The Young Turks - The Young Turks - October 27, 2020

Episode Date: October 28, 2020

McConnell is taking a victory lap for destroying democracy. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks. 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. All right. All right, welcome to the young church. Thank you, Grant and Kisperi with you guys, there's only a week left. For God's sake, there's a week left. only a week left. A week from now, you're going to come here at 1 p.m. Eastern 10 a.m. Pacific,

an election day is going to kick off with the Dragon Squad. John's going to do damage report that I'm going to come and join him at the 11 o'clock hour here on the West Coast. And we're kicking off election day. And it is going to be the most nerve-wracking day, potentially of our lives, certainly of our political lives. So that is in a week. Do not miss Election Day. Conservatives can't wait to watch it here, and we can't wait to have them watch it here. We're inviting them to a blue wedding. Let's keep this graphic up for a moment while I give Cassie, Hanks, all the credit in the world for literally taking the best photos that anyone has ever taken of any one of us.

Like, thank you. I just wanted to draw more attention to how fantastic these photos are. Anyway, continue. All right, rock and roll. And look, guys, t.yt.com slash go makes the world go around. or at least our world. So right now, I was asking if we get to 96,000 yesterday, in a sense we did. Can I see 97,000?

Can I see that? TYT.com slash go. You guys are the young Turks. You make this possible. And we got all of Election Day for you guys with all the costs and staff associated with it. So if you can help out, that would be amazing. And it's really important. All right.

Tons of show. Let's do it. All right. Well, we start off with an update on the Supreme Court. Senate Republicans have successfully confirmed Donald Trump's third Supreme Court pick, Amy Coney-Barrant. During an interview with Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took a victory lap. Let's watch. We know that this seat belonged to a liberal icon.

Justice Ginsburg was much beloved. She was a pop culture phenomenon in recent years as well. They seemed very fired up about sort of avenging the loss of this seat by showing up at the polls and voting for Biden? Well, if you recall, we had a Supreme Court fight a month before the election in 2018, and we actually gained seats. I think this nominee will be a political asset for our candidates around the country, not a liability, but an asset.

Now with Mitch McConnell referring to this as a political asset, some may interpret it as a political asset in terms of firing the Republican base up to show up to the polls or to turn in their mail-in ballots to vote for Trump. Others might interpret it as a threat to the actual outcome of the election based on whether the election will be contested and how the Supreme Court will rule if the results of the election are contested. Now, Barrett was confirmed by the Senate with a 52 to 48 vote on Monday. Her seat on the bench gives conservatives a 6-3 majority,

shifting the makeup of the high court that could affect a range of issues that could come before it, including potential disputes regarding the 2020 election and the future of the Affordable Care Act. And honestly, things are looking pretty grim with regard to the election. The Supreme Court sided with Republicans in Wisconsin on Monday ruling five to three along ideological lines. Oh, what a shocker. That Wisconsin can count only those absentee ballots that arrive by election day, even if they were mailed days earlier. Since first class mail has been taking an average of 10 days to be delivered in the state. Wisconsin's Democratic Party urged mail-in Democrats to hand-delivered their absentee ballots or vote in

person. So even if the ballots are postmarked in time, there is now some worry that some of these ballots will not be counted toward the election in a swing state that's crucial for this election. Yeah. So right now, we have three justices that were on Bush's team on Bush Fee Gore, Kavanaugh, John Roberts, the chief justice, and now Amy Coney-Barritt. So all three of them worked on the side that said, do not count the votes of Florida. Whatever you do, do not count those votes. And so they set a precedent. That team, they're on the court now. They took over the court. They're the guys. They were the lawyers for Bush who said, if we can steal this election, we'd like to steal it. And at the time, the conservative Supreme Court said,

go ahead and steal it. Because if you don't remember, when they recounted all of Florida later, the press did, a combination of all the press together, Al Gore had won the state of Florida. He won the electoral college, not just the popular vote. But that election was 100% stolen by the Supreme Court. And the people who organized that robbery were Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett. Now there are three votes. Now, Roberts is a little bit more complicated case because recently in a Pennsylvania case, he ruled the other way.

And now in Wisconsin, he rules with the conservatives. He's doing it based on whether it's in federal courts or state courts. So that's a complicated issue. But now, but it doesn't really matter because now they don't need Roberts vote. With Barrett coming on the court, they've got five solid votes to say, do not count anything that's borderline. Now, the question is whether they're going to go past the borderline. We know where the borderline is. Hey, did it come in on time?

Did it not? Is it postmarked by election day? Or is it received by election day? And the different states have different laws. There's a ton of what we would call cheating that the Republicans can do on the edges. and the edges are super important when you have a really close race. The question is, are they going to go as far as Trump and his demands today? Right, and I think that's a legitimate concern because Donald Trump certainly is setting the stage to contest the results of the election.

He can clearly see that he's not doing well when it comes to polling. If you look at the 60 million Americans who have already voted, you'll see a surge in young voters casting their ballots, which usually indicates some strong enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate, not necessarily because the Democratic candidate is fantastic, but in this particular case, of course, people are fired up to try to get Trump out of office. And just to give you some examples of Trump basically setting the stage to contest the results of the election, here's what he said just today. It would be very, very proper and very nice if a winner would be planned on November 3rd

instead of counting ballots in two weeks, which is totally inappropriate. And I don't believe that that's by our laws. I don't believe that. All right, that is Donald Trump right there saying, I don't believe in democracy. And it's not a hyperbole. I need you to understand what he just said. You can go back and watch the tape again, if you're unclear about it. He said, we should stop counting on November 3rd.

We should not let it continue past that. We should declare a winner on November 3rd. We can't have it going on for weeks afterwards. That is him saying, if you voted and they have received your vote legally, I don't want it to count. I just want to declare myself the winner on November 3rd before we count all the votes. He is crystal clear on it. Well, that's not around the edges. That's just saying, well, I want to count the votes that are on my side and I don't want to count the votes on the other side.

well, that's not a democracy, that's a dictatorship. So he, guys, there is no such thing as I don't want to count some of the votes in a democracy. Again, we're not talking about postmarks and did it get there on time or is it a hanging chat or all those different issues. He's just saying flat out, stop counting on November 3rd, do not count the legal votes past November 3rd. Because why is he saying that in case you're wondering? The pollsters indicate that for in-person voting, Donald Trump has the advantage. But mail-in ballots are going to swamp that advantage, and Joe Biden is going to win on mail-in ballots, according to the polling. So he's saying, don't count them.

Don't count the votes that are coming in for my opponent, because I don't believe in democracy, and I don't believe in America, and I don't believe in our Constitution. And honestly, if you don't know it, okay, I still think there's a thousand. reasons to vote against Donald Trump, and I still think, I question your judgment and everything else. But now if you know this, and you can go back and watch the tape again, and you still say, yes, I'm with Donald Trump, I don't think our opponent's votes should be counted, okay, that's it, you're not an American. And so, I mean, technically you are, but ideologically you're not American, you don't even believe in democracy. You say, I would rather have my guy be a dictator and not count the votes on the opposite side,

then have them count and have the other guy win. Okay, fine, you're in favor of tyranny. That's exactly, and get a load of this from the guys for all these years that even did violence because they were so opposed to government tyranny. And here is tyranny facing them right in their face. And they're like, no, I kind of like it. As long as my guy's the tyrant, I kind of love it. So that's where the Republican Party today is, and it's absolutely sick.

Yeah, it is. And, you know, it's just this asymmetrical situation where you're dealing with, and I'm not just talking about the politicians on the right. I'm talking about the electorate. I'm talking about voters on the right who seem to just throw our entire democratic process in the garbage as long as their preferred candidate gets a shot at winning or is more likely to win. as a result of essentially doing away with people's right to vote to have their ballot be counted. And, you know, Donald Trump prior to that video had tweeted this, which I think is incredibly relevant to whether or not he's going to contest the results of the election. Trump tweeted about mail-in voting, claiming there were, quote, big problems and discrepancies

with mail-in ballots all over the USA. He continued, must have final total on November 3rd. And by the way, Twitter did end up placing a label above that tweet saying that it's misleading because it absolutely is misleading. Mail-in ballots, there's no indication that mail-in ballots lead to voter fraud or an uptick in voter fraud. This is the same narrative we've heard from Trump over and over again. The reason why he's attacking mail-in ballots is because, as Jenk mentioned, Democrats have the advantage with mail-in ballots. So he wants the election to be called on the night of the election, even as ballots haven't been counted yet. And he wants to completely discredit mail-in voting because he believes that, and this is true,

Democrats have the advantage here. So guys, understand, some of the states count really fast. So they might have the overwhelming majority of their votes counted on November 3rd. But even those states aren't going to have all the ballots counted because they came in at different times. Now, all of it before November 3rd, or at least in some of the states postmarked by November 3rd. November 3rd. But again, I'm not talking about the edges of postmarked or not postmark. Votes come in by the millions. Some states count fast. Some states count slow. So it might take them a day or a week to count all their votes. And Trump is making the argument, as

you saw there in written text and in video, I don't want you to count the legal votes that came in. I don't want you to count them. I just want you to declare winner on November 3rd right or wrong, whether we count on the votes or not, whether it's democracy or not. Look, the reason I'm emphasizing it is, if all of Americans knew that Donald Trump did not believe in democracy, he'd still get at least 33% of the country to vote for him. And that's really dispiriting. No, I'm not, I don't think that MAGA is going to be like, oh, my God, oh, then it wouldn't be democratic. Then Trump would be our king. Oh, golly gee, that's so bad.

No, they would love it, right? But there is 10 to 15% of the country, they'd be like, really? He doesn't want to count all the votes because he thinks the mail and ballots might go towards Biden, so he just doesn't want to count them and declare himself king? Nah, I'm not on board for that. But they don't know because the media soft peddles it. They're like, and by the way, number one at fault so far is the Biden team. Here he is today, on the record, twice, twice saying, I'm not going to, I don't want to count the votes.

I believe in tyranny. Where's Biden's team? Where the hell are they? So no, you've got to make a giant deal out of that. So people understand what the guy's trying to do. Last thing is, guys, look, I think the lead is large enough for Biden that they're not going to be able to steal it around the edges. But am I positive? Of course not. Does it, should you go vote? Absolutely. But I don't think the Supreme Court will say, oh, we have. have no legal justification at all. I just don't count millions of votes. Who cares? We're not a democracy anymore. I don't think they'll say that. But now we're taking chances. And whether they do that or not, it's important to note that the entire Republican Party, including all their senators and all their congressmen, are on board for actually stealing the election. That is what Donald Trump stated. Again, you can see the quotes. We shared them with you. Elected Republican has objected.

So they just don't believe in democracy. They're the most un-American party I have ever seen. And if you're on their team, you don't believe in America either. And the fact that a giant percentage of this country never even believed in democracy, yeah, that's a depressing fact. Well, now that we know this happened with the Supreme Court, the question is, what are Democrats going to do to fight back? So let's discuss that a little bit.

Now that Republicans have successfully rushed through the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney-Barrant, the question is, what are Democrats planning to do to fight back? Now, there's a growing number of progressives in Congress who are demanding that Democrats in the Senate fight and Democrats overall, including Joe Biden, fight by packing the courts. However, the statements we're getting from Senate Democrats are not so promising. So Democratic senators are warning that Republicans, this makes me laugh, will regret confirming Amy Coney-Barrant to the Supreme Court as the Democrats face pressure from the left to nix the filibuster and expand the court if they win back the majority.

So let me give you some statements from Democratic senators, including Senator Chris Murphy, who said, I know that there's a lot of speculation about what Democrats will do if Democrats are given control of the Senate? Will Democrats go to new extraordinary lengths to maximize their power, given the extraordinary lengths Republicans have gone to maximize their power? This is not a conversation that is ripe enough yet. But what do Republicans expect? What kind of statement is that? No, I mean, what is that? What is that, Chris Murphy? What is that? That is such a pathetic statement. Let me give you more. This is from Senator Sheldon White House who said, With this vote, my Republican colleagues forfeit their right to call procedural fowls.

Jake, am I being unfair here? I don't understand what this is. No, you're supposed to hit them back and hit them back hard. Oh, oh, you have been very naughty Republican Party. You have been bad boys and girls. We're going to teach you a lesson. Maybe. Maybe we're thinking about it.

We're not so sure yet. Oh, I mean, whoof. What is that? Now that you've stolen two Supreme Court seats, well, I mean, that issue is still not ripe enough yet. So we'll ponder it, et cetera. We got Kamala Harris course coming up, et cetera, as well. But guys, the Democrats aren't going to do anything about it. They are pathetic.

And I don't, it's not my opinion, it's a fact. And what I mean by a fact is I've been covering them for 20, 25 years now, every once in a while they'll say, oh, you better not, maybe we'll do something. I've never seen them do anything. Never, ever, ever, ever. The only time, to be fair, Harry Reid took away the filibuster on lower level judges, not the Supreme Court, right before the polling indicated the Democrats were going to lose the Senate and go in the minority and need that filibuster. So the one time they took action was at the absolute worst time, because they're the most incompetent, factlessly. Because to this day, people still talk about how strong

was Harry Reid. And they're enabled by their fluffers in Washington, D.C., the mainstream media, they're like, you guys are master legislators. The ways that you are thinking about maybe striking back in a decade or so, and maybe not, but that's really got to strike fear in the hearts of the Republicans. Look, I like White House because he cares by getting money out of politics. But even that quote by him, such a weak sauce. You're not allowed to call procedural foul calls anymore. Hey, look, I'm trying really hard not to call people stupid. But, okay, let's put it this way. Do you have vision problems? Like, can you not see? They have run rough shot over every rule, every law, every piece of etiquette, every procedure, and you're still debating

foul calls? No, look, it's already too late. These threats, as light and silly as they are, they should have come before the confirmation. After the conversation, the time for talk is over. From now on, the Democrats, if they witness Senate, as the polling indicates, they will, just do it. And if they, McConnell or the other Republicans cry, go, oh, are you crying? And laugh in their face. But the Democrats don't do that because they're like, oh, I do you, glad, should we call a foul?

Should we call a foul? It's a bit of reason ripe enough yet. They're not going to do anything. Zero. The chance of expanding the court, and then we got good progressives fighting for it, and I love them, but the chances are zero percent. I mean, Biden certainly has not signed on to that. He's completely non-committal to that idea.

No, no, Anna, let's be fair. He wants to put together a bipartisan commission. Yeah, the Republicans are going to agree to expand the court. After they just packed the court full of Republicans, you know the last six out of seven races, presidential races, the Democrats have won the popular vote. The last six out of nine justices have been picked by the Republicans. If we had Democratic leadership like AOC, who's demanding that the Democrats packed the court, I mean, it would be a whole different ballgame.

But unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. So let me read you some more statements from the feckless Democrats in the Senate, including minority leader Chuck Schumer, who says the Republican majority is lighting its credibility on fire. Oh, I'm sure they're very concerned about that. Yeah, okay, sure. The next time the American people give Democrats a majority in this chamber, you will have forfeited the right to tell us how to run that majority. My colleagues may regret this for a lot longer than they think.

They won't regret a state. No, they won't because they understand power. That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Republicans understand and wield their power. Democrats keep playing this game of, oh, well, if you don't do what we want you to do, We are going to call you hypocrites. But okay. I hope they send a strongly worded letter.

How is that going to hurt them? How would calling them hypocrites hurt them? What Republicans have done here is they have given their base exactly what their voters want. They have given their voters what they want. This is the kind of stuff that they're going to campaign on and they're going to campaign on it successfully. Because again, they understand power and they use it to their advantage. Whereas Democrats are like, tisk, tisk, bad boys and girls. We do not agree with what you're doing.

We're going to call you bad, very, very bad and naughty. And then you have, to your point, Jank, the media. And the Hill framed what I'm about to read to you as tough talk from Democrats. You tell me if you think this is tough talk. You have Senator Angus King who said this. I don't want to pack the court. He just said he doesn't want it. I know.

It's amazing. It's amazing. Tough talk. Tough talk. I don't want to pack the court. I don't want to change the number. I do, I don't want to have to do that. But if all of this rule breaking is taking place, what does the majority expect? Okay, but that's not, that's not tough talk at all, not even a little bit. And let me remind you all that Donald Trump has, I mean, he has steamrolled when it comes to federal judges. It's not just about the Supreme Court, as the Hill accurately states. In addition to

three Supreme Court justices, Trump is second only to former President Carter for the number of overall judges he has gotten confirmed. And guess what? He did that with the help of Senator Chuck Schumer. He did that with the help of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. He made a deal with McConnell. All these judges got confirmed. And regardless of who wins this upcoming election, which I grant you, it is important to get Trump out. But regardless, we are going to deal with the ramifications of his chosen federal judges for decades to come. Yeah, so one third of all of the federal judges have been appointed by Donald Trump. One third.

That's unbelievable. Now, how? Well, how did that happen? Because it's not, he didn't even serve two terms. He only served one term. That's because McConnell blocked all of Obama's judges near the end of his term. The last couple of years, he just stopped everything. its tracks by doing every legislative maneuver that he could and every technical maneuver that

he could. And Chuck Schumer let him, like the coward and feckless leader that he is. And then when Trump got in, what did Schumer do to block anything? Nothing. He just let him fill all of Obama's seats and all of Trump's seats. But boy, you guys better not do it again. Now, they're the worst. And the media, how do you, no one, no one. in mainstream media has pointed out what a terrible leader, Chuck Schumer is. I mean, how he has gotten annihilated by Mitch McConnell. He let Trump fill a third of the federal judiciary and three Supreme Court justices. If that's not an epic failure, what is?

And instead, most of the media sit around and kiss Chuck Schumer's ass to get access to him. All right, last thing, go to Kamala Harris. She says, we will not forget this. Your boss, Joe Biden, said he's going to do a bipartisan commission. Do you think Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz are going to agree to expand the court and let a Democratic president fill those seats? Unity, Jank. We need unity. No, no.

But if you believe that, you're an idiot and they can't be that stupid. So they're lying to you on purpose. They have made a decision. they're not going to do a goddamn thing. So when Kamala Harris comes and says, we will not forget this. Now, she's lying to you. Now, no one else in the mainstream media will tell you that, because it's the beloved corporate Democrats.

We're not allowed to criticize them. Well, no deal. Look, last thing I'll tell you is a metaphor. And it'll be a controversial metaphor. But just so you can understand, it's easier to connect with. If somebody comes to you and says, I'm going to punch you in the face. I would say to them, don't, otherwise I will punch you in the face and much harder than you punched me. I will break your jaw, okay?

Now Democrats say, oh, you better not think about it because then at a later time I might think about striking about, bam, right? And they get punched in the face. What are you going to sit there and bleed all day? Now the Democrats, after getting punched in the face, say the moment is not ripe yet, but later we will try to remember this. Now, what I would do, metaphorically, is I would stop talking once the punches have been thrown. I wouldn't say, hey, later I'm going to punch you or I'm going to punch you now. I would break their goddamn jaw and be done with it. There's no point in talking after you already got punched in the face.

So now that's a metaphor. And I know everybody in the civility club will be like, oh, God do the clan. That's why we don't like the young turks. They're outlaws. They say there's such drastic dastardly metaphors, whereas we were sitting right getting our ass handed to us because we don't care about our voters. That's the part they never tell you. They don't give a damn about their voters. At least one thing I respect about the Republicans, they might not care about democracy and they may hate America and they might be religious zealots and all of those things.

But at least they care about their voters enough to get them the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. They care to fight. And I respect that. any of these corporate Democrats. Not one of them. Cowards to the man. Well, when we come back from the break, we'll share some details on what the Supreme Court has ruled in regard to ballots in Wisconsin. We'll get into the details of that and more don't miss it. It's an important story. 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-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

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 UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. So our sponsor aspiration is doing a pretty fun contest, basically. So if you have an aspiration account, we're gonna pick four of you guys to do a conversation with me in private after the election to analyze what happened and to talk about the future

and what it holds for progressives and politics overall. So if you already have an aspiration account, you don't have to worry about it. But if you don't, you can enter just simply by creating an aspiration account and it doesn't cost you anything. dot com slash t yt and it puts gives you a great place to put your money asperation.com slash ty t yt speaking of people who are supporting the show those are members that just signed up on youtube by hitting that join button below the video. Jim Conley the NC Phoenix Muffin ZZZZ Andrew Zangh, Susan Calvin, Calvin, Douglas Brown, Wolfgang Schaefer, Tony

Shin, Mark Hull, and Patricia Murphy. You guys are the best. I want to give a quick shout out to Melly Bitch, who is a member who is in the hospital. Melly, obviously, we're all rooting for you, hang in there and get well. Another member, Cousin Vinny, wrote in, Dems are more than happy to lose ideologically and politically, as long as they can win monetarily and electorily. The only thing they care about is turning this into a fundraising opportunity. Bingo. That's the whole thing that they're obsessed by.

The night before the vote, they went to do giant fundraising, even though they had they knew they had already lost. Oh, give us money and then we'll fight back. Fight back when? She's on the court. They're the worst. So anyway, our members are way smarter than they are. TYT.com slash join to become a member if you're watching anywhere else.

All right. Last one is from Super Chat. Douglas Brown writes in, Dave Rubin citing Donald Trump's condemnation of white supremacist during Charlottesville rally, says Biden misrepresented Donald Trump's fine people comment, but Donald Trump's condemnation was disingenuous because every Charlotteville organizer, speaker, fine person, Spencer, David Duke, Kessler, et cetera, equals neo-Nazis. So, Douglas, I appreciate your opinion on it.

And the fact is that Donald Trump said there is very fine people on both sides. And the best defense that the Dave Rubens of the world have is, no, he wasn't talking about the Nazis. He was talking about the racist who loved the Confederate generals and wanted to preserve their statues. Those Confederate generals who wanted to maintain slavery whip and lynch and murder black people in America so they could keep them as slaves. Those were the very fine people he was talking about, the people who supported those Confederate generals. I failed to see how that makes it any better. It's basically saying if you're somebody like Dave Rubin defending those comments, oh, I don't like it if he's. anti-Semitic. But I love it if he's racist. Who cares about black people being offended

that these Confederate generals murdered them and lynched them and tore their skin off their back while whipping them? I kind of like that. There's a very, very fine people. Trump is right. Congratulations, Dave Rubin. That's the side you're on now. I hope the check was worth it. Well, I mean, Jank, that is definitely a high level important idea. And his brain is still recovering from the previous high level important ideas that damaged him. So let's Let's give him some time to recover. Maybe he'll get there. Yeah, he got the brain damage from the high-level ideas.

I mean, he told us. My brain is still in recovery mode from taking in so many high-level important ideas. So sad. One of the saddest things I've ever seen. All right, let's do the rest of the news. All right. The Supreme Court has dealt a massive blow to individuals voting by mail in Wisconsin. They have ruled to reject mail-in ballots set to election officials on or just before.

election day. So the Supreme Court cited with Republicans in Wisconsin ruling five to three along ideological lines that Wisconsin can count only those absentee ballots that arrive by election day, even if they were mailed days earlier. Since first class mail has been taking an average of 10 days to be delivered in the state, Wisconsin's Democratic Party urged mail and Democrats to hand-deliver their absentee ballots or vote in person. The court's five to three ruling means that ballots will be counted only if they are in the hands of municipal clerks by the time polls close on November 3rd. So this is, this is definitely a blow to voters in the state of Wisconsin. And the reasoning for this decision that's been given by the conservative justices is just

absolute nonsense. The argument here is that the state's legislators are the ones who get to decide what the election rules are. And even if the case goes to federal judges, federal judges don't get to supersede or be the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional in that state when it comes to their voting rights or when it comes to their voting laws. So in the statement by the conservative justices, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, here's what you can read from their decision. Gorsuch writes, the Constitution provides that state legislators, not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, nor other state officials bear primary responsibility for setting election rules. And Kavanaugh's reasoning also makes no sense, which by the way makes this abundantly clear

that now the Supreme Court has become part of Donald Trump's campaign. Here's what Kavanaugh wrote in his decision. Those states want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those states also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night or as soon as possible thereafter. But as Justice Alana Kagan perfectly stated, well, there are no official election results until all the votes are counted. So it doesn't matter if, you know, it appears as though Trump is leading on election night. What matters is that all the ballots are counted and that

decision or the outcome of the election is announced only after all the ballots are counted. And Kavanaugh, just to be clear, is just regurgitating a similar line that we heard from Donald Trump today. Watch. It would be very, very proper and very nice if a winner would be fled on November 3rd instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate. And I don't believe that that's by our laws. I don't believe that. So we'll see what happens.

So Jane Kavanaugh is listening to his daddy and making decisions that would appeal to him, like basically forcing the state of Wisconsin to, um, announce the results of the election on election night, even if all the ballots haven't been counted yet. So there are gradations here. So the Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin's law saying that they must receive it by election day, your vote, your ballot by election day stands. Now earlier, courts had ruled because of coronavirus and because in Wisconsin, they already changed the rules in the primary, and allowed for them to receive ballots that were postmarked by election day. So they absolutely positively had to vote by election day.

But the mail comes in later. And by the way, remember, they slowed down the mail. And that was also on purpose. So in states like Wisconsin, even if you voted by election day, because of the law that they have in place, if the post office can slow down the mail enough, they're never going to get your vote. They're never going to get your ballot. And here, the Supreme Court has ruled. we will not count it, even if you voted before the election, if we receive it after the election.

But it is Wisconsin law. Now, courts had overturned that. Now the Supreme Court says, no, you're not allowed to overturn that. Now, there's good points to make on both sides. Obviously, I would have voted on the side of counting all ballots before election day. Okay, and because of the particular circumstances in this case. But I can see how you could make the other argument. I don't agree with it.

But what Trump said is totally different. He didn't say, hey, if it's postmarked or not postmarked, he said we should stop counting on November 3rd. And all the states, no matter when they got in, no matter what the laws are, no matter if they're legal or not legal, I don't care. And that means millions upon millions of votes would not be counted if Trump had his way.

Because he thinks most of those votes are going to go to Biden. Again, it's not an exaggeration to say that a dictator says count the votes for me, do not count the votes for my opponent. That's not a democracy. There's no one that can make the argument that when you don't count votes for your opponent, it's still a democracy. That's what Saddam Hussein used to do. And so now here's the most concerning part of what Kavanaugh said.

So again, I'll give you the first sentence one more time. He said those states want to avoid the chaos and suspicious of impropriations. that can ensue of thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. Anna's right, Kagan's right. How do you know if you're flipping an election if you never counted all the votes? But he mentioned election day. Wait a minute, do you mean Wisconsin or do you mean it in general? He goes on and say the next sentences and those states also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night or as soon as possible thereafter.

Now wait, there's no law, there's no national law. And certainly now he's talking about more states. You were ruling on a specific Wisconsin case. But if you're talking about states in general calling it on election night, there is no such law. So I don't know why you're injecting your political opinion about, I don't want to count the Biden votes after election night into a Supreme Court decision. Now that is super dangerous.

That's basically saying we might just decide there aren't laws anymore and we're not a democracy and we're just not going to count millions of votes and we're just going to declare Trump the winner, in which case they will literally end America as we know it. We got to take a break. Let's do that and when we come back, we have other news for you, you know, outside of the Trump administration, the Supreme Court dismantling our time. democratic process. We'll be back. 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 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 TYT fans. That's EXPRE S-S-V-N. dot com slash t y t yt check it out today all right back on t y t yank and anna with you guys jay hufford writes in

kavanaugh's broader point stands if the tally changes significantly after the third the losing side will cry foul see that's the part of the problem even if biden wins easily even if if he wins on november 4th or 5th um the trump people Egged down by Trump, well likely, some of them will almost certainly resort to violence. So that's what Trump is egging on. In a sense, that's what Kavanaugh is egging on. That's what almost every Republican in the country is egging on. Remember, guys, if we lose when they count all the votes, they make sure that, you know, that you create chaos.

So it's sick. Jess, hashtag IMT, UIT writes in here in Wisconsin, the mail has most definitely slowed down. I lived in my house for 10 plus years, and our mail came between 3 and 5 p.m. now, there are many days when our mail has been delivered at 9.30 at night. So they've made the post office into a mess. New members on YouTube that just hit the join button while we're live. Diana Vakerelli, Shosh She Shields, Stacey V, Rachel Irick and Cheryl Baldwin. when Erica Gillard uses super chat to ask, my mind is blown.

How is it not illegal to not count all votes? You can't say you know the outcome of the election. If you don't count at all, send love from Australia. See, in Australia, you don't have fascists trying to take over your government. That's why your mind is blown. Here, they're flat out saying it. And the Democrats are like, oh, I mean, don't call them names. They'll call you a socialist, a communist, all that.

But don't call them fascists when they say, I don't want to count votes. I just want to steal the election. Now, it's not up to Trump, it's up to the states, but the question is what kind of chaos and then perhaps violence and anarchy can he create. Anyway, last one's Tony Shin from Super Chat. Thank you, TYT, for turning this moderate Democrat into a progressive. TYT will press on forever. You guys are awesome. Thank you.

Speaking of press on, that's our campaign to press on and to keep flipping moderate Democrats in the progressives and even conservatives into progressives, which we do all the time. So that's at t-y-t.com slash go. Let's see where we are right now. Hey, I asked for 90. Did I ask for 98? Yeah, right? 97? Wow.

And we got to 98,152. Guys are amazing. Let's see if we can get to 100 by the end of the day. Every dollar matters. It makes us stronger and gets our voice out there in a time where it is absolutely critical. T.y.com. So, thank you. All right, Anna.

All right. Protesters clashed with cops in Philadelphia last night following the shooting death of a mentally ill man named Walter Wallace Jr. Philadelphia police fatally shot the 27-year-old black man who they said was armed with a knife. The shooting took place around 4 p.m. as the police responded to a report of a man armed with a knife. Video that was posted on social media shows the man later identified by a city council member as Walter Wallace Jr., walking into the street as people yell and two police officers aimed their guns at him. So the video is exactly what you would expect. It's graphic, it's awful. It is not the way police should be responding

to a man who clearly has mental health, is having a mental health breakdown. And, you know, we're going to show you the video. It is graphic. I want to give you proper warning before we tossed to it. With that said, here's how the shooting happened. Oh my God. Bro, they just killed them in front of me. Yo. You ain't had to give them that many shots. Wallace's father, Walter Wallace Sr.

said that his son had struggled with mental health issues and was on medication. And he asked the question that I think many people are asking today with all the non-lethal weapons that cops have, why didn't they use those weapons if they felt the need to use a weapon since Wallace had a knife? Why didn't they use a taser, he asked. His mother was trying to diffuse the situation. And as usual, the police union has come out with their own statement in support of the brutality and excessive force that you saw in that video. The president of the fraternal order of police, Lodge 5, said the following, Our police officers are being vilified this evening for doing their job and keeping the community safe after being confronted by a man with a knife.

We support and defend these officers as they too are traumatized by being involved in a fatal shooting. Oh, are they okay? Are they, are their feelings going to be okay? The other guy is dead. The other guy is dead for no reason at all. And you're saying, but me murdering him bothered me a little bit. So I should get to sympathy. Oh, please. You saw the video. He's nowhere near them. The woman that you see coming at the end crying and waving her hand at the cops and that's his mom. And if you notice earlier in the video, she was trying to shield him.

And you can't hear it clearly in the video, but witnesses say that both the mom and other people in the neighborhood were telling the cops, no, no, he's got mental health issues. He's going to put the knife down. He always does. And they're like, who cares? And as soon as the mom was out of the way and he came within maybe 10 feet, they killed him on the spot. So look, again, think about it if it's you. Maybe some of you are scared, I don't know, and you think a guy with a knife 10 feet away

that has mental health issues? Now, I could step back. I could do a lot of things to avoid killing him, but I kind of want to kill him. Or I'm so scared I would shoot him dead. Okay, that's the kind of person you are. Me? That guy is, everybody is telling you he's got a mental health issue. Should you be careful?

Of course you should be careful. But he's not anywhere near you and you could keep stepping back. Oh, no, I'm a cop. I don't step back. I just murder people instead of hurting my pride by stepping back one foot or maybe even two feet. As a normal human being who has morality, you would step back. And you would be okay with stepping back because it's not an issue of pride or ego. The guy has mental health issues.

What would you do? You step back, maybe even behind your car, and call a psychiatrist, call other people to help. Medical professionals. That's why people are now saying defund the police. Because now when you've got someone who's mentally unstable, instead of calling health professionals, we call the cops. And as soon as the cops sense 1% danger, they murder the guy. Well, then okay, then we shouldn't send cops.

We should defund them and send in medical professionals. It's a dangerous situation. Everybody knows it. That doesn't mean that your first option should be murder. That's right. And we've seen countless times where there was a white person with a knife and they don't shoot him dead. And the guy's way closer to them and way more dangerous. There's a great video going around about the UK where the guy has a macheteer.

and he's right next to the cops. The cops are super patient, they wait him out, and eventually they get shields, and they just capture him with the shields, even though he still has the machete in his hand. And you know what, that guy is alive? That gentleman in Philadelphia is dead, because our cops are trained, kill, kill, kill, kill, and don't pretend they're not trained that way, they are. They're not doing it by accident. They're not particularly evil people that signed up to be cops.

No, they're generally speaking, they're generally normal people who are trained, to kill if there's even the slightest danger to their fingernails. Yeah, and the point of showing those comparison videos is to prove that there is a better way to handle these instances where there's a mentally ill person who has a weapon, who has a knife, you don't need to shoot immediately. One of the videos that's making its rounds is what we're about to show you. Again, it's a side-by-side video, so if you're, if you're If you're uncomfortable with graphic content, the video that we just showed you is part of this to show you the comparison. So I want to give you that warning.

But just look at this side by side and how, I'm not going to say it's easy, but how this situation could have been handled in a way where no one needed to die. Watch. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, they just killed them in front of me. Yo. Yo. You ain't had to give them that many shots. You ain't had to give them that many shots. So on the right-hand side, you can see that the, you know, the cop is using,

a non-lethal weapon to try to subdue the individual who has a knife in his hand. He didn't immediately turn to using a lethal weapon like a gun to handle the situation. And so that's all we're saying. We're not saying like, oh, it's somebody who has a weapon. And so they're innocent and everything is hunky-dory and you just leave them. No, there is a way to subdue the person using non-lethal weapons, using other tactics. But immediately turning to a gun and opening fire. A dozen shots, at least a dozen shots are heard in that video.

Yeah, so I counted when the person in Philadelphia got into the street, he was shot within three seconds. In the other video, at least 30 seconds went by, and then there was a cut, and then I don't know how long he stayed in the street. He came really close to slashing the cop with the knife, and so why do they do that? Well, there's a couple possibilities. He sees a white guy who's clearly got mental health issues and thinks, there but for the grace of God, go I or my brother or my uncle and thinks, well, I don't want to kill that guy. He sees a black guy with a gun and he thinks danger.

I've been told these guys are really dangerous. Let me just shoot him just to be safe. Okay, here's what I want to, and by the way, I want to be very clear. We don't want you shooting the white guy or the black guy. We want you to show restraint in all cases because we're all citizens. So now, here's the question I would ask, and they have a very progressive DA, so he might actually ask this. Krasner is an excellent DA, so those cops might be in more trouble than they realize. Was it that they trained you to kill on the spot, even if there's somebody's 10 foot away and they don't have a gun, they have a knife, or they have anything like that?

What did they teach you? Did they teach you 1% danger, 0.1% danger? Was it the training that told you to murder people like this? or, no, the training told you not to kill them, but you panicked because he was black. Which one is it? Because it's one of those two, because you don't do it when it's white people, you do it when it's black people. So obviously, you're either being trained to kill black people or you're being trained not to kill white people, but if it's black people, go for it. So it isn't one-offs.

And the folks that are now saying, oh, I can't believe the protesters are acting out. What the hell are they supposed to do? Did you help them? Did we fix any of the laws? Did we fix the policing in this country? When there were no protests? No, for decade after decade, we allowed the cops to oppress black people in this country. And we never did a goddamn thing about it.

So I didn't see you complaining then. So I don't want to see you complaining now about protests. All right, we got to go. There's so much more. It's in the post game. to join button below or t yt.com slash join and we'll see you right now thanks for listening to the full episode of the young turks support our work listen ad free access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcasts at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon