The Young Turks - The Young Turks - December 30, 2020

Episode Date: December 31, 2020

Republican Senator Josh Hawley has announced that he will formally object to the certification of the 2020 Electoral College results. 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. What's up, everyone? Welcome to TYT, Anna Casparian, and John Ida Rola with you. Today's show is going to be bananas. Armenian word for bananas.

Bananner. Today is going to be bond on it. It's going to be amazing. We're going to have a great show. So we have, of course, updates on the $2,000 direct checks to Americans. What's going down in the Senate will give you all the details, all the good faith actors, the bad faith actors, and what's likely to be the outcome. Also an interesting point on that coming from the American prospect,

maybe Democrats should take Mitch McConnell's proposal. So we'll give you that argument. Also, Josh Hawley is basically the first in the Senate to stand up and say that he'll challenge Donald Trump. I'm not Donald Trump, but challenge the outcome of the general election. Of course he wouldn't. He's eyeing a 2024 race. And later in the show, we'll also talk about where Biden stands on the direct stimulus

checks to Americans. And I really need to get out of the habit of calling it stimulus checks because they're survival checks. These are checks that are not even intended at this point to stimulate the economy. but help Americans stay on, stay, you know, on top of their bills as much as they possibly can in this incredibly difficult time. But anyway, John, how you doing? I'm really excited to do the show with you today.

I'm good. I'm excited for the end of the year. I'm one of those people that chooses to be like basically not superstitious at all in my daily life. But like, with January 1st is coming, I'm like, just please magic exists. Make everything different. So I'm looking forward to that. I know.

Yeah, yeah. I, look, as George Bush once said, the secret is to keep expectations low. So my expectations are pretty low. But we'll fill you in on how the vaccine distribution is doing as well, because that has a big role to play in how 2021 ends up being for the vast majority of Americans. But before we get to all of that, let's start off with Josh Hawley, because he has been making quite a bit of news, sometimes for good reasons. for not so good reasons.

So, GOP Senator Josh Hawley has officially announced that he will formally object to the certification of the electoral college results when presented to Congress. Now this is a mostly ceremonial event with Vice President Mike Pence, you know, at the helm. What Holly is going to do is essentially go along with what Representative. Louis Gohmert and Mo Brooks are calling for, which is to challenge these electoral college results and to call on Vice President Mike Pence to essentially choose his own slate of sham electors who will carry out the results that Donald Trump would like. Now, all Trump needed really was one senator to go along with what Republican representatives

were calling for. And of course, Josh Hawley raised his hand and said, I'll be that guy. So here's his statement. He said at the very least, Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections. But Congress has so far failed to act, except that's not true. First, let me just note that Josh Hawley is eyeing a 2024 presidential bid. So this is really seen as a move to appeal to Trump loyalists, Trump voters.

Also in a tweet, Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican, suggested that a positive tweet from Trump about Holly's move would help him with Trump supporters in 2024, even if the move goes nowhere. Holly could then blame someone else when it fails, Kinzinger said. Also, any member of the House, joined by a member of the Senate, can contest the electoral college votes on January 6th, the challenge prompts, a floor debate followed by a vote in each chamber. But the reality of the situation is, then you have like the House, which is of course going to vote on this, and the house is dominated by Democrats right now. So this will go nowhere. It's nothing more than a political stunt to help Josh Hawley with his campaigning in 2024. I think the fact that

he backed the $2,000 directs checks to Americans is also part of him beginning his campaigning process for 2024. It doesn't matter. I don't care what his intentions are when it comes to the direct checks. I agree with him on that. We should use his support to our advantage to get Americans the help that they need. But make no mistake about it. Josh Hawley is not some good faith actor or sincere person. Everything he's doing in this given moment is meant to drum up support for his potential run in 2024. Yeah. And he look, it's not going to happen. It's not going to succeed. But how could he possibly know that? I mean, he only went to Yale law school. The Constitution's so confusing. How could he be expected to know how it's supposed to function? And to track the dozens of

Trump lawsuits that have gone absolutely nowhere. Why would someone who went to Yale law school have any respect for literally dozens of judges around the country, including many appointed by Republican presidents, saying that there's absolutely nothing to this? I think you're right that he is not a good faith person, but I think there is a case to be made that he is the worst faith person in this entire process. Because he is more and more fitting into a school of Republican politician that I think is currently led by Ted Cruz, the maximally weeny Republican politician, because he isn't doing like what Louis Gomerd is doing or even what like Matt Gates or Marjorie Taylor Green or those that are like, it's all, it's all been

stolen, it's all fake, Hugo Chavez voted 10 million times overthrow democracy. They're crazier than him, but they're at least being honest about how crazy they are. He and his whole statement about why he's going to challenge it, he won't even honestly say it was stolen. He's just like, well, you know, I just think that we should like look into it. Like maybe there's something there. I mean, you know, everybody has. There's been dozens and dozens of cases, but like, you know, we should just look into it.

And he, that isn't him being reasonable. He's trying to overthrow the results. What it is him doing is being able to say in six months, if the political winds have changed, he'll say, no, I was just standing up for the security of elections. I never believed any of that voter fraud stuff. Like at least some of these other Republicans are like, they're actually saying it was stolen and democracy. They're very clear about that.

He's being like the weeniest of all of them. Yeah, look, I, you make such a great point. And what I really wanted to bring up, first, let's go back to the very first graphic where he has a statement about why he's doing this, what's motivating him. He says at the very least, Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections. But Congress so far failed to act. Oh, that's interesting.

Let's take a look at your voting record, Josh Hawley. Because I know we all have short attention spans. I get it. But Democrats actually did try to pass legislation to help to secure our elections from, you know, malicious acts, bad actors, foreign actors. So let me give you the details on that as reported by the Hill. tried to get consent to pass two bills that require campaigns to alert the FBI and federal election commission about foreign offers of assistance as well as legislation to provide

more election funding and ban voting machines from being connected to the internet because they're concerned for good reason that they could be hacked. Now, what happened in the Senate where Josh Hawley sits? Well, of course, you have senators who block this effort. Senator Marsha Blackburn opposed each of the requests under the Senate's rules. Any one senator can ask for unanimous consent to pass a bill, but any one senator can object and block their request. So in this case, Democrats tried to get this through with unanimous consent because, of course, we know that Mitch McConnell blocks bills and doesn't allow floor votes. And of course, it got defeated because Marsha Blackburn was the one who was willing to raise her hand and say,

nah, I actually don't care about election integrity unless I can use it as a talking point to help Donald Trump. Now, did Josh Hawley speak out against that? How did Josh Holly feel about what Marsha Blackburn did? I mean, he's so concerned. He's so concerned about Congress being able to investigate these cases. He's so concerned about election integrity, except he's not. He's not. And it is important to call out these politicians, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, when they engage in these narcissistic, self-interested political tactics and, you know, political tactics and stunts. And that's exactly what he's doing here. Exactly. And I do have a point that I want to make about this, but it also ties in with what you're going to get to with Walmart.

So if you want to continue to that, I'm going to tie together those two things. Sure. So interestingly enough, there was a very funny interaction between Josh Hawley and Walmart today. So it starts off with one of Josh Holly's tweets. He says, millions of voters concerned about election integrity deserve to be heard. I will object on January 6th on their behalf. And then someone over at Walmart who forgot to log out of the Walmart account and into a personal account said, go ahead, get your two-hour debate. Now, Holly did not take kindly to that. And he said, thanks, Walmart, for your insulting condescension. Now you've insulted 75 million Americans, will you at least apologize for using slave labor? Oh, that's fascinating.

That's fascinating. Oh, Josh Hawley cares about paying people a livable wage, right? I mean, that's what he's presenting himself as right now. Except when he was running for the Senate seat in Missouri, he was running against, you know, the Democratic incumbent, he was very much against a ballot initiative that would have increased Missouri's minimum wage. He was on the record saying, I am against Proposition B, because I think it's going to raise the minimum wage too quickly. It raised it by, I believe, less than a dollar in one year. And I have to look up the exact numbers. But it was, the argument was ridiculous, beyond ridiculous. Like, Josh Hawley is the typical Republican who has a history of telling people to pick themselves up

by the bootstraps. He fearmongers about the debt and the deficit. He's not some popular. who's looking to help the average worker, he's looking to capitalize off of this moment for his political ambitions. Yep. Well, and those are two great examples where you have a couple of demonstration of a couple of different things. One is a thing that he apparently very much has in common with Donald Trump, which is seeming to forget that they are in a position of power.

They're talking about things as if, well, you know, I'm just a poster on Twitter. I think it would be great if you would raise wages or whatever. I think it would be great if our elections were protected. Oh, wait, do I have a job that's related to that? Could I be a leader in this area? Or even if not leading, even if not crafting legislation or pushing for legislation, you could at least support the things that you'll later crow about on social media. But no, that this is all Republicans want.

They don't want elected officials to do anything. They want them to be on Fox News and post on Twitter slash parlor, that's it. They like the spectacle of it. That's all it is, because at the end of the day, government isn't supposed to deliver anything. It's just supposed to be fun. It's supposed to be a TV show that we can all watch. But it also demonstrates, by the way, that Hawley, who's often raised as like the next phase

of right-wing populism, this is how shallow right-wing populism is. What you'll get out of a right-wing populist is a tweet that implies they want higher wages. You'll never get higher wages because they don't actually support it, but you'll get a tweet. That's the difference between him and Ted Cruz or whoever. It's the same exact game that Tucker Carlson has been playing, where they call him a right-wing populist because once every three months, he uses the term ruling class. Still supports all the politicians, he wants Mitch McConnell in charge, he wants Donald Trump to be president, he wants all that stuff, and he certainly wants his tax cuts.

But he'll occasionally throw out a term, he'll tweet something, and then that makes him different somehow. It is such an obvious transparent con. And I hope that because Josh Holly is so, he's so bumbling and like oily about it, I'm hoping that people will see through it the more and more he becomes, you know, something that the country talks about. Well, I mean, one of the best ways that people can wake up to the reality of the situation is to share videos like this and let people know about voting records. Guys, voting records matter. Look, that's the reason why, like, I'm not some genius, like, with the whole Tulsi Gabbard thing, I just looked at her record.

I'm like, I don't think she's really who she's claiming to be, right? And people were upset and angry about it, but look at people's voting record. That means way more than what they post on social media. And I do want to just quickly give you guys the details on that ballot initiative in Missouri, which was on the ballot in 2018 during the midterm elections. 53% of people in Missouri supported it. Luckily, it did pass. And as I mentioned, Holly argued that he was against it because he felt that it raised the

minimum wage too rapidly. Of course, not taking into account that wages have been stagnant since the 1970s, but nonetheless, it raised the minimum wage from 785 an hour to 860 an hour, less than a dollar from November when it passed to the following January. But he's like, oh, my God, less than a dollar. Are you kidding me in a few months? I can't have that. That raises the minimum wage too quickly. I mean, he's got this history of crushing workers and finding ridiculous excuses in doing so. And then now he's presenting himself as some sort of warrior for working Americans. I'm not buying it. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take advantage of his public statements in order to push policies

that we want through. So if he's in favor, if he's pretending to be in favor of $2,000 direct checks to Americans, I applaud Bernie Sanders in taking advantage of that opportunity, right? I think that's important to do, but make no mistake about who these people really are. All right. So let's move on to some other kind of related news. So, Vice President Mike Pence has refused to sign onto a plan by GOP lawmakers to overturn the results of the general election, of course, to Trump's favor.

Now, lawyers representing representatives Louis Gohmert and 11 other Republican electors disclosed that Mike Pence has officially rejected their attempts to have him choose his own slate of sham electors who would essentially claim that Donald Trump is the winner of the election, even though he wasn't. So let me give you the details according to the Hill. The far-fetched suit essentially asks the court to grant Pence the authority on January 6th to overrule the results in swing states, such as Arizona, and have Congress count only pro-Trump electors instead of the ones president-elect Joe Biden won.

Now, the lawyers just disclosed that Mike Pence shot this down. They did so in a statement. I want to read that statement to you. In the teleconference, plaintiffs counsel made a meaningful attempt to resolve the underlying legal issues by agreement, including advising the vice president's counsel that plaintiffs intended to seek immediate injunction, injunctive relief in the event the parties did not agree. Lawyers for Gohmert and the elector said in the filing, those discussions were not

successful in reaching an agreement, and this lawsuit, and this lawsuit was filed. So they're essentially saying Pence is not on board. We're moving forward with this. Just today, Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican, raised his hand and said that, you know, at least on the Senate side, he would be willing to challenge the electoral vote. So what's likely to happen now is the Senate will vote on that. The House will vote on that. Of course, the House is very unlikely. it's impossible that they're going to go along with this ridiculous tactic. And, you know, it might even fail in the Senate because we've had so many Republican senators admit that Donald Trump did in fact lose the general election.

But my point here is Mike Pence has shot this down. It has no real possibility of overturning the results of the election. But this does show you the difference between Republicans and Democrats. It's like Republicans will do anything and everything, and they're relentless. And I think in this case, we're lucky that we're paying close attention and we're not going to let them get away with it. Yeah, it's one of the more long shot of all their long shot efforts. The part about it that I'm surprised by is that Mike Pence isn't going to take part in it.

I don't know why he wouldn't, because what's the difference? Like afterward, he's going to be a part of the Republican Party, and they like this stuff. They love the Josh Hawley, you know, stunts and Matt Gates. And they're going to like Louis Gomer off of this. Like, I know he seems to be doing the sort of Rand Paul thing where, you know, I really do want to be able to like imply later on that I'm some other sort of Republican because like with Josh Halt, he's probably thinking about some sort of future run, you know, maybe for president, maybe for governor or something like that. Like, it is possible that the fever will break and showing insane devotion to Donald Trump won't be a net plus. in the future, but I don't see it. It just, it seems to me, I'm glad that he's not doing it. Anyone who doesn't go along with, you know, any of the parts of this massive conspiracy

there is a good thing. I am surprised, though. I feel like all the incentives are there for him to try it. You know, even like, I don't know if you talk, did you talk about the Rasmussen thing on the show? You know, I saw the headline for it, but to be quite honest with you, I didn't really dig into it. But I'd love for you to share the details if you'd like. Yeah, so really fast, not to go super in depth. But Rasmussen is this pollster that, that tends to favor Republicans. Their numbers are always more positive in terms of like Trump approval rating. That's why he's, those are the only ones that he really shares.

But they're a pollster and they're considered, you know, serious or responsible for the most part. Well, they recently just a couple days ago had a tweet thread that was, they started it off with a quote from Joseph Stalin, so that's a good direction for this right wing poster to go in, saying that those who get the most votes aren't the ones who win. It's those who count the votes who get to determine who wins. And so they have this tweet thread about why Pence should just refuse to open up the envelopes containing the electoral college votes from enough states so that Trump would win like 232 to 222 or something. And then bada bing bada boom, Trump wins, which isn't at all

how it works. It's an insane read of the Constitution. Like it's in the section about Mike Pence is so short. No, like they're trying to imply that because Mike Pence has this ceremonial role where opens up the envelopes at one point, that he gets to choose which. And that if he doesn't open certain ones, that's it. There's nothing that can happen. And that's just not true at all. But this is a pollster, like a respected pollster, at least semi-respected pollster, effectively calling under the guise of a Joseph Stalin quote for Pence to just decide who gets to be president. No, it's insane. It's insane. And they're just openly telling us that they want to throw out votes or ignore votes that they don't agree with, which doesn't happen in a democracy, guys.

They're just transparently letting everyone know that they don't care about the democratic process. They don't care about your vote if you didn't vote in a way that they liked. And they just want to throw those votes out. It's insane. They're just openly saying it. And the thing that I'm predicting and fearing at the same time is that as soon as Biden's in office and this whole debacle is behind us, all of the Republican lawmakers who use this, you know, cynically for their own political careers, people will forget about

it. You know, their image will be laundered in some way. It's so, like, these are not people who are fit to represent anyone in this country. They're not fit to be representatives in a democracy if they don't actually value democracy. So we can't forget, you know, don't be part of the resistance crew that tried to, like, whitewash George Bush during the primaries. George Bush is awful.

He's done terrible things. And, you know, his record... The new BMO, V.I. Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks. More points. More flights. More of all the things you want in a travel rewards card.

And then... Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter Mastercard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit BMO.com slash ViPorter to learn more. It is important. We should look at that. But the same goes for all other lawmakers when they vote the wrong way, when they work against the American people in the best interests of their donors. Those things are in their records and they should be brought up regularly when we have to.

discussions about them in the future. And I plan on doing that because people do forget. It's amazing. Like, we just move on to the next thing. And it's like, oh, yeah, that person was in favor of the torture program under Bush. Oh, it's okay. Now that person is pretending that she's a progressive. So let's, you know, let's support this so-called anti-war candidate who's now a massive bigot. Okay. No, let's look at the record. That matters way more. I think that might have been a specific example. Yeah, I was talking about Tulsi Gabbard, who's a disgusting person. We got to take a break, though. And when we come back, we will discuss I think Biden's misstep in the conversation about the $2,000 stimulus checks. We'll be right

back with that and more. 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 in power. 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 have learned 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 you and FDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. Hey, everybody, welcome back to TYT. programming notes for you, you should save the date for January 5th because we will be having

a special to cover the Georgia Senate runoff. So that'll be on Tuesday, January 5th at 8 p.m. Eastern Time, 5 p.m. Pacific. You can watch on t.y.t.com slash live. And hosts will include myself, Jank Yugar, Ben Dixon, and Ida Rodriguez. I'm shocked that John Ida Rola is not going to be part of that live coverage because he's part of everything. But John, you definitely definitely deserve a break. Also, TYT gift. Look, the holidays aren't over yet, okay? I still need to buy some gifts for family members. I've been kind of lazy. And I might give them the gift of TYT. If you give the gift of TYT membership, you also get an added perk of a $5 credit to shop TYT. And you get that $5 credit for every person, you know, you sign up for

membership through this program. Go to tyt.com slash gift. And then one other quick note, you should be protecting your online activity by using a VPN. PureVPN is a fantastic option. In fact, they have some really great discounts right now, which you can learn more about by going to tyt.com slash pure VPN. That's tyt.com slash pure VPN. And I wanted to read a few member comments. I think we have time. So member comments from Ardvark 2020 in regard to the Josh Hawley certification story. I kind of love that every member of Congress will be on record voting for or against the clown show. Yeah, I mean, it goes back to the point that I was making. We need to use that record to our advantage, right? And keep reminding people

about who these lawmakers really are and how they don't genuinely care about our democracy. Gabby Marita writes in and says, all these Republicans feigning outrage over the lack of integrity in the election are the exact same ones who complained that Democratic proposals for election security last year were unnecessary, absolutely. Yep, eclectic Michelinia, who thank you for watching the weekend show on Jacobin. You comment all the time on that show, and I really appreciate it. Trump and his lapdog still disputing the election is like a team trying to dispute the outcome of a toin cost at the so coin toss, coin toss at the Super Bowl.

That was so weird, tointas at the Super Bowl, even though millions of people saw it, and there's absolutely no doubt. The best advice Ben Mankowitz ever gave me was just slow down when you're reading anything on air, like, because I try to rush through it and then I misspeak. But yes, that was a really good point. Because you want to get through the graphics, like you want to talk. Like you want to share the details, keep people the facts, and then get to like the analysis, you know?

Yeah. That's just the setup. But like it needs to be done, but you want to get through it. Yeah. Totally. All right, guys. We're going to get back to our stories soon and we'll see you there. Hey, hey everyone, welcome back to TYT, Anna Casparian, and John Ida Rola with you.

John is the host of the damage report on TYT Network. So please check out that show. It airs every day, Monday through Friday at 10 a.m. Pacific time, 1 p.m. Eastern. Also, real quick, we're dangerously close to hitting our yearly goal, our fundraising goal in order to keep TYT sustainable. And thank you so much to all of you who helped to keep TYT independent. We're able to give honest analysis on both parties as a result of you guys keeping us honest. So the goal was to raise $2 million by the end of the year. As you guys can see from that number, $1,987,442.

We're getting so close. And for anyone who'd like to contribute, just go to tyt.com slash go. and yeah, I don't know, I'm humbled by our audience because obviously there are different ways that shows can get funded and that's my preference being funded by you, period. Yeah, it's amazing to see the number, like, you know, to see how many people that just want the country to be better funding it, you know, and it's great to see it, especially considering that through the years we've been told that we've been bought by like a million different people that have nothing to do with us. That's always fun. But it's great. And by the way, so obviously

we want the, you know, we want to hit the goal. But for everybody who's already given, like, thank you so much. Like you've probably seen throughout the pandemic, so many good news organizations, media organizations and things like that have had to make major cuts. And we've been very lucky that we haven't had to do that. And you are a massive reason why that hasn't happened. Like that we are as strong and as stable as we are as due to the unwavering support that you've provided throughout the year. So thank you so much. Yeah, and TYT is, I mean, it just has a different business model from a lot of other progressive shows because Jank really sees this as an opportunity to build up different, you know, voices in the progressive movement, which is why we have so many

employees and we've had so many shows. So that takes a lot of resources and because of you guys, we've been able to continue doing the work that we care so much about. And we can do it fearlessly without any retaliation from corporate sponsors or donors. So thank you again. You guys are the best. All right. So let's move on to some more news, including the poison pill. But the senator modify his request to include unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of HR 9051, a bill received from the House to increase recovery rebate amounts to $2,000 per individual, that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening

action or debate. Is there objection to the modification? Objection is heard. So you heard it there, folks. You have Chuck Schumer arguing pretty aggressively for a vote on $2,000 relief checks to Americans, especially at a time when so many Americans are laid off on unemployment and desperately need the help. And Mitch McConnell has rejected it. And in lieu of a standalone bill on the direct checks to Americans, Mitch McConnell has come forth with his own proposal, which includes what's being referred to as a poison pill. It includes two other provisions that Donald Trump seems to care quite a bit about, including a commission to investigate allegations of voter fraud, even though this has been investigated. We know that there was no widespread voter fraud. Even William Barr

through an investigation with the FBI came forward and said there is no widespread voter fraud. Nonetheless, Trump wants that commission. He also wants to repeal Section 230, which is a liability shield for tech companies. Now, there's an interesting argument coming from, progressives like David Dayen and Matt Stoller, for instance, who think, you know, maybe it's not a bad idea for Democrats to just vote in favor of what Mitch McConnell is proposing because, A, who cares if they have a commission? The commission is just going to waste its time investigating something that doesn't exist. And then when it comes to Section 230, David Dayan makes an interesting point in a piece that he actually wrote for

the American prospect back in June. I'll give you those details in just a second. But, John, just real quick, what do you think about the state of this legislation right now? Mitch McConnell says that he does not see a clear path to passing this legislation and getting people $2,000 checks. What does that even mean? It's like, it's literally, it's like, oh, there's your check. No, no, I'm going to stay in between you. I don't see a clear path for you to this thing that's behind me.

I just, I don't see how you're going to make it to this. That doesn't mean anything. And I think, I think it's pretty clear. I think that thanks to, you know, the advocacy of people like Bernie Sanders, it's pretty clear. It's pretty clear in Georgia exactly who is holding this up. You know, when even Purdue and Leffler have to pretend that they actually support this, and then Mitch McConnell day after day is stopping it from going out there. I hope that everyone knows.

But no, it doesn't make any sense. Like, whether you change this tech shield, whatever, has absolutely nothing to do with changing the dollar value listed in a piece of legislation. that already exists. It's the simplest thing in the world to do as a one-off piece of legislation to add on to the previous one. You could totally do it. It's very clear what's going on here. Yeah, I mean, what McConnell is doing is essentially giving Republican lawmakers in the Senate who don't want to vote in favor of these checks some cover. Because Democrats don't want to go along with Donald Trump's demands on the Election Commission and the repeal of Section 230,

But what's so interesting about the history of Section 230 is how you have people from all political ideologies signing on or demanding that there are reforms to Section 230 because it does go too far in protecting some of these tech companies. So you have Democrats on record, you have Republicans on record, obviously you have Donald Trump on record because he's salty about Facebook and Twitter, fact checking him during the election. But let's just rewind for a second, as David Dayan notes in the American prospect, Section 230 immunity basically clears these tech companies of any liability from the activities of its users.

So Facebook cannot be sued for a user's post or YouTube for an uploaded video. So how did this type of protection for tech companies come about? Well, tech companies are smart about the likelihood of retaliation. or anger, frustration from its users and also from lawmakers in Congress. And so they really thought about how to solidify these protections in a way that would make it super complicated to repeal. So as Dayan writes, and again, this is something he wrote back in June of this year before all of this relief check debate even began.

And he says, it's hard to invest much energy in what the optimal Section 230 framework will be, since big tech has already solved this potential problem in a way only they can love. Years ago, they succeeded in getting a Section 230 style provision into the reworked NAFTA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement or USMCA. And practically everybody now incensed by the Section 230 legal immunity willingly voted to implement it in the trade agreement, that makes it much, much more difficult to change it in any way. The provision also appears in a bilateral agreement between the United States and Japan and is expected to be a template for future deals. By the way, who was the chief

negotiator of these trade deals? Donald Trump, Donald Trump, the very person who wants to repeal Section 230. And what's interesting is since this is involved in these multilateral agreements, trade agreements. If the United States tried to unilaterally repeal it, well, it causes a problem because there are other countries involved. So it's actually very unlikely that Section 230 can effectively be repealed through Mitch McConnell's bill. So for people who are worried that repealing Section 230 will have all sorts of unintended consequences, it's going to break the internet, just know that it will be challenged. And it's actually pretty unlikely that in the end, Section 230 will be repealed. But it's just so hilarious, John, because Donald Trump was at the

center of negotiating these trade deals, which included that protection for Section 230. And now he's like, I don't like it. They fact check me. So please repeal it. My point is Democrats should vote from McConnell's bill and they should get direct checks to Americans, period. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, with the 230, the reason is that he had no idea what it was when he was negotiating, when he was negotiating, He had nothing to do with any of it, didn't know anything what was going on. And he didn't, he didn't, I guess I would say he doesn't know that he hates 230 until someone on Breitbart or Fox News told him that he did. And even that's not true, because if it actually was repealed, more of what he hates

on the internet would be going on. It wouldn't actually give him the outcome that he would want. But he definitely didn't know what it was back when it was being negotiated. And I would say related to that, I am starting to increasingly wonder, Donald Trump is getting all of this credit, even from people like us or people like Bernie Sanders for supporting the $2,000 checks. And it's possible that he actually does want them to be sent out. He has been talking about it a lot. It's not his money. And he has no real core ideology aside from white supremacy. So sure, maybe he's okay with the money being sent out. But he has

definitely been talking to Mitch McConnell or his team has been talking to Mitch McConnell throughout this process. Mitch McConnell apparently is not interested in budging. He's not going to do it. Like, I guess hypothetically, he could have given Trump some reason to believe that he might budge. But it's also possible that Trump has known this entire time that Mitch McConnell is not going to allow it to happen, in which case it makes it effectively free for Donald Trump to be out there saying that he wants it. And for other Republicans who, for whatever, like, politically, like, opportune reasons, you know, with the runoffs or whatever, to imply to that they want something, that they can rest assured is not going to happen.

I don't know because with Trump, he's such a wildcarded as possible that it just lines up with that, you know, politically opportune motivation. But it doesn't seem to be happening. And so I wonder how much of that credit in the end he's going to have really earned. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I think Donald Trump is out. He's not going to be in the White House starting January 20th. Who knows what kind of stunts Republicans are going to pull, maybe a few days after that.

But the point is, Biden won the election. So I'm less concerned about positive marketing around Donald Trump. I do worry about this narrative that's been emerging for a year now, at least, about how the right wing, oh, the right wing, yeah, they're really the party of the working class. Like, come on, guys, please wake up. Now, again, that doesn't mean that we can't use some of their, you know, bad faith talking points, which I think they do for political reasons to our advantage. But also, please be savvy enough to understand who these people really are and what motivates

and drives them. Can I have one more thing? Because I'm not just talking about like the marketing coming out of it. Like, sure, that's a thing that Trump is worried about. Getting credit for it is something that he would want. But whether Trump is genuinely actually pushing for it or is just publicly pushing for it, but has an understanding with Mitch. 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 EXPRE S-SVPN. com slash t-y-t. Check it out today. McConnell is also important in terms of the substance of it because Republicans are not

generally big fans of opposing Trump because they fear what he might do to them behind the scenes or just publicly attacking them. Like, look at how he's shredding Brian Kemp for not giving him everything he wants. Mitch McConnell does that appear to be scared of that when it comes to Donald Trump. And while Trump is speaking out in favor of the $2,000 checks, It's not like he's like shredding Mitch McConnell individually in tweets every day, which is what he generally does when he's not given what he wants. And Mitch McConnell's not giving him what he wants. So if they do have an understanding, it might be an understanding where Donald Trump gets to

say that he wants it, knowing that it's not going to actually happen. But Mitch McConnell gets to stand up to him knowing he's not actually going to be attacked. Yeah, maybe. But at the same time, what Donald Trump is engaging in right now is hurting Republicans and the Senate runoff race in Georgia. You get what I'm saying? I mean, they're saying that they're in support of those checks. And they're generally two senators who would not be in favor of $2,000 checks.

They get to say that they are, and it's not happening. They get to have their $2,000 checks and not actually provide them. He's also, you know, in going after Kemp and Raffensberger in Georgia, he's discouraging Republican voters from actually participating in that election. Because if they're convinced that there's overwhelming voter fraud taking place, they're going to think their vote doesn't matter. And that disempowers them. And okay, great, fantastic.

I don't know how the outcome of that election or those two races will end up being. But what I do know is this is an opportunity, I think, for Democrats to really call Mitch McConnell's bluff. And more importantly, to call these Republicans out. Republicans who claim they're in favor of these direct relief checks to Americans, but when push comes to shove, they're unlikely to vote in favor of it. What Mitch McConnell has essentially done here is create a situation where, you know, Democrats are unlikely to vote in favor of a bill that isn't a standalone bill on the relief checks. But I think Demp's should be a little bit smarter than that and understand that this is not

actually going to lead to a repeal of Section 230. absolutely should be some reforms of Section 230 to be clear on that. And the Election Commission, okay, great. So let's have yet another example of investigations showing that there's no proof of widespread voter fraud. Who cares? The point is $2,000 direct checks to Americans, incredibly important. If you don't even care about helping American people, it's a good political play.

And I think if I were in the Senate, I would still vote in favor of Mitch McConnell's bill. But that's me. All right, we got to take a quick break. So let's do that. And when we come back, Biden is on the record with a statement regarding relief checks to Americans. What did he say? I'll give you those details and more when we return.

Hey, everyone. I wanted to read some member comments for you during our social break. All right, so a comment from Little Mac McGee, I've been making that argument. argument, the argument that I made in the last story, with some reservation as well, take McConnell's bill as is. He doesn't want Section 230 suspended either. And if it does, they'll get a new one pass. Perhaps a better one this time, the tech industry will make sure. Yeah, and to your point, David Dayan also pointed that out in June when you wrote that piece, saying, if the United States tries to alter Section 230, Facebook or Google could sue,

maintaining that the proposed change, whatever it may be, was illegitimate and violated the USMCA, the case could go to an extrajudicial tribunal or the World Trade Organization and the United States could lose the case or get tied up in the courts for years. And I really think that that's a fantastic point. And I don't know. Like I just, I don't really see a problem right now voting for McConnell's bill. I see more of an upside than a downside. But I'm also not going to be ridiculous in claim that there couldn't be some unintended consequences, you know, at least temporarily if they repeal Section 230. I just think it's going to be challenged immediately and it's not actually going to break the

internet. So with that said, let's move on to some more comments. Mr. Limbaugh, aka Initech Dragon, says, I don't see a clear path to passing the House resolution already sitting on your desk. Mitch, please. You could pass this in a couple of hours if you really wanted to. Let's keep it real. You'd rather keep pushing the notion that 150 million Americans struggling and 8 million Americans slipping into poverty this year is because they're lazy is somehow easier to believe than 600 Americans being far too greedy. Totally agree. Jess also says, Anna,

today on the Senate floor, McConnell also added protection from liability for corporations along with Section 230. Does he still have your vote, Senator Casparian? Yeah, I got to look into that. So he added protection from liability for court. Okay, I need to look into that. Thank you, Jess. Yeah, I hadn't seen it.

So, by the way, I'm being genuine in saying I'm going to look into that. When I say that, I mean it. Also, hot mess politics says from the super chat section, thank you guys for your dedication to presenting facts and truth. you were appreciated. And then you had a very sweet message for me that thank you. I'll say thank you, but I feel embarrassed sharing it. Thank you guys. We got to go back to our show. Let's do that. I'll see you in just in a bit. Hey, everyone. Welcome back to TYT. Let's get it moving. Let's go right to our next story about the

relief checks to Americans. President-elect Joe Biden was asked. about whether he supports increasing the amount of money that will be sent to Americans in the form of direct relief checks. Now, Congress has passed legislation that would provide $600 in relief checks. Donald Trump demanded more. Democrats hopped onto that opportunity, passed legislation overwhelmingly in the House to provide direct checks to Americans to the tune of $2,000. And now it's sitting in the Senate with Mitch McConnell playing all sorts of games to prevent that bill from passing. Now, Joe Biden was asked about this. Where do you stand on relief checks? And honestly, optics-wise, this didn't look good. But he said the right thing.

Let's take a look. Do you support this $2,000 recommendation, sir? Yes. Okay, look, he said yes. But it's an important question. There are a lot of people struck. Like, just turn, turn back around and provide a real statement, please. Like, it's just not a good look at all, because it seems like he doesn't genuinely care. And I mean, when you look at how this bill was negotiated and what his involvement was in negotiating the bill, maybe he doesn't really care. But I don't know, maybe I'm being too harsh. What was your read of that, John?

I mean, I think, like, the way you show that you don't care about something is to walk away while someone is talking to you about. about it. I, and to be honest, I had seen the quote that he said, but I hadn't seen the actual video. I assumed that that was really all he had to say, but then he moved on to other stuff. Like, turn around and use this opportunity. You're supposed to be the leader of the entire Democratic Party, show leadership. No, you're exactly right. And I mean, the optics, again, not good.

But you also have to understand what his role was in negotiating for. coronavirus relief. Did he play a role? He did. And that was something that was actually reported on by the New York Times in two separate stories. So in one story, it was reported that Biden, on December 2nd, through his support behind the $900 billion plan being pushed by the centrist group in the Senate, the total was less than half of the two trillion dollars that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, had been insisting on. And then later, In another New York Times report, we learned about how he did play an active role in the negotiations. Behind the scenes, Biden quietly pushed for lawmakers to strike a compromise that would deliver

at least some modest help after months of congressional inaction. He has lavished praise on the bipartisan group of moderate lawmakers who crafted a framework over weeks of video calls, texts, and huddles on Capitol Hill, helping prod leadership out of a month. months-long impasse and inspiring a flurry of last-ditch negotiations. So he did urge Democratic leadership to at least concede to some of the Republican demands. And keep in mind, you know, when you look at what was in the bill originally, 16 weeks of unemployment benefits, that was later scaled back to only 11 weeks. $600 direct checks. I mean, at first, there weren't going to be direct checks at all. But then after

some arguing and negotiating, there was a $600 proposal, which did eventually pass. But now Americans want more, and they deserve more. They're really suffering right now. And so Biden's whole thing is, all right, just get this framework passed, provide people some relief now. And then once I'm in office, we'll do more. But how? Are you going to use your executive authority to do more? Because remember, Trump did provide $300 in, you know, federal unemployment benefits through executive action. Is Biden willing to do that? Is Biden willing to do that and go bold with $600 a week, which I think Americans desperately

need right now? I don't know. But if he thinks that he's going to get policy passed through Congress, I mean, he's delusioned. I think he's delusional about that. Yeah, I mean, I'm glad that he is, to some extent, getting involved. Going forward, I have no idea what's actually going to happen after this. I mean, you know, people say that there's the possibility of legislation. I know that, like, in theory, a lot of it is going to write on what ends up happening

with the future of the Senate, certainly. Like, we have this massive obstacle that in theory could go away. But even if it did, they could filibuster. Like, they could still possibly block it if they really wanted to. And, you know, they seem to be so disinterested in passing aid even now where in theory they could get credit and Donald Trump could get credit since he's still in office. The idea that they're going to be more willing to go along under Biden, I just don't see why we would believe that.

People that we trust, including Bernie Sanders, thinks that there is the chance of legislation later on. So I guess there is a chance, but I don't have much faith in it. Yeah, I, yeah. I know. I just think, you know, that call that was leaked with civil rights leaders where Biden answered the question about using his executive power, and he essentially, you know, shot that down. That's worrying.

And in recent interviews that we've talked about on this show, he genuinely believes he can persuade Republican lawmakers to pass bold policy. Now, I think he can work with Republican lawmakers to concede to what they want and pass that kind of policy. He's done that historically, but he knows what the obstruction is like. I mean, he served in the Obama administration. The entire first term was all about obstructing what Democrats were trying to do, what the Obama administration wanted to accomplish.

There's no reason to think that things are going to be any different during his administration especially since, I mean, the country feels even more divided now than it was back then. So I think Democrats need to fight right now, get those $2,000 direct checks to Americans right now, right now. And don't rely on what could happen in the future, like some fantastical idea about, you know, Republicans coming to their senses and doing the right thing. I just don't think it's going to play out that way. Well, yeah. And however divided we are as a country, when it comes to our elected officials in particular, our senators, like they, first of all, they're going to need to show that they're the resistance or whatever, you know, because Biden's coming

in. He's a radical socialist. He was put there by China. So they need to show that they're against him. Plus, all of their base thinks that Biden isn't going to be a legitimate president anyway. So going along with him would be being part of the commie plot. Plus, in like a year and a half, they're going to start, you know, like jockeying for position for the presidential run. So, like, there might be a tiny little narrow window where maybe he could get some of them to cross over, but he's going to be dealing with the whole the election was fake thing. I just, if he has any belief whatsoever that he's going to be able to work with these people, he needs to figure out some sort of alternative plans.

And when he is saying that he's already planning to be a little bit hands off and a little bit shy when it comes to executive, like executive orders and things like that, that makes me incredibly worried considering the political environment that I feel like we're entering into. Well, let's move on to, you know, what he's going to deal with once he serves as president and has to deal with these Republican lawmakers because a lot of them feel pretty comfortable coming out and saying, no, we don't want checks to Americans. Don't care. Don't want it. We're worried about the debt. So as tens of millions of Americans live in poverty and wait in heartbrate, breakingly long lines at food banks just to feed their families. Lawmakers, particularly

Republican lawmakers like Senator Marcia Blackburn, accused them of supporting socialism for wanting some relief. Here's what she had to say in a recent interview. We know that what the Democrats are trying to do with this is to put us on a pathway to a guaranteed minimum income, which is one of their socialist agenda items. We also not, know that President Trump is frustrated, as am I, by a lot of the wasteful spending that is in the budget that was passed, the omnibus spending bill? No, no, you're not. You're not worried about wasteful spending at all, at all.

She has voted in favor of all sorts of legislation that is incredibly wasteful. Of course, she voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act, which costs $741 billion. dollars. She voted in favor of the same legislation last year. Also, she's not in favor of pulling U.S. involvement out of Yemen, which I'm sure we're spending money on, no on the removal of armed forces, you know, from hostilities against Iran. We're spending money on that. She's voted against a carbon tax, which could bring in some revenue, you know, doesn't care about that. Also voted for Trump's tax cuts for the rich. Seems like Marcia Blackburn does not care about. government waste, does not care about balancing the budget, doesn't care about any of that,

and has instead decided to use, you know, scary sounding words for right-wing audiences by accusing people who need relief right now for advocating for socialism, which we have socialism in this country. It's just, you know, socialism that helps corporations out. But, you know, when it comes to people who are really suffering right now through no fault of their own, Marsha Blackburn just wants to give them the middle finger. Yeah. And, you know, a little bit earlier, I was watching or was reading the transcript of a Joe Manchin interview where he was talking about it because I was wondering, like,

I was trying to do the math on how many need to cross over from the Republican Party. And then the thing is with the Democrats, you have to possibly account for some Democrats not going along. And he's against him too. And basically, the reason I bring it up now is using almost exactly the same language. Like he's talking about instantly he pivots when asked about $2,000 because he supports something lower, $600 or $1,200 or something like that. He starts instantly talking about the national debt rate rising too quickly under George

W. Bush and how he's like, and then he tries to make it like this sort of populist thing where he's saying, you know, we've all been suffering and too much money's been given to the most wealthy, but we do have to get out of this together. But like, but now you're turning against it. like you're turning in this fiscal austerity sort of direction, at the time where finally there is something that not only is generally designed to help out people who are struggling, but literally has limits baked into it that make sure that that's the only people who actually get it. And he's against it. So whether it's, you know, Marshall Blackburn or him, like,

this is the sort of language that we should get ready for, not just when it comes to aid during the pandemic, but a lot of the big bold legislation that we want to see passed under Biden, suddenly the deficits are going to matter and the national debt is going to matter. And the fact that they passed these massive military budgets literally just weeks ago. Like, that's ancient history. We're not supposed to remember that. Okay. So with that said, I actually do want to go to this video. It might be the same person you're talking about. Congressman Guy, Russian Thraller, goes on Fox News. And he claims he's very worried about the national debt. The same kind of argument that we're expecting to hear

over and over again during the Biden administration, even though during the Trump administration, he did the opposite of balancing any budget. I mean, he cut revenue by cutting taxes for the rich and then increased spending. Didn't hear a peep from this guy. But now all of a sudden, when we're talking about relief checks, here's the argument that he makes. We've got to remember that as we move forward, debt and deficit, we need to tackle these issues because by definition, an economic definition, debt and deficit are nothing more than taxation on future Americans. That's going to slow our economic growth and our recovery. Additionally, I still stand by the point that the strongest stimulus that we can give the American

economy is to end the draconian lockdowns. Americans just want to get back to work. End these shutdowns, allow the economy to move forward. We can open our businesses while still taking precautions with this virus. Just let the American people get back to work. That will do more than anything to get stimulus to the American people. So I actually want to read one. of our comments from our members who are writing in live as we do the show. Thank you to our members. You can become one by going to t-y-t.com slash join. Rob writes in and says, national debt increased by a third in Trump's four years, $19.9 trillion to $28 trillion. No, Republicans don't care about the budget, but they can't get beyond socialism bad bumper sticker logic. I could not

agree with you more. And again, they will shamelessly make this argument over and over and over again during the Biden administration, during any moment where Americans might actually get some relief, especially during this pandemic. Yeah. Yeah, like we're saying, you know, it's a taste of things to come. It's incredibly frustrating, especially, you know, considering the scale of the problems that we face. And the fear that, you know, these sorts of predilections, not just on the Republican side when it's a Democratic president, but among enough Democrats, a sort of critical mass, if you had a particularly strong president, maybe you could push against that. But I just, I don't see, you know, the current leader of the Democratic Party as a person

who's going to do that. Joe Biden has promised that he will never embarrass the Republicans. Okay, story we covered earlier this week. He's already embarrassing us. Oh, 100% but doesn't care about that. What if I became a republic? He doesn't care about that. Maybe that's what we need to do. Maybe that's what we need to do.

Anyway, we got to take a break, but when we come back, a story that's incredibly important to update you guys on, the Justice Department has investigated the murder of Tamir Rice. And I'll tell you what the outcome of that investigation is when we come back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.