The Young Turks - Thirsty For War

Episode Date: March 24, 2022

Repeated attempts by the United States’ top defense and military leaders to speak with their Russian counterparts have been rejected by Moscow for the last month, leaving the world’s two largest nuclear powers in the dark about explanations for military movements and raising fears of a major miscalculation or battlefield accident. The Biden administration has finalized a plan to overhaul the system for immigrants seeking asylum in the United States. One of the senior Manhattan prosecutors who investigated Donald J. Trump believed that the former president was “guilty of numerous felony violations” and that it was “a grave failure of justice” not to hold him accountable, according to a copy of his resignation letter. Reporters spotted Ted Cruz searching his name on Twitter during confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. North Carolina is investigating Mark Meadows for alleged voter fraud. Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews https://youtu.be/30pnDDe3hfw https://youtu.be/Q5jqwgKGY2M https://youtu.be/ea3sGN_R7kg https://youtu.be/tZK77Gg8QF4 https://youtu.be/eWzNzdJ7uxE https://youtu.be/Y3fYtIZ2-yI https://youtu.be/94zzNFi8bMs https://youtu.be/Eds8czw79ko https://youtu.be/h8fIXBoUWR8 https://youtu.be/URDZ8LgvHpk https://youtu.be/Ud3hghdNJ5g 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. Welcome. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have a fantastic show ahead for you today. In hour two, Wazni Lombray will be joining me. Jank is away for today, but he will be back tomorrow. He has other business to tend to. But we've got a lot of great stories to share, including updates on the war in Ukraine. We're also going to talk a little bit about what the

Biden administration is going to do to overhaul the asylum process, which was quite honestly some surprising news, considering he has not had a good record on immigration. So we'll give you the details on that. Later, we'll also talk about the investigation that's underway in regard to Mark Meadows potentially committing voter fraud. That story is incredible. I ignored it until it developed into something that seems to be very real. So we'll discuss the details on that as well. And as always, I just want to encourage you guys to like and share the stream if you're watching us online. And if you want to watch our bonus episode today where we're gonna talk about a super, super fun story about a woman who went on strike in her own household, just go to

t.com slash join or click on that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. With that said, why don't we get to our update on Ukraine? Russian state television aired horrifying aerial footage of the remains of Maripole in Ukraine, a city, a port city that was shelled and bombed to oblivion. And unfortunately, what you will see in the state reporting, Russian state reporting on this, is that it wasn't the Russians who did it. It's all Ukraine's fault. Now let's take a look at the video. This was during one of their, again, Russian state television broadcasts. And they show the aerial footage, you can see how devastating it is. It has been completely destroyed. And what you hear the reporters say there, or the anchor, she says, sad scenes, of course,

the Ukrainian nationalist withdrew trying not to leave a stone unturned. So they're trying to make a point, obviously it's a lie, that the damage done, the destruction that you're seeing in that footage was carried out by Ukrainian nationalists. Because nothing would make you a nationalists than to destroy your own country, to bomb and shell your own country. I mean, it's absolute ridiculous propaganda, but the reason why I'm showing you is because it is aerial footage of Maripole, and this is what Russia has done. Now, Maripole has been so thoroughly bombarded that it seems that no Western journalists still are reporting from there, most have left.

Two AP reporters were the last two to stay and cover the bombing of a maternity hospital, which they did by disguising themselves in hospital scrubs. There have been as many as five journalists who have died during this war in Ukraine while attempting to cover the war in Ukraine, and it's really devastating news. Now the two nuclear powers though, who are involved in this, the United States and Russia, have now experienced a complete breakdown in talks, in conversation. It appears that the Russians are refusing to have any conversation with their U.S. counterparts. And there's a lot of concern about that because there's a lot of room for error when it comes to what's taking place on the ground in Ukraine.

There is a lot of room for miscommunication, and any type of miscommunication could lead to an escalation of war. If Russia does something that is misinterpreted by the United States or its NATO allies, that could lead to an escalation of war. So since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, defense secretary Lloyd Austin and general Mark Millie, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, have tried to set up phone calls with defense minister Sergei Shogu and general Valerie Gerasimov. But the Russians have so far declined to engage, said the Pentagon spokesperson, John Kirby. Now again, this is really bad news, mostly because of the room for error. here, right? Russia is currently conducting military operations near its borders with Poland and

Romania. These are two NATO countries. And if there's any misinterpretation of what they're doing, again, that could lead to an escalation of war. Also, the United States and its Western allies are air policing, but any type of miscommunication could lead to some pretty dire consequences. And again, an escalation of war, which we're trying to prevent. Moscow and Washington maintain a deconflication, conflictation channel. So this is basically a form of communication specifically to ensure that they can avoid any unnecessary escalation or confusion. But it's not the same as having an open dialogue so each side really understands the intentions of the other, right? That that form of communication has been completely shut down by Moscow.

Also, the former Supreme Allied commander of NATO says this. Very young people are flying in jets, operating warships, and conducting combat operations in the Ukrainian war. They are not seasoned diplomats, and their actions in the heat of operations can be misunderstood. We must avoid a scenario of NATO and Russia sleepwalking into war because senior leaders can't pick up a phone and explain to each other what is happening. And right now, both sides are going to assume the worst of each other if they're not having a conversation. And if you assume the worst of the other side, you're likely to behave in a way that's far more combative, far more dangerous.

For instance, a nightmare scenario would be a Russian missile or attack aircraft that destroys a U.S. command post across the Polish-Ukrainian border. A local commander might respond immediately, thinking the event was a precursor to a wider attack, This could lead to rapid and irreversible escalation to include potential use of nuclear weapons. So again, more communication is better than cutting off forms of communication. And in this case, it's clear that a very important channel of communication has been shut down. Now, high level talks between two sides, again, are more about understanding the intentions. So why would Russia want to avoid these types of conversations? What's fueling that decision?

Well, some acknowledge that it might be because they refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have invaded Ukraine and they're engaged in a war. They keep referring to it as a military operation. And there's this thought that maybe opening up these channels of communication acknowledges the fact that they have invaded Ukraine and they're engaging in war. I don't know if that's really the reason for doing it. But regardless of what the reason is, it's disastrous. It's disastrous to move forward in this way. Now things can get super complicated though in regard to some of the sanctions that have been implemented toward Russia. Vladimir Putin is looking for ways to dilute those sanctions, trying to find ways to weaken them.

And remember, we're still not in a world where major countries, whether it's the European Union and all the countries within it, whether it's the United States, are reliant on renewable energy. They're still reliant on Russian oil, Russian gas. And that's a huge problem because Europe, of course, is still reliant on fossil fuels. 40% of their fossil fuels come from Russia. They can't just cut that off. It would be a disaster for the people living in these European countries. So what is Vladimir Putin trying to do to essentially weaken the sanctions that have been implemented against him? Well, if you want to buy Russian gas, he wants you to buy them in rubles.

So I want to give you the details on that. Quartz reports that Vladimir Putin is insisting that 48 hostile nations, as he refers to them, the United States, the UK and the EU's members, among them, pay for Russian gas in rubles. The demand is more than provocation. It's a strategy to force the West to dilute the effects of its own sanctions in Moscow. Now, in 2021, I want you guys to kind of understand the gravity of this. These hostile nations paid roughly $69 billion for gas from gas prom, the Russian state-owned company.

To make a similar scale of payments this year, countries would have to procure around 6 to 7 trillion rubles. In a meeting with officials on March 23rd, Putin told the central bank of Russia to figure out how these ruble payments can be made. And so this is an effort to increase the value of the ruble, which of course rapidly declined in value following Russia's invasion into Ukraine, following the sanctions that were implemented against Russia and some of its banks. If the demand for rubles steadily increases as a result, the drastic fall in the currency's

value will halt and even reverse. After Putin made his announcement, the ruble gained 7% against the U.S. dollar. So that's where we stand as we speak regarding this war. So far, several European allies have come out in response to what Putin is doing with the rubles and argued, well, listen, when we sign these contractual agreements, it's stipulated that when we buy your fossil fuels, we do so either through U.S. dollars or through the euro. And if you want to reopen those contractual agreements and you want to renegotiate it, it's not going to be so friendly toward you, Vladimir Putin.

I really don't think that these countries have that much leverage in this specific area, especially because they're so dependent on the fossil fuels coming from Russia. But it goes back to the point that I've been making on the show, and I want to reiterate, this is why it's so important to no longer be as reliant or as dependent. dependent as we've been on fossil fuels. It is important to develop renewable energy. I mean, for many different reasons, the climate emergency being the top reason. But clearly when it comes to foreign relations, when it comes to various geopolitical issues,

that should also be top of mind. You don't want to be reliant on countries that engage in particular actions or particular wars that we disagree with. We're talking about Russia right now, but I've had a problem with the fact that we are so friendly with Saudi Arabia and economic interests clearly play a huge role in that relationship as well. And so it is the most important thing to take a story like this, not allow the right wing and those funded by the fossil fuel companies to deviate and take us to a direction where we do more drilling and more fracking.

That's not the answer. The real answer is developing renewable energy, finding alternative forms of energy that will be both good for the planet, climate wise, but also good for geopolitical reasons as well. All right, I wanted to get to one other Ukraine-related story before we go to break, and this has to do with an ongoing trend with these reporters, what they tend to ask of Biden during these press conferences. So let's get to it. A CBS reporter got a snappy response from President Joe Biden today.

And it was yet another example of a mainstream press reporter focusing on not the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, but on whether or not the United States is willing to escalate this war. Let's watch. Sir, deterrence didn't work. What makes you think Vladimir Putin will alter course based on the action you've taken today? Let's get something straight. You remember if you covered me from the very beginning, I did not say that, in fact, the sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter. You keep talking about that. Sanctions never deter. The maintenance of sanctions, the maintenance of sanctions, the increasing the pain and the demonstration why. ask for this NATO meeting today is to be sure that after a month, we will sustain what we're doing, not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year.

That's what we'll stop him. You believe the action today will have an impact on making Russia change course in Ukraine? That's not what I said. You're playing the game with me. I know. The answer is no. So this is a common narrative, a common theme that you'll notice during press conferences, not only with President Joe Biden, but also with his White House press secretary, Jen Saki, over and over again, it's the same question, maybe framed a little differently. Will you implement a no-fly zone? Will you escalate the war with Russia?

Will you send more weaponry to Ukraine? What about the fighters jets? War, war, war, war, war, war. It's the underlying message is, you look weak, Biden, because all you're doing is implementing sanctions. But they never really think through what the consequences would be to escalate a war with a nuclear country, with a country that has nuclear weapons. And a country, by the way, that is led by a man who clearly is irrational in many ways. I mean, the fact that he invaded Ukraine in the first place was something that, honestly,

I did not predict because it was such an irrational move. It worked against his own economic interest, Putin's economic interest. The war has been severely miscalculated by Putin, but nonetheless, he has proven himself to be someone who is willing to carry out a war in a way that's incredibly irrational. Given that thought, given that information, given what we know about Putin, to hear reporters ask for an escalation of war over and over and over again, it just really boggles the mind. It makes one question whether they've ever sat down to think about the consequences of doing that. And I understand calls for a no-fly zone from Vladimir Zelensky.

His country is being shelled, it's being bombed, it's being destroyed right now. I understand that very human reaction to what he's experiencing. But for U.S. reporters to sit there and make it appear as if this is nothing more than a fun video game and, hey, why didn't you use those superpowers that you have? Why are you standing back and allowing this to happen? It's so ridiculous, this isn't a game. And look, if that CBS reporter was the only example, sure, it might be a little bit of a story, but again, this is very common. I want to go to an ABC news reporter who had a very similar type of statement or question for Biden.

Let's watch. Sir, you've made it very clear in this conflict that you do not want to see World War III. But is it possible that in expressing that so early that you were too quick to rule out direct military intervention in this war? Could Putin have been emboldened knowing that you are not going to get involved directly in this conflict? No and no. Were you too quick to rule out World War III? That was a question by an ABC News reporter. Were you too quick to rule out World War III?

What did she expect the answer to be? Yeah, yeah, I think I was too quick to rule out World War III, let's do it. Let's escalate this to World War III. Does she understand what that means, has she thought about the gravity of that? And is this ever thought of as anything more than a game for them? How many times do the reporters ask about the possible ceasefire, peace negotiations? I get it, I get it, those questions, that kind of conversation might be boring. to them. But we should be learning more about the type of communication that's taking place

between the Russians and Ukrainians, between European Union members, NATO countries, and the United States. How effective have the sanctions been? What are we doing to help support Ukrainian refugees? You know, there are other areas where we could be focusing the reporting, areas that have been, in my opinion, underreported relative to the amount of news coverage we've seen about the fighter jets and about a possible no-fly zone. And let me just say, I have to give Biden a little bit of credit here. I know we've been doing it in this context when it comes to this war in Ukraine, but I'm actually a little shocked at how measured he's been and how he's been refusing to implement the no-fly

zone despite, I mean, all these rabid journalists incessantly asking for one in the context or in the form of a question during these press conferences. And by the way, I mean, it's become such a common theme during these press conferences that the Intercept put together not one but two compilation videos featuring these reporters calling for an escalation of war. Let's watch a piece of one of those videos. Even with this additionally that you're providing today, it seems there are still other options on the table.

So why will back, why not use every tool at your disposal now to spare additional lives? What are you waiting for? President Zelensky in his remarks to Congress today again made his request for a no-fly zone. He no doubt is aware of President Biden's position on that. Is there any scenario in which President Biden would change his mind? And as we've said before, a no-fly zone would require implementation. It would require us potentially shooting down Russian planes.

NATO shooting down Russian planes, and we are not interested in getting into World War III. I like the way Saki answer that question by specifically describing what a no-fly zone means. Shooting down Russian planes, that means that we are now at war with Russia. And so some might argue, maybe these reporters think that Putin's bluffing, that Putin having nuclear weapons is no big deal. Maybe that's what they think. But I think that we should listen to people. We should hear them out, especially when they tell us exactly who they are.

And his spokesperson just this week made it abundantly clear that Putin is, in fact, willing to use nuclear weapons. Why don't we take a look at what Dimitri Peskov had to say? I want to ask you again, is President Putin? because, again, the Finnish president said to me that when he asked Putin directly about this, because President Putin has laid that card on the table, President Putin said that if anybody tries to stop him, very bad things will happen. And I want to know whether you are convinced or confident that your boss will not use that option. Well, we have a concept of domestic security.

And, well, it's a public. You can read all the reasons for nuclear arms to be used. So if it is an existential threat for our country, then it can be used in accordance with our concept. I think they're pretty clear. They're definitely willing to use nuclear weapons. nuclear deterrence is real because there is a genuine and legitimate fear of mutually assured destruction. Nuclear war is not a game, it's not a joke.

And I wish reporters understood the gravity of that. I wish their questions focused more. Like if they want to use these press conferences to pressure Biden in a direction, the direction they should be pushing him toward is. Colgate Total is more than just your favorite. toothpaste. It's dedicated to advancing oral health. The new Colgate Total Active Prevention System features

a reformulated toothpaste, innovative toothbrush, and a refreshing antibacterial mouthwash, all designed to work together to fight the root cause of common oral health issues, such as gingivitis, plaque, and tartar. Use the full routine twice daily and be dentist ready. Shop the Colgate Total

Active Prevention System now at walmart.ca. Anything the United States can do to help support court peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. But I guess that just, it doesn't bode well for ratings. It doesn't make this situation exciting or newsworthy in their eyes. I don't know.

But a no-fly zone is, I get it, it's a euphemism. It sounds like this very polite thing that just protects people. No, it means an escalation of war between the United States and Russia. potentially our NATO allies and Russia, it could lead to absolutely devastating consequences, and they just do not want to understand the gravity of that. At least their questions make it appear as such. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about what Biden has announced in regard to helping

Ukrainian refugees, and we'll also discuss his overhaul for asylum seekers. Come right back. Welcome back to the show, Anna Kasparian with you. Let's get to our next story. The Biden administration has finally weighed in on how the United States wants to help Ukrainian refugees, as many as, I've seen different numbers, but somewhere between two to three million Ukrainians have fled their country, many of whom have very decided to go to neighboring countries to find refuge.

However, the United States has been pretty quiet on what it wants to do to help these refugees. And now we have a better idea. So the United States said that it would take in 100,000 refugees fleeing the fighting. In addition to accepting Ukrainian refugees into the country, the United States will donate $1 billion to help European nations deal with the surge of migrants. And that's according to a person who's familiar. with the decision, more than 3 million Ukrainians have poured into Poland and other countries. And this is according to the New York Times. So I have mixed feelings about this, mostly because when you compare that number 100,000,

to what other European countries have taken in, it's really a drop in the bucket. However, I also can't help but mention the fact that when there was a surge of Syrian refugees, The debate within the country was fierce. And the, I mean, Tulsi Gabbard at the time was a U.S. congressperson. She voted against taking in Syrian refugees. That's the kind of progressive she was at the time. That was a vote that was somehow whitewashed by progressives who bought her garbage. And I wish would have done a little better in seeing her for who she was.

But just remember what those debates were like back in 2015, where you couldn't even get the Obama administration to firmly commit to taking in a couple, you know, maybe tens of thousands, maybe 10,000, 20,000 refugees. I think eventually they settled on 15,000. But again, compare that, the fierce debate about Syrian refugees, compare that to how it seems like, you know, the Biden administration is going to announce this. I haven't really seen much pushback on it. And I have no problem taking in Ukrainian refugees. I don't want anyone to mistake me in that regard. But there is certainly a double standard in the way that our government decides to respond to various refugee crises. And I think this is a perfect example of particular refugees that are more

acceptable according to the U.S. government. And it's strange. The other thing is, again, I do want to mention there are other countries that have taken far more refugees, but also understand that the neighboring European countries that have taken in far more refugees, It of course has to do with, you know, the geographical component of that, but also a lot of those Ukrainian refugees have family members within those neighboring countries. So it's unclear whether the Biden administration is willing to increase this number, but I would have liked to see a more holistic approach to an issue like this, where it's not just about refugees from Ukraine, but maybe we consider refugees from countries like Afghanistan, countries

like Syria, countries where people are not the same skin color as the Ukrainian refugees, if you can let me put it that way. So as of March 22nd, the United States has taken in 7,88 refugees for fiscal year 2022. And that's according to the State Department. The annual refugee cap for fiscal year 2022 is 125,000. A figure Biden actually raised after receiving backlash from Democrats, Ukrainian refugees, though, will not count toward this figure unless they are admitted through the refugee program. So the refugee program will allow in 125,000 refugees, and then the Ukrainian refugees, the 100,000 are on top of that.

And the Biden administration does not anticipate the need to adjust that 125,000 figure in conjunction with Ukrainian refugees. And so how will this process work? Well, it hasn't been officially announced as we talk about it right now. By the time you watch this video, maybe it'll be officially announced and maybe we'll learn more details. But so far, this is what we know. Not all of them will be admitted through the refugee program or during this fiscal year.

A full range of pathways will be utilized including humanitarian parole and immigrant or non-immigrant visas. I also want to just mention the treatment of Haitian refugees and how, you know, there's been this effort to force Haitian refugees who came here after natural disasters to be deported back to their country. It's just the double standards are there. I know that we talk about it all the time. And I have to mention it again in this context because it's unacceptable. It really is. Now, Biden has also, he's been planning this overhaul. of the asylum process, because as you can imagine, there is a massive backlog of asylum seekers at the country's border. And so through an executive order, we're learning that he's planning

on doing a complete overhaul. I want to note that executive orders usually mean that they can be reversed by an incoming Republican administration. But nonetheless, here is what Biden is planning to do. Under the new policy, which the administration released on Thursday as an interim final rule, some migrants seeking asylum will have their claims heard and evaluated by asylum officers instead of immigration judges. The goal, administration official said, is for the entire process to take six months compared to what we're experiencing now, the current average of about five years. So clearly, we've been having a problem with the short, of judges, these are the judges that are necessary to hear the case made by the asylum

seekers. The judges are the ones who determine whether or not the asylum seeker has a legitimate claim to be allowed into the country. We don't have enough judges for that, especially when you consider the backlog of asylum seekers. But there are some worries, there are some criticisms in regard to what Biden is likely to roll out here. If you're worried that the asylum seekers, you know, are not going to have their cases heard fully. That is a legitimate criticism or critique of this. There's some concern that this process is going to speed things up too much to the point where the asylum seekers will not have time to compile evidence, to make their case.

Under the new policy, though, like I said, they will be, basically they will be processed and then released until they get their day in front. of the processor, the asylum officer, right? And some people, of course, are complaining that, oh, my God, well, you're just going to, like, let them out into the country and they're not going to come back to speak to, you know, officials and make sure that they do this process correctly and legally. But data shows that that is not true. That fear is really unfounded.

For instance, about 99% of asylum seekers who were not detained or who were previously released from immigration custody showed up for their hearings over the lack of. year, and that's according to new data from the transactional records access clearinghouse at Syracuse University, a think tank that tracks data on or in the immigration courts. So they're looking at years and years and years of data from the immigration courts in their study and they've determined that again, like the vast majority of them do come to come back to their court dates, come back to speak to officials to ensure that they're able to work and live in the country legally, being in the United States with undocumented status is brutal.

Undocumented immigrants, I mean, are treated so poorly if they're lucky to find a job, right? They can be abused at their jobs and they really have no legal recourse. They don't feel like they can go talk to the police about it because they're undocumented. So people want to be here legally. And if there's a process in place to make that possible, they're likely to move forward with that And if you think that that study isn't good enough, I'll give you the results of a far more conservative study, conservative numbers coming from the Justice Department. So data from the DOJ suggests that the rate at which migrants overall show up for their

immigration court proceedings is lower than that of TRAC city, than the rate that TRAC sites. In 2018, for instance, the most recent year for which data was available, about 75 percent of migrants showed up for their court hearings in 2018, similar to rates over the previous five years. So I like the fact that Biden is focused on doing this overhaul. It's definitely necessary, especially when you consider the fact that there are 670,000 cases still pending in immigration courts. And that's by the end of February of this year alone. Okay, so the numbers have very likely shot up. Asylum cases make up about 40% of the 1.7 million case backlog.

Also, the plan would be fully operational or for the plan to be fully operational. The government needs to hire hundreds of new asylum officers in order to handle about 75,000 asylum seekers a year. And the plan, again, is to release many asylum seekers through a parole status while they go through process which critics say will draw even more hopeful migrants at the border. So that's the other thing that people are criticizing. Well, if you process asylum seekers, that's going to encourage other asylum seekers to come to our border to seek asylum. So fixing a system that's broken might encourage other people who need to flee persecution in their countries from coming to

the United States. Let me just say, I've made this point before. What gets left out of the conversation, is the responsibility that the U.S. government has in taking in these asylum seekers, especially given our history of destabilizing the very countries that these asylum seekers are coming from. So when we talk about the United States orchestrating coups in Latin American countries that had elected democratically elected leaders, there are consequences to those coups. A lot of, a lot of those coups are driven by U.S.-based business interests. And so if we want to really fix the system rather than focusing on the symptom of what we've done, why don't we take a look at our own foreign policy? Why don't we take a look at what we can do to help support these countries

that are having issues with violence, with crime, with those types of things? And when I say help. I don't mean going in and, you know, messing with their policies. I specifically mean what can we do to assist them with anything that they might need to help respond to any type of uptick in crime? What can we do with our own policies that might have an impact on emboldening and empowering drug cartels in some of these countries? There are other ways of solving this rather than, okay, how do we process asylum seekers? I like that Biden is focusing on that. I like that he wants to fix that. But anytime we have discussions about foreign policy, we do have to think about the long-term consequences of what we're doing. And we have to understand why it is that

we're engaging, whether it's militarily or otherwise, with another country. Is it because we have the best interests of that country at heart? Or are we doing it based on the profit motive that business interests might have? And so I think that the chickens are coming home to roost, And it's really frustrating to see people not focus on the root of the problem, and a lot of that has to do with U.S. foreign policy. All right, why don't we take another break? When we come back, we're going to read from the resignation letter of a Manhattan-based prosecutor who stepped down because he's not too happy that the criminal investigation into Trump doesn't seem to be moving forward. he says there's enough evidence to charge Trump criminally for financial crimes. We've got that story and more when we come back.

What's up, everyone? Welcome back to TYT. I wanted to read a comment from Queen Mother Dragon in our Twitch community because it definitely goes along with the point that I was trying to make about the refugee crisis, how are we able to make room for 100,000 Ukrainians when we haven't been able to find space for Haitians and the people still waiting at the Mexican border? You know, it's a great point. We'll see how this asylum overhaul plays out. You know, I talked about that in the context of the same story, but it does very much appear that there's a favoritism taking place as we speak. And it's incredibly frustrating because people are people and innocent civilians fleeing violence, terror in their own countries

should be treated equally. You know, their cases should be heard, they should be considered for asylum. And this country has just had a terrible track record, especially recently when it comes to that issue. By the way, the ban of bringing in asylum seekers during the pandemic, that was implemented during Trump, that continues. Like, Biden has continued that. So the first thing I would do if I were Biden and I wanted to really show that I'm serious about reversing the damage done by Trump is I would lift that. And I would start hearing asylum cases as soon as possible.

All right, let's move on to an update on a story. I don't know how this is going to develop, but it is fascinating. Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations, according to a senior Manhattan prosecutor who investigated him. Now, this prosecutor has since stepped down and the New York Times obtained his resignation letter. In that letter, we have a better sense of why he stepped down, but more importantly, how he believes that there's enough evidence to indict Donald Trump of certain financial crimes. The prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, submitted his resignation last month after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg,

abruptly stopped pursuing an indictment of Donald Trump. That was a story that we covered last month, and it seemed super curious. I was skeptical of what was taking place, but we do have a few more details on it. So he quit on the same day another prosecutor on the case decided to quit. Carrie Dunn was that prosecutor's name. According to the Times, Pomerantz's February 23rd letter obtained by the New York Times offers a personal account of his decision to resign and for the first time states explicitly his belief that the office could have convicted the former president.

Bragg's decision was, quote, contrary to the public interest, end quote, pomerance wrote. Now, in his letter, he also wrote this. The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes. He did. And if you're wondering what the crimes are, what Trump has been investigated for, well, you're about to understand by listening to his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. To your knowledge, did the president ever provide inflated assets to an insurance company? Yes. Who else knows that the president did this?

Ellen Weisselberg, Ron Lieberman, and Matthew Calamari. And where would the committee find more information on this? Do you think we need to review his financial statements and his tax returns in order to compare them? Yes, and you'd find it at the Trump org. Mr. Cohen, I want to ask you about your assertion that the president may have improperly devalued his assets to avoid paying taxes. According to an August 21st, 2016 report by the Washington Post, while the president claimed in financial disclosure forms that Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida, was worth more than $50 million.

He had reported otherwise to local tax authorities that the course was worth, quote, no more than $5 million. Mr. Cohen, do you know whether this specific report is accurate? It's identical to what he did at Trump National Golf Club at Briar Cliff Manor. Do you know, to your knowledge, was the president interested in reducing his local real estate bills, tax bills? Yes.

And how did he? do that? What you do is you deflate the value of the asset and then you put in a request to the tax department for a deduction. So that testimony, and remember, this is Trump's former personal attorney. He's testifying under oath and he's making it clear that Donald Trump committed financial crimes. Any other ordinary person who commits fraud to obtain insurance or to to obtain a loan or anyone who commits fraud in evading taxes would go to prison. They'd be prosecuted, they'd go to prison, they'd be charged. If you were dealing with the same investigation that Trump is dealing with right now, and all

of the details were similar, you would be indicted by now. And so the question is, what's going on with district attorney Bragg? And why is he backing off of this investigation, especially given the fact that two prominent prosecutors who have been working on this case seem to think that there's enough evidence to indict him and to pursue these criminal charges. And Letitia James, by the way, is also pursuing this investigation, but not in a criminal case, in a civil case, which has a lower burden of proof. Okay, so when you're pursuing a criminal case, there's a higher burden of proof. But Pomerantz argues, even with that higher burden of proof, I think we have enough

here to convict him. Pomerantz and Dune planned to charge Trump with falsifying business records, specifically his annual financial statements, a felony in New York State. While Dune and Pomerantz were confident, or were confident that the office would demonstrate that the former president had intended to inflate the value of his golf clubs, hotels, and office buildings, brag was not. He balked at pursuing an indictment against Trump, a decision that shut down Pomeran and Dunes presentation of evidence to a grand jury and prompted their resignations. Why? I want to know why. Bragg has been very hush, hush about this. So you have two prosecutors who have resigned because of what Bragg has done, and they

kind of resigned in protest because they feel that they have the evidence necessary. Bragg claims that his office is still investigating Trump, and as a result, he can't comment on the case? What a convenient excuse. Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus Vance, had decided in his final days in office to move toward an indictment, leaving Trump just weeks away from likely criminal charges. Bragg's decision seems, for now at least, to have removed one of the greatest legal threats Trump has ever faced. And again, the question is why? Why? Why did Bragg make this decision. He's got the convenient excuse of the investigation is ongoing, so I can't talk about it. But I'm not buying it. There needs to be honestly an investigation to the investigation

because look, we don't know what the truth is. Alvin Bragg might be absolutely right. Maybe the burden of proof is too high. They don't have enough evidence to indict Trump. Maybe that's true. But it doesn't seem to be the case based on what we're hearing from these prosecutors. And others, by the way, are actually facing charges, including Trump's longtime chief financial officer, Alan Weisselberg, who was also mentioned, that Weisselberg photo is just great, who was just mentioned by Michael Cohen in the video that I showed you earlier. I want to give you more from Pomerance's resignation letter. He says no case is perfect, whatever the risks of bringing the case may be, I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice.

And he also acknowledged that Bragg, quote, devoted significant time and energy to understanding the evidence in the inquiry and had made his decision in good faith, but he wrote, a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong. So he's saying like, look, I don't want to ruin my relationship with Bragg. I think he's doing this in good faith, but nonetheless, we should pursue it. Listen, what I don't understand is, why not pursue it and see what happens? Right, like, okay, the burden of proof is pretty high because it's a criminal case, but there seems to be evidence. So why not pursue the criminal case? Why not do it?

If, you know, Vance was planning on doing it, why is it that Bragg is unwilling to do it? And he also says there are always additional facts to be pursued, but the investigative team that has been working on this matter for many months does not believe that it makes law enforcement sense to postpone a prosecution in the hope that additional evidence will somehow emerge. I and others believe that your decision not to authorize prosecution now will doom any future prospects that Mr. Trump will be prosecuted for the criminal conduct we have been investigating. And Promorantz also said in the letter that Trump's financial statements were false, that he had lied about his assets to banks, the national media,

counterparties, and many others, including the American people. I mean, fraud is fraud. But we're talking about Teflon Don, who apparently gets away with pretty much everything. And I want to know why is that the case in this context? I want to know what's really driving Alvin Bragg's decision here to not pursue the indictment. And last year, three career prosecutors in the district attorney's office opted to leave the team. So we mentioned promorance, we mentioned Dunn. By the end of the year, they had changed course and planned to charge Trump with falsifying business records. A similar case that essentially amounted to painting Trump as a liar and a thief.

Originally, they were planning on going forward with stronger charges and for some reason decided not to do it. Finally, Pomerant says, respect for the rule of law and the need to reinforce the bedrock proposition that no man is above the law require that this prosecution be brought even if a conviction is not certain. And I agree with him on that. We don't know if he's going to get convicted for sure. for sure, but I would like to see them pursue the case. And the fact that they're not pursuing the case really does give the impression that certain people in this country are definitely above the law. And we've seen that over and over again, this is not new. We've seen it with many

white-collar criminals. We've seen it with all sorts of Wall Street executives. It's just fascinating to me that we kept hearing about how Donald Trump was so different. Donald Trump with, you know, All those other crimes were terrible, but Donald Trump, he takes it to another level. But when push comes to shove, people in positions of power to hold him accountable, always cower. And I think we deserve to know why. All right, we got to get one more story in before we go to the second hour, because this is just perfect. It's so perfect. It goes along with what I've been trying to talk to you guys about all week.

The theater, which is driving me insane. And that's all politics is devolved to. So let's talk about it. Ted Cruz likes to spend his time running away from natural disasters and anything that could potentially help his constituents in Texas. He also likes to spend his time engaging in political theater and then searching himself on Twitter following the theater that he engages in. Case in point, the Supreme Court nominee, Judge Jackson, she's been dealing with the Senate hearings for her confirmation, and it has been an absolute clown show with one Republican senator after the other engaging in culture war nonsense, asking her questions that have nothing to do with the position that she's supposed to be confirmed for, just complete garbage.

And there was this one moment between Ted Cruz and Dick Durbin, Senator Dick Durbin, who's the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that was incredibly frustrating to watch and was very clearly nothing more than theater. And immediately afterward, what did Ted Cruz do? Well, why don't we read from Los Angeles Times reporter Nolan McCaskill, who said this and shared a picture, Ted Cruz looks like he's checking his mentions after his back in fourths with Katanji Brown Jackson and Dick Durbin. He's had his head down during all of Kunz's testimony, even as SAS and Tillis are clearly

listening to their Democratic colleague and the nominee before them. And so luckily there was a colleague of McCaskill's sitting behind Ted Cruz. And Kent Nishimura caught this image. You can see it on the lower right hand side. it's Ted Cruz looking down at his phone, can confirm this. He was searching Twitter for his name. This was right after his exchange with Chairman Durbin. And you might be wondering, what was that exchange?

Unfortunately, let me remind you all of what that looked like. Why are you not allowing her to answer the question? There's not another senator here that did not allow her to answer the question. I'm not asking another question, but allow her to answer the question, Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Chairman. Why do you not want the American people to know what happened? in the Stewart case or any of these cases. Chairman Durbin, I've never seen the chairman refused to allow a witness to answer a question. You can bang it as loud as you want. I can just tell you

at some point you have to follow the rules. Okay, will you let her answer the question? You've been interrupting and by the way with Senator Graham it went 10 minutes over. You've taken a big chunk of the time. Will you allow her to answer the question? You've given her. Why are you afraid of her? She's welcome to answer it right now. Will you let her? Senator Coons. So no, you don't want her to answer the question? Senator Coons. Will you let her answer the question?

Chairman Durbin. Apparently, you're very afraid of the American people hearing the answer to that question. We here in the Senate in this committee today are in the middle of a policy fight. Yeah, that's what that exchange look like. And, you know, we've been covering the hearings. We've been covering the types of questions Republican senators have been asking of Judge Jackson. And they're all steeped in manufactured culture war narratives and nothing more than that. I mean, you have Senator Blackburn asking her how she defines a woman.

And we all know what that's all about, right? Nonstop fear mongering about the transgender community, a community that has been not only disenfranchised, brutalized, completely demonized. Like the most, one of the most powerless groups of people in this country have been, used as nothing more but a prop in their culture war narratives. And while they engage in this theater, and that's all it is to them, they're not interested in representing your best interests, they're not concerned at all, at all, about any type of economic anxiety you may have despite their faux populist rhetoric.

They're not worried about anything that impacts your life day and day out. They don't even care about the Supreme Court nomination. All they see this as is a stage in which they're able to posture, to engage in theatrics, to make it appear as though they're doing something, when in reality they are doing nothing. All of their time doing substantive things is fundraising. And anytime there's any attention toward a political hearing, any type of political debate or discussion, they just use it for posturing. And while they manufacture culture wars, while they make power,

powerless people out to be the boogeymen in this country, what they really end up doing is they cause harm. They target individuals who are then bullied, who are then harassed, who are then treated like there's some sort of demons when in reality there are fellow Americans who deserve our support, who deserve our respect, who deserve our love. That's it. The only reason why they're utilized this way and treated with such hatred by these Republicans and by these lawmakers is because these lawmakers have nothing else to offer

their voters. So you have this clown of a politician, Ted Cruz, engage in that political feet. Look at that clown. Look at that little bitch, okay? After Donald Trump calls his wife ugly, goes in phone banks with, phone banks for him, like a freaking clown. It's really hard not to curse on this show sometimes. Okay, absolute coward, absolute coward, all right? Little bitch boy. Then he turns around and pretends like he's a tough guy during a SCOTUS hearing. That's who Cruz is. And what does this kind of stuff lead to? It actually does have an impact on society. It has an impact on the very people that they target in their line of questioning. And I want to share just some portions of this Twitter thread from a mother who has a transgender

daughter. I believe this is in the UK, but the theme is very similar to what we're seeing in the United States. Because these are real people, okay? These are not people engaged in theater. These are not people who are posturing. These aren't narcissists who engage in stunts and then search themselves on Google or Twitter or Facebook. These are real human beings who are impacted by the garbage that we see from these cowardly politicians. Millie Corner, writes, my daughter is in her second to last year of studying medicine. She has a smaller frame than her cisgendered sister and refuses to join any sports clubs out of fear of being confronted and harassed.

She fears meeting someone in a club and having to out herself or being accused of deception. I watch her neglect her studies and scroll through social media where I find grown women, my age telling her she's a fetishist, a pervert, a creep. It devastates her. Nobody knows of her trans status and nobody ever will. She is now utterly ashamed of herself. These people are in parliament and the lords. They are influencing legislation.

Parents of trans children are being charged in Texas. The misinformation and smearing of the trans community has gone on long enough. I refuse to lose my daughter over the sake of middle-aged women. So in this case, she's talking about turf women or women who identify. TIRFs, but think about what it's like to live your life in fear like that, right? Think about what it's like to hear people in positions of power make you out to be a terrible dangerous person when already you're going through something that's so different from most people that can already be so isolating in and of itself.

And now think about people destroying your life that way. having that kind of negative impact on your life that way, just so they can give their voters the illusion of fighting for them. When in reality, these are the same politicians who help corporations rob their constituents, who cover for corporations when they engage in wage theft of their constituents. These are the same politicians who run away to Cancun, just as hundreds of their constituents are dying in the middle of a natural. disaster. That's who Ted Cruz is. If anyone

deserves our disdain, it's clowns like him. Wozni Lombre joins me for the second hour. We are going to talk about Mark Meadows facing a voter fraud investigation and more. Come right back. God bless you.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work. Listen ad-free. Access members, only bonus content and more by subscribing to Apple. podcast at apple.co slash t yt. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.