The Young Turks - The Young Turks 01.10.18: Feinstein, Grassley, and DACA

Episode Date: January 11, 2018

A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from January 10th, 2018. For more go to http://www.tytnetwork.com/join. Hour 1:  Segment 1  Cenk & John. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appears to have made a startling revelation about why she released the Fusion GPS transcripts on Tuesday — she was “pressured” to do so. The revelation came from CNN Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju, who tweeted: "FEINSTEIN says she’s sorry to Grassley for not giving him a heads up about the release of the Fusion GPS transcript. 'I meant to tell him, and I didn’t have a chance to tell him, and that concerns me,' she told us. 'I just got pressured, and I didn’t do it.' President Donald Trump on Wednesday urged Republicans in Congress to "take control" of the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, prompting some head-scratching from a top GOP investigator on Capitol Hill. "The single greatest Witch Hunt in American history continues," Trump tweeted Wednesday morning. "There was no collusion, everybody including the Dems knows there was no collusion, & yet on and on it goes. Russia & the world is laughing at the stupidity they are witnessing. Republicans should finally take control!" Darrell Issa is retiring. Oprah beating Trump in new poll. D Bank off the hook because Trump owes the money. Segment 2  The district court ruling blocking the Trump administration's wind-down of the DACA program. Republicans now have a reason to push the DACA talks off -- and to underscore this idea, I've already heard from several GOP aides saying the ruling should mean Democrats should decouple from the spending bill negotiations. 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. You're about to watch what we call an extended clip of the Young Turks, and the reality is somewhere in the middle. It's a little longer than our YouTube clips, but it's actually shorter than the whole two-hour show, which you can get if you're a member. You can get an ad-free and make sure you catch every new story we do that day. You're going to love it as a full show. That's at t-y-tnetwork.com slash join.

Thanks for watching. All right. Well, all the young jerks, have your host, Jake Huger. We've got a wild and woolly show for you guys today, per usual. So Donald Trump's shady real estate deals, shady bank deals, that's coming up in a little bit. Someone slaps Harvey Weinstein. Why did Mark Wahlberg make a thousand times more than Michelle Williams in some recent shooting in Hollywood. I don't mean shooting as in guns, although that is a normal assumption in any day in

America. I mean actually a film shoot. That's a little bit later in the program. Diane Feinstein has decided to show up to work. That's encouraging, I guess. We're going to talk about that a little bit. We've got a big show head for you guys. You know what? Let's just do it right away. Let's just do it. Go over here. Boom. All right. All right. Speaking of Feinstein, here we go. So Senator Dianne Feinstein from California has decided to do something curious. It could have positive consequences, could have negative consequences. Let me explain to first. We go to the Hill here.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, unilaterally released more than 300 pages documenting an interview the panel conducted in August with the founder of the opposition research firm that commissioned a controversial dossier on President Trump. note that the word dossier is fun. Secondly, let's note that that is strange. So that's the dossier with all these allegations against Trump, some of which have already proven to be true, like Carter Page from the Trump campaign going to Russia and meeting with Russian officials.

And then there's, of course, the famous P-Tape allegations in that dossier. And we don't know if that's true or not. But Congress brought in the guy who commissioned it through his firm. to talk, and that's supposed to be private, but Feinstein decided that she was going to release it. Hmm, all right, we'll play that out in a second. So Taylor Fay, the spokesperson for Chuck Grassley, was not happy about it. Obviously, Senator Grassley is supposed to work. Now, he's a Republican. He's supposed to work with Feinstein, who's a Democrat, on this issue. But they actually rare for a Republican, but made a pretty good point, saying Feinstein's unilateral decision was made as the committee is still trying to secure

testimony from other witnesses, including Jared Kushner, her action undermines the integrity of the committee's oversight work, and jeopardizes its ability to secure candid voluntary testimony relating to the independent recollections of future witnesses. So that's Taylor Foy, apparently. Okay, so let's break this down. First of all, if there was something in there that something, stops Trump from evading justice and the fact that it is publicly known makes a difference, then great.

I think that that is positive. So far, I haven't seen that yet. It's largely things that we already knew. And I don't quite see how it helps Mueller's team or anything else. It does seem a bit like grandstanding. But now, if he didn't do any damage, well, okay, God bless. And Trump's mad about it, so that's good. So maybe he's upset about something that was released.

But that point about how they still haven't gotten Kushner's testimony, but now that Feinstein's revealing the testimony willy-nilly, that's going to make Kushner's testimony far less likely than might have done damage. So it's a questionable move. So Joshua Levy, lawyer for Glenn Simpson, made another point. Les Simpsons is the owner of Fusion GPS. He runs it, and they're the ones that commissioned the steal dossier. So when they were asked, hey, can you tell us what some of those sources were for the dossier?

Because this is really important we need to chase down if it's true or not true. Well, he said, somebody's already been killed as a result of the publication of this dossier, and no harm should come to anybody related to this honest work. Now, look, I don't know that I take him out his word on that. I do know that nine Russian diplomats were killed slash mysteriously died within about nine months of the U.S. election. That is an awful lot of diplomats to mysteriously die in a very short period of time. Now, was it connected to the dossier?

It's really hard to know without direct evidence, but it is a note of concern. Now, I point that out partly because Diane Feinstein has said throughout her career, Oh, my God, government's secrets are awesome. Your secrets are terrible. I'm going to have warrantless wire tapping on you, and she agreed with George W. Bush on that. But when it comes to national security, she would jealously guard anything coming out of the government. Now all of a sudden, not as interested, even on an issue that might have gotten people killed. So again, if I saw the huge advantage releasing this hat, I would say, all right, great.

I'm not a big fan of Diane Feinstein and everybody watching the show knows that but I'm like okay that's nice, that's good at least that's good work and maybe we pressured her into doing good work but I'm not even convinced it is good work I certainly don't see the upside too much right now and I do

definitely see the downside but anyway I guess the few things that you can say in favor of it is that Donald Trump's really mad about it but he's really mad about everything anyway here's his tweet he writes the fact that sneaky Diane Feinstein who as on numerous occasions stated that collusion between Trump, Russia has not been found, would release testimony in such an underhanded and possibly illegal way,

totally without authorization, is a disgrace. Must have tough primary. Okay. So as usual, that tweet is so stupid. We have to break it down into the different layers of stupid that he has in there. So, first of all, calls her sneaky Diane Feinstein. Given that she released testimony, I guess I can see, but I'm a little worried about undertones there. I don't know if he's trying to get at something a little anti-Semitic, but, you know, without the context of Trump having done it millions of times, I'd say, nah, probably not.

In the context of Trump, probably. Anyway, but that's the minor point because you're not really sure if that's what his intent was. Okay, let's go get on the other points. He says that Feinstein has repeatedly said that there has been nothing proven on the Trump-Russia connections. Well, that's true on a couple of fronts. One, yeah, that's because Mueller hasn't concluded his investigation. But two, Feinstein really in the past has gone out of her way to say nothing has been found. So now she's got a tough primary and all of a sudden she's like, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, the investigation,

the one I've been poo-pooing, the one that I've been saying is no big deal. Big deal. Big deal. I'm releasing documents. Funny how primaries have an effect. I was told by the establishment you shouldn't have progressive primaries. You shouldn't have primaries for the Democrats. Of course.

Because they just want to keep on doing whatever the establishment wants. Now a little fire under her and all of a sudden fine signs acting when she clearly didn't before in that part of Trump's slightly right about. But of course the main thing here is must have tough primary. Okay, let's break that down. Okay, well, she is very unlikely to be beaten by a Republican or Trump supporter. It's not only it's California, a deeply blue state, we have a runoff here. So top two vote getters from any party wind up in the final election, in the general election.

So that means it could be two Republicans or two Democrats who are a Democrat and a Republican. And so far it's been two Democrats because it's a deeply blue state. So somehow a Republican is going to get into that runoff. It doesn't make any sense because Trump doesn't know. He doesn't know anything. You think he knows about the electoral system of California? You think he bothered to ask anyone before sending out the tweet? Hey, how does the Senate election in California run?

Of course not. And then what do you want? You want a tough progressive primary opponent, the only person who could beat Diane Feinstein? Number one, be careful what you wish for. Because anyone in Feinstein's role is going to be way more progressive and way harsher on Donald Trump. I think largely Feinstein's played paddy kicks with him. So he has no idea what he's getting himself into. And number two, mission accomplished.

There already is a primary against Diane Feinstein. That's why she's acting out in the way that she is. Of course, their main challenger is Allison Hartson. And by the way, if you'd like to have a real tough progressive who's going to challenge Donald Trump day in day out, I got good websites for you, Alisonhorson.com. And then you could donate and you could volunteer if you're in the state of California. Allison was an activist to get money out of politics, organized over a thousand volunteers to get that done in California.

She knows how to organize volunteers, so go do that. And then we called her today because that's the primary opponent. Apparently Trump is looking for it. Like I said, watch out, Donald. You have no idea what you're getting yourself into. So she gave this quote. Hartson said about fine science. And she already has a serious primary, and clearly she knows it.

This is the first time she's gotten bold in her 25 years in the Senate. It's a shame that it has taken a tough primary challenge to get her to stand up to Trump and his cronies. We shouldn't have to ask our representatives to represent us. Damn. Okay. And I do one last quick thing. It is funny. Like, it's happening in the Crowley race, too.

in a bunch of races. All of a sudden, they get these challengers in their primaries, and they've been comfortable for decades. Crowley, who is the number four guy in the House for the Democrats, has been coasting, never had a real election. In fact, his first election, he just got handed to office by a guy who, like, gave up at the last second and gave it to him. It's a dirty trick through and through.

Feinstein hasn't had real competition in over two decades. So somebody, like, woke her up from her nap and was like, hey, you got primaries. She's like, oh, yeah, yeah, Trump, what are you doing? I'm releasing papers, whatever. Okay. And when Allison refers to his cronies, you know why Feinstein doesn't challenge Donald Trump? His corruption in particular? Because she has a lot of the same donors.

So it's hard for her to talk about the corruption when she's part of the corruption. So, yeah, this very, very rare case, give Trump what he wants, a tough primary reporter for for Feinstein and see how he likes it. My guess is, as usual, he's a buffoon and will not like it at all when he sees the actual results. Okay. So I'm moving on, a similar story, but it's what Donald Trump did next about it, okay? We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The Republic or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lives.

that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it.

The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. So recently, the testimony of the person who commissioned, the famous dossier against Donald Trump, where they alleged significant ties to Russians and apparently interesting sexual habits of Donald Trump. But to me, that is actually not that interesting.

What's much more interesting is the financial connections. Anyway, he's mad about that, that some of the testimony has been released. He's mad that the investigation continues. He's mad that Mueller is now looking to question him. specifically and personally. So he puts out a tweet, the single greatest witch hunt in American history continues.

There was no collusion. Everybody including the Dems know there was no collusion. And yet on and on it goes. Russia and the world is laughing at the stupidity they are witnessing. Republicans should finally take control. Now, okay, look, the beginning part of that is standard fare. I remember when an insider leaked to one of the papers

saying that Donald Trump was really proud when he came up with the phrase witch hunt he thought like this will ruin their investigation i'll just call it a witch hunt and he's just it's a very very immature childish reaction as usual anyway so but we know that he's been saying that for a long time the last part's the part that's important republicans should finally take control but in our system of government that's not how it works So if the FBI or a special counsel is investigating someone, politicians cannot get involved and say, hey, don't worry about the rule of law.

Don't worry about if he violated any of the laws. Don't worry about the Justice Department. That's not what we're going to do. We're just going to end the investigation on political grounds. We're going to take control. Now, that's obviously a terrible idea. It's not what America stands for, but Trump doesn't know and doesn't care what America stands for.

He's never believed in this country. So now, it's okay, they're going to ask Chuck Grassley. He's the head of the committee that's looking into this in the Senate, and he's a Republican, deeply conservative Republican, and so they're going to ask him, hey, do you want to take control? Get a load of his answer. The president said that you should take, the Republicans should take control of the investigation in light of the release of his transcript. Are you losing control of this investigation and should you regain control?

I don't know what the president has in mind. And I think don't think a better comment until I have a discussion with the president on that point. And I don't intend to have a discussion with the president on that point. And I hope he doesn't call me and tell me the same thing that you said he said. That's one of my favorite quotes ever. And I hope he doesn't call me to tell me the thing that you said he said. Why? Because it would be terribly inappropriate for the president to call the judiciary chairman and the Senate and go,

Hey, can you stop a legal investigation of me? Can you help me obstruct justice? Because then Grassley would have to say, no, plus now I have to report you to the FBI, you knucklehead, that's obstruction of justice. So that's why he's saying, oh, God, you saw when he first heard the court, he did a little eye movement like, ugh, oh. So he's saying, don't call me. Whatever you do, Trump, don't call me, man.

I don't need to go to prison next to you. So, no, Republicans are not supposed to take control. Politicians are not supposed to take control of a legal investigation. It is the 28th time approximately, that's a hyperbole, but not much, that Donald Trump has done obstruction of justice in plain day site. I mean, plain day site, but that's not a word. Plain view in open, what is the broad daylight? Okay, okay.

Hey, look, I want everybody to know, I am a very stable genius. Okay, so don't question my choice of words. There's two things I'm known for. My fear of carnies and my stable geniusness with words. All right. So I'm done with that story. I'm going to keep going. You know, sometimes I take notes, and you probably wonder what is that,

let alone me fixing my pulling a banquets on air. So I take notes for the editor sometimes. Might want to cut out part where Jank doesn't know words. No one keeps it real like us. All right, we talk about some of that stuff on the post game. You would know if you remember, t-y-tnetwork.com slash join come be part of the fun. All right, so now let's go, speaking of fun, look at this graphic. God, I love us.

Okay. Darrell Issa in a tough fight, maybe the fight of his political life. So what's he going to do? Well, let's find out. On Wednesday, longtime California Republican Darryl Issa announced that he would retire from Congress rather than seek re-election this fall. Ladies and gentlemen, we got him. Down goes Issa. Down goes Issa.

Man, Doug Applegate knocked him the fuck out. So Applegate was his opponent last time. It was the closest race in the whole country. Applegate's a Marine colonel. And he said, I'm coming for you. And ISIS is like, that I'm running. I got to get out, man. I'm not interested in that fight.

So it's going to be a real bad year for Republicans. Now, Donald Trump's in fantasy land. So he doesn't realize that a 32% approval rating for himself is disastrous. And it will hurt the Republicans in Congress tremendously. regular rules of order still apply. Reality still applies. Just because you were up against the most unpopular candidate of all time doesn't mean that all these guys are going to be up against unpopular candidates. Isos up against Applegate, who's a Justice Democrat. That means he doesn't take any corporate pack money, honest grassroots, uncorrupted, progressive. His district is

becoming more and more progressive. I mean, he was a goner anyway. He's running. He's running from the hill in this case because he was scared that Applegate was going to kill him and he was, he was going to embarrass him. So now look at the overall context here. We go to Mother Jones. ICE's departure brings the number of GOP retirements from the House to 30, a record for the party. And comes just two days after another embattled South Carolina Californian, Representative Ed Royce announced his own departure. Ladies and gentlemen, we got him. Yeah, sure, down goes Royce.

Okay, but he's not that relevant figure. Issa was the guy who was a hatchet man for the Republicans. He did all the nonsense investigations of Democrats that were totally politically driven and was one of the worst Republicans. So the fact that a Justice Democrat has chased him out of that seat is awesome. So by the way, if you don't know, Doug Applegate is the guy we're talking about here. Let's show you a picture because you're going to get to know him. Hopefully it'll be your next U.S. Congressman from that district. And here are his links, by the way.

Don't let up. There's not the time to let up. This is the time to hit the gas pedal even harder. At this point now, the corporate Democrats are probably going to get real thirsty and try to come in and make sure that someone who supported Bernie Sanders doesn't win that race. They didn't give much support the last time around, and he almost beat ICEA anyway. So Applegate did put out a quote saying, Today is a great day for Southern California.

Two years ago, I stepped up and ran against Congressman Issa when no one else would because I was tired of politicians putting their party before country. This is a historic opportunity for the voters of San Diego and Orange counties. If you want more political insiders and establishment politicians, you've got plenty of options in this race. But if you want new leadership and new ideas, it's time to send a Marine colonel to Congress. colonel we need you to take that hill and i believe he will and apparently darrell isa believes he will

so he is going going gone whew good riddance okay fun day in america a couple pieces of good news there all right now speaking of fun good news let's go to the next story okay so Oprah gave the speech at the golden globes was a great speech everybody's excited Then her partner said, oh, you know, she might run for 2020. So then everybody's a buzz with talk about whether she can take on Donald Trump. So what happens next? They do a poll on it. Rasmussen.

Now Rasmussen is very conservative and oftentimes their numbers are out of whack with the other polls and are more in favor of conservatives. So keep that in mind as you said. So that sounds like Trump is winning. No, even in Rasmus's poll, Oprah is beating him with a stick. 48% for Oprah, 38% for Trump, 14% undecided. Even 22% of Republicans said they would vote for Oprah over Trump. Whoa. Okay.

So look, am I in favor of Oprah running? No. I don't need any more celebrities. Sure, it would be fun than we'd have talk show host on talk show host crime, I guess. But I don't want Oprah getting mired in the muck. And I, and I, what if Bernie runs, but like, no, no, no, no. Look, there's a guy, look, I don't know if Bernie Sanders is going to run, but if he does, it's not a contest.

He already has over 80% of Democrats support. So, and besides which, I want a real progressive, someone who's been in the fight all this time, and nothing against Oprah. She's a perfectly lovely person, seems to have all the right, you know, perspectives, But we really don't know much about her in terms of, I mean, what does she want the tax rates to be? Are you sure you know? I don't know.

Like, I'm not getting at her, okay? That was a great speech and I'm thrilled about it. But let's get someone on our side that isn't a talk show host, present company included, right? Like, let's go, let's go. I mean, at least we do a show about politics. She did a show about empowerment. That's good, right? Trump did a show about apprentices.

Let's get serious. someone who's been fighting for progressives for a long, long time in that battlefield. But either way, I mean, as usual, Trump gets embarrassed, but I guess that's not news. Okay. I don't even know 4838's a good number. What do you think? Is that a good number? Because, I mean, I feel like, I mean, Bart's probably got Trump 4838.

No disrespect, Bart. I mean, you probably have a better number. I'm just saying. I mean, the whole thing is we're thinking about 2020 with a talk show host versus a reality TV show guy. So now the setup is let's just get people we've heard of before enough and who cares about anything else. We're learning the wrong lessons. Like from this lesson, and not that she's horrible, but we're learning the lesson of, hey, let's just do something off the wall we never thought of before without any other context to it because we like her.

And I don't think the Democratic voters are going to go in that direction. I think that the media is more interested in Oprah than Democratic voters, because I think Democratic voters are way more serious than Republican voters. Republican voters are like, who cares? I don't like these guys anyway. Oh, look, it's an actor, Ronald Reagan. Yay! It's a reality show host, Donald Trump.

I'm at the circus. I was looking for elephants anyway, right? Whereas Democrats, I would be very surprised if they went for The Rock or Oprah. when there's some serious folks in the race. Now, if there is no real champion of progressives, then it's an open race, and it's a different question. But I don't see Bernie enthusiasts being wooed by a television host. I just, I would be surprised.

But could Oprah beat Trump? Of course, of course. But so could about 300 million or so people in the country. 30 million, I guess, would lose to him, including Hillary. Okay, so we're moving forward. All right, one more story for you guys in this segment. Donald Trump said during the campaign that he was going to be tough on the financial industry. Now, why did he say that?

Because he knows that sounding like a progressive actually gets you a lot of votes. And he threatened to take away a loophole that hedge fund guys had. Now, did he actually take it away? No. He gave them more loopholes. He gave them trillions of dollars in taxes. He was lying about that. But he said during the campaign as well, quote, I'm not going to let Wall Street get away with murder.

Okay, good. Now, that's positive, especially because there was a LIBOR scandal. I'm going to explain that in a second. Top five banks involved, including Deutsche Bank, giant penalties, they got caught. So let's just explain it a little bit. The scandal involved illegally manipulating the London Interbank offered rate or LIBOR, for short, which is used to set the cost of borrowing for a variety of financial transactions. Now, that's really, really important because that's how the banks skimmed so much money off the top and away from you.

So, I mean, the overall scandal is very complicated, but a simple way of explaining it is if they decide together that they're going to set the interest rate, well, they can set it really low for you and high for themselves. So that's what they did. They got caught and they had to pay billions of dollars in fines and probably thought not a big deal. They just gave you part of what they took from you in the first place. Deutsche Bank was apparently the most egregious of all of the banks because they paid the largest fine. So now, good news is underlaws designed to protect retirement savings, financial firms whose affiliates have been convicted of violating security statutes are effective. barred from the lucrative business of managing those savings.

David Sorota reporting that for international business times. So that is good news. Okay, these guys are crooks. They stole billions of dollars from people who trusted them and put money in their bank accounts all this time. But hey, then you're not going to get to play around with people's savings accounts because we can't trust you, right? Now, how do you think this is going to turn out? Do you think the banks are going to get away with murder? Of course.

So here's the rest of the story. that punishment can be avoided if the firms manage to secure a special exemption from the U.S. Department of Labor, allowing them to keep their status as, quote, qualified professional asset managers or qualified crooks. Now, remember, they admitted to being crooks. They said, yes, we all got together and fixed the rates to screw you out of all that money, okay? Are they going to be deemed qualified anyway? So look, this next quote gives you a perfect sense of Washington. It involves Obama and Trump.

So, Cerrota explains, in late 2016, the Obama administration extended temporary one-year waivers to five banks, Citigroup,

J.P. Morgan, Barclays, UBS, and Deutsche Bank. Late last month, the Trump administration issued new longer waivers for those same banks granting Citigroup,

J.P. Morgan and Barclays five-year exemptions, and UBS and Deutsche Bank received three-year exemptions. That right there is Washington in a nutshell, right? Democrats and Republicans do the same exact thing.

Democrats are a little bit more savvy about it. They go, I'll extend it for one year because it seems more temporary. I mean, I keep extending it every single year, but I do it year by year. So it doesn't seem like I'm letting the banks get away with murder. You never know. One of these days, I could get tough on them. Plus, then they're going to have to spend a lot of lobbyist money again. And they're going to have to give me a lot of campaign contributions again.

Whereas the Republicans come in and go, no, we're for the bankers. We lied to you during the election. Isn't that obvious? We're for the rich. We're for the bankers. I'm going to give Wall Street whatever they want. You want five years? Take five years.

Deutsche Bank? I got special dealings with you. Three years. Enjoy. You were the worst of the worst. Who cares? Make it three years anyway. Get away with murder.

What do I care? Now, why would Trump want to do Deutsche Bank any favors? Let's find out. Trump owes the German bank at least $130 million in loans, according to the president's most recent financial disclosure reform. Sources have told the financial times, the total amount of money Trump owes Deutsche is likely around $300 million. Now, you might say, look, that's a loan, he gets loans from banks.

Hold right there. No, he doesn't get loans from any Western banks because he's had six bankruptcies. He's a total buffoon, and no one else will give him a loan except Deutsche Bank and some shady banks in Cyprus and Russia. So, and you know what he did to Deutsche Bank? a couple years back, it's like, yeah, I owe you $640 million. I'm Donald Trump. I'm a moron. I went bankrupt again. I'm not going to pay you. So then they sued one another, and then somehow magically they got past it. I don't know how they

got past it. The last quote I give you might give you some indication. But they went back to letting him borrow money. And it is entirely possible that Trump doesn't have the money to pay them again. So doing them in favor when he's president could be helpful to his cause. In fact, let's give you the longer relationship that he has with Deutsche. The president's relationship with the bank dates back to the late 1990s when it was one major Wall Street bank, when it was the one major Wall Street bank, willing to extend him credit after a series of bankruptcies. In 2016, the Wall Street Journal reported Trump and his companies have received at least $2.5 billion in loans from Deutsche Bank and co-lenders since 1998. So he has deep ties to Deutsche Bank.

At a bare minimum, he should recuse themselves. It's a massive conflict of interest. He should say, look, somebody else should make this decision. I'm definitely not part of it because I owe those guys a lot of money. And obviously, I've been dealing with them for decades and decades. And at a minimum, even if he doesn't have trouble paying back the loans, he has that enormous financial interest in that particular bank. It's insane that he lets them off the hook and there's nothing we could do about it.

It's the most obvious conflict of interest there is. Now, but is Deutsche Bank connected to Russians? And if you got my sense of why Deutsche Bank might have let him off the hook earlier, well, if they did a lot of business with the Russians, maybe they'd be making money from another part of the bank and hence not as tough on Trump. If Trump were to be helping the Russians financially for all, that time. If, if, if, well, let's find out if Deutsche Bank does have any connections to Russia. Deutsche Bank was fined $425 million by New York State for laundering $10 billion out of

Russia. So it's not just that some Russians have money in Deutsche Bank, that's nothing. Russian oligarchs have money in Deutsche Bank. Something. No, but that alone would be You raise your eyebrow, okay? No, in this case, they've already been fined $425 million for money laundering for the Russians. It was nicknamed the Global Laundromat. And Trump also has his money in the same part of the bank. Look at those wild coincidences. Trump connected to the Russians through Deutsche Bank and then doing favors for Russia,

which is another story we have today where he, one of his staffers, wanted to, immediately remove our military from the parts of Europe that were near Russia, let alone the fact that he still hasn't enforced the sanctions that he signed into law, that he was forcing to sign into law, all those favors for Russia, talking about how we've got to take it easy on Russia, and then favors for Deutsche Bank. I'm sure it's a wild coincidence. So if you think there's no evidence connecting them, you're not paying attention. So that's not a direct email saying, I will do this for Deutsche Bank of the Russians because

I'm a money launderer. Now, we'll see if Mueller can find something like that, and more importantly, can find the paper trail of where the money goes. Okay, but in terms of evidence out in the open, there is plenty of evidence out in the open that they had a deal, and Trump is already delivering his end of the bargain as president. Of course, to the great detriment of the American people, but to his benefit. All right, now we're going to take a break when we come back. we'll tell you about that story of how Trump might have manipulated and his cronies might have manipulated our foreign security interests to try to help the Russians when we return. Thanks for listening to this podcast.

You're only halfway through. So hold, hold, stay right here. Just want to remind you if you want to get all five segments of the Young Turks commercial free, these are just two of them. Every day we do it. So go to t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. and you get the whole five segments, two hours. Add free, do it now.

All right, back on the Young Turks, Jank, and John with you guys. John Irola joining us for the rest of the show. Let me read some tweets, and then I wanted to mention one of the things. Vance, writes, it sounds to me like Senator Feinstein wants to hide her own corruption by interfering with the investigation. Interesting. Dorkulotomis writes in. Is it interfering?

Well, so she released those papers, right? Yeah. And I missed it. Maybe we'll talk about on the post game. I don't see the upside. I see the downside, which Kushner hasn't testified. And so now he could say, well, you guys are releasing the secret things. I'm not going to testify, right?

I don't especially care, but I can present several upsides, I think. But we'll do that during the postgame. All right, let's do it then. TYTNetwork.com slash join. And you guys get the post game and the whole show commercial free. Okay, Dorkaulotomus writes, and I doubt Trump understands how California primaries work. and yeah, it won't be a Republican. Of course Trump doesn't understand California primaries.

Yeah, you could have ended that sentence after Understand. And then fill in the blank. Okay. Unregistered Chicano says, in the words of Jimmy Door, we're the actual left. And I agree with that. Referring to I think to Allison Hartson and Doug Applegate as opposed to some of the other folks like Feinstein. Okay, I AM SOX says, I'm sure helping big banks avoid penalties helps John. in the rust belt.

What the fuck, Conservatives? How do you believe this shit? At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell

the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans.

That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash T-Y-T. Check it out today. And especially because it's Deutsche Bank. It's a German bank. Yeah. How would helping a German bank avoid the penalties and fees and the law help anyone in Pittsburgh or Canton, Ohio? Of course it doesn't help you. It's just corruption.

So, by the way, we did a story about bad banks. Let me tell you about a good bank. So Aspiration.coms are a sponsor. And I want to call them a lib bank, but they won't let me. They're so liberal, they don't even want to be called a bank. I don't think it's up to that. Anyway, so Aspiration.com has no monthly minimums. So if you're a conservative, you should love Aspiration.

I've got Libs. I'll give a dollar in there. Still won't charge me. And you can set your own fees. Oh, conservatives should love Aspiration.com, right? It's self-regulation. That's right. That's right.

Come on. Now, most people are decent and they actually do pay some fees voluntarily. And you can say, oh, but that's amazing that they allow that. 10% of their money, their revenue goes to charity. That's unbelievable. And they don't do fossil fuels. They don't do any of the defense contractors, et cetera. So it's clean.

So Aspiration.com, if you're looking for an all, alternative to the banks who you can trust. And by the way, the interest rate there is 1%. If you think that's low, you haven't been to a bank. Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's that, I mean, that's no joke. That is way, way higher than any other banks. But remember, they're not a bank. They do everything like a bank, but they're not a bank. Anyway, aspiration.com, yes. There you. It's really fast. When I was in elementary school, I guess as part of like a, hey, let's give these kids at least some kind of financial information, they had to start bank accounts and sort of track it and like invest or invest, but save. And I remembered getting like three or four

percent, which means I was making seven cents a month or something. So then much later on in life, when I had a little bit of money to save, I was like, you know, I wonder how much I'm making on this. And the interest rate was like 0.025% or something. I was like, wow, I am way out of date with my financial information. It's nothing. And I mean, I know there's a good reason why it's nothing. But on the other hand, no, but in all seriousness, though, it apparently doesn't have to be nothing. Because aspiration.com charges 1%, not charges 1%, gives you 1%, instead of 0.025. I went to the bank a couple of years ago. Yeah, I got the same.

0.025, right? Yeah, something like that. Right. So now, since their aspiration is doing 1%, they're still profitable. They still make money. So apparently you can give 1% and still make money, but the banks being what they are. They're like, no, nothing for you, everything for us. So what do we jump into the hit of the news?

While the immigration reform debate is once again getting started, as a result of yesterday's bipartisan meeting with Donald Trump, in the background last night, a ruling on a DACA-focused court case just threw a big wrench in the works. And as a result of this ruling, the most important part is that Trump's decision to end the program has been temporarily blocked, which is certainly going to piss him off. Now let's talk about what actually happens. So you have William Alsup, U.S. District Judge, said that lawyers in favor of DACA clearly demonstrated that the young immigrants in question in this were likely to suffer serious irreparable harm without court action. The judge also said the lawyers have a strong chance of succeeding at trial.

And it's weird. So the judge says they're going to suffer serious irreparable harm if they lose their legal protected status and are sent out of the country. But just yesterday, a new Senate candidate, Joe Arpaio, says, you just send them back for six months a year. They'll get a temporary job. Who could be against that? But to be fair, he also said it sounds stupid. He seemed to acknowledge that. But thankfully now, at the very least, it is being temporarily blocked.

So just a little bit more from the judge's ruling. Docker covers a class of immigrants whose presence seemingly all agree pose the least, if any, threat. and allows them to sign up for honest labor on the condition of continued good behavior. This has become an important program for DACA recipients and their families, for the employers who hire them, for our tax treasuries, and for our economy. And so that's, you have on the one hand, the blocking of the Trump decision, and then the reasonable response from our president. It just shows everybody how broken and unfair our court system capitalized is when the opposing side in a case such as DACA always runs to the Ninth Circuit and almost always wins before being reversed. by higher courts. That's actually one of his least offensive tweets.

Yeah, yeah, I get what he's saying there. I just love the capital C, capital S court system. No, there's another thing I like in there. But to be, now, to be fair to Donald Trump, a lot of times progressives do file the Ninth Circuit, which is more progressive. And they do often win there and do often get reversed to Supreme Court. So, and they have not adjudicated the whole case here yet. Yeah.

He's just saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, don't send him out of the country because that'll do irreparable damage. First, let's figure out if we're going to send them outside the country. then take action. And that's hard to dispute. But I do want to correct something that we did here. Can I get a picture of the judge again, William Alson, that's the first graphic you guys showed,

because we want to be as fair and honest as possible. Fake news, that's obviously Bill Press. That does kind of look like Bill Press. A little bit, a little bit. All right, Bill Press and the TYT Network. Check him out. Okay, no, that's actually the judge. Yeah, that is actually him.

But I did want to talk a little bit more. So this is going on, as I said, in the context of this meeting that just happened yesterday, between Democrats, Republicans, and Donald Trump, which we talked about live on the show yesterday. And I think it's very bizarre that Donald Trump is both giving himself, but also just getting a ton of credit for starting a bipartisan conversation about saving DACA. When we would not be having this conversation, we wouldn't need to have this conversation, if he hadn't unilaterally decided to kill the program in the first place, then waited months until we are just about to run out of time and then says maybe we can do it,

but to do it, you'll also have to waste $18 billion on a gigantic middle finger along our southern border to Mexico. So he deserves zero credit for how this is actually playing out. I think the media in this case is being way too eager to give credit to the president, something I refuse to do. But at the same time, as I said, he's also giving himself a lot of credit in his own particular way. And here is how he is describing the reaction to the meeting in a little video clip. We brought him together in this room. And it was a tremendous meeting.

Actually, it was reported as incredibly good. And my performance, some of them called it a performance, I consider it work. But got great reviews by everybody other than two networks who were phenomenal for about two hours. hours. Then after that, they were called by their voices. I say, oh, wait a minute. So, so I have two things about that, John. One is his choice of words. You didn't see it in that clip, but right before that, the things he just said there, he said, welcome back to the studio. Okay. Did he say that? Yeah, he did. And so he called it a studio. Then he said that he got great reviews about his performance. Oh, there's called it a performance.

I mean, I mean, for me, it's work. For me, it's work. For me, it's work. To sit there and not say something bat-shick crazy, not start war with North Korea while demonstrating no knowledge of the topic we're talking about, I call that work. So, he just views it as a show, he does. I mean, and this is a, this is in Michael Wolf's book, it's in almost every report. He views every day, and this is from, again, White House Insiders, every day, like a TV show

that you have to win that day. And so, but except it's not a TV show, there's 800,000 dreamers and their lives depend on it. You might be sending them back to countries. They've never lived in, some of them don't know the language. They would literally not have any idea where to go. Could be incredibly dangerous situations there. You would be ruining their lives, and let alone their loved ones that are here.

But to him, that never crossed any of his, that doesn't cause his mind at all. He just thinks, like, did we win? How was my ratings? Did I get good reviews? How was my performance? It's just, he's not a serious man. No. I mean, that's super obvious, but it's disturbing in that thing.

And all he wants is, all he wants is credit. And you know what, Democrats just wisen up, man. Just like, there is a way to, like, I don't want you to stroke his ego because it's just degrading and humiliating. But there's a way to, like, if all that MSNBC or CNN has to do is go, good job Donald Trump, with those dreamers, that was amazing. That was one of the best things you've ever done. And he'd be like, oh, okay, that's it. Dreamers are in.

In fact, they all get citizenship. A million dollars. Plus 100 bucks each. You get a car, and you get a car, Dreamers. You know what? I'll treat them like the banks. I'll give them everything. Yeah, there you go.

But yes, he isn't quite getting that. I mean, look, he's obviously happy with himself. He thinks that he got good reviews. He's being nominated for an Oscar, actually. But it gets a little bit weirder. So here is a little bit more description. of the reaction to the meeting. Let's adjudicate if this actually happened or not.

And unfortunately, a lot of those anchors sent us letters saying that was one of the greatest meetings they've ever witnessed. And they were great. For about two hours, they were phenomenal. And then they went a little bit south orders, but not that bad. It was fun. They probably wished they didn't send us those letters of congratulations, but it was good. I'm sure their ratings were fantastic.

They always are. Oh, God damn it. That did not happen. And stop obsessing about the goddamn ratings. All right, but, and guys, come on. Is there anybody in the country that doesn't realize the guy's a lunatic yet? They said it was one of the greatest meetings they've ever seen. It was a perfectly normal meeting about one piece of legislation where he slightly agreed with Democrats.

And people were like, oh, he's willing to sometimes. agree with Democrats, I guess that's good. Before he's corrected by the Republicans, say, hey, wait, that's not actually our position. Yes, that's. And where his, the most information he gave was, I will sign anything you give me. I'm not going to say what should be in it. Great meeting, you're amazing. I mean, maybe, maybe they're doing what you said.

Maybe Brian Stelter literally mailed him a letter saying that was a great job to get him to just back off and let the adults. But that's, of course, not what Stelter does or CNN does. No, it didn't actually happen. Right. But one of the greatest meetings they have ever seen. Okay, now, what happened to cover his tracks? Because, of course, the fool says something that Republicans don't want him to say.

Oh, you're referring to the fix? Yeah. Yes. So I don't think we actually have that on here, do we? But basically what happened was, is if you watched the videos that we showed you yesterday, I believe it was Senator Dianne Feinstein, she brought up, well, you know, can we just have a clean DACA bill? You say you want to get that out of the way and then go to the comprehensive later. Can we just do that?

And he said, yes, I'd like to do that. Now, the Republicans jumped in, tried to correct him. But he said a couple of times that he would be okay with that, not knowing that that goes against the Republican position. And you know that they did eventually teach him what he'd done wrong because later last night, he sent out a tweet saying, as I made very clear, doing DAC is going to require also spending $18 billion on the wall. but also the White House got in trouble because they put out a transcript of that meeting.

And in the transcript, it took out him agreeing with Diane Feinstein. Now, this was eventually fixed after people complained, but they tried to rewrite history to fix his flub. Yeah, it was on tape. It was a performance. We know it was on tape. It was a blooper technically. But, you know, so the guys of the White House, number one, they have an unenviable job to try. to correct the buffoon that is, that's in charge. But number two, they're also knuckleheads.

So they go in there, they're like, Trump shouldn't have said that he'll sign the deal with the Democrats. Oh, I got an idea. I bet nobody will catch us. Let's just fix what the idiot said, because he's an idiot. Okay. And then they just take it out of the transcript. And everybody's like, yeah, we saw you took it out of the transcript.

They're like, oh, well. The White House calls that the director's cut. This is the second time, by the way, they've been caught taking an idiotic statement by Trump, at least what they view to be an idiotic statement by Trump, out of the transcripts. And both times they got caught. Yeah. So we should take our first break. When we come back, though, a couple of the comments that Trump made during that meeting

could cost him a little bit with his base and certainly with some of the right-wing pundits, so we will have a breakdown of that when we come back from this break. Go. Thanks for watching what I hope was a lovely edition of the Young Turks. Now, you know that that is two of the five segments that we do, because that's free. We want to have you support independent media and come watch the whole show that we do every day. That's five segments overall. No ads at all.

That's at t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. Come become a member. Thanks for watching either way. 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 podcast at apple. dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon