The Young Turks - The Brothers Dim

Episode Date: December 1, 2021

Bernie Sanders said President Biden's Build Back Better bill is a huge gift to the rich. Democrats want Joe Biden to turn up the heat on Republicans. Nine GOP-controlled states have passed laws requiring exemptions for the Biden administration's vaccine mandate or banning private companies from requiring vaccination altogether. Leaked text messages show Chris Cuomo sought ‘intel’ on media coverage about accusations against his brother, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. A Boise State professor spoke to a crowd about not admitting women to study engineering, medical school, and law so that they can instead focus on “feminine goals.” Candace Owens told Tucker Carlson “Black Americans are the most murderous group in America.” Hosts: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur 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. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too.

When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. hormone harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves.

A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. We're going to be able to be. All righty then, why not welcome to the Young Turks? Why not welcome to the best news program in the country? Why not welcome to the truth? Let's just do it.

Let's do it. It's Jank Yugar. That's Anna Kasparin right there. Bit of a legend online? I guess. Am I? In the news community? I guess.

Let's relax a little bit. Look, I don't even want to get into myself. I don't want to. Don't make me do it. Okay. All right, look. All right, look, we got a lot of news for you guys. And as usual, lots that are disastrous.

There's some that are fun, some that are fun. Oh, Turk on Turk crime today. I take on a fellow Turkish American. Who is it? Is it Dr. Oz running for Senate in Pennsylvania? I don't know. It could be anybody. Well, not really anybody.

There's like five of us in the country, but anyways. I mean, there's too many questionable Turks to pick from. Oh, shots fired. There is one that we will be talking about today, okay? And his name rhymes with anus. Well, don't give it away, now everybody knows. Come on, his name rhymes with anus, come on. All right, but we'll get to that late.

I don't even know that no offense to the Turkish community. I hear that many Turks are named Ennis. Well, don't give it away. Oh, God, everybody thought I was going after Richard Bay. I couldn't. Okay. Everyone thought it. Many people were saying it.

Anyway, we're acting wacky. We are, we are because we're slightly wacky and we have fun with the news. But the one thing we do different than everyone else is we actually give you the actual news, things that are true. So without further ado, let's take it away. CNN did Democratic Representative Josh Gotheimer a solid in a segment which appears to just be positive PR for the corporate Democrat who is actively fighting against Biden's build back better agenda. Now, was he challenged at all in this interview by Danabash? No. We're going to show you

a few clips and I'll fill in the blanks for you. Let's take a look at the first. I think most people in the Democratic Party are somewhere in the middle or middle of the left. Listen, Bernie Sanders lost, right? And that's not where our party is. Bernie Sanders, a key player as this bill heads to the Senate, doesn't like those tax deductions that are popular here. Back in the car, Godheimer mentioned Sanders again while talking about the state of the Democratic Party. We're not into socialism, right? That's not, that's not, it's not in the Democratic Party. That's the right. We are about pragmatic problem solving and people who can just get things done and work together.

Do you feel that you have to say we're not about socialism because you're being painted that way or because you're being pulled that way? No, because that's a reminder that we're not, we're not the party of Bernie Sanders. We're the party of Joe Biden. Now I thought that Dana Bash might counter or challenge what Representative Gotheimer is saying there by specifically pointing to the popularity of the original version of Joe Biden's build back better agenda, of Joe Biden's build back agenda, which by the way is the bill that Bernie Sanders has been fighting to get passed. But it's been stripped down, stripped down, stripped down, with the help of corporate Democrats like Josh Gottheimer. So why don't we take a look at what the country really feels in regard to that initial piece of legislation before it got stripped down? Okay, CBS News poll, we're going to give you a lot of polls. There's more than one. CBS News poll, as Kyle Griffin tweeted about on Twitter, of course, 80% of Americans support federal funding for lowering prescription drug prices,

something that Gotheimer has been actively fighting against. 84% support federal funding for Medicare coverage for dental eye and hearing. 73% support federal funding for paid family and medical leave. 67% support federal funding for universal pre-K. By the way, this poll is not just about Democrats, this is about voters in general. So this means that even Republican voters found provisions in the original buildback better agenda, before it was stripped down, pretty damn popular. But Dan Abash didn't ask a single damn question about that or cite a single damn poll.

I gotta give you more, Jenk. Let's go to this next one. 57% of registered voters said that the government spends too little on anti-poverty in the February 12th to 15th survey. This was by the way done by the Hill. 56% of respondents said that the same, said the same of health care and other, and another 56% said that the country doesn't spend enough on education. We're not done yet though.

Here's another poll that was done by the Hill and Harris X. And it shows that the support for Medicare for All pretty damn high. Now Medicare for All was not included in the build back better agenda. But this gives you a sense, guys, of how popular these so-called socialist policy proposals and provisions happen to be. I would have loved to hear Danabash cite just one. But maybe, I don't know, we're talking about Gottheimer who's in, you know, a vulnerable situation. He's in a district that had a lot of support for Donald Trump. So why don't we take a look at what polling in New Jersey's fifth district indicates.

Nearly nine in 10 voters, 86% in New Jersey's fifth district think prescription drug prices in the U.S. are too high and 75% want to give Medicare the authority to negotiate lower drug prices, according to public policy polling. That wasn't mentioned at all, not even once in the context of that ridiculous pro-Gottheimer PR stunt that CNN pulled off there. Okay, so there's a lot of the discussion about Chris Cuomo on Sienna, and we're gonna do that later in the show. But it's really interesting juxtaposts of this segment here. They say, Chris Cuomo supported his brother, and that was outrageous breach of ethics of journalism. Okay, but at least he was honest and said, yeah, I'm supporting my brother, right? So in this case, CNN is not honest. It's not personal guys.

I've met Dan Abash, I think she's a perfectly good person, and I feel bad criticism. criticizing good people, right? But it's group thing. And they all genuinely believe this giant ad for Godheimer, who is maybe the worst corporate Democrat in the House, is normal. They don't realize this an ad. They never criticize them.

In fact, they take every part of the story and twist it in his favor. And I'm going to show you how, Anna's already showing you some, I'm going to show you others. And I bet you that there was not one discussion of all the producers, all the executives, anyone involved in that piece at CNN, hey, is this right? This seems to be an enormous five minute ad for this one congressman and frames everything in the light of moderate, so-called moderate Democrats are awesome, and they're bothered by these socialists who are ruining it for them in their districts.

I mean, you could watch the whole five-minute thing, it's unbelievable propaganda. And so now, what are the parts of the propaganda? She says these tax deductions that got are fighting for here and Bernie Sanders is fighting against. Well, they're popular here. You saw it in that clip. She said that. Wait, do you have polling on that? She might, but she didn't cite it.

We always cite our polling because we don't want you to think that we're replacing what Americans think with what we think. It's what Fox News does all the time, and it's what CNN and MSNBC do all the time. They never actually give you the polling from the district or from the country. They just say, oh yeah, no, no, no. The moderate position is super popular. They never give any evidence, right? And the socialist position is no good here.

Now by the way, what the hell the socialists mean? Of course they don't never explain that. Not just in that piece of but ever on CNN. It doesn't mean a goddamn thing. It's just word play. Anyways, so now the facts. Now look, Godheimer opposed nearly every provision that Anna just read you

with overwhelming popularity. So Medicare negotiating drug prices, prices, you just saw there, 75% popularity. It's hard to get more popular than that, right? And that was very clear, it wasn't just lowering drug prices, that particular provision for Medicare to negotiate drug prices, 75%. Godheimer fought tooth and nail against that. Was that clear in the CNN piece?

No, it made it seem like Godheimer was in favor of Biden's agenda, as opposed to Bernie's agenda. But that's actually not true factually, empirically. He watered down Biden's agenda at every turn. He fought the most popular provisions in Biden's agenda and made the bill. And in fact, we've given you this poll in the past. When the bill was at $3.5 trillion, it was enormously popular in the country. And then an amazing thing happened.

When they cut it down to $1.75 trillion, what CNN always cheerleys for? Oh, they cut it. The country loves that they cut it in half, right? No, the poll he indicated, it lost massive popularity. And it went from very popular to under 50% once they cut the most popular parts. And Godheimer did that. Godheimer did that. That's a fact.

So why did CNN de facto lie to you with a giant ad for Godheimer that he didn't earn and that isn't factually based? We ask you guys to do accountability on us all the time and to double check what we're saying, double check the numbers and the facts. But unfortunately, neither right wing media. or corporate media ever actually cares about the facts, they just care about their agenda. Another example, Chris Christie, every station did a massive special on Chris Christie because he had a book coming out. Why? When have they ever done that for a progressive? So what

corporate media does is honestly not really news, but marketing on behalf of corporate politicians. The same poll that I cited from public policy also indicates that 40%, a whopping 40% of voters would be less likely to vote to reelect Representative Gotheimer next year if he opposes legislation empowering the federal government to negotiate pricing on prescription drugs, which by the way, he absolutely does. He has fought against that provision and he has succeeded in fighting against that provision. Among Democrats, 50% say they'd be less likely to back Gottheimer if he opposes the plan. So let me be clear about something.

And CNN perpetuates this lie, this myth, this deception about how, well, what could Godheimer do? I mean, he's in a district that's very competitive, a lot of Trump supporters in that district. What can he do? I mean, Trump supporters absolutely love the idea of being price gouged for pharmaceutical drugs, right? Except they don't, no American does, right? So the fact that they claim that Gottheimer is this.

milk toast corporatist Democrat who fights against the best interests of his own constituents because he has no other choice but to do so is a lie. And the other thing that Dana Bash probably should have brought up is what the real motivating factors are behind the scenes for corporate Democrats like Gottheimer, okay? It's not because he's principled, it's not because he's a vulnerable Democrat from New Jersey's fifth district, it's because he's corrupt. Let's take a look at where he takes his money from, shall we? I think that this is relevant information, a little bit of context that a well resourced outlet like CNN should probably get into, but they didn't.

So if you look at numbers just from 2021 to 2022, okay? This is the election fundraising cycle for 2021 to 2022. Obviously that cycle isn't over yet. We haven't even hit 2022, but it doesn't matter. You look at how much money Gottheimer specifically has raised, okay? From securities and investment alone, over half a million dollars, okay? That's the bankers. bankers, of course. And then when you look at his top contributors, oh wow, golly gee,

Blackstone group is one of his top contributors. Blackstone, by the way, taking cheap money from the Federal Reserve. And instead of doing something that's beneficial with that money for ordinary Americans, what did they do? They invested that money in buying up single family homes, the limited inventory of single family homes so they can then turn around and corner the rental market. Okay, that's what Blackstone is up to. But let's take a look at the entirety of Gotheimer's pretty short political career. Remember, he got elected into Congress in 2016. He has taken more than $3.6 million from banks, from Wall Street, in his short career,

from 2015 to 2022. Okay, Blackstone Group, of course, one of the top contributors, $220,000. But look, as I've mentioned before, when you see lawyers and law firms as the top industry, or industries giving to politicians, it's basically donors giving through law firms in order to contribute dark money. That's how they do it, that's part of how they do it. So that's why you see over $1.6 million from law firms. Yeah, so and that doesn't even include any of the dark money and all the packs that

are going to help Godheimer that are riddled with banking money, real estate money, drug company money, oil company money. One more graphic actually from Open Secrets because they break it down by industry and it isn't shocking to me at all that insurance happens to be one of the top industries donating money to Josh Gottheimer. And real estate there as you see. Okay. So now guys, look, the main problem with CNN and all mainstream media, this is just a symbol of it, is that they take positions of Godheimer and he's just a symbol of it as well, that we can show you and we have showing you. you where you can connect the donations to his voting pattern about 100%, right? And certainly in every example we've shown you, he gets a huge amount of money, and then he votes for that industry.

Now, CNN claims no, no, no, no, that's just a coincidence. Actually, they never even address it because to them talking about the corporate donations is heresy. Well, that would give away the game. That would let your audience know why politicians actually vote. the way that they do and apparently in the news business, you're not supposed to do that according to mainstream media. And it's again, not just CNN, New York Times, so many others, they completely ignore that

elephant in the room, all of the donor money. It's absurd that they never talk about it. Okay, but their excuses, no, no, no, his views line up with the district. Well, Anna just proved to you beyond a shadow of a talent, that's just not true. So what they do is, they do this trick, this con man trick, where they replace the word corporate with the word moderate. And they go, oh look, look, look, look, oh, here it is, oh, they're moderates. They're the reasonable ones, moderates are reasonable, everyone else is unreasonable.

There's a little snippet in that five minute segment of him where they're like, he's like, I'm just trying to bring people together, and they have a guy at a diner, he's just trying to bring people together. The middle is great, the middle, they don't explain, according to polling, it is not the middle. is not the moderate position, not in America and not in his district. So when you claim that he is a moderate, instead of actually telling your audience what he is, he's a corporate Democrat, well then you've in effect lied to them on a mass scale. And they do it all the time in almost all of their reporting. And that's why people don't trust them. And then they go, I don't

Why don't why doesn't the right wing trust us? Why does it the left wing trust us? Well, I don't know why because you're a corporate media that does nothing but ads for other corporate politicians, et cetera. That's why you lost people's trust because you weren't honest with them. And by the way, it's okay to have a perspective too. I don't mind that Fox News is conservative. I mind that they lie to their audience. So when we are progressive, we tell you that.

So we did a similar story about AOC before she was in power, before she won anything. But we also criticize AOC. And we're also honest that we're progressives and we agree with AOC. But Sienna never tells you they agree with all of Godheimer's positions. They claim to be neutral and objective. And golly, gee, they just happen to give millions of dollars in ads to corporate politicians and always criticize progressive politicians. But they're neutral.

No, they're not. No, they're not. The whole thing's a sham. All right, Joe Biden is weak. Some Democrats are hoping he'll stop being weak, but that ain't going to happen. We'll give you the details on that and more when we come back. All right, back on CYT, Jenk and Anna with you guys. Go. Democratic lawmakers would like President Joe Biden to stop being so incredibly weak in promoting

his own economic agenda. In response to those concerns, I would say that Democratic lawmakers better get used to Joe Biden, who just vacation. in the home of Carlisle co-CEO, Rubenstein's, you know, nice little condo. Like, he's not, he's not looking out for you. He's not looking out for his own economic agenda. He's not going to do it. Like, anyway, let me continue. I'm already giving you guys my opinion before I give you the details of the story.

I can't help myself. So, apparently a number of senior advisors in the West Wing, including chief of staff, Ron Clayne, have at times urged Biden to embrace more partisan political combat and call out Republicans when needed, according to three aides not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations. Now Robert Gibbs, who's a former White House press secretary under the Obama administration, has weighed in on this as well, saying that the president is in an awkward position, because to get things done outside of reconciliation will require Republicans. But sooner or later, Joe Biden has to make this more than a referendum on himself

and his presidency, and instead make this a stark choice between two very different ideas and philosophies. Contrast with Republicans' positions will be central to having a chance in the 2022 midterms. So, Jake, before you jump in, I just want to make one point about this. The framing of this piece, okay, published by Politico is, you know, Democrats want Joe Biden to get a little more aggressive with Republicans, but he won't even get aggressive with members of his own party. So when it comes to passing his own agenda, the biggest obstacle for Biden hasn't been Republicans. It's actually been Democrats in the Senate, and he has not played hardball with them at all. Hasn't played hardball with Joe Manchin, has not played hardball with Kirsten Cinema, doesn't

intend on ever doing that, okay? Remember, we're not dealing with a situation in which Republicans have control of Congress. We're dealing with a situation in which Democrats have control of Congress. And if they wanted to, they could do away with the Senate parliamentarian. They could nuke the filibuster in the Senate. They can get a lot done if they wanted to. The question is, do they? And it doesn't look like it.

Okay, so the jury's in in this article. They explain to you whether Biden is actually going to be strong and challenge Republicans. The idea of him challenging corporate Democrats is laughable. And is absolutely right, you got to first get through the corporate Democrats before you could even get to the Republicans. No one defends the Republican Party better than Joe Manchin and Chris Sinema. And Biden allows them to defend it. He empowers and enables them to defend the Republican Party. Oftentimes he comes out and defends the Republican Party.

We've shown you clips of him where he comes out. I wish the Republican Party was better. I want them to be strong. I want them to be awesome. I want to work with them. I love bipartisanship. And look at them. They help with the infrastructure bill.

of course totally corporate-backed bill that both parties corporate wings would love. But he's like, oh, the Republicans were great, Republicans are great, Republicans are great. Pelosi comes out, oh, I want the Republicans to be strong. You're in the opposite party. I mean, we're not saying things that are radical or even controversial. Even his own staff is saying, for God's sake. 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. Are you ever going to fight? And the answer is in? Absolutely not. Let me give you two telling quotes from this article. One is from John Podesta. I mean, there's no more connected person in Washington than Podesta.

and he was the chief of staff for White for Bill Clinton. He was founder of Center for America Progress, was a huge part of Hillary Clinton's campaign. So he says, it's not in Biden's style to basically go after Republicans. And as they say, Lombast Republicans. He says, I think for the president, it's not where he's comfortable. Okay, so we have the leader of the Democratic Party that according to his own allies and friends is not comfortable fighting the other party. Well, that's a giant disadvantage for the Democratic Party.

So, not a little one, a giant one. Let me get to the quote number two, because it is even more pertinent and more problematic. So this is Graphic 3. Kate Burner is the deputy communications director. So they're asking her, she's on the record, so she's speaking for the White House here. She wrote or said, Berner cautioned that by

Biden was not going to take pot shots at the opposing party just for kicks. And she said, quote, being president is different than being an MSNBC commentator. Okay, now that right there tells you all you need to know about how dysfunctional and clueless the Biden administration is. First of all, MSNBC commentators are incredibly soft. If all you did was MSNBC commentator level, you'd still get rocked. I mean, they're whispering and gentle and polite and all, et cetera, while Fox News is ripping Democrats face off, right?

But that's the least of the problems in that quote. That is the White House saying, no, he's not going to fight. It's not like being an MSNBC commentator, okay? We're above it. We're above it. That's what Obama did. And you know how many seats we lost in the Obama term? In those eight years, we lost about a thousand seats nationwide at every level,

national, state, and local. We lost a thousand seats because Obama was above it, but one day go low, we go so high, we float away in the clouds. And now Biden says, oh, I learned that lesson where Obama was selfish and got two terms. I want to get two terms. And I think I'm from the 1990s, and I think that we're hugging Republicans is the way to get elected. And I was lucky I ran against Trump and I got elected with this weak-ass message just because

I was running against a literal monster, right? So I think I'm going to do it again. And if it destroys the Democratic Party, because I'm not fighting for you, well, I'm not a commentator. I'm the president. And so I will be clean and I will stay above the fray. And the rest of you will suffer at my feet because I chose not to fight for you. I mean, dude doesn't even have the energy necessary to stay awake during international conferences. I'm sorry.

But when you look at where we are today, the state of the Democratic Party, the fecklessness of the White House, You can't help but think back to the Democratic primaries in 2020 and all the lies that were sold to Democratic vote. We have to, we got to elect Biden. He's the most electable. Biden's the one who knows how to strike deals with Republicans. It's the art of persuasion. Biden is so persuasive. Please.

His only political record in regard to working with Republicans was just conceding to what right wingers wanted. Again and again, bankruptcy bill, crime bill, the list goes on and on. I mean, we knew that it was a lie, but now it's playing out in real time. And the excuses that we're hearing from the people closest to him, what we're seeing happen to this stripped down, build back better agenda, which by the way, is still pretty unlikely to pass even after being stripped down to this point. I mean, it's just, it's all a joke. And by the way, good, I'm really glad that Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary,

Secretary under Obama is now giving us advice, giving the Biden administration advice on how he needs to fight back against the GOP, please. I mean, come on. And later in the article, there was even more quotes from donors, and the donors are the most important thing. There was quote after quote about donor, donor, donor, donor, don't or donor, okay? And one of the donors says, oh, no, no, no, no, no, we don't want Biden fighting. Why?

Why do the donors not want Democrats fighting? Because the donors are not Democrats. They can call themselves Democrats, they could have a D on their helmet, but that doesn't make a goddamn difference, okay? At the end of the day, they want their tax cuts, just like the Republican donors do. They want deregulation just like the Republican donors do. They want Wall Street to get trillions of dollars to support from both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and to never be questioned.

But the minute you want to do paid family leave or the minute you want to lower drug prices, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Everybody go back to agreeing with Republicans, okay? Okay, but wait, those are the most popular provisions. If we fought on those grounds, we would definitely win. Lowering drug prices as an 88% popularity. Don't you dare do it. Biden is awesome for laying down like a doormat for Republicans.

And they, but the people in corporate media are so absurdly clueless. Let's be kind and say clueless. I don't think they're clueless, I think they know what they're doing. I'm gonna read one other excerpt from the political piece, because they try to paint Biden as a tough talker when it really matters. And I think this is hilarious. They write in regard to the gubernatorial race in Virginia. During the swing, Biden laid into Republican candidate Glenn Yonkin by contrasting the two

parties in more explicit terms, saying extremism can come in many forms, Biden said at the time. It can come in the rage of a mob driven in an assault, driven to assault the capital. It can come in a smile and a fleece vest. Homeboy vacationed, okay? In the co-CEO of Carlisle Group's home. And guess what the other co-CEO for Carlisle Group was? Glenn Yonkin, Glenn Yonkin.

Oh, come on, it's devastating. That's a fact, guys, that's a fact. How come you never heard that fact in anywhere in mainstream media? So they're just a joke, man. So I mean, look at that quote. I mean, look at that quote, that was supposed to be the example of Biden being ferocious. And then there was a dispute in the article about why, did he really mean it or did McCall push him to do that when he wasn't comfortable?

mentioning that fleece vest, who, mentioning January 6th, ooh, I mean, are you serious? Look at how soft they are. Oh, no, a Republican candidate. I mean, the only reason Biden won. And he only won by 43,000 votes in three states. He was within this close to losing through a fascist. He's within a, by the skin of his teeth, he won against the guy who was going to end democracy. That's how bad a candidate Joe Biden is.

And he's going to double down and say, oh, no, if you thought I was bad last time, this time, I'm not even going to show up. I'm not even going to show up. And Anna, it isn't about how he's old. Yeah, he's old and he's got issues staying awake, et cetera, right? Joe Biden never fought Republicans. He could have been 40, he could be 50, could be 30, it doesn't matter. We tracked this whole career for you guys. Again, during the primaries, mainstream media said, do not ever talk about Joe Biden's career.

You're not allowed to criticize him, okay? What an insane, insane thing that they did. They would not talk about the crime bill. They would not talk about his record on war on drugs and the deregulationism and codifying Bush's tax cuts for the rich, all the things that he did. They never talked about it. Why? Because Biden's track record and why the donors love him, the establishment loves him, television, anchors love him is because his number one go to move is surrender to Republicans.

Oh, what do you need? In that tax cut deal, he gave away 94% of the tax cuts. Bush couldn't make him permanent. He Biden in negotiating that for the Obama administration cut a deal so bad, even other corporate Democrats were like, Joe, for God's sake. The senator from Colorado, wrote a whole book about how terrible that deal was. He made 94% of the tax cuts for the rich permanent. Biden did that. So no, he's a Trojan horse for corporate America. We're living under 100% corporate rule.

And corporations love weak Democrats that give them everything when they're in power, and then go and surrender to Republicans during elections. Yeah, so good luck Democratic Party. Keep scaremongering about the right wing and how your opponents are so dangerous to democracy while you're vacationing in their homes and you're hobnobbing with them during fundraisers, not buying it. They have nothing else to run on because they accomplish Jack, okay? And they need to take responsibility for it. It's not the progressives fault that they're massive losers who failed to even pass their own agenda. All right, let's move on to Cuomo.

So a little bit of trouble for Chris Cuomo over at CNN. CNN anchor, Chris Cuomo looked into opposition research on his brother, Andrew Cuomo's sexual misconduct accusers. This is according to new documents that were released by New York's Attorney General Letitia James. And we have some evidence of text messages that Cuomo had sent to members of Andrew Cuomo's team. They were coordinating in how to respond to the sexual misconduct allegations and other issues

that former governor Cuomo was dealing with. Now text messages between the CNN journalist and top Cuomo aide, Melissa DeRosa, show that Chris Cuomo offered to draft statements for his brother to use to deny misconduct, demanded more influence over the strategy, and even researched potential news coverage and accusers for the governor's office. Also the newly released messages show that Chris Cuomo was deeply immersed in an effort to track down information about his brother's accusers. So for instance, here's some of the text messages.

He writes, I have a lead on the wedding girl. He wrote that to De Rosa on March 4th, an apparent reference to Anna Roosch, who accused the governor of touching her improperly at a wedding in a story published by the New York Times on March 1st. Chris Cuomo also railed against the governor's top aid for not looping him and other outside advisors into more aspects of the response. to the accusations. I'll give you those details in a second. Jank, go ahead. Anna, we got breaking news as we're doing this story.

CNN has just suspended Chris Cuomo indefinitely. So that just happened as we were talking. And so they are beginning to take action. You could tell from their equivocal statements that they were headed in this direction. I was going to tell you that later in the story. But boom, it's already happened. So I have strong thoughts about whether they should have done that. but I want to let Anna tell the rest of the story and then come back and tell you. Now, I'll give you a warning ahead of time. I am slightly biased in favor of Chris Cuomo, but I think that the number one problem isn't Cuomo.

It's all of May Street media. But I want to get into that in a second, but first the details. All right, so some more details for you guys. So again, he was irritated with the former governor's top aide because he wanted to be more involved in this strategy to respond to the accusations. He said something along the lines of, well actually, let me give you his exact tweet, text. He said, you need to trust me, Liz, and Jeff Moore, he writes in one message to DeRosa. Not these other people, we are making mistakes we can't afford.

And believe it or not, based on these documents, it gets worse. On March 12th, for instance, he sent DeRosa the draft of a never released statement for his brother to use to explain why he cannot and will not resign the governorship. Cuomo advised his older brother to say that he understands why accusations were being made, referring to the charges as acts of political warfare. He wrote that the then governor should say that he understands the conformity that can be forced by cancel culture. No resign, no resign, no resign, no resign, Cuomo writes in one message to direct.

Rosa and there's more, but Jank, why don't you jump in? Yeah, okay, so first, like I said earlier, I'm slightly biased in favor of Chris Cuomo. Why? Because he was very rare, if not the only cable news anchor that are actually heard out progressives. You can get on MSNBC as a progressive, no chance, okay? But Cuomo would have you on everyone. So is he a saint in that regard? Absolutely not.

Is he a progressive? Absolutely not. He's very centrist. You could tell him the comments like talking about woke culture, cancel culture, etc. You hear it on the show all the time. I think he's in the same group think as mainstream media. You know, corporate positions are moderate and awesome and wonderful. But at least he had the decency for some period of time to go, let's hear the progressive position,

which almost no one else on cable news does. So I want to give him credit there and lay out my bias there in his favor. Now at the same time, I can't stand his brother. I think Andrew Cuomo was the prototypical corporate politician who was intensely corrupt, let alone the sexual harassment charges. But we were telling you about his corruption for literally decades. We would show you instance after instance as the rest of the mainstream media celebrated Andrew Cuomo.

So I got no love for Andrew Cuomo at all, okay? And especially on these charges, should anyone have defended them? Well, it depends on the facts. And the facts were brutal against Andrew Cuomo, so no, they shouldn't have. Now, do I get that why Chris defended his brother? Of course, we all do, right? Because it's his brother. And he said it.

And the reason here my substantive defense is, he was at least honest about it. Whereas the rest of mainstream media supports every corporate politician, by the way, including Andrew Cuomo, without ever questioning them, and are never honest about their bias. Never. So they turned on him because of the sexual harassment allegations. But before it was, oh, Andrew Cuomo is the best. Or maybe Andrew Cuomo should run instead of Biden. Maybe they should put Cuomo in his place.

Oh, Cuomo is this, Cuomo is that. Meanwhile, we already knew at that point he'd already shut down a commission to investigate corruption once they started looking into his corruption. And we can go on, there's dozens of instances of Andrew Cuomo's corruption that all of media, including CNN, including CNN, completely ignored. They were giant fans and basically did propaganda and advertising and marketing for Andrew Cuomo. Now they turn around and go, it was his brother's fault. Not buying it, not buying it. He was the only one who's actually honest. Obviously, I'm on my brother's side here and he did not cover it.

Can you still cross lines? Yes. And he did he? Did he? That's an interesting question. No, I don't even think it's a question. He absolutely did. He used his media contacts, okay?

which of course he has had access to as a result of his job as an anchor on CNN to help his brother out, right? Hitting up reporters, you know, if they maybe covered his brother in a way he didn't like, you know, he would hit them up and ask some questions, trying to dig up dirt on the accusers here. No, I mean look, I don't care if he covered his brother on his show or not. Obviously he can't do that and he didn't do that, but he used his position of power to help defend his brother and dig up dirt on the women who accused his brother of sexual misconduct allegations. I don't care if he had progressives on.

I don't care if he had us on very briefly during the Democratic primaries. I don't care about any of that. What I care about is what does he do with his power? And clearly in this position of power, while he wasn't covering the story on his show, He was still using that position of power in order to defend the indefensible. So here's where I think a couple of lines are. One, did you do opal research on a victim? That's a line that should definitely not be crossed, right?

And so I read with great care what they said he did. And that's why I think it's debatable. And I'm curious what you guys think, I hear you and on your position. So what he did was he called other people to find out of Ronan Farrow was going to publish a piece and if it was going to include more than the first accuser. So nowhere, as far as I saw, did he then go to reporters and say the accusers are no good, here's their problems, here's their background. If he'd done that, that clearly crosses the line.

But it doesn't appear that he did that. Now you could agree with Anna that, no, just the very fact of calling other reporters cross the line, partly because you're an anchor on CNN. That is a very, very coveted position. And a lot of people want to go on CNN. So if they think that they, you know, you're asking for a favor, that puts people in an awkward spot, right? The part- A journalist, Jank, a journal, like the only real,

I know that we forget, right? Because we don't really have many journalists who do this. The only real role for journalists is to hold people in positions of power accountable. That is the only real function for journalism, right? We're talking about the, at the time, governor of New York who has engaged in misconduct, not just sexual misconduct, but also the kind of misconduct that led to unnecessary deaths in nursing homes because he forced the nursing homes in the state of New York to take in elderly coronavirus patients who still had coronavirus, okay?

No, I'm sorry, if you're gonna call yourself a journalist, while simultaneously helping out your brother in a position of power behind the scenes, knowing full well that he has committed gross injustice in various cases, whether it be sexual misconduct or these nursing homes. You're not a journalist, you have no role as a prime time anchor on any new show. Yeah, no, look, the reason why I keep sticking out, look guys, Cuomo's probably gone, okay, so it does, I mean, if they used to get suspended indefinitely, it's super hard to come back from that.

So this is not a conversation about, oh boy, wouldn't it be great to be on Cormone show? He hasn't had us on since the minute Bernie Sanders lost the chance of being on. So I don't want you to think that it's personal in that sense. I'm being overly careful about telling you about our bias. As soon as Bernie Sanders lost his chase, everybody wiped out every progressive on television, okay? I don't have a bias. I don't care about going on CNN at all. No, I mean, look at us, we've ripped CNN a thousand times, even just on this one show. But I'm telling you what my real opinions are, okay? So in this case, look, he did, he did not

cover Cuomo when he ran in, when Andrew Cuomo ran into these controversies, right? But he did cover Andrew Cuomo during coronavirus and gave him enormous positive coverage. But again, so did the rest of the media overflowing praise for Andrew Cuomo. And here we are, we're screaming, the guys does everything for his donors. Look at what he did for the real estate interest in New York. It's so obvious and it's provable. And we've shown it to you. Yet none of them would cover it.

And they would pretend to be neutral and objective as they kissed Andrew Cuomo's ass 24-7. And they not only let Chris do those segments supporting Andrew Cuomo during coronavirus. They encourage them to do it. Now they turn around and go, it turns out there's gambling in this establishment. They are just shocked. No, I'm okay with them suspending Chris Cuomo if they suspend everyone else at the network for always supporting corporate politicians and never at least having the decency to be honest about it. Chris Cuomo was honest about supporting his brother.

The rest of that network and the rest of mainstream media is never honest about supporting corporate politicians and always being against both the right wing and the left wing. All right, we gotta take a break when we come back. We're gonna take a trip to Clown Town where a political science professor talks about his hurt feelings in regard to independent women. All right, back on CYT, Jencanana with you guys. All right, more news. Let's take a little trip to Clown Town. Feminist ethic of careerism and easy sex is a recipe for national disaster.

Disagree. Now you might be wondering, who is that? Well, it's a political science professor from Boise State University and he believes that women should be banned from practicing medicine. engineering law. In fact, he thinks the only place for a woman is in the home raising children. And based on the fact that he exists, women should probably consider banning reproduction. But nonetheless, let me give you the details of who this guy is. His name is Scott Yenner, and he's a professor of political science over at Boise State University.

And he also teaches political philosophy. And he recently spoke at the National Conservatism Conference. Conservatism conference in Orlando. This happened in late October, but the video of his speech has just gone viral, and there are too many tidbits to share with you. Let's start with the first. It has sold many women a bill of goods, and a genuinely fulfilling communal family life has been a casualty of the lies that our country's leaders have been telling. It has led to many men without purpose in their lives, and just as many women who are friendless, unhappy, and without purpose. Okay, so that was a fascinating argument, right? Because it's like, feminism is so terrible that it has led to men with no purpose in their lives.

But what do feminists have anything to do with men lacking purpose in their lives? Why don't they man up and take personal responsibility for their own lives? What kind of a man goes, what did the feminist say? Okay, then I'm not going to do anything. The feminist said something. Come on, man. So it's pathetically weak, but that's generally conservatives. This is a super interesting case because he's about saying things that are much worse, in my opinion.

And should he keep his job? Well, that's a really hard question. He's tenured. But at the same time, do you really want to take his classes if this is what he thinks about women? So by the way, we have a poll on it. We care about what you think. We're going to give you all the details, t-y-t.com slash polls to vote on it. And this is another one that I think is tough.

But what's interesting is the defense of him by conservatives. They think this is all legitimate way of thinking. I'm in a decisive mood. I think he should be fired. But I'll make my case after presenting all the evidence, okay? And to be clear, I am not the type of person who just willy-nilly wants to fire people, especially when it comes to academic freedom and tenured professors, but just let me present the evidence and I'll make my case.

I want to go to the second video where he not only doubles down on what he's saying. The big brain gentleman here also wants to make a point about how the world is falling apart because women just aren't having kids. If our ideal woman is a childless media scold or a barren bureaucratic apparatchik, there is no question whether we can have a future. We can't. There is a question of whether we deserve one. Stats back up the important observations here. Our feminist culture points women, especially young women, away from marriage and family life,

through its celebration of careerism. Thus more and more women, every generation, delay marriage, and increasingly forego marriage. As women delay and forego marriage, they are increasingly likely to delay and forego having children. When women forego marriage and decline to have children, men are not called forth to duties, to the duties of fatherhood, for instance. And when men are not called forth to duties of fatherhood, they are hardly called forth to duties of fatherhood. forth to any duties at all. The providing father is the model for all male duty. Many men lose their way when they are not called forth towards such important duties like

fatherhood that connect them with enduring commitments through creating a family and leading a marriage. So in other words, not only is this guy insulting women, he's also insulting men as these aimless, pathetic losers who don't know what to do with them. unless they have a child to take care of. Now, I happen to believe that men have a lot more to live for. I happen to believe that men find purpose in many different facets of life other than just having children. But this is the insulting worldview that this man has, not just in regard to women, but also in regard to men.

That men, again, are just aimless losers who don't know what to do with themselves unless they procreate, unless they have children to take care of. Other thing, this is a side note, but it's really creepy how much this guy has sat down to think about the personal sex lives of private individuals. Just putting that out there. And then the final thing I want to note, no mention of the economic factors that literally force couples to have a dual income household. Because I would love for him to address the fact that we have no mandatory paid family leave, okay? We have no social safety net, no support for new families. And he acts as if

like, oh, you know, therefore all these people are foregoing marriage and having children. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to have children, okay, who have really considered having children. But you sit down and you think about the economics of it, and it doesn't make any sense. There's no child care in America. The cost of child care is astronomical. You cannot make ends meet with a single income household unless you have one person working in finance or something, making a ton of money. I mean, no mention about the economic factors.

All this is is I don't like what's happening to our culture. And I want women to stay home because men are in my mind, incredible losers who have nothing better to do unless they have kids to take care of. That's what he's saying. Yeah, we're about to get to the worst video. But I'll just chip in two quick things on this one here. First of all, they're so concerned about, like, are women barren? So creepy, it's like that word is just so creepy.

Yeah, no, no, because what that implies, are you barren home boy? Yeah, sorry, God. No, but yeah, some men are sterile, by the way, there's nothing they could do about it. Are they like, oh, you are to be judged, you're a bad person. What are you, lunatic? It's called freedom, by the way. So they don't believe that in independence of freedom at all. Hey, a woman could be an anthropologist or she could be a banker or she could stay at home.

We are in favor of choice. Let her do whatever the hell she wants. It's called, that's the whole idea of freedom. He says, no, no. If they're not at home popping out kids, they're barren. They shouldn't even be going out there in the workforce. What happened to freedom? Okay, their day is the world's biggest hypocrites.

They never meant any of it. And the word baron implies your job as a woman is to, make babies for us. And if you're not doing that, you're useless, hence baron, okay? And so now, those are funny pictures. And then, but I want to double down on what Anna said too, because it's, he insults men so much. The conservatives have this incredibly weak view of men. And if you're a conservative, I hope you don't believe that, but, but almost every one of them says the same thing, right? Like, yeah, like I have kids, I got to I got him later in life.

I had my son when I was 40 and my daughter when I was 42. I wasn't going around wandering around like, oh, what's the big deal man? Oh, I have no purpose until age of 40. You're building a company. Yeah, just building this company. And I worked my ass off. I worked 15, 18 hour days.

I was some jackass. I played dinner games because there's no babies. There's no babies. So I'm an idiot. I'm a dumb dumb. I have no purpose because there's no babies. A baby. I now have purpose.

Look at the comical view of men they have. But by the way, maybe for some men, maybe for him, having children, and he has five kids, so he is not in fact barren, okay? But he has five kids, and maybe having those children did in fact give him purpose. And you know what? I applaud him for that. Awesome. But to basically rely on reproducing to give both men and women purpose, I think to project your

own values onto everyone else is laughable. And remember, while he's like spewing all this like crazy stuff about like barren women and all that, you have like, you know, he doesn't want women to be part of the workforce. He wants a huge portion of the workforce to stay home. And this is happening at a time when yes, the birth rate is at an all time low in America, right? Less and less people, less and less couples are planning on having children. And that's leading to economists panicking because in order for our. capitalistic economy to work, you need a workforce, right? You need workers. And so they're panicking about people not having kids, economists are. But this guy is like, no, no, let's just

let's accelerate this situation and just subtract all these women from the workforce. Because I don't like independent women, which he's about to get into in this next video. What does this independent woman really mean? Our independent women seek their purpose in life in mid-level bureaucratic jobs like human resource management, environmental protection, and marketing. They are more medicated,

meddlesome, and quarrelsome than women need to be. Without connections to eternity, delivered through their family, such medicated, quarrelsome, and meddlesome women, gain their meaning through the seeming participation in the global project.

They are agents of the new world, but not new Life. Notice he used the word meddlesome not once, but twice. And that's important. It's really, really important because what does meddlesome really mean here? It means women who have economic independence have power and they get to have a say, whether it be in a marriage, and a household and a workplace, whatever it is. And he don't like that. And I got a bill on that because that's such a terrific point. It implies, By it's the very nature of the word that men are in charge and women are meddling.

Like he would never call men meddlesome, who would they be meddling with? They would be meddling with the women in power, presumably, right? It would never even occur to them to call men meddlesome. But men should have all the power. Now he says they should, oh, what are they going to the workforce for? To be involved in the global project? Well, then why are men going to the workforce? To be involved in the global, why don't you have disdain for them?

have disdain for them being involved in the global project. No, because that is the arena of men making important decisions and exercising power. Now women want to come in here at meddle with us exercising power. How dare they? And then when you say go back into the kitchen and produce babies for me, they're quarrelsome. They quarrel with me. I mean, again, look at the assumption there. I am right, and if you disagree with me, you're being quarrelsome.

Okay, so no, no, that last video of Right there, that ends the conversation. Not in terms of whether he should be fired, because he is tenure, that continues to be interesting. But in terms of whether he has a legitimate point of view, and look, hey, this is just a conservative point of view. And I think the transgender person on the track team is the wrong thing, and taxes should be 37%, not 39%.

No, no, no. He obviously thinks women are inferior. He doesn't mind saying it publicly. He doesn't think that women should be at college, getting an education for a future career. Thus, his ideology conflicts with his ability to perform his job, okay? There's a huge conflict there. He should not be a professor because he is hand-and-down grades for female students,

and clearly he has a strong bias against those female students, which is why I'm decisive on this, okay, I believe in tenure, I believe in academic freedom, this ain't academic freedom. This is a belief system that creates a conflict for his female students. He's clearly biased against them. I question whether he's able to objectively give them the grades they deserve. I mean, in the very least, the university should look into whether or not he's been fair to female students, okay?

But it seems like they're not even willing to do that. The university has released a statement essentially saying that look, yeah, he says things that might make people uncomfortable, but we're not going to do anything about it because of his academic freedom. Yeah, so the reason why I say it's difficult is because tenure must be protected. Because if you don't protect tenure, who are the first people that are going to come after? I guarantee you it's going to be left wing professors. And God forbid if you're a professor who's left wing and supports Palestinian rights, look, the Barry

whites of the world already started cancel culture a long time ago. And the way that they started it was trying to get professors that they deemed to be insufficiently loyal to Israel fired from many different campuses across the country. So it was actually the right wing that started cancer culture and it was to fire professors. So I don't want to degrade tenure. So on the other hand, this guy grading people's papers, both men and women, but especially women, is untenable, it's unthinkable. Look, he's teaching Polly Si, and he said in that speech that what do you want, these women want to be bureaucrats in a global project? Well, who would be a bureaucrat in his mindset? It would be someone who goes into politics. He made two to three

references the politics in just a short video as though we showed you guys. So he literally thinks if you're a woman in my political science class, I don't think you should go into the into this field, I think you're better off being a chattel for a man being chained somewhere and popping out babies. So what are you doing in my goddamn class, try to learn political science? What are you going to be a bureaucrat? You're gonna be a part of the global project, you're gonna go work for a living. So do you still find an interesting question?

No, I do, I do. The reason is because there's no way he should be teaching. There's no way he should be giving grades. He's the most biased man in America. He should be fired. Okay, but can you? put him in some administrative position where he basically does nothing. So you protect tenure, but not have him teach classes.

Do stupid right wing Neanderthal research in a corner and have Ben Shapiro FAP to it. I don't care, okay? But I can't have him grading tests. There's no way in the world that guy is going to be fair to women. No way. By the way, also that men, he probably hates everybody, but in his, remember what he said earlier, well, until you have a baby, man is aimless and without purpose.

Well, most of the guys in college don't have babies. So he's like, oh, these, and I bet you he does think of these freaking losers. They come in here with no babies, they're past 18, they haven't even popped out a couple of kids yet. They have no purpose at all. And so, these are monstrous views. By the way, celebrated in the right wing. Of course he is. Ben Shapiro already wrote an article back in 2017 before the latest controversy, but he'd already said stuff like this.

Shapiro says, oh, it's a witch hunt against this. Poor professor, but and but Shapiro does make a good point. He said he is very much in the mainstream of conservative thought. So this is people reacting against conservative ideology. Well, if this is your ideology, yeah, we're reacting against it because you guys are monsters, idiots, and you hate the idea of freedom for 51% of the country. How much clear can you be the guy freaking said it. You don't below it in the workforce, you don't, you don't deserve to

choice that men have go back to producing babies for men. Yeah, this is what conservatives think and they're monsters. You want people to have babies, create the economic conditions for them to feel comfortable making that choice. It's that easy. End a story. We got to take a break. We'll be right back. 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 t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon