The Young Turks - The Kushner Conflict
Episode Date: February 7, 2025Kash Patel’s Confirmation Vote DELAYED… But Does It Matter? Judge PAUSES Trump’s Federal Worker Buyout Plan. REVEALED: Jared Kushner Has $$$ In Firm Involved With Israeli Settlements. Attorney G...eneral Pam Bondi Goes After Sanctuary Cities. Hosts: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show.
Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars.
You're awesome. Thank you.
All right, welcome the young Turks, Jake Ugrathek, Ugratikas, with you guys.
A day as usual, filled with nothing but news. So lots of cuts and lots of action at the White
House for better and worse, actually mainly for worse. So yeah, lots of bad news today from the
White House. All right. Anna, what do you got for us? Well, I wanted to start off with what could
potentially be good news. At least it's good news for the moment. But it really has to do with
Senate Democrats who have finally decided to use some of the tools they have at their disposal
in regard to this confirmation process of Donald Trump's nominee. So let's talk about what
happened with Cash Patel. Senate Democrats have managed to block Cash Patel's nomination
as FBI director. Now, of course, the confirmation process is still moving forward and it is
likely that Patel will end up getting confirmed anyway. But let's talk a little bit about what
Democrats have done in the Senate Judiciary Committee to essentially temporarily lock Patel's
confirmation. So of course, Patel has been nominated by Donald Trump to serve as FBI director
and a scheduled Senate judiciary meeting to advance Patel and his nomination to a full
Senate vote has been delayed. And it's because the Democrats on the panel have rejected or
objected Patel for this position. And they would like more time to review some of the conflicting
testimony that he gave during his confirmation hearing. So this will be a one week delay in the
committee. But it is likely that after this one week delay, they will vote. The majority on
this committee happen to be Republicans. And it is likely that they will confirm Patel,
It'll then go to or advance his confirmation, and then it'll go to a full Senate vote.
Now, Democrats argued that they needed the pause to see if they could get more information on Patel,
contending he did not provide the committee with information essential to our consideration of his nomination.
So in a letter to the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley,
which was obtained by ABC News, Democratic Senators Sheldon White House,
Booker and Adam Schiff wrote the following, that Patel has repeatedly refused to discuss the testimony
he provided to a federal grand jury investigating Donald Trump's unlawful retention of classified
documents, as well as his invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
The senator said that when they asked Patel to disclose information about his grand jury testimony,
he said he could not because it was subject to a seal order, but they said no such order
could be identified. In other words, they are alleging that Patel lied in that portion of
his Senate confirmation hearing. Now, in the letter, the Democratic senators also argue that
Patel's choice to invoke the Fifth Amendment before a grand jury merits further inquiry.
So Senator Dick Durbin, who is the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
said that Democrats asked for another hearing due to these concerns and Patel's contradictory testimony.
Democrats even came up with a logo that they began disseminating on social media that urged the Senate to block Cash Patel's confirmation.
So you're looking at it right now. It clearly states block Cash Patel, an unqualified extremist who will make us less safe.
And also according to ABC News, due to the objections toward Cash Patel by Democrats on the committee,
the move will require the committee to take a one week hold before voting on Patel's nomination,
but the delay will likely have no bearing on Patel's ability to ultimately be confirmed.
So calling for a one week holdover before a vote is allowed under the judiciary committee rules is a thing.
This is not a unique process.
This is one of the tools that Democrats have in their toolbox, that all lawmakers have
in their toolbox.
Both parties, in fact, have exercised it regularly when in the minority.
But after the pause, I think it's pretty clear that Republicans are poised to confirm
Patel.
There are 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, 12 Republicans.
And so far, there's no indication that any of the Republicans on this committee intend to vote
know. During his hearing, Chuck Grassley called Patel's career, a study in fighting for unpopular
but righteous causes exposing corruption and putting America first. So, Jank, look, we give
Democrats a lot of heat for not fighting back. So far, this is probably the best example of them
succeeding in fighting back a little bit. I'm curious what you think about this strategy. Yeah. Well,
I like to see any kind of fight back in this regard.
And the Democrats of the opposition part of the Republicans, their job is different than ours.
And their job is to do this kind of pushback.
Is it gonna be effective?
Well, you gotta rally folks in a way that could move Republican senators.
And that is a very, very difficult task.
So you gotta hold all your senators, which is easier, although you do have Fetterman in there.
And then you've got to move for Republican senators.
And the only way to move them is if they're worried about losing their seats.
And so if you pound away at things where you have an advantage, maybe you could move for those centers.
But it is a very hard task.
Now, a couple are wobbly and like to vote no for purposes of appearances like Murkowski and Collins.
But they almost never do that when there's an actual decisive vote on the line, right?
So that makes it even harder.
All right, now, do they have a good case here?
Well, Cashman tells you a good person to pick in terms of trying to do some sort of,
I don't know if his last stand, first stand, okay, but some sort of stand against,
because he's the guy who said, oh yeah, I have an enemies list and it's filled with my political enemies.
And now I'd like to be the head of the FBI to go and pursue them and et cetera.
And so like if you can't rally folks against that kind of extreme pick,
You're probably not that good at this.
They should have started a long time ago.
They should have picked someone like him.
They should have had their case and they should have been pounding in the media over and over again.
I've barely seen it.
But now this is good.
It's a good positive step.
So credit work credit is too.
But under the substance of the issues, Anna, so he is subject to a seal order.
He said, and apparently that doesn't exist.
That's not a small lie.
And he's not going for interior secretary where it would still be concerning.
He's going for head of law enforcement, the FBI.
So lying in your hearings is even more disturbing.
And this is not a political lie.
There's tons of political lies.
This is a lie about your actual record, right?
Including cases that you might have been involved in in criminally.
Now, to the Fifth Amendment, fifth amendment protects you in criminal cases in
prosecution. That is what it's for. You say, I have a right not to incriminate myself
within the context of these criminal proceedings, right? But it doesn't give you any protection
outside of that. And so we all have eyes and ears. So if you raise your hand, for example,
if he'd been charged with murder and he said, well, I don't want to say anything about that
because I might incriminate myself, should we be concerned about that if he's going to be
the head of the FBI? Well, of course, wait, what were you going to say that might incriminate
yourself in that murder case. Now, in his case, it's not a murder case, but all of these cases
are very, very important. So how were you going to incriminate yourself? An enormously fair
question. But at the end of the day, bottom line is, will we get straight answers to those
within the week that they have? Very unlikely. They'll probably just stall. And they're
steamrolling everything. So they're very likely steamroll them. Chuck Grassley's comments
are very indicative of that because Chuck Grassley used to be a normal Republican. And now he's saying
that Cash Patel's crusade against his political enemies and in defense of January 6 rioters
who came in into the capital and threatened people like Senator Grassley, he's now saying
those are righteous causes. Okay, well, that shows you how much Trump has moved, the Republican
party in the senators, and hence they will very, very likely bow their heads and let this
guy who I think is unhinged into the FBI to run the place. God help us all.
No, oftentimes you'll hear the argument about how the Electoral College is important because it prevents the tyranny of the majority, right?
And that's how you have a situation in which a presidential candidate can get the majority of
electoral votes, but doesn't win the popular vote. And I never really bought into that argument,
but now I kind of understand it, although in a completely different context. So when you talk
about someone like Chuck Grassley, who back in the day was just a normal Republican, and now
he's kind of selling out his own values and ethics, it's about the tyranny of the majority
in the country who have decided to support Donald Trump and his nominees, and particularly the
Republican base. That's what Republican senators who are part of this confirmation process
are concerned about. They know that if they take the moral high ground and they actually do
their jobs appropriately as a part of a system of government where you're supposed to have checks
and balances, well, voting no on anything that Donald Trump wants, whether it be one of his
nominees or whether it be one of his agenda items will lead to the wrath of Donald Trump supporters
and the majority of whom, of course, are Republicans. And so that whole system of checks and balances
kind of breaks down in a situation like that. And I love that you brought up to January 6th because
you're right. I mean, Cash Patel, part of the reason why he has an enemy's list is because
he was very much in favor of what happened on January 6th. He thinks that anyone who got arrested on
that day was unfairly prosecuted. He believes that any prosecution of Donald Trump was an example
of, you know, lawfare, lawfare, even though Donald Trump refused to hand back the classified
documents. He had so many opportunities to do it. He wouldn't turn the classified documents back
over to the federal government. I just don't know what to make of this because right now, because
of how unpopular the Democratic Party is, they're not really able to effectively fight back. You get
what I'm saying? And then at the same time, you can't really rely on Republicans to stand by
their principles and morals and do the right thing either. So we're just kind of, you know,
prey to the whims of what these senators do out of their own self-interest to maintain power.
Yeah. So look, it's an interesting argument you're making about the tyranny of the majority,
but I think that it's actually within Republican primaries that they have real control. I mean,
Look, somebody could take over the Democratic Party in the same exact way, but use it for good.
But no one's got the courage to do that.
Instead, we got Donald Trump who took over the Republican Party and using it only for his own self-interest.
And so I'll tell you a little bit more about how I thought the Democrats could fight back.
But in terms of whether he's going to get confirmed or not, look, there was one guy who was put up as a sacrificial land.
We told you from day one, and it happened just like we said, Matt Gates, right?
So once they take him down, then Trump pressures everyone to confirm everyone else.
And that's exactly what happened, including, in my opinion, radical people like Pete Hegesith
and Cash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard and Bobby Kennedy Jr.
And it is a more complicated case, but certainly a lot of people would have them in that category.
So are any of those other guys in danger after that Matt Gates' gambit?
I would have said no before but now I think the only one who actually is in danger is Bobby Kennedy
Jr. Because the Republican senators have decided we're throwing our lot in with Trump
and it doesn't matter how radical anyone he puts up is. I mean he's we talked about yesterday
about putting in a white nationalist at the State Department for public diplomacy and no
nobody's raising an eye row. It's like that the radical ship has sailed and they're all
All the Republican senators are on it.
The only reason why they're pausing on Bobby Kennedy Jr is not because of the sexual stories and things from the past,
but because tons of their donors, pharmaceutical donors, et cetera, are giving them counter orders.
So that's why they're frozen.
Like do I listen to the donors?
They're the ones who give me all my power, but now Trump can take away all my power.
So they're in a conflict over that.
So that's why I think he might be in a little bit of trouble.
I don't, I got it at 50, 50, but Cash Patel, probably not.
So how could you effectively fight back?
Number one, you'd have to make a plan well in advance.
Oh, good luck.
I know for a fact, Chuck Schumer couldn't make a plan of his life dependent on it.
Why not?
I mean, he's so energetic and so with it.
Yeah, and he's great at leading chance.
I know.
Okay, but so what I would have done is, okay, let's pick a target.
Is it cash Patel?
Is it two or three targets, just one target?
And then when we do, what do we do? How do we influence those four Republican senators?
Because eyes on the prize, who cares about everything else?
The only way to stop any of these guys is to flip four Republican senators.
So if you're gonna, or even if you're not going to flip them, then do significant political
damage on them for voting yes, right?
So they would have to be in purple states.
They would have to be in closer elections.
This is like elementary politics.
And one of the tools that they haven't used yet that I would have used is polling.
What I would have done is messaging on Cash Patel for the last two, three weeks,
extremists, enemies list, enemies list, enemies list, and then do a poll on it.
Oh, confirming him is down at 37%, 23%.
Oh, look at that.
Murkowski, you're thinking of voting for him in Alaska.
Polling on him is down a 31%.
Are you sure you want to go against 70% of your own voters?
That's a smart strategy and focused one, but the Democrats, I mean, they couldn't strategize
themselves out of a wet paper bag. So, so that's where we are now. This is very Johnny come
lately, probably way too late. Again, but it's like a glimmer of hope because it's just a tiny
bit of action from the Democrats. So our bar for them is so low that we're kind of excited today.
Well, let's talk about some of the other tools in the toolbox that I think the unions representing federal workers are using more effectively.
So a federal judge has stepped in to temporarily block President Donald Trump's effort to buy out federal government employees.
At this point, some 40,000 federal employees have taken Donald Trump up on that offer.
That's about 2% of the federal workforce.
And essentially, they have agreed that they will resign immediately as long as they
continue getting paid through September.
However, the unions representing these federal workers argue that these workers are actually
being lied to and that the promise to get paid through September is not true.
It's not real.
It's not based in reality.
And so the federal judge who has heard this case or has heard,
the argument did not weigh in on the merit of the argument, but did agree to block this effort
for a week pending another hearing that will be happening next week. So let me give you some more
details about what's going on. Who are the plaintiffs? And what are they saying? Well, three
unions, the American Federation of Government employees, the National Association of Government
Employees, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees argue that the OPM
violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a legal basis for the buyout
offer and leaving open the possibility that the government might not follow through with the buyout
once federal employees agree to resign. So this is really interesting, Jenk. This is a fascinating
argument. I'm curious how the judge is going to rule on this. So the lawsuit added that the buyouts
promise of payments through September violates the law because the current appropriation for
federal agencies actually expires in March. Moreover, the buyout is unfair because it was made
alongside a threat for future layoffs, the lawsuit said. And that's definitely true. When
the Trump administration put out this notice calling on the federal employees to essentially
take this buyout offer, they said, for those who turned this offer down, there is no promise.
that you will not get fired.
So essentially, it's putting these workers in an impossible situation because either you take the buyout offer and you get this severance package, or you remain in your position and you get fired anyway and maybe don't get any severance at all.
Now, in his decision today, U.S. District Judge George O'Toole Jr. simply said the following,
I enjoined the defendants from taking any action to implement the so-called fork directive
pending the completion of briefing and oral argument on the issues. I believe that's as far as
far as I want to go today. So he did not weigh in on the merit of the argument, but essentially
said, I'm blocking this for now until I can hear the oral arguments and make my decision.
So the freeze will remain in place until Monday afternoon of next week when the judge decides during an afternoon hearing whether he wants to block the buyout further, Jank.
Yeah, it should definitely be blocked. Whether, you know, the Supreme Court does things that are rational is a really big open question.
So this will move up to courts and we'll see how they handle it. Okay, so why should it be blocked?
So first of all, they are giving money through September, that money has not been appropriated.
So you might be annoyed by that way you consider bureaucracy by that, but that's the end of the question.
If I'm a judge, I go, no, sorry, not close, you got to go, okay?
And so why is that?
Because Congress has not appropriated that money.
When it comes to the government, period, it's over.
If it's not appropriated, you don't have it to give to them, right?
So even if you thought the buyouts are a good idea, I don't see how it's.
legal. So they'd have to do it. I don't know. I mean, the Supreme Court has to make so many
twists and turns. We'll have more stories later in the show that affect them as well to try to
justify some of these Trump decisions. But they might not. They might go, yeah, no, that money's not
appropriate. That's not how it works. And so, and it might be illegal. This was more of an open
question. If it's with a threat, right? Like, you better take this money. Otherwise, we're going to
fire you might also be illegal, but that's a debatable legal question. And so I'm curious how
that one plays out. Now, this fork directive that he's talking about is because this is called
the fork in the road memo. And not only did it go out here in this case, the federal workers,
but it's the same exact title as the one Elon Musk used at Twitter when he came in and
eventually fired, you know, different reports of somewhere between two thirds to three
quarters of his employees there. So that threat to fire people is very real. Now the problem
is that this is not a private company. This is the United States government. So you've got to be
a little bit more careful as you move this giant ship. But they're not being careful at all.
Like if you were going to do this, you would go through a whole bunch of process. And it doesn't
mean that you take forever and you take four years and you lose your opportunity. You can do it
quickly, but you would have to go through normal processes to make sure you're not breaking everything
it on your way. Now you own a private company like Twitter slash X. Well, that's his company at this
point. He bought it. So he can fire those people. He can break it all he likes. If it goes bankrupt,
it goes bankrupt. No big deal. That's not our business. That's his business. When it's the
U.S. government, it's our business. And so I'm telling you right now, if you're MAGA and you're like,
oh yeah, Elon, he's got this thing figured out. Fire everybody. It's going to work out great.
Brace for impact. Buckle up. Because there's no way this out of control freight train
doesn't cause significant damage.
All right, we've got a lot more news to get to,
including an update on Donald Trump,
essentially doubling down on his plans to occupy Gaza
and potentially use American military to do it.
That and more coming up, don't miss it.
Back on TYT, Jank Anna and Elizabeth Fortis, Elizabeth, thanks for hitting the join button becoming one of us.
Look, guys, we love it if you join, you're part of the TYT community.
We got an awesome community, and you can get two months off of annual membership at TYT.com.
But you could also just hit the subscribe button for free and and the ring the bell also free takes about five seconds apiece helps the show
I just want to address one quick comment from one of our YouTube members.
Benny Moon wrote in does Jank like anyone in government?
Pretty much talks bad about everybody in there not one person that he likes.
No, there are people that I like and and to me it's not about whether liking or not liking.
It's about authentic or not authentic, honest or not.
So Bernie Sanders is authentic and honest, doesn't take corporate pack money.
Rokana doesn't take corporate money, but by the way on the Republican side,
now Josh Hawley doesn't take corporate pack money and a couple of others.
And Thomas Massey's like I don't agree with them at all, well not at all, but like on 90%
of issues, but at least he's authentic, right?
So there are people in there and you could tell based on do they take corporate money
or do they not take money, right?
And so if they're taking it from the people, then you could at least trust them.
that it's relatively authentic ideology and principles, but unfortunately, since everyone else
is hooked on donor money, yeah, you shouldn't trust them because they're not really representing
their point of view or your point of view. They're representing whoever their donors are,
their point of view. So I wanted to explain that real quick. Yeah. Yeah, let me weigh in on that.
I don't like any of the politicians. And it's not because it's not my job to like anybody, right?
It's my job to judge how they are reacting to or how they're behaving in regard to specific
issues. There are some politicians who are good on some issues, but bad on others.
And so, like, that's the way I judge. Are these politicians handling this crisis in the
country appropriately? Are they responding to the opposition effectively? That's what matters, right?
And yes, the money in politics is a huge problem. So is the fact that they're trading individual
stocks engaging in insider trading and getting away with it. So that's a big problem too.
All right. So, all right, let's talk. Let's do an update on Donald Trump's statements in regard
to the United States occupying Gaza. Gaza's waterfront property. It could be very valuable to
if people would focus on kind of building up, you know, livelihood. So I think that it's a little
bit of an unfortunate situation there. But I think from Israel's perspective, I would do my best to move the people
out and then clean it up. I think proactively recognizing a Palestinian state would essentially
be rewarding an act of terror. That was President Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner,
about a year ago. And his statement has only become even more ominous after President Donald
Trump, of course, declared that the United States will own the Gaza Strip. That was a statement
he made on Tuesday of this week. And in fact, Kushner is putting big.
money into an Israeli firm that finances and insures construction projects in Israeli settlements.
So here are the details, courtesy of an in-depth report by the lever. Last year, Kushner's private
equity firm, because he is the head of a private equity firm after all, which is called affinity
partners, invested in Phoenix Financial, which happens to be an Israeli financial and intelligence
firm. So Phoenix is heavily involved in Israeli settlements. Let's give you a little piece of this
info. Phoenix owns about 80% stake in a large shopping mall in an East Jerusalem settlement
and stakes in various companies operating throughout other settlements. Phoenix has helped finance
wind and solar projects in Israeli settlements and provided financial services to the local
councils of settlements, including the Betar, Lilit, and Oranit settlements in the West Bank.
And let me just say for those who might not be aware, the settlements, the Israeli settlements
in the West Bank are built on stolen land. These are illegal settlements. They're seen as illegal
settlements by the international community. But the United States aides and abets, any bad
behavior that Israeli settlers want to engage in, any bad behavior that the Israeli government
wants to engage in. So there you have it. So when Affinity invested into Phoenix last year, it actually
acquired a 4.95% stake in the company. And on January 15th of this year, Israeli regulators
approved a deal that doubled, doubled affinity's stake in the company. Kushner actually told
Bloomberg the following. Investing in Phoenix in July of 2024 was a
decision rooted in my belief in Israel's resiliency and the fundamentals of Phoenix's business.
Six months later, the increased value of our shares reaffirms my conviction, both in Israel's
strength and the growing promise of Phoenix. Now, of course, Israel's strength is contingent
upon the United States aiding and abetting everything and anything it wants to do.
It doesn't matter if you're talking about a Democratic president or, in this case, Donald Trump,
a Republican president, Israel gets what it wants.
Meanwhile, settler violence runs rampant.
According to the United Nations,
settlers were responsible for more than 1,000 attacks on Palestinians last year alone.
The highest level of Israeli settler violence ever recorded.
So Donald Trump's decision to announce that he believes the United States should take over Gaza,
I think was heavily influenced by his own son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
This is something that Jared Kushner has been talking about over the last year, clearly.
I mean, it's evidenced by the video that we showed you.
And so I believe that the president sees this as a money-making opportunity.
And that's what's really, that's what he's really pursuing here, Jank.
And the idea that the U.S. should do this is ludicrous.
The idea that you could do this without U.S. military is ludicrous.
And let's not, let's not like whitewash this in any way.
It is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
What Donald Trump is proposing is the stealing of land that belongs to the Palestinians.
And it's going to lead to chaos and war in that region.
Yeah.
So I want to talk about the boots on the ground and what Donald Trump proposed in just a little bit when we get to that part of the story.
But first, Whitkoff is the guy that Trump put in charge of negotiating.
in this situation with the ceasefire and Israel and Gaza overall.
And Whitkoff has had a lot of conversations with Kushner and has been taking advice from Kushner.
So Kushner is clearly massively involved in all these plans in regards to Gaza.
And apparently Donald Trump changed the plans at the last second, a couple hours before he met with Netanyahu.
And that was after talking to Whitkoff and Kushner.
So when he when Christian talks about how he invested in this Israeli company because he believes in Israel's resiliency, that's hilarious.
No, he invested in them for logical reasons. I get it. Number one, he knew that they had already destroyed most of Gaza and they would try to destroy almost all of Gaza, which would then require reconstruction, whether the Palestinians are going to stay there or Israel comes in and build settlements, et cetera.
There's no question that construction is going to go way, way, way up soon. And this company would do finance.
for that insurance for that and they stand to make a ton of money but wait where's the money
coming from well that's the even more important part a massive amount of u.s aid is about to go to
Israel i mean we gave them over 20 billion in last year we've given them over 300 billion
dollars in the lifetime of Israel and a lot of magu guys are a little bit naive about this
i you know we're going to talk about how they in my opinion did a great job of preventing
boots on the ground we'll get to that in a second but when it comes to the money there they
think now, like, oh, no, no, we're not going to finance it. We know we're, we're America
first. And I'm like, okay, brothers and sisters, but you're about to get a rude awakening
because that golden pager is not sitting on Donald Trump's desk at the White House, because
Donald Trump isn't serving Israel, okay? Yes. By the way, get that pager out of the White
House. I mean, at a bare minimum, it has a bug in it, at a bare minimum.
Bare minimum, yes. So for anyone who's unaware, Prime Minister Benjamin Deniahu gifted Donald Trump a gold pager, which of course was a reference to the exploding pagers that Israel sent over to members of Hezbollah. Now, of course, those pagers exploded in all sorts of public places around innocent civilians. But who cares, right? Doesn't matter. Who cares about civilian lives? I mean, it's not like the Israeli government has shown any concern for,
any civilians who aren't Israeli. But anyway, let's move on to what Donald Trump is currently saying
in regard to his plans in the Middle East and in Gaza in particular. So he's scrambling to explain
how his plan to own Gaza would really work. So this morning, he wrote the following on truth
social. Bear with me as I read through this lengthy statement. The Gaza Strip would be turned over
to the United States by Israel, right, at the conclusion of fighting, the Palestinians, people
like Chuck Schumer, okay, would have already been resettled in far, safer, and more
beautiful communities with new and modern homes in the region. They would actually have a chance
to be happy, safe, and free. The U.S., working with great development teams from all over the
world would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the greatest
and most spectacular developments of its kind on earth. No soldiers by the U.S. would be needed.
Stability for the region would rain. Yeah, the exact opposite would happen. The point you're making
about the funding jank is incredibly important. And think about it. The funding would come from
the American government, American taxpayers. It would be given to the country of Israel, as we
typically do billions of dollars year after year. And then that money would just get funneled to the
development or developers who are building whatever ends up getting built in the Gaza Strip,
not for Palestinians. Palestinians will be ethnically cleansed from Gaza. And you really think,
you think Israel is going to hand that land over to the United States? I doubt it. Okay, I highly
doubt it. And by the way, even if it was ironclad, you know, contract indicating that they would
do that, I still don't buy it. And even if that were true, I don't want it. The United States
is not supposed to be in the business of nation building. And that is what Donald Trump himself
has said. Why is the U.S. getting involved in the Gaza Strip, getting involved in the ethnic
cleansing of the Gaza Strip? It's insane. Okay, so let's break this down. Because when
When Trump first came out, he said this lunatic thing about how we're going to take over
Gaza, America is we're going to rebuild it.
And including, and I love that he said this because it makes it very clear what the original
intent was, we will be dealing with the unexploded bombs that Israel dropped.
But it's because the blessed IDF, of course, they need to be protected at all costs.
Those are Israeli civilians, they're worth about 10 or 100 or 1,000 American citizens.
So we would send in Americans to clear out the unexploded bombs.
Also, by the way, to actually move two million Palestinians forcibly, because they're not
going to go voluntarily into another country that isn't their home and likely into the
Sinai desert where there will be no luxury homes waiting for them.
There'll be tents and refugee camps for the rest of their lives.
So and remember of course when they resist being moved out of their homes, then we'll
have to kill them.
So now, what happened was I said, I think, that Mag.
would push back and Maga did push back.
Now hold, there's nuance there.
But first thing they said was like, wait, what are we doing?
Boots on the ground?
We all just voted against boots on the ground.
What the hell are you doing?
And it was a ridiculous idea in the first place.
So Trump immediately, immediately backpedals and goes, no, no, no, no, no, I didn't mean boots on the ground.
I didn't mean boots on the ground.
So now he changes the plan from, and look, change it from, you change it from,
A horrible plan to a slightly less horrible plan.
Okay, I guess we're making progress.
And yes, so Maga, nice job on pushing back on that.
But wait, now let's talk about his new plan.
So now Israel is going to do its own dirty work.
Okay, I hate it, I don't want it.
I think it's terrible.
I think it's textbook ethnic cleansing when you move people out of their homes
and homeland and you shove them into a different place,
Trail of Tears, Armenian Genocide, Baton, Death March, these are all
textbook ethnic cleansing genocide, so there's nothing pretty about it.
They're not going to be in a better situation, they're going to be in a far, far worse
situation, none of them want it, the neighbors don't want it, no one outside of
Jared Kushner and his corrupt cronies and Trump, et cetera, and of course, Netanyahu
want it, right? So when you go to move them out, now apparently Israel's going to do it,
he's saying that America will then own it afterwards, that right, okay, stop right there.
Like, Maga, you know that's not true, right?
Like, that's nuts.
Please don't believe things that are not even within, they don't, not even a 1% chance.
You think Israel's going to do all of that work and they're not going to pay for any of it.
And at the end, they're going to be like, here you go, America.
We love you so much.
We're giving this land to you instead of our crazed settlers who think that they got promised it to them and burn the whole house down if we don't give it to them.
So this is just mad.
Of course Israel's going to take it, right?
It's, come on, please don't tell me you're that naive.
But he says that so that for the folks who are naive, they go, well, if they're going to pay
all the costs and they're going to do it and we got no boots on the ground.
And later we own it, well, okay, maybe I like that plan.
Oh, yeah, aye, aye, aye.
Okay, so now, can I hold on one more thing?
Sure.
Yeah, then I'll go to you and this.
Guys, if Israel's going to do it, but we're somehow helping out, what does that mean?
mean? How do you, how do you help without being having boots on the ground? Are they going to
float in the sky or soldiers or contractors, whoever we're sending in? No, of course. Okay, but even
so, even if you say, no, okay, he's not going to send a single American to do any of the dirty
work. If you think we're not going to pay for all of this, you're on a different planet,
brothers and sisters. And it doesn't really matter what we speculate today. And it doesn't matter
how much you disagree with me today. Because the bill is going to come do, Netanyahu's going to
come to collect this check. And Trump and almost all of Congress will get walked around the park
again. And they'll all give them exactly what they want. And then how mad is MAGA? That's going to
decide everything. In fact, let me just note. When it comes to the Israeli settlers, first of all,
separate them out from the rest of the Israeli civilian population, okay? Because the settlers and
their behavior in the West Bank, for instance, is a perfect example of how they would behave if
Gaza were occupied by Americans, as opposed to Palestinians. By the way, Palestinians, it's their
land. It's not an occupation of Palestinians. They have the right to that land. They're being pushed
out, okay? But if you have Americans there, the Israeli settlers are going to treat the Americans the
exact same way they treat Christians in the West Bank. You think they only target Palestinian
Muslims? Please. They see that land as their land. They feel that they have a God given right
to that land. I mean, there are videos all over the internet of Israeli settlers literally
spitting on Christians who are in the West Bank for their own reasons of faith. So I don't
believe for a second that this is about Americans taking over the Gaza Strip.
In fact, we already have an Israeli government preparing for what Donald Trump wants to do here.
Defense Minister Israel Kat says the military should prepare exit options by land, sea, and
air so that anyone who wishes to can leave for any country willing to accept them.
In Israeli defense ministry statement reads as follows, I welcome the bold initiative.
of the U.S. President Trump, of U.S. President Trump, which could allow a large portion of Gaza's
population to relocate to various destinations worldwide.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu claims that Gazans who leave their homes would be allowed
to return, but that's complete and utter garbage. I don't believe that for a second.
The actual idea of allowing first Gazans who want to leave to leave, I mean, what is wrong
with that?
Netanyahu told Fox News Wednesday, adding that those who leave the stringers,
can come back. Katz stated that countries who have been critical of Israel's ethnic cleansing
campaign like Ireland, Spain, and Norway are legally obligated to accept Palestinian refugees
and they would be hypocritical if they did not. No, no. These countries do not want to aid
and abet the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own land. Okay, but Spain's foreign
minister, Jose Manuel Albaras, has already shot back saying Spain makes a
own decisions. No third party should tell it what to do, he said, adding that Gaza must be part
of a future Palestinian state. In addition, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan,
all have announced that they oppose Donald Trump's plan. And keep in mind that in 1948,
the Nakhba that occurred in 1948, 700,000 Palestinians fled and were forced from their homes
as a result of, you know, the Israelis basically pushing them out from their homes,
from their land, and into the Gaza Strip.
Trump's proposal would basically amount to a forced relocation of three times as many
Palestinians. Yeah. Any final words, Shank? Yeah, definitely. So, but after the knockba,
Israel allowed them back into their, oh, right, they didn't. Of course they didn't,
because their whole point was to take the land and they did take the land.
So look, I'm going to make a declarative statement.
If you believe that Israel will let the Palestinians return after they push two million of them out,
instead of taking the land for themselves, you are the world's largest sucker.
There is an absolute 0% chance of that.
None.
That's Israel laughing at us going, watch these dumb Americans.
We'll tell them that they'll get it afterwards after they'll be.
pay for it. They're not going to do any of that. There's no chance at all. Okay, so and
by the way, what does it mean that America will own it? What does that mean? Is Gaza going to be
our 51st state? Are we voting on statehood? Is it going to be a colony like Puerto Rico or
Guam or a territory? It's absurd. It's beyond absurd. I mean, please, please, you're like
telling on yourself if you believe any of these fantasies. Okay, now, what do you think the
politicians are going to do whether it's Americans or the Israelis that are moving them out of
their homeland. Let's ask it this way. I usually use Texas in the analogy here, but you can
fill in any state or any region or any people into this. What do you think that they would
the good folks in Texas would do if they said, oh, no, no, we're just going to take two million
of you and move you into Guadalajara, okay? Maybe you can come back later, but we're going to,
I mean, we already destroyed your homes, but it's okay. The country that had destroyed your
homes and killed your family members, they're gonna push you out into a different country and
then maybe you can come back later.
Okay, what do you think the good folks of Texas would do?
They would fight and fight and fight and fight and fight and fight and fight.
I don't know what the Palestinians are gonna do, but I know the Texans would murder as many
of those occupiers as they could possibly get their hands on.
And they would be called what?
Freedom fighters, right?
So you're gonna tell me that the Palestinians should accept
having their homeland stolen? No, it is going to be an epic disaster.
So you think they less war? No, anti-war, hilarious.
That's as pro-war as it gets, because at that point, they've got nothing left to lose.
Right now they're holding on to the thin hope that the monsters running the government in Israel
will stop murdering them at some point and that they could move back into their homes.
If they lose that hope, what do you think they're going to do?
You think they're just going to bow their heads and move to another country?
No, you're going to have an epic war there.
Guess who's going to pay for it?
And so, guys, that's the ultimate showdown.
At some point, the bill comes due.
And Israel is going to come for their next check.
And it isn't going to be the normal four million, four billion we send them every year.
It's going to be a much, much bigger number, just like it was last year.
And just like Biden, Trump will say, absolutely, sir.
Are you sure you don't want more, sir?
I'll give you everything you want sir I got you I got your golden page right here it's
actually right here it's up by one okay so I I guess that you see him how he pulled in
the chair for Netanyahu that dog Trump humiliating this country serving another
foreign government he will try to pay you think his donors gave him with hundreds
of millions of dollars to not send our money to Israel please don't tell me you that
big of a sucker so no they will say Trump will try to give them a giant size check to pay
off his donors. And at that point, MAGA, are you going to sit there and take it? And are you
going to go, oh yeah, okay, no, no, America's suck is not so bad. Not so bad. My guess, and I know
everyone on the left here disagrees with me, right? And I know that it's a bold prediction. I think
MAGA will not sit there and take it. I think MAGA will say, yeah, you can take the very
long walk off a short pier in Gaza. No, not interested in send you another $20 billion or whatever
size check that they want. And by the way, that wouldn't cover the construction.
reconstruction at all. So okay, let's see what happens. But my guess is there's going to be
MAGA versus Israel lobby. And that is the first time in my lifetime where the Israeli
lobby has a chance of losing. Because the left gets steamrolled every single time and our
politicians aren't on our side anyway. And neither are the Republican politicians, neither is
Trump. But Trump is the only politician that I've seen in my lifetime that cares a little bit.
what his base thinks. So if his base clashes with his donors, that's going to be epic.
Which way it goes? I don't know. We'll see. But I think there will be a clash. And I think
Maga has some percent a chance of winning. But if they don't even fight back, we're going to get
robbed by Israel until the cows come home. Those Palestinians are going to get slaughtered.
There's going to be massive ethnic cleansing. And it's going to get way worse, not better.
Well, when we come back from the break, we'll talk about the attorney general pick for Donald Trump getting confirmed.
That's, of course, Pam Bondi. And we'll talk about what she did in her first day in office.
All right, back on TYT, Jank, and Anna with you guys, more news.
Well, let's talk about what Pam Bondi, the new Attorney General, is up to and what she did on her first day in office.
Attorney General Pam Bondi was just confirmed by a vote of 54 to 46.
Joining me now, Chris Bedford, author of Beltway Brief, Chris, lone Democrat to vote for Bondi was Senator Federman of Pennsylvania.
Why was Chicago signaled out in the lawsuit today against sanctuary cities?
Look, sanctuary cities are sanctuary for criminals.
I'm glad we got Pan Bondi running a DOJ now.
Sanctuary cities or sanctuary to criminals, make that clear.
Pam Bondi, President Donald Trump's nominee for Attorney General, has officially been confirmed by the Senate.
And on her first day in office, she decided to ban sanctuary cities from receiving
federal aid or any federal resources. This has placed Chicago in particular and quite a bit of
controversy in hot water. But before we get to Chicago and Illinois in particular, here's what
Bondi is up to more generally as it pertains to undocumented immigrants and the various sanctuary
cities and states that are attempting to protect them. So Fox News Digital exclusively obtained
memos outlining Bondi's first day directives. And here's what we know based on their reporting.
So Bondi has directed the DOJ to pause all federal funding for sanctuary cities.
Bondi also has directed the DOJ to identify and evaluate all funding agreements with non-governmental
organizations, NGOs, typically nonprofits, that provides support to illegal aliens. That's how Fox News
reported it. She's also directing litigating components of the Justice Department to investigate
instances of jurisdictions that are impeding law enforcement and directing they be prosecuted when
necessary. So I'm going to pause. There's more that she's doing. Honestly, there are some things
that she's doing as part of her first day directives that I agree with. What I just read to you,
though I disagree with. And here's why. The idea that the citizens, the taxpaying American
citizens in these sanctuary cities should be deprived of federal funding is ludicrous to me.
Because if that is the case, well, then we should stop paying our federal taxes.
Not everyone living in these sanctuary cities co-signed to the sanctuary status, number one.
But even if they did, they're paying their taxes.
Living in California, we pay taxes up the wazoo, right?
Obviously state and local, but I'm separating that out.
We pay our federal taxes.
So we're going to be barred from receiving federal funding because Pam Bondi doesn't agree with what some of the lawmakers
you know, in these cities and in these states are doing, okay, well, take them to court.
Deal with it that way, but to deprive American taxpayers of the resources that they have
paid into the system is unacceptable to me. Jank.
Yeah, there's a silver lining here. You might be surprised to hear.
And the silver lining is that, of course, is going to go to court.
The sanctuary cities will sue to get funding that they're owed.
And so now what I'm very curious about is how the courts are going to decide.
Because remember, guys, at this point, you've got a Republican president telling basically blue cities that you are not allowed and blue states.
You're not allowed to have jurisdiction here.
The federal government has jurisdiction.
So we will make decisions and we will deny you aid based on federal decisions.
And at the local level, you'll have to accept it.
doesn't like it. Well, if you say, well, okay, yeah, but now Trump has stacked the courts,
and especially if this goes all the Supreme Court, they have a huge advantage. They'll just
vote against the local cities and states. Yes, but if they do, when a Democratic president
is in charge, as Biden just was, and then Texas says, we're not following your laws and we're
not following your rules, then the Democratic president can block all funding going to Texas.
So which way is the Supreme Court going to go? And so remember,
conservatives theoretically in favor of state rights and the more local, the more power they
should have according to conservative ideology. But now they don't like when states disagree
with them or cities disagree with them. So they're now saying no, you shouldn't have any of that
power. We should be able to withhold your holding, withhold your funding. Be careful what you wish
for because the minute a Democrat gets in office, then he can withhold funding from all of those
red states and red cities. And by the way, can they come up with an excuse like Pam Bondi did?
Yeah. And you might like her excuse and you made hate the Democrats excuse. But either way,
the rules will apply to both parties. But honestly, if we're not going to benefit from the system
that we contribute to as federal taxpayers, then why are we paying our federal taxes at all?
I mean, it's just, it's out of control.
So that's what she did on her first day that I disagree with.
Let's talk about what she's doing that I don't have a problem with.
You guys might disagree, but let's get into it.
So she's going to war with cartels by directing the Department of Justice to work closely with other federal government agencies in order to ensure that members of various gangs and cartels are caught and prosecuted and later deported.
So she wants DOJ to work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eliminate the threat cartels and transnational gangs pose.
Bondi plans to reimagine charging priorities relating to those cases in order to ensure that law enforcement resources are focused on dismantling the foundational operational capacity of cartels as opposed to just picking off low level offenders.
I am totally in favor of that.
So this is how she plans to do it.
Currently, there are two task force forces that are focused on the criminal gangs and the cartels.
There's Joint Task Force Vulcan and that was specifically created to go after MS-13.
She wants to expand that to also include Trende Aragua, which is the transnational Venezuelan gang.
There's also the Joint Task Force Alpha that was created to fight human trafficking.
And so she wants to kind of bolster these groups in order to be able to do their jobs more
effectively. Those missions are expected to expand in order to deal with the threat that
the actual violent criminals pose within our borders. Also on the cartel front,
Bondi is directing the DOJ Office of Legal Policy to find legislative reforms to target
equipment designed to make fentanyl pills and add xylazine a new deadly drug to schedule
three of the Controlled Substances Act. So before we pivot to Chicago and what's happening in
Illinois, what are your thoughts so far, Jake? Yeah, on those proposals, devil's in the details.
So if they stick with the law and the Constitution and they want to get tougher and they've
already done it with MS-13 and it passed legal muster, then fine, no problem. If, you know,
if they go beyond that, then we would have a problem. So look, in terms of immigration overall,
I just want to set people's parameters and have it be realistic.
So people who violated the law here who were undocumented immigrants, felons and above,
for sure, Goner's.
So if you think, oh, no, that we should somehow spill into the streets and protect them.
It's not going to happen.
And Americans don't want it to happen.
And all the polling is super clear.
So they're gone.
For people who've been here a long time, I would be really sort of.
surprised if they got to them, but there's a giant 1.4 million in the middle that have gotten a
court order that they must be deported, they must go back. They haven't committed any extra
crimes, but deported because they are here illegally and there is a court order. They're going
to go after those 1.4 million. And then public opinion is my guess will decide how much they go
after that 1.4 million because that's going to create a lot of bad optics. And so are the American
people fine with it or do they draw the line at some point? And does Donald Trump care about
his popularity enough for him to listen when people draw the line? But when they're going after
sanctuary or citizen, just criminals for now, that'll definitely be popular. So let's talk a little
bit about what's happening in Chicago. I focus on Chicago because while Biden was still in charge,
there was a lot of controversy in Chicago in regard to the influx of migrants who came in.
Many in the black community in Chicago were furious. They felt that they were being nickel and
dined while migrants were being given shelter and things like that. And so that led to a lot of
headlines, a lot of focus and attention on Chicago being a sanctuary city. And it doesn't
surprise me at all that, you know, the federal government under Donald Trump is hyper-focusing
on Illinois, but mostly Chicago. So the federal government is already making moves on
Chicago because of the fact it's a sanctuary city. The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit
against the state of Illinois as well. The city of Chicago and Cook County, which of course
is the county that Chicago is located in. And they're doing so due to the sanctuary laws that
protect undocumented immigrants. So the DOJ argues that the sanctuary policies, quote, interfere with and
discriminate against the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. And Governor J.B. Pritzker
and Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson are both targeted by name in this suit. So here's what the suit
says. Upon information and belief, the conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally enforcing
and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting federal immigration laws over a period of years has resulted in countless criminals being released into Chicago who should have been held for immigration removal from the United States.
So the argument is that these criminals were put on detainer, but rather than detaining them after they serve their sentences so ICE can deport them, the state of Illinois,
And the city of Chicago did the opposite and essentially did not follow through with those detainers.
Now, when it comes to those who have committed crimes, and I'm talking about crimes outside of, you know, being in the country with undocumented status, the DOJ outlined how over 13,500 illegal immigrants were detained by ICE officials between 2016 and 2025 in Illinois, along with 11,036 detainers lodged for individuals held by law enforcement.
And what they claim is that some were accused or convicted of serious or violent crimes.
And the complaint gives examples of when some individuals were released because detainers were
allegedly ignored. So that is the crux of the lawsuit that the Department of Justice under
Pam Bondi has filed against the state of Illinois, the city of Chicago, and Cook County.
Cenk. Yeah, I don't know who to believe here, because we got a bunch of politicians on both sides.
So Prisker is saying, no, if they're coming to pick up criminals, we already let them do that.
And the federal government says, no, you don't, not really. So I don't, I don't know. So, yeah.
Can I weigh in on that real quick? I don't know about Pritzker, but in regard to Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago.
So during a recent press conference, he was asked, you know, Donald Trump gets elected and then Tom
Homan shows up and he arrests all of these dangerous criminals.
Like, why weren't you able to do that as mayor?
And I kid you not, he literally responds back to the reporter and says, because that's not my job.
So he acknowledged that it was true, but says that it is not his job.
He feels that it is the job of the federal government to do these deportations on their own without the help of Brandon Johnson.
Okay, I mean, we all saw that, well, I don't know if we all saw it, but a lot of us saw that clip of Dr. Phil doing this in Chicago.
And one of the guys that they catch is repeat offender for pedophilia.
So I hope that's your job to take guys like that out of your city.
And so, okay, like I get what he's saying.
He's saying it's a federal government's job.
But then when the federal government says, let me do my job and take dangerous,
convicted criminals who are undocumented out and deport them, and he says, I'm not going
to help you, not a great look.
And so if you're like, no, I resist at all, you know, costs and we've got to protect
every single undocumented immigrant and no Chicago, et cetera, shouldn't work that with
the federal government, even in that kind of extreme scenario where these are felons that have
been convicted, convicted, okay, but that's, everybody's got different opinion, it's a free country,
but that's not where the American people are. They're very, very, very far away from that
opinion. And so, and my guess is that the, and I know I haven't seen polling on this, but in
Illinois and the city of Chicago, my guess is that the citizens are very far from the mayor's
opinion on that, that the citizens would probably very much welcome that. I could be wrong,
but I would be very surprised. So look, guys, sanctuary cities, when they protect people,
for example, who report crimes, yeah, they're undocumented, but they just report a sexual assault.
You want them reporting that sexual assault. It makes sense to protect them. That part of it makes
sense. The part where we, I'm not going to work with the federal government to take out this
rapist and deport them. That doesn't make sense. So we should get back to sanity and doing
things that makes sense so that we have the moral high ground. And you could protect more people
from these raids when they start going out of bounds and start doing things that are
unpopular and immoral. But right now, if you fight on these grounds, as Mayor Johnson is doing,
I think that's losing ground.
I'm not in favor of it.
All right, we got to take a break.
When we come back, we'll talk about CBS,
kneeling before Donald Trump and his FCC in regard to the Kamala Harris 60 Minutes interview.
I think it's really important to understand why CBS really did that.
So we'll get into the details on that and more when we come back.
I'm going to be.
I'm going to be.
I'm going to be.
I'm going to be.
You know,
and
I'm going to
I'm
you're
I'm going to be.
B.
B.
B.
I don't know.
B.
Thank you.
Thank you.