The Young Turks - The Young Turks 11.14.17: Wikileaks, Sessions, Papadopoulos, and Roy Moore

Episode Date: November 15, 2017

A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from November 14th, 2017. For more go to http://www.tytnetwork.com/join. Hour 1: Cenk & Ana. Trump Jr. and Wikileaks. Sessions starting investigation on Democrats and Uranium One.  Hour 2: Cenk & Ana. Sessions denied misleading Congress about Papadopoulos in testimony. Alabama residents knew about Roy Moore’s history. Hannity backtracking on Keurig. Dems giving payday lenders a boost. John Travolta accused of homosexual battery. 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 like podcasts? Or I like podcasts. Get the TYT podcast. Get the whole show and TYT interviews at old school and aggressive, progressive, progressive, so many wonderful TYT shows.

No ads. Become a member right now. TYT network.com slash join. All right. Well, I'm the Young Turks, fascinating show today. We are going to have a story about WikiLeaks. You guys might have already seen some of it, but we might have an interesting debate on the issue. Anna is going to come present that story in a little bit, and her and I might disagree, and perhaps wholeheartedly.

That ought to be fascinating. And then there's a question of Jeff Sessions. Is he trying to open up a political investigation of Hillary Clinton? Well, that's not as clear as a lot of people have made that out to be, and that's going to be interesting. Now, come on, aren't you slightly curious who's going to be on the side of WikiLeaks and who's going to be against them? Interesting. That's a little bit later in the program. And then devastating news about John Travolta and more revelations about Roy Moore and what the Republican Party is doing about it.

Man, at Moore, you read the stuff that he did. It is just, oh, he is. He's a predator. That's all he is. And a guy who did something similar to Roy Moore, did he get prison time in Alabama? And how much present time? That is an amazing story. So big, big show up ahead.

But first, I've got exciting announcements about Just Democrats. These are always fun, right? And there's more to come. There's more to come. But let's go do it right now. We have four new Justice Democrats bringing the total to 32. Man, we are not playing around. And these are some excellent candidates.

Wait till you get a load of these folks. I want to show you the new slate now. It includes the two sedatorial candidates, Alison Hartson, in California. Apologi and Swarge in West Virginia. But the four people with the yellow tabs are the new candidates that I'm going to tell you about right now. And you're going to love them. Okay. First of all, if you want to contribute to those four new candidates, just Democrats.com.

slash too strong and as you're going to see some of them are going to win and I love that they're on our team so let me show you the first one Antoinette Sidio Lopez she is running in New Mexico's first district so what's her story well she was executive director of Unleis Communitario that was an anti-domestic violence nonprofit that serves all of central New Mexico but also does outreach to the Latino community make sure that they're okay, she served as a law professor at University of New Mexico for over 27 years. But here's the thing, she's going to win. She's already raised over $330,000. She's a leader in this race. She is a true progressive. She is endorsed by Raul Grahava and Jamie Raskin,

two progressive lions in the House of Representatives. The current representative there is Michelle Luan Grisham, but she's stepping out. So it's an open seat. It's Democrat plus seven, which means Democrats are very, very likely to win. So there's no excuse for not having a progressive, strong voice in that seat. Oftentimes, the Democratic Party will make excuses about, oh, but no, we had to make sure it's a purple thing. Or we had to make sure that this corporate Democrat want, no. She's got, she's the leader in the race. She's got the most money in the race, taking away all excuses.

And you guys contribute to her, you volunteer towards her. And you're going to put her over the top and she's going to win. So we're going to get these people in Congress. This is what change looks like. Just one of the four. But first, let me just give you her quote because I loved it. She said, I am honored to become a Justice Democrat and have their support in our fight to deliver progressive change for the working people of this district. With their help, we will continue to build our campaign's momentum and develop the grassroots movement needed to win in 2018.

That is exactly right. So support Lopez, let's get real progressive in New Mexico there. So she is the leading candidate, and it would be wonderful if she was in Congress. Remember, just Democrats are the uncorrupted, no corporate PAC money. Okay, so you can trust her that she's going to do the right thing. She believes in the just Democratic platform, and she believes that you need to be a strong progressive and not serve the donors. That's why it's your small donor money that makes a difference. Now wait until you get a load on the next guy, James Thompson.

So if you don't know about James, he nearly pulled off a miracle in Kansas. He was running against Ron Estes, who's a Republican there, and that seat was a 20-point Republican advantage in the middle of Kansas. So everybody said, oh, that's not possible. and it was a special election to replace one of Trump's appointments. And he only had 80 days. He had no name recognition. It's a 20-point lead for the Republicans.

He came within six points in just a couple of weeks with no name recognition. This time, he's coming loaded for bear. He's got over $907,000 already. He's the leading candidate on the Democratic side. He almost caught the Republican last time. This time he's going to finish the job because he's now got a year to campaign. People know his name. People are behind him. Our revolution is supporting him. And now he is a Justice Democrat. Let me read you his quote. I'm honored to join the Justice Democrats. My campaign is focused on the people first policies. Our party needs to uphold. I know if we stay true to our progressive values, we can elect Democrats across the country. It's exciting to be part of a team that puts people over party. 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 lies 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-F-The Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally missing. 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 narrative. that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must not learn 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. Works to get dark money out of politics and ensures the constitutional rights of every man, woman, and child in America. I will fight like hell to win in 2018. And being part of the Justice Democrats team is a huge boost of momentum to the movement we built here in Kansas. I love it. The uncorrupted, get money out of politics, get the dark money out, get it all out, get the big donor money out, no corporate packs.

These guys cannot be bought. Okay, so they represent you guys, you are their small donors, you are their voters. You are the guys that they're going to fight for, just like James Thompson said. If we win in Kansas there in a seat that was that heavily Republican, there's no end to where we can win in America. And he's this close, put him over the top, and he could be a congressman and shake up the whole Congress from that area. So go to the Justdemocrats.com overall. check out all their websites. I want you to, and we'll have links to all their websites in the video description box below. And justdemocrats.com slash too strong to make sure

that you guys said, that's also that will be in the link down below to make sure that they have enough small donor money to win. Wait until you get a little of the next guy. This guy's a world beater. His name is Kanyella Ng. He's Hawaii's first district. This guy's amazing. He's 28 years old. And wait to you get a load of his history, okay? So he's launched on Monday. He's the first one. This is going to be an open seat as well. Hawaii is heavily, heavily Democratic. Colleen Hanabusa is running for governor, so that's why it's open. He's the leader in the race, and he's a super strong progressive. Let me show you some of his accomplishments already. He passed same day voter

registration for the first time in Hawaii. How's that, man? There you go. Get people registered, get him to vote, building Hawaii's first 100% renewable energy high school. I'm going to remind you, this guy's 28. How do you get all this stuff done? Wait until you hear the story of what he did in his first election. He helped to legalize industrial hemp to phase out big business sugar plantations. And he fought to democratize farmers water access, serving as the youngest chair of the ocean marine resource and Hawaiian Affairs Committee.

Unreal. So how did he get in office? He started running when he was 22. but he had no chance because he was in the one state district in Hawaii that was heavily Republican. In fact, it was represented by a Tea Party guy, a Tea Party Republican. And this guy has no money. He worked in the, literally in the pineapple fields growing up, came out of poverty. So Native guy, Hawaiian through and through, how did he do it? He literally climbed gates. He knocked on, are you ready for this, 15,000 doors by himself? This time around, you're going to help him, okay?

He's going to have volunteers, he's going to have your donations, you guys are going to do it together. But wait, how did he beat the Tea Party Republican if this is the one Republican area of Hawaii? Not only did he beat him, you want to see what the score was at the end in the 2012 election? At the age of 23, he got 61% and George Fontaine got only 35%. That was the incumbent. He crushed the incumbent in a race. they said he had no chance of winning. You run as a strong, he ran as the strongest progressive in Hawaii.

Okay, I guess a guy who had won the district as a Tea Party Republican. If you run as a strong, uncorrupted progressive, there's no end to what you can accomplish. That's exactly what the Justice Democrats are about. In fact, I love his quote. He said, I'm a Justice Democrat because I believe that when Democrats put people before profits, reject big money corporate corruption and fight for working families, we win. I was first elected in 2012 at 23 years old by taking on corporate establishment in both parties. I personally knocked on 15,000 doors and won by a landslide, despite being grossly outspent.

By the way, I should pause here to tell you, you know how much he was outspent? 10 to 1. His opponent, an incumbent outspent, outspent, outspent him 10 to 1. But he outworked his opponent. He went and knocked on all those doors over and over again, and he won. Man, that's an amazing story. But let me keep going with this quote. He said, I've been a Justice Democrat before it was even a thing.

I have earned the establishment induced battle scars to prove it. Standing together, we will take our progressive values to D.C., shake up the establishment, and return the Democratic Party to its progressive roots. What did I tell you guys? You're going to love these candidates. They don't take any big corporate money. They work for you, and they are warriors. That's exactly where Kaniela Ng is.

Last one from today's announcements is Samina Mustafa. She's running in Illinois's 5th District. She has managed Planned Parenthood Area Clinic on west side of Chicago. She's not running away from Planned Parenthood, like some establishment Democrats. She's running towards it. She worked there. She also found it hand her the mic. It's a dedicated to empowering women of color through comedy, and the list goes on and on.

Now, in that district, you already have a Democrat. His name is Mike Quigley, but he's against Medicare for All, and he's almost completely inaccessible to his voters. And most of his funding comes from super PACs and corporations. That district is D plus 17. You know what that means? The Democrats have a 17 point advantage there. Why do we have a corporate Democrat who won't even talk to those? voters in a district like that.

The Republicans would never tolerate it. They'd get somebody that was hard right wing. In our case, the progressive positions, if you look at the just democracies. If you look at the just Democrats.com slash platform, you will see that almost all those positions have at least 60% approval in the country. It's not just that they're progressive positions, they're deeply popular positions. So why not have an actual progressive in that race who's uncorrupted? And that's Samina Mustafa.

One more time, guys, you're the ones that make this happen. You either make it happen or you don't. They either get your support and they win or they don't. It's all up to you. So justicedemocrats.com slash too strong. All the links will be in the description box when we put this up on YouTube and other platforms. You've got to go and show up and you are the cavalry. And together, we're going to change this Congress.

And I'm telling you right now we're going to change this world. This is how you do it. Of course, when we announced the group, they didn't believe. Now we've got 32 incredibly strong Justice Democratic candidates and more to come. Watch out establishment. We are coming. All right. Can I see the first time we're looking at JustDemocrats.com slash too strong here.

We're trying to raise $24,000 today. Can I see 24,000? We start with 2,600. 34, can I see 24,000? Look, 24,000 is not much to ask for, okay? But you have no idea how much of a difference that makes to these candidates. Because some of them have raised a lot of money, but others are in the $45,000, $50,000 range. So some people will say, hey, Jank, you're taking a side. God damn right, I am. Okay, so let's go get them. Can I see justidemocrats.com slash Allison? Let's see where she's at. She was trying to get the $147,000. You guys know she made it,

right? Well, you know, I was in Portugal, so I'm not sure we did talk about it on the show. She made it in time for Monday. We were trying to get it by Monday of last week, and she did it. And now she's up to $177,000. Now she needs a little bit more because beating Diane Feinstein in a Senate race in California is a gigantic undertaking. By the way, I can't announce it yet, but we've got new allies in that fight too. They have no idea what's about to hit them.

It's going to be awesome. All right, I'm going to take a break here. We're going to come back. Anna's going to tell you all about WikiLeaks. Trump Jr. Roy Moore. There's so many updates. We'll be right back. All right, back on the Young Turks. Shank and Anna with you guys. Let me read a couple of quick tweets and then we got a lot of stories for you. I am socks says, well, now I want to run too. How harder would it

would, how hard it would it be to beat Fred Upton? But by the way, guys, we take, we'll make some real decisions. They're not easy. And some are, some races are harder than you might imagine. So we're trying to make the best calls and pick the best candidates. And I think we've got a great, great bunch. So go out there and support them. The crazy atheist says, we need just Democrats for Nebraska. Brother, we need just Democrats everywhere. So one thing at a time, we're growing bigger and bigger. We've got to make sure that we can manage all this and get those wins home for you guys. And finally, Social Justice Rogue says, Kanyella Ng knocked down 15,000 doors. How is that for bootstraps, Republicans.

Well, his opponent, George Fontaine, knows a thing or two about Ings bootstraps because he whipped him with him. So Kanyella was a regular guy. So you know what he was doing when he was running for the first political office in Hawaii, the state office? He was a personal trainer. He had to get up at 4 in the morning, go and do the personal trainer stuff at the gym, and then leave and go on knock on all those doors.

And he met enough people in that district personally to swing the vote from pro-Republican to a landslide for himself. It's really one of the most amazing stories I've ever heard in politics. So those are your Justice Democrats. All right. Casper, what's next? All right. The Atlantic has unearthed some evidence indicating that Donald Trump Jr. was in direct contact with WikiLeaks during the last presidential election.

Now, there are different elements that make this story relevant, especially pertaining to some of the investigations that are ongoing in regard to Russia and potential Russian meddling in this past election. Before we get into the details of the direct messages that they shared with one another, there is some reason to believe that some of the leaked information obtained by WikiLeaks was given to them by the Russian government. Now, that is based on analysis by U.S. intelligence agencies and organizations, but, you know, there are skeptics when it comes to that portion of the story. But with that said, I want to give you guys what their communication was and what kind of actions they took, meaning members of the Trump campaign, after they were given certain links and certain information from WikiLeaks. So before you get started, let me just clarify that I'm among the skeptics, and including in this, the importance of this story, all over TV, all over the media. Anna's going to give you the details, let's give you the facts first, and then discuss whether it is groundbreaking collusion or not.

So first, how do we have knowledge of this correspondence? Well, WikiLeaks made a series of increasingly bold requests, including asking for Trump's tax returns, urging the Trump campaign on Election Day to reject the results of the election is rigged, and requesting that the president-elect tell Australia to appoint Julian Assange ambassador to the United States. The messages were turned over to Congress as part of the body's various ongoing investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. They were turned over to Congress by Donald Trump Jr. and his lawyer, and they are cooperating with the investigation, so credit where credit is due. But that is where this information is from. And the Atlantic obtained this information and reported on it late yesterday.

So here's where it all began. The first message sent to Donald Trump Jr. was September 20th of 2016. And in that message, someone from WikiLeaks, we don't know exactly, who it was, essentially let Donald Trump Jr. know about an anti-Trump website. And somehow they managed to get the password to that website and told Donald Trump Jr., you should look into who is behind this website. Donald Trump Jr. actually responded to that and said, I'll ask around. And he did ask around. And so he notified a number of people affiliated with the Trump campaign, including the son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a number of campaign officials. And through that, they forwarded the information to one another, Kellyanne Conway, Steve Bannon,

Brad Praskell, and also Jared Kushner, as I mentioned earlier. I think among these revelations, there is one relevant one. This one is among, in my opinion, completely irrelevant ones. So there's a website. We told you about it and you looked into it. Whoop-de-do. So that, you're going to find out about the website in a thousand different ways.

The New York Times could have called them and said there's a website and he can say, I look into it. Okay, so since Jank prefaced, any and all commentary he's about to give with like what his overall take is, I'll give you my overall take. I disagree with Chank in regard to. to this not being a big deal. That portion of what we know, I think, is not that big of a deal.

But as we get deeper into the communication that they had, I think it becomes more and more significant and relevant, not necessarily in regard to potential Russian meddling. But for me, it's more important to do an analysis of whether or not WikiLeaks has a political motive. And I think these communications make it clear that there was a political motive to help the Trump campaign. So let me go on. So in July of 2016, on the first day of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks released

email stolen from the Democratic National Committee servers that spring. The email showed DNC officials denigrating Bernie Sanders, renewing tensions on the eve of Clinton's acceptance of the nomination. So that's fine. That was included in the report. Less than an hour after the Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape in which Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, WikiLeaks released emails that hackers had found from the personal email or stolen from the personal email account of Clinton's campaign manager

John Podesta. So they're setting the stage to show that already it seemed as though there was a political motive. And then when you look at the private messages that Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks had with one another, it further reinforces that notion. On October 3rd of 2016, go ahead. Sorry, just I want to be clear. I think that WikiLeaks was on Trump's side. And I think the fact that they published some of the emails right after the Access Hollywood tapes is decent evidence of that. And there is a lot of evidence of it, including the one damning part that we're going to get to in a second. So I'm not disputing that.

On the other hand, who's talking about the stolen Hollywood access tapes and where the Washington Post? get them. And who wanted to interfere with our elections and gave those stolen tapes to the Washington Post? I don't think, I don't think there was ever a question that a foreign government obtained those tapes and then leaked them in an effort to meddle in the election. So there's a difference. Look at the framing. Yeah, look at the framing, though. The emails are always referred to as stolen. The Pentagon Papers are not referred to as stolen, but you can make an argument. The access, Hollywood access tapes are not referred to as stolen ever, ever by the media. but where did they get them from?

And who got them? Do they have permission from whoever the owner of Hollywood access is, whichever giant company? No, they took them without permission. There's another word for that, stolen. So it's just a matter of how you want to frame it. If you give it to the Washington Post, well, that's awesome because they're a media organization.

You give it to WikiLeaks, we don't like them. They're mean. They're the bad guys. So there is obviously mainstream media bias against WikiLeaks. I think that's well known. But I want you guys to just focus on what WikiLeaks is transparent about when they are messaging Donald Trump Jr. Because they're very clear about what their intentions are. So regardless of media bias, media bias doesn't play a role in these direct communications.

So keep that in mind. So on October 3rd of 2016, WikiLeaks wrote again, Hiya, it'd be great if you guys could comment on or push this story. WikiLeaks suggested attaching a quote from then Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about wanting to just drone WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Donald Trump Jr. did respond to that. And he said already did that earlier today. It's amazing what she can get away with. Now look, I can't stand the Trumps. I worked super hard to make sure they didn't win. I am very clear with my perspective. There is nothing wrong with what Donald Trump Jr. said there. In fact, it is absolutely

outrageous that the rest of the press gave Hillary Clinton a pass for wanting to murder what could be considered, I think somewhat correctly and accurately so by Anna, as she pointed out earlier, a political opponent. So even if you grant WikiLeaks as an opponent of hers, she wanted to murder a political opponent. If Trump had said it, the world would have exploded and you know it. She said it. I don't know, was she joking? I didn't sound like she was joking. She wasn't joking. And even if Trump was joking when he said that, it would have been news 24-7. And it should be because Trump is abhorrent and you shouldn't say things like that.

What I'm annoyed by is whenever the establishment Republicans or Democrats do it, they get a total pass. Yeah. Look, here's my issue with all of this, right? The connection to Russia is not clear enough for me, meaning that, okay, our intelligence organizations say that Russia, stole these emails or hacked into these emails, I'm not personally convinced by that because they haven't really shared that evidence with us yet. Just saying that they believe it and they believe it to be true is not good enough for me. But that being said, for me, what this story communicated was WikiLeaks is not some

journalistic organization, which by the way, I was supportive of WikiLeaks, even after all of this Hillary Clinton stuff came out, because my view of them was they obtained damning, you know, evidence that speaks truth to power, and they leak it. And they're, you know, to say that there are never any political motivations or biases is naive, right? But I did not have proof of how deep the bias was during this past election. And I think that's relevant for people who are looking at an organization as like WikiLeaks thinking, hey, this is a credible organization that has no political bias. Clearly they did. And there's a lot of evidence here to prove it, which Unfortunately, we haven't even gotten to yet.

So let me get to that. Hold on, hold on, but I got to wait. I agree and disagree in part. So the part I agree with you, and I'll go even further, is that even Mike Pompeo, Trump's CIA director, not Obama's, Trump's CIA director, says that he thinks there is a connection between WikiLeaks and Russia. So now you take that for whatever it's worth, so it's a data point. And I do take that seriously at the same time, you know, almost everybody that works in

the U.S. government, both establishment, Republicans and Democrats. Democrats hate WikiLeaks with a passion. So I'll take it with a big grain of salt. Now on the issue whether they're credible journalists, that's where I disagree with you. Yes, I think this story does prove that they were clearly on Trump's side. That doesn't mean that they can't be credible. It doesn't mean that the stuff that they leaked isn't true. It was true.

And they are still a media organization. There is also the question of what they refuse to leak or what they refuse to talk about. like the oligarchs, the Russian oligarchs that were implicated in the Panama Papers and how WikiLeaks, you know, refuse to do any type of work on that issue. So I think that this communication, they're very clear support of the Trump campaign, coupled with the fact that there were certain things that they refused to leak, you know, draws a picture that concerns me about their credibility. So I'm just putting that out there.

Okay, I understand. And if you want to take it with a grain of salt, that's fine. And in fact, I'll go further and say, look, they hurt their credibility more when they're not honest about their perspective. 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 to advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals. 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 TY.

That's E-X-P-R-E-S-V-P-N.com slash T-YT. Check it out today. Because that's, to me, Fox News, that's fine. They're conservatives. We don't like them. And I think they're wrong on each issue. And we debate them. The problem isn't that. The problem is they call themselves fair and balanced. And they're not fair and balanced. That's a joke. And everybody knows it. So I would hope that WikiLeaks wouldn't continue to make the same mistake. Whatever your perspective is, you should be open and honest about it. We're very honest about our perspective.

And I don't think given this story, among others, I agree with Anna that they have not been open about what their perspective is. So let's give you a little bit more of their communication. So at one point, WikiLeaks sent to Donald Trump Jr. Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us. WikiLeaks went on pointing Trump Jr. to the link WLsearch.TK, which it said would help Trump's followers dig through the trove of stolen documents and find stories. There's many great stories the press are missing and we're sure some of your followers or follows will find it. By the way, just released Podesta emails part four. Then just 15 minutes after that message was sent.

Wall Street Journal's Byron Tau pointed out that Donald Trump himself tweeted very little pickup by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So in that case, does it show that the Trump campaign is communicating with WikiLeaks? Yes, of course. He didn't randomly do it 15 minutes later. He did it because of that communication with WikiLeaks. But this stuff was public anyway. And have journalists sent out their articles to the people that they wrote about in hopes that they would be shared on social media? Almost every time, every day. So if any other journalist said, hey, here's the article I wrote about you or about someone else and sent it to you. It would be the biggest, no big deal of all time.

When it happens with WikiLeaks, oh my God, they wanted their link publicized. Of course they wanted their link publicized. So does everyone. Right. So look, I agree with you on the surface, right? So if it is proven that they did not obtain their information from Russia and there wasn't Russian meddling, then you're absolutely right. WikiLeaks should not be treated any differently than any other media organization.

But the concern here is that a foreign government is meddling in our election process. And if that is proven, I think that, you know, these types of communications are relevant. I want to be really clear about this. And I know that it's a tough distinction, but I think it's an important one. If Russia says, hey, I stole these emails, Trump, would you like them? I think there's a giant problem. And I've talked about that in the past many times on the show. That is a real issue.

And it has legal ramifications. And it should be thoroughly investigated. And I'm thrilled that they're investigating them. Okay. But Russia or anyone else gets access to information, passes on to someone in the media. Russia didn't get access to information. They stole, they have to install. Whatever. Daniel Ellsberg stole the Pentagon papers, and people will find that outrageous.

But he got them without permission and gave them to the New York Times. Almost every single leak is without permission given to a member of the media. And we never complain about that. You'd have to arrest three quarters of Washington if those are all stolen, stolen, stolen, stolen. You're talking about American whistleblowers or American leakers. We're talking about the influence of a foreign government, possibly having an impact on our election. So that's what makes it different, right? So if Canada somehow got some information and it was super relevant to the American people, should the New York Times print it, my answer is

absolutely. And so if you don't agree and you say, no, Canada, Russia, no, New York Times should suppress the information because it came from a foreign government, either one that's friendly to us like Canada or one that's not friendly to us like Russia. Okay, those are all fine points of disagreement. I say they should publish it because the American people have a right to know. I I think there was incredibly valuable information in those emails. And I don't think the Russians should have stolen it. I don't think the Trump people should have worked with the Russians. Those are legal issues, okay?

But when you give it to a media organization, yes, the media organization has every right to print them. All right. So let's move on to, by the way, two days after they shared that link with Donald Trump Jr. He also tweeted it out, again, the link that was provided to him by WikiLeaks. Now, moving forward, let's go to Graphic 23 on Election Day, Election Day, November 8th, 2016. This is when things get interesting. WikiLeaks wrote to Donald Trump Jr., hi, Don, if your father loses, we think it is much more interesting if he does not concede and spends time challenging the media and other types

of rigging that occurred, as he has implied that he might do. So that is, honestly, it riled me up more than I expected it to because that is going to lead to complete chaos and turmoil in the United States. And you're now pushing for that, right? And you are now undermining and questioning the election process. And by the way, rigging is an interesting word used in this context. The DNC was dirty as hell. There is no denial of that whatsoever, especially on this camp. What they did to undermine Bernie during the primaries was clear.

And I do think it's important that the American public was aware of that. So I was fine with those leaks 100%. However, there's no evidence to indicate that votes were changed or that voting machines were hacked into or that votes were tampered with in any way, shape, or form. To me, that is rigging. Manipulating and rigging are two completely different things. And just this constant narrative that was coming out. during the election about rigging, rigging, rigging.

There was no rigging. There's no proof of rigging. Manipulation by the DNC in order to undermine Bernie Sanders, absolutely there was evidence of that. But rigging, I mean. Look, let's not get sidetracked here because now you're going to get me on a warpath on that. Everybody has a different definition of rigging.

And so people just keep assuming that the other person has the other definition of rigging. Some people mean rigging means the DNC picked one side and helped that side. That definitely happened, definitely. The DNC chair admitted it. So other people legitimately think rigging that word means actually changing votes. There's not nearly enough evidence. People will say, oh, I got the snapshot on, nobody's ever proven that, okay? So I don't want to get sidetracked on that, and that drives me crazy when people make declarative statements about what the word rigging means.

Anyway, on this issue, that particular communication with Donald Trump Jr., it is damning WikiLeaks by saying you should not concede the election if you lose and you should challenge it. One, number one, it clearly shows that they have a perspective and it might be fine to have a perspective, but they were pro-Trump. Now it is absolutely clear. And by the way, you could say, hey, if the Democrats want to do imprison you or do God knows what else to you and in the case of Hillary Clinton maybe murder you, you might be pro Trump too. Okay, but they were pro Trump. That's fine, but they were pro Trump. That communication clearly proves it. Okay, and by the way, like I said, it's okay to have a perspective.

So they were pro Trump, but they should be honest about it. And they're not, okay? The second reason why that's damning is, wait, why do you care if the election is already over? that he not concede, that sounds like you want an absolute mess. And you don't care if he actually won the election or not. You didn't say if you think you won the election, you shouldn't concede. You said you shouldn't concede no matter what, which then to me says, oh, God damn it, did you work with the Russians?

I mean, is it not just that you got access to emails either through the Russians or somewhere else? It's that you actually worked with them because the Russians. want to cause a mess here. That is now absolutely proven. They had the troll farms. Not only did they do all this different things in the election, but outside of the election, years before the election, they would set up Facebook accounts that were seemingly liberal and

seemingly conservative. They would try to get us to fight. They were trying to rip us apart. What is a good way to rip us apart? Don't concede the election and say, no, no, no matter what happened, I'm going to fight anyway. Why is WikiLeaks saying that? If all you care about, hey, you got a perspective and you think Donald Trump is wonderful and you want him to win, that's one thing. You want to rip the country apart for what reason?

Well, I know the Russians want to rip us apart because that's already on the record in all different ways that have been proven that they've been trying to do that. So to me, that particular message is actually really damning for WikiLeaks. And it's an absolute shame because they publish really valuable information. And I wish they would just do that. And again, I don't even mind if they went an extra step and had a perspective. But to not be honest about it and then to potentially work with the Russians to try to split us apart, God damn it, why'd you do that? And so it's just, and by the way, that is not conclusive, but it is an important piece of evidence

and denying that it's important is important. It is important. I also want to just quickly note that they kept urging Trump to give his tax returns to WikiLeaks. So they could essentially, I'm paraphrasing what they said, but control the messaging around his tax returns. Because WikiLeaks was under the assumption that it would eventually get leaked anyway, and it would be better if WikiLeaks handled it as opposed to an media organization like MSNBC or the New York Times.

So 90% of that I have no problem with, they're saying, give us your tax returns and we'll publish them. Every single media organization would have done likewise. Maybe they were even tricking Trump. You could argue, and they now, Julian Assange's arguing after the fact that, no, no, no, I was trying to coerce him into or trick him into giving me the tax returns and I'd publish them. And do other journalists do that? Yes. The only slight issue there is so they said so that we can improve the perception of our impartiality and that we wouldn't be perceived as another quote, perceived as coming from a pro-Trump or pro-Russia source.

Well, if behind the scenes you're saying, look, I'm on your side, but I need to appear not to be on your side, well, that is by definition not being an honest actor. So that's a shame. Yes. And then finally, there's a lot of other stuff, but let's shorten this a little bit. The final, not the final, one of the final messages that was sent to Donald Trump Jr. By the way, at some point he just stopped responding to them. And at this point, he had stopped responding. Hi Don, hope you've been doing well in relation to Mr. Assange. Obama, Clinton placed pressure on Sweden, the UK, and Australia, his home country to elicitly go after Mr. Assange. It would be real easy and helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to Washington, D.C. So this was, look, my read of it was it was an attempt to kind of let Assange off. on some of the sexual assault or rape allegations that were lodged against him.

And so maybe this was a way to get out of it. I don't know. But it was interesting because it seemed as though they wanted something in return for what they were doing. All right. So Assange wants to get the hell out of the prison that he's been put into by the Western governments. I don't blame him for that. Is this a wacky scheme to do that? Yes, it's particularly wacky.

And he knows it, and they say that even in the messages that it's not going to work, but it's about framing. So, okay, well, all right, you work with the Trump campaign for your own purposes, and I get it. But I wish you'd have been way more transparent about that. The whole point of WikiLeaks is transparency. And I do have a significant problem with that they were not transparent about their motives and who they supported in this campaign. Now, having said that, as I've been saying throughout this piece, eight out of ten of these, allegations that everybody else in the press is trading as bombshells, the rest of the press does on a daily basis.

Okay, so let's take a break. We have a lot of other news to get to, but later on we will get to Jeff Sessions' hearing with Congress and what he had to say about links to Russia. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks, support our work, listen ad-free, access members only bonus content, and and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.