V-I. Porter to learn more. Book club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday.

Out on the town on Thursday. Quiet night in on Friday. It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too. Because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers, you'll know just how healthy they are. Visit Spexavers.cavers.cai to book your next eye exam. Iexams provided by independent optometrists. Woo!

It's a... Ice cream. I'm at TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and today is the exception to the typical rule on news programming, where we're going to have so many positive news stories. It's actually quite shocking. So I'm looking forward to giving the Biden administration some credit for some rule changes that will improve your lives. And I'll explain how in the first hour, I'm really looking forward to also sharing the story of Summer Lee, a progressive in Congress getting reelected, despite all the backlash she had been receiving from individuals who are in the pro-Israel position and have heavily funded her primary appointment. didn't really work. And I'm going to tell you why and how later on in the first hour as well. We're also going to bring on the sketch artist during the Trump Hush Money trial to talk to us a little bit about

how his facial expression changed when Karen McDougal was brought up during the, I'm kidding, we're not going to do that. That's ridiculous. I mean, what ridiculous type of news organization would do something like that. Oh, that's right, CNN. They did that today. Anyway, looking forward to The second hour as well, John Idera will be joining in to talk about some lighter news stories, including one of my favorite news stories having to do with a sugar baby in Japan who defrauded a giant amount of men who did not take kindly to that. Well, she's suffering some consequences now, legal consequences, and we'll talk about what those are in the second hour. We'll have some fun. But as always, just want to encourage you all to like and share the stream.

If you haven't done so already, it is a free and easy way to help support TYT and the work that we do here. You can also become a member by smashing that join button if you're watching us on YouTube or you can go to tyt.com slash join. Without further ado, let's get to one of the positive news stories today. I'm an LAX. I should have been on a flight at least an hour ago. You know, I'd say it's a nightmare, but not really. It's just inconvenient. I get here and there's like a billion people over there and they're like, oh, yeah, yeah, you're a flight super delayed. I'm like, oh, well, it's not funny anymore. Now we've been here three hours. It has been eight whole years since our very own, Jank Yugar, was frustrated as he was filming

a video on social media about how his American Airlines flight to Miami was severely delayed. Because of his complaining, he was also later just completely kicked off the flight entirely. But I have some positive updates, not necessarily in regard to what happened to him, but what happens to so many travelers in America when their flights are delayed. Usually they don't get a refund. Usually they feel totally screwed over. They feel that they haven't gotten what they've paid for. However, it turns out that the Transportation Department has finally implemented new rules that record. to require airlines to give travelers refunds for canceled or delayed flights.

Now, some might argue that those rules were already in place, but what Pete Buttigieg over at the transportation department did is essentially streamline it so you automatically get your refund into your bank account. In fact, here's Buttigieg explaining more. We're making it so that by default, you get the refund the same way you paid. So credit card or whatever means you used to pay, you get a prompt. refund if your flight is canceled. Same if your flight is significantly delayed. We define that as three hours domestically, six hours internationally. And there's several other parts of the rule, too. For example, maybe your flight got there, but you didn't get one of the services you paid for. You paid extra to check a bag, but your bag didn't get there on time. Or you paid extra

for Wi-Fi and the Wi-Fi didn't work. This rule makes sure that if that happens, you get the money back that you paid for these services. Part of what we're saying is the refund need to be not just automatic, they need to be prompt. For credit card, for example, that means seven business days. We think this is going to improve the passenger experience. And we even think that it can change airlines behavior, because there is less of a reason for airlines to allow scheduling on routes that they can't serve very well. I absolutely love that the transportation department has done this. This single story, in fact, has put me in such a great mood today, because this has been an ongoing issue that travelers have been victimized by for so long in America,

where, you know, they might get offered a travel voucher if their flight is delayed or canceled. But there's all sorts of tricky and sneaky things that these airlines do to prevent the traveler from getting a refund when that's really what they want. And so just to summarize real quick, the delays covered under these new Transportation Department rules, would be for flights that are delayed domestically for three hours or more. When it comes to international flights, if it's delayed six hours or more, you are obviously eligible for an automatic refund. Included in the rules are tickets purchased directly from airlines, travel agents, or even third-party sites, whether it's Travelocity, orbits, you guys get the picture. And I also want to make a note about international flights.

So obviously these new rules are important if you decide to book an international flight with an American airline. But there are international airline companies that have to abide by rules in the country they operate out of. And European rules when it comes to these airlines are fantastic. And so I remember when I travel to Europe on a work trip, the flight was delayed. And immediately I was met with employees from the airline companies. company giving me a voucher for food at the airport that I was basically stuck at until the, you know, flight was ready for me. And they also offered to give you a refund or a partial refund because of the inconvenience of the flight. So if you are flying internationally,

see if you can automatically like just book with an international airline company rather than an American operated one. But even if you do decide to fly with an American-based airline company, you now have this streamlined protection that would give you a refund if your flight is delayed severely. Now, before issuing the refund, the airline might ask you to accept alternative flight or travel credits. Obviously, it's totally up to you if you want to accept that. You have the right to reject those options and demand a refund, though. Buttigieg reiterated that refund requirements are already the standard for airlines. But the new DOT, Department of Transportation rules, hold the airlines to account and make sure passengers

get the refunds that are owed to them. But refund policies differed between airlines in part because there was no single definition for a significantly changed flight time, right? So this, again, streamlines it by saying, listen, if the domestic flight is delayed for three hours, the traveler has the right to a refund and six hours if it's an international flight. Now, the rule goes into the federal register now, and it will begin to take effect six months from now, and that's according to Pete Buttigieg. So they will begin enforcing these new rules six months from now. But there is actually even more good news in regard to some of the rule changes we're talking about here. For instance, the Department of Transportation will also

require airlines to give cash refunds to travelers whose bags they lost or haven't been retrieved within 12 hours. So you get a refund for that as well. The DOT said it is also working on rules related to family seating fairs, enhancing rights for wheelchair traveling passengers for safe and dignified travel, and mandating compensation and amenities if flights are delayed or canceled by airlines. Now, obviously, we know that business groups, moneyed interests are going to attempt to fight this. In fact, lobbying groups are already getting involved and are releasing statements to the press about their displeasure over these new rules. Airlines for America, which is a trade group that represents the nation's largest carriers, last year urged the

Transportation Department to withdraw its fee disclosure rule. That's the other thing. They don't want to have to clearly disclose their fees, but nonetheless, they argue further regulation of ancillary service fees is unnecessary, arbitrary, and capricious. And beyond DOT's statutory authority, because there is no market failure to regulate. Yeah, disagree. And the idea that the transportation department doesn't have the right to compel these airline companies to simply disclose, Clearly what their fees are is just a ludicrous claim, but it also appears that the Department of Transportation, this is a good sign, has the backing of attorneys general in many states. And so whenever it comes to federal action that may or may not improve your life, in this case, I think it would improve your life, especially if you're a traveler for work and stuff like that, you'll have some of the attorneys general in some of the red states, challenge whatever the Democratic administration is trying to implement.

I don't know if that's necessarily going to happen here because there is a bipartisan effort to make traveling better for Americans. And I'm really happy to see that. For instance, last week the department announced, meaning the Department of Transportation, a partnership with a bipartisan group of 18 state attorneys general aimed at more quickly addressing consumer complaints about airline or ticket agent practices. Under the arrangement, state attorneys general using guidelines provided by the Department of Transportation would review the complaints and then forward those that require further action to federal officials. So it does appear that there is a bipartisan effort here to kind of rein in some of the more

predatory practices that we've seen and experienced by these airline companies. And I'm really happy to see it. I'm not a fan of excessive over, you know, excessive regulation. When it comes to the airline industry, we're nowhere near excessive regulation. They've gotten away with screwing over travelers time and time again. And I'm really happy to see some real action taken by the federal government to, you know, make the situation better for American travelers. It's insane to not have these regulations streamlined for all this time.

And I'm happy to see that it is now. Well, we have more good news, believe it or not. So why don't we get to the updates on something you might not be familiar with? They're called non-compete contracts. And they're pretty awful because they do away with a worker's right to upward mobility. But the Federal Trade Commission got involved and did something pretty amazing. Today you've made a major announcement that helps millions of workers in America. Tell us what that is. Today, the FTC is finalized a rule that will eliminate the vast majority of non-compete clauses in people's contracts.

A non-compete clause is a provision that basically prevents people from taking a job with a competitor or starting a competing business, usually within a particular geographic area and for a certain period of time. So around 30 million American workers are covered by a non-compete. More good news today as the Federal Trade Commission under the leadership of Lena Khan banned non-compete agreements for most U.S. workers, which is a move that will affect, as you heard from Lena Khan, up to 30 million Americans across the country. Now, before we get to the details of this decision and how this is going to improve the lives of workers, it is important to understand exactly what a non-compete agreement is. You might not have signed it. Tens of millions of Americans

have, and it really has been this heavy weight that's prevented them from having the freedom to find a better paying job. Let's watch. A non-compete is a contractual clause between a worker and an employer that limits the workers' ability to accept or seek other employment or to start their own business for a certain period of time or within a geographical location after the employment ends. On-the-job training can be a costly and timely part of hiring a new employee. Non-competeens are viewed by some as a tool to protect the investment.

investment a company makes towards upskilling their workers. Employee agrees not to compete against the company in any of its different lines of business for two years within the state of Florida. But more often than that, you see increasingly non-competees that are national in scope and even worldwide in scope. So we're talking about two years will not compete against anything we do anywhere in the world. And I don't want anyone to be fooled into thinking that non-compete agreements only impact people who work in high-paying professions. There are literally people who have worked in fast food companies who were made to sign these non-compete agreements, which basically prevented them from working at other fast food chains or at a different store within the same fast food chain.

I mean, it's just, again, it is a perfect way to prevent workers from being able to leave and seek a better paying job within the same line of work. Now, this is what the new rule by the Federal Trade Commission would do. Okay, so this is what it would do away with. The agency voted three to two to issue the rule with commissioners in the majority saying they saw a mountain of evidence that non-compete agreements suppress wages, stifle, entrepreneurship and gum up labor markets. The new rule makes it illegal for employers to include the agreements in employment contracts and requires companies with active non-compete agreements to inform workers that they are void. I think some of Stephen Crowder's former employees would find this very useful.

And I just want to say, you know, they mentioned entrepreneurship and how this, these non-compete agreements stifle entrepreneurship. That's absolutely true because in some cases, it would prevent a worker from quitting and starting a new business that might be a competitor to their former employer. And so there's more. I want to get to some more details. This might not sound like the sexiest topic. I totally get that. But it is huge news for millions of workers across income brackets, as well as the economy overall. A nationwide ban on non-compete clauses will make it easier for rank-and-file workers to change jobs and not fear retaliation from their employer, or their former employer, I should

say. And these days, non-competes do exist in hundreds of different professions. So just to really emphasize what I was saying earlier, take a look at this video. Historically, non-compete agreements were used to keep executive-level employees from working for competitors and bringing trade secrets with them. Now, non-compete clauses have trickled down to rank and file positions in nearly every industry in America. It's estimated that 18% of U.S. workers are bound by non-compete contracts. Non-compete clauses today govern around one in five U.S. workers. These clauses may have started in the boardroom, but today what we see of that they

proliferated across sectors and across income levels. So we're talking about nurses, we're talking about fast food workers, janitors, but also physicians and engineers. So Khan is completely correct there. And it is true that most times you find these non-compete agreements in, you know, higher wage workplaces. This episode is brought to you by Square. You're not just right. running a restaurant, you're building something big, and Squares there for all of it, giving your customers more ways to order,

whether that's in-person with Square kiosk, or online. Instant access to your sales, plus the funding you need to go even bigger. And real-time insights so you know what's working, what's not, and what's next. Because when you're doing big things, your tools should to.

Visit square.ca to get started. However, as Kahn says, they are found in lower paying professions as well. Let's take a look at this chart. This is from the Economic Policy Institute, and they found that more than a quarter, 29% of responding establishments where the average wage is less than $13, use non-competes for all of their workers. That is a big deal. And I'm sorry, $13 an hour is nowhere near a high paying job in today's economy and with

today's cost of living, regardless of where you're living. And if those workers break the contract by going to a competitor or starting their own business, if it's a competing business, their former employer can send a cease and desist to the worker and their new company. And that's exactly what happened to one hairdresser named Kat. This is Katranciato. The hair salon she worked at had her sign the non-compete after she had already been hired. In 2011, a sickness in her family led her to seek out employment closer to home.

Shortly after starting with the new salon, she received an injunction from her previous employer, citing a violation of her non-compete. She ended up losing the case. At the various other hair salons that I worked at, I had not come into contact with a non-compete. with a non-compete agreement at all. I was a single mother at the time and supporting a child on my own. So the job was important to me. I've almost feel I signed it in duress because I needed the job.

And if I didn't sign the non-competition agreement, I would no longer be employed. So you guys get the picture, right? How this is an albatross around the necks of workers across the country and how the Federal Trade Commission implementing the this new rule really does help people in giving them the freedom to find a better paying job. And that's something that I think people across the political spectrum are in favor of, right? I mean, the argument you hear from the right is you don't like your job, you're not happy with the pay, well then find the job that you're happy with. That's the argument they make. It's really difficult to do that if you are stuck with these non-compete agreements, which now,

as Lena Kahn says, are void. And in announcing the new rule, Khan also said that non-compete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8,500 new startups that would be created a year, a year once non-competes are banned. The FTC's new rule to ban non-competes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business or bring a new idea to market, which, by the way, would have the added benefit of raising wages. The FTC estimates that banning non-compete agreements could raise wages

by nearly $300 billion per year. And that's, of course, because there would be more diversity in the economy in terms of the businesses that consumers can choose from, that workers can choose from. And if workers have more options, that means that companies are going to have to compete for those workers. And one way that they do that is by offering higher wages. Here's Khan explaining why this will increase pay. She's more articulate than I am on this matter. She's an expert on this issue. So let's hear from her. The average worker will make $529 more every year, which collectively means that tens of billions or hundreds of billions of dollars of wages will be going back to workers.

I help people understand why that is. So if there's hundreds of billions of dollars increasing in the economy, how did that happen? That would happen because right now workers are stuck in place because of these non-competees. And so even if they get a better job opportunity with higher wages, with better benefits, they can't actually switch jobs, which is bad for those workers. It's also bad for other workers who won't have the opportunities that are not being created because of these non-competes. So there's just less churn in the economy overall. There's less dynamism.

And that means that wages are lower than they should be. Exactly. And what she just said was backed up by a mountain of evidence, honestly. So over and over again, studies show that non-compete agreements suppress wages and entrepreneurship. One study estimated that Oregon's ban on non-compete agreements for workers below a particular wage threshold increased the earnings of hourly workers by 2.2 to 3.1% on average. Additionally, the study found that the ban increased the wages of hourly workers in high non-compete agreement use occupations in Oregon by 4.5%. And then there's a second study that I wanted to just quickly get into that examined Hawaii. on non-compete agreements for technology workers, and that found that the wages of newly

hired technical workers increased by 4.2 percent on average after the ban. So this is certainly promising. It's good news. I'm really excited about it. There are some exceptions, though, to the FTC's new rules. And the exceptions have to do with senior executives who are more likely to hold trade secrets. That was the whole point of non-compete agreements. The whole point was to protect a company's trade secrets. And so initially they were applied to executives. And so Lena Khan looks at this and says, yeah, non-competes make sense when it comes to those people. Senior executives are defined as workers earning more than $151,164 annually, who also are in a policymaking position within the company. Typically, senior executives are more

likely to have a lawyer represent them in contract negotiations and secure compensation in exchange for signing a non-compete agreement. So this is, again, I can't say it enough, good news overall. I think that the exceptions implemented in the new rule makes a lot of sense. The rule is set to take place or take effect after 120 days. And of course, industry groups are planning to fight this tooth and nail. But I doubt that they're going to win. I think that these agreements have been predatory for a long time, the Chamber of Commerce whining about it. But the Federal Trade Commission feels confident that the law is on her side. Let's go to section five of the FTC Act and see what it says, because it does give the agency

authority to issue rules on unfair methods competition. Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are hereby declared unlawful. And obviously the laws or not the laws, the studies have proven that non-compete agreements are unlawful under these terms. There's more. The commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. So the FTC's argument is that non-competes are an unfair method of competition and therefore they have the power to ban them. So we'll see how it plays out. But for now,

let's celebrate the good news and let's celebrate the liberation of workers who were held down by these non-compete agreements all across the country. For now, let's take a break. When we come back, we have more news, including some positive electoral news out of Pennsylvania. Can't wait to share that with you. Stick around. We'll be right back. Shut! For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio.

Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurant. price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery what's up everyone welcome back to t y t i'm your host anna casparian and joining us is worst case scenario dragon who wrote in to comment about the new rules having to do with non-compete agreements for real non-compete has messed me up more than once also made me drop a social relationship with elderly people I cared for. Home Instead would charge me and client, me and the client, $3,000 if we even saw each other without them being paid for three years. Home Instead is a total sham. This is from our viewer writing in who's sharing

their experience. I'm not familiar with Home Instead. They make the arrangement. We do all the work, they get all the money. We need to STFU or else never work for home instead. All right, nice, nice. Okay, given our viewers some tips on who to and not to work for, Santos-Wante says, thank you, Anna, similar to NDA's non-compete started off as making sense but quickly have been abused. Now, a bit off topic, I wonder how this affects the Stephen Crowder employee who spoke out against Stephen. I know, he's the first. person I actually thought of, which is, I don't know if that speaks well of me, but that's one of the high profile cases fighting back against non-compete. So I did think about that former

Crowder employee. But make no mistake, this is good news for so many workers across the country. So we have more good news, believe it or not. And this has to do with a little election that took place recently. When we first ran, there were so many people who wanted to make this a referendum. on just one issue. And I'm sorry, we're just going to get right into it, because the reality is, what the reality is. And there are a lot of people who wanted to convince us that we could not be pro-peace on women in this district. When we fight, we win, we win. We win. We fight. We win. We did. Let's go out. Progressive Congresswoman, Summer Lee, just won her re-election

against a primary challenge that centered heavily on Israel's war in Gaza. Now, as you heard from her acceptance speech there, Summerlee has been very critical of how Israel has carried out the war in Gaza, and that led to certain donors heavily and financially backing her primary challenger. Now, let's be clear, the, she did win and she won easily. It wasn't a blowout. She won the Pittsburgh area race comfortably, though, with 98% of ballots counted Wednesday morning. Lee had just over 60% of the votes. So again, comfortable win for Lee, and I'm happy to see it.

Now, Lee was one of the first members of Congress who was willing to call for a ceasefire and also to criticize the way Israel's government responded to Hamas's atrocities on October 7th. Her views did earn her quite a bit of backlash. So she was one of the 37 Democrats who opposed the House bill to provide Israel with $26 billion, including nearly 14 billion in unconditional military aid, which as we reported past this past weekend. In a recent interview with NBC, Summerlee defended her decision to vote against that legislation. The world has been calling for a ceasefire. The world has looked at the the way this war has been conducted and they've been concerned about that. And so have I. Even with the nine billion in humanitarian aid, that wasn't enough.

What we're hearing is that humanitarian aid is scarcely getting in. Right. It's scarcely getting in. It's not good enough to send bombs to Israel and send band-aids to Gaza, right? We need to stop the bombing. We need to stop the bleeding before we can even do anything else. It's just not helpful at that point. I can I just give her some snaps because the strength that it takes to be a public figure much less a member of Congress who is willing to cast a vote in the way that they feel is fit that is moral that stands true and firm with their principles and values and then to get the backlash and still stand firm you don't see that kind of courage in Congress let's just keep it real so I was afraid of what was going to happen in this election because I know how powerful certain interest groups are and how if they flood the opponent with enough money, that could really make an impact in the race. And I thought, all right, well, she's got a target on her back. I don't know what's going to happen with her efforts and getting reelected. And I'm so happy she got reelected. And I'm going to explain why. Okay, there's a reason why, despite the attacks against her, she was able to comfortably win reelected.

But let me give you more details, including the fact that, shockingly, APEC did not get involved in this race. There was pro-Israel money involved in this race, make no mistake about it. But the powerful pro-Israel organization known as A-PAC, which spent millions against Summer Lee in her 2022 race, took a backseat this time around. But that might be because of the fact that her opponent, Edgewood Borough Council member, Bhavini Patel, was already so well funded that maybe APEC thought, we don't really need to give this candidate more money. They're in a good position to beat Summerlee, financially speaking. Patel was boosted, though, by massive or by the massive Super PAC support from Republican donor

Jeff Yass, a Pennsylvania billionaire. Now, Yass is a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and financed his controversial effort to take over Israel's judiciary. So that's the guy who heavily funded Summer Lee's opponent. So while A-PAC didn't, Jeff Yass did, yes spent at least $800,000 in the race through his so-called moderate pack. But even with, 90% small dollar donations, Lee pulled in more money than Patel did. Okay, roughly one million over the last quarter of 2023 and nearly 2.3 million for the cycle. And small dollar donors, okay, that's it, that's incredible. Patel sort of denounced he asked at a recent debate after his involvement in the race emerged saying, quote, it would be better if it hadn't happened

because it's a distraction. I know, but did you reject his money, though? You didn't reject his money, did you? And the money didn't even help, which is nice. It's also possible that APAC avoided Lee's race out of fear of getting embarrassed by her yet again. Now, what do I mean by that? Well, Lee has already overcome millions of dollars in APAC spending twice over. If she defeated APAC a third time in Tuesday's primary, it would only bolster her standing while weakening APAC.

own arguments about its involvement, validating its core message that being pro-Israel is smart politics. Apparently not in this case. Now asked about their decision to stay in the sidelines when it came to this race in Pennsylvania, APAC spokesperson Marshall Whitman beat around the bush, saying, we are already involved in several races, and we will be engaged in additional campaigns where we can have the greatest impact. By the end of this election year, the voice, of the pro-Israel movement will definitely be heard. I mean, we're hearing them right now as they're squashing protests on college campuses across the country. But that's, despite the outside funding from people like Jeff Yass and also her reputation as being some far left, like, lunatic.

Lee did manage to win support from a pretty politically diverse group. You want to know why? Because she delivered for them. And that's what I want to get to. the most important part of this story is that even when you have corruption baked into our system, even when you have a situation in which our politicians carry out the best interests of moneyed interest rather than their own constituents, if you are a lawmaker who actually delivers for your constituents actually gives a damn about your constituents and listens to

them, hears them out, and gets them the policies and programs they need and want, they're going to come through for you. And the money that gets poured into the opponent's campaign coffers aren't going to be as effective. Because what's the opponent going to do with that money? Yeah, they're going to put out ads against Summerlee. But are the ads going to be effective if the constituents voting in that race have experienced positive benefits of having Summerlee as their representative? So as a member of Congress, Summerlee helped bring back more than $1.2 billion in spending to benefit her district in her first term. Those investments helped her earn local establishment support as those figures need a good relationship with their member of Congress if it looks

like she's going to be there for a while, right? And then I also want to give Democratic members of Congress who backed her a lot of credit as well. This is kind of different from what we've experienced in past races when you have a progressive candidate being challenged by a more, you know, corporate or establishment Democrat in the primary. But in this case, both sitting Democratic senators from Pennsylvania endorsed Summerlee, including shockingly John Fetterman, but I'll take it, who's the most vocal supporter of Israel's assault on Gaza in the Senate with whom she has had an icy relationship with over the years. Now, Democratic leader Hakim Jeffries, a tight ally of APEC, also endorsed her to his credit.

So did the local unions, which doesn't surprise me at all. But despite juggling support from a wide range of people, she is standing firm on her message about the war in Gaza. In fact, last night, she posted her victory speech along with this caption, seemingly to respond to APAC about what is and isn't good politics, quote, opposing genocide is good politics and good policy. Hashtag ceasefire now. Mmm, tasty, tasty. Good news all around. We're going to take a break. When we come back, more news for you. Unfortunately, some somber news having to do with updates on the war in Gaza. We're going to do that and more when we come back. Don't miss it.

Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. Welcome back to the show, everyone, you're watching TYT, and I'm your host, Anna Kasparian.

Jesse in our member section writes in and starts it off with a disclosure that I was unfamiliar with until now. Anyone who says Anna Solo is boring is a simpleton dullard just bumbling through this world. Who's calling me boring? I can be real unboring. Like, I can be super spicy if you guys want me to be. But do you really want me to be spicy? Do you? Do you?

But the rest is she's consistently diving into important topics every week. Jesse, I love you. Thank you for having my back. And you guys, these are stories that have an impact on your lives. Like, sure, they might be a little bit boring, but don't I spice them up a little bit? Come on. Give me a little bit of credit. Come on. All right. Well, with that said, let's get to an incredible interview that I managed to catch on Channel 4 in the UK. They were talking to an IDF soldier who apparently is having some guilt and regrets over his involvement in the military operations in Gaza. So without further ado, let's do. dive right in. I was serving in a commanding unit of a battalion that was fighting

in Gaza. On the first couple of weeks, no one went in, right? So we were just sitting on our asses, essentially looking in screens, essentially the drones going above Gaza, you just go through those channels and you look for those buildings

just falling. It feels like Netflix, it feels like a video game for the first couple of days. But there is a moment you realize it's freaking actual House. Channel 4 News in the UK has consistently done fantastic coverage of the ongoing war in Gaza. And just recently, they spoke to an IDF soldier who very clearly has taken part in the war and seems to feel a tremendous amount of guilt for his role and for doing so. So while some Israelis fought conscription and served time in prison to avoid taking

part in the war. The man that we're about to hear from, who goes by the pseudonym Jake, decided to join the war effort. He was furious, understandably so, after what transpired on October 7th, and he wanted to play his part. But he soon realized that there were issues with how the war was being carried out. Here's more of what he had to say. It feels like Netflix. It feels like a video game for the first couple of days. But there is a moment you realize it's a freaking actual house. It just got completely destroyed. And I don't know, but there probably were some people in there. Maybe there are terrorists, maybe there are not, or Hamas, whatever, but you don't know. And then you start asking yourself, are all of those

strikes, air strikes, necessary? Or are we just having a light hand on the trigger here? And then it starts, and once it starts, it never stops. A lot of people are happy to see that we're You know, we're paying back. That's like the Israeli retaliation. And was that because they were convinced that they were hitting Hamas fighters, you think? Or it went beyond that? A lot of them don't draw the line between what we call militants or terrorists and what we would call civilians.

Look, I totally understand people who hear what this man is saying and understand that they, you know, he played a role in some of the brutal acts that have been committed in Gaza, continue to be committed in Gaza. But the reason why I'm showing you what he has to say is because it pours cold water on the notion that there are no intentional targets of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Like clearly what he's saying there, as someone who not only served in the IDF, but served in the IDF during this current war. He is admitting that there is this effort to engage in, you know, retaliation, in collective punishment. There is a complete, utter disregard for civilian lives. And so when people

pretend to be offended by any claim that IDF soldiers are intentionally targeting civilians, Just understand, that is not a statement that's just made out of nowhere. We didn't pull it out of the air and completely make it up. It's based on video evidence of Palestinians waving white flags and then the IDF shooting and killing them. I mean, there's so many of those videos. We've covered some of them on the show. And now we have an IDF soldier confessing that, yeah, there are instances where civilians are targeted. But what about the kids?

That's something that I'm always very curious about. You know, are there instances where children are intentionally targeted? Is there actual disregard for the lives of children in Gaza? Well, let's hear what he has to say. This is his perspective. Was that quite a widespread view that everyone in Gaza is complicit? Very much so. In many, for many of the people around me, that was the thing it came from saying, you know, those are the kids that we spared in the war in 2014, right? Those are the kids that we spared then are now the terrorists that did the seventh, right?

It's a bit the implication there being, if you kill a kid now, it's okay. Everyone, yeah. That was, I don't want to say the majority, but it was alarmingly widespread in the people around me talking about this. Alarmingly widespread. And so this is, again, the perspective of someone who has been part of this war, who has experienced what other soldiers were doing, the mindset of Israeli defense forces as they were confronted with situations in which you have a high number of civilians and attempting to take out a Hamas militant could mean the deaths of dozens of civilians,

and they'll go for it. And, you know, the reasoning is kind of amazing, right? The reasoning is, oh, well, yeah, it's a child, but that child is going to grow up to be a Hamas terrorist anyway. So, like, the justifications they have in their own minds about slaughtering kids. And, you know, we keep hearing from the Israeli government whenever there are clear instances of civilians being targeted. And they'll say we're going to investigate it or they'll say we're going to hold those responsible for these atrocities accountable. But then when you have the Biden administration very mildly saying that they're going to sanction a few soldiers who engaged in bad behavior or a brigade that engaged in bad behavior carried out war crimes, for instance, what does Netanyahu do? He has a temper tantrum about it.

He doesn't want any punishment for them. He wants to ensure that the weapons that we're sending to Israel can be given to the very soldiers who committed the very clear war crimes. So it's hard for me to believe anything that comes out of the Israeli governments, you know, any statement that comes from them, it's hard for me to believe it. Because they say one thing, and so does the Biden administration, they say one thing. And then video evidence shows you something entirely different. The policies implemented or the lack of punishment carried out against those committing the war crimes, communicate something entirely different from the rhetoric that we hear from Netanyahu or from Biden. And there is another horrendous, terrible update involving mass graves.

to get into that a little bit. So this interview with the IDF soldier comes as the United Nations is calling for an investigation into these mass graves that have been discovered at two hospitals that were besieged and raided by Israeli troops in Gaza. This month, for instance, health workers in Gaza exhumed 381 corpses from mass graves in and around Al-Shefa hospital. after they said Israeli forces killed hundreds of Palestinians and left their bodies to decompose during their two-week siege of the medical complex. Remember the lengthy debates about whether or not, you know, Israel would ever bomb a hospital. Like, it's just what a joke. Anyway, a mass grave of 324 bodies was discovered this week at the Nassar Medical Complex in southern Gaza, or the southern. Gaza city of Khan Yunus by Gaza civil defense workers following the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the area. So there are signs that the individuals or the bodies were, the people were

executed while handcuffed, including some of the medical workers from the hospital. I've seen images of the handcuffed corpses. I can't show them to you on this show for obvious reasons. We'll get demonetized entirely. But those images are out there. and they're awful to look at. Now, Colonel Yemen Abu Suleiman, Director of the Civil Defense in Conunis, alleged that some of the bodies had been found with hands and feet tied,

and there were signs of field executions. We do not know if they were buried alive or executed. Most of the bodies are decomposed. Now, family members of the deceased claim that they had actually buried their family members. members individually at the Nassar hospital complex as a temporary measure until they were able to go back to the area. They were evacuated by the Israeli forces. They first bury their family members' bodies individually.

They leave and wait for the IDF to evacuate so they can come back. Well, when they returned following the withdrawal of the Israeli troops, these family members claimed that they found that the bodies had been dug up and placed in a mass grave. Now, interestingly enough, the IDF concedes to some of this, but seem to think that there's nothing wrong with what they've done. I'm going to give you their statement verbatim. Well, during the IDF's operation in the area of Nassar hospital, in accordance to the effort to locate hostages and missing persons, corpses buried by Palestinians in the area of Nassar hospital were examined, meaning they dug the bodies up. They also added that the examination, when the examination was done, exclusively in places where intelligence indicated the possible presence of hostages. So they dug up graves looking for hostages. And then they claim, no, no, no, but then we return the bodies to their place. They want us to believe, get a load of this. The IDF wants us to believe that they then, after digging up hundreds of

of graves near and around the Nassar hospital complex, they then returned each individual deceased body into individual graves and then hatch them back up. You guys really believe that? Or do you want to actually believe what the family members said they found, which is, you know, the mass grave situation? It's just, it's really hard to stomach. And so when you see the anger and the rage that's being, you know, shown on college campuses across the country, yeah, there are some people saying stupid things or engaging in dumb chance, okay? I one million percent concede to that. I do not believe they're representative of all the protesters. And I do believe that the protests are expressing righteous indignation and anger over what our government has been willing to greenlight and support and provide cover for. It's really difficult to stomach this and everyone wants us to believe that this isn't happening. You know, the media has done some decent reporting on this. CNN even has done some decent investigative reports on some of the more controversial issues that have risen from this war.

But overall, considering how the media has covered the student protests right now, I mean, they would have you believe that is the most important thing. That is what we should focus on, and we should just assume that all of those students are hateful toward Jewish Americans, Jewish people. It's just the effort to conflate anti-Semites with the demonstrators is pretty gross. And I think most people who have open eyes, open hearts, open minds can really see what's going on and accept it for what it really is. But don't let anyone distract you from what's really happening in Gaza, because this is it. This is what's happening. And luckily, we now have IDF soldiers who are willing to speak out against it. All right, we got to take a break.

When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about the ongoing war among House Republicans. John Iderolo will join me for that discussion. It's going to be fun. Don't miss it. We'll be right back.