The Young Turks - Tiny Iron Fist

Episode Date: September 27, 2023

U.S. regulators and 17 states sue Amazon alleging monopolistic practices led to higher prices. Former Trump defense secretary insists "it’s a legitimate fear" Trump will throw enemies in jail if reelected. Cassidy Hutchinson recounts the moment on Jan. 6. that Trump made it clear he was "okay" with Pence being hanged HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur) & Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com 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 to the Young Turks, Jane Huguer Anna Consparing with you guys, a full day ahead. it, there's two stories about Donald Trump where it's totally utterly disqualifying, except that he won't be disqualified and might be the next president slash dictator of America. So with that fun intro, just chill out, just chill out. No, I'm not chilling out.

Okay. As you, in one of the stories, I don't think it's one percent hyperbole. And so, look, if, yeah, Trump would be a dictator in one second flat. If he could, and can he, next time he probably can. So I know, it sounds like hyperbole, but it definitely isn't. That's my opinion, but let's tackle the stories and let's see what happens. Well, why don't we begin with the checks we have within our system to prevent certain criminality and bad behavior by individuals like Donald Trump, starting with our judicial system? Donald Trump, the former president, has been found guilty of fraud, according to a new ruling in a civil case brought forward by New York's Attorney General Letitia James.

Now, this particular civil suit isn't over yet. However, the future proceedings will be far easier considering the ruling that the judge has handed down in regard to the fraud accusations. Now, Judge Arthur and Gorin ruling Tuesday in a civil lawsuit found that the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers, and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making. deals and securing financing. In fact, according to AG Letitia James, Trump has overvalued his properties by as much as $2.2 billion. Now, it's interesting to finally get to a point

where a judge has weighed in on this. But years ago, we had first gotten word from Trump's one-time personal attorney Michael Cohen about this very type of scam. And here was that moment as he was speaking to Representative Alexander Ocasio-Cortez under oath. I want to ask a little bit about your conversation with my colleague from Missouri about asset inflation. To your knowledge, did the president ever provide inflated assets to an insurance company? Yes. Who else knows that the president did this? Alan 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. That Calamari. Now, okay, so Cohen testified under oath. Investigations were launched, and we come to the day today where we hear from this federal judge. Now, beyond mere bragging about his riches, Trump, his company, and key executives repeatedly lied about them on his annual financial statements, reaping rewards such a as favorable loan terms and lower insurance premiums according to the judge, okay? So easiest way to explain this is he would inflate the value of his assets in order to secure the insurance or, you know, in some cases loans, or he would devalue his assets in order to dodge taxes.

The lawsuit, which also names two of Donald Trump's adult sons, Don Jr. and Eric Trump, and his company, his defendant, seeks a fine of $250 million and to sever the Trump family from leading the Trump organization. Trump claimed that a disclaimer on his financial statements absolved him of any wrongdoing. Clearly, the judge didn't buy that argument. Trump's lawyers also had asked the judge to throw out the case, which they then denied, and the judge denied it. His lawyers say that James wasn't legally allowed to file the lawsuit because there isn't

any evidence that the public was harmed by Trump's actions. Judge didn't buy it. They also argued that many of the allegations in the lawsuit were barred by statute of limitations, judged by that as well. The judge also ordered sanctions against Trump's lawyers for making arguments that he previously rejected. He ordered each to pay $7,500 as a result, and in the judge's ruling, in a phase that is known as a summary judgment, it basically resolves the key claims in James's

lawsuit, but there are six other claims. So this suit will move forward. So Engoren, who's the judge, is slated to hold a non-jury trial starting on October 2nd before deciding on those claims and any punishments he may impose. James is seeking, again, $250 million in penalties and a ban on Trump doing business in New York, his home state. The trial could last into December, but there is a caveat here because according to the New York Times, Donald Trump still has an opportunity to delay the trial or even gut the case against him. Trump has already sued justice, and Gorin and an appeals court is expected to rule this week on his lawsuit. But if the appeals court rules against him, Trump will have to fight the remainder of the case at trial.

So keep in mind, this is the civil suit. this is not a criminal, you know, prosecution. And there was a possibility that Alvin Bragg in New York was going to pursue a criminal case against him with the same allegations. But instead, he decided to prosecute Trump over the hush money payments. Jank, what are your thoughts? Okay, so I'm going to get to the timing in a second, why now? But first, let's address a couple of things.

So is this a serious case? Of course it is. So, for example, guys, if you were going to get a loan and you said you have $2 billion, collateral, but in reality you had 20 bucks, would that be fraud? Of course. And if they give you like a $200 million loan, because they think you have $2 billion collateral, that's a massive amount of fraud. And you're going to be in a lot of trouble. If you do it anywhere, I mean, if you did 1% of that, you'd be in massive trouble, right? And on insurance, say, a very similar situation. If you say, let's give you a really general broad example.

Hey, my building is worth $2 billion. Oh, something happened to my building. In reality, it was worth, you know, $20 million. And then you go to collect, you could give me the $2 billion. Well, then you're just stealing $2 billion, right? So now, like, whether that insurance event actually happened, whether they needed the collateral is a different issue. But the fact that you're misstating your assets is definitely, I mean, it's a crime.

let alone the fact that it's definitely fraud, both in civil and criminal context. They're just choosing not to pursue the criminal one. They're pursuing the civil one. Now, well, what happened in this particular situation here? Why does it sound like he lost, but the case is not yet over, right? So this is called summary judgment. And so normally summary judgment is very plain,

and there's something a little bit unusual here because summary judgment is usually, do they have a legal basis for this case or not, no matter what the facts are? if you bring a case where you say, oh, the facts are X, Y, Z, and there's a giant disagreement about the facts, but it doesn't really matter because you didn't break the law. There was no fraud in the first place. Then the judge rules on summary judgment cases dismissed. Even if you proved all the facts, right, it still wouldn't be illegal or wrong, right? In this case,

the judge has now definitively ruled, no, if you prove the facts in this case, it's definitely wrong. It is illegal, it's wrong, it's a violation, it's fraud, right? So all of Trump's emotions on summary judgment are dismissed. So the case definitely goes forward. And then interestingly, which is something I haven't seen that often, the judge did a summary judgment in favor of the prosecution where they said, yes, this is, this is fraud. Look, I don't know if you'd have to really dive into the details of the case to get this. But one thing that we've always been saying is partly based on that Michael Cohen testimony

that you saw, they're partly based on logic. If you, the numbers have to be written in stone because you're reporting one number for your assets to insurance and loans to get loans. And you're reporting a completely different number on the same assets for taxes. To the IRS. Yeah, because to the IRS, you want to report very low value so you don't pay that much in taxes. To the guys you're trying to get a loan from, you want to report very high values so you can get as big a loan as possible. They're in stone. They're already in writing in forms submitted to the government.

from years ago, right? So it looks like the judge did some version of, yeah, there's no question about it at all. This is definitely fraud, but there are still things to adjudicate. What level of fraud, what kind of fraud, what should be the number for how much he should pay. We haven't gotten the damages yet.

There's still the heart of the trial that still has to happen to determine what kind of fraud and what kind of liability there is here. But in this round, it's a, in this round, it's a big loss for Trump. So his case in terms of his defense is shredded. In fact, and this is another thing I almost never see, except in Trump cases, the judge sanctioned the lawyers and fined them $7,500 because they kept submitting their defense that the judge had already invalidated. He said, look, guys, I'm trying to help you. That defense makes no sense. So come

come up with another defense. I'm giving you another opportunity, okay, and then submit it. Then they just come back with the same defense. He's like, all right, you guys are just annoying me now? So I'm gonna find you $7,500 each. Yeah, he's like, I'm trying to help you. That defense is not close to valid. Come up with another one. And they're like, nope, because they don't have a defense. It's written in stone. It's handed into the government two different documents, right, with different numbers from the same assets. I know in the MAGA world, two different numbers from the same as this makes sense. Okay, brothers and sisters, whatever you want.

I know you want to deny reality. I think you should be fair to MAGA world. I think you're being unfair to MAGEL World. As we've learned through the Hunter Biden prosecution, you know, Republican voters, Trump supporters care deeply about any individual, regardless of their proximity to power or their position of power, lying on any government form and just deceiving the government. In the case of Hunter Biden, he was on crack cocaine when he decided to purchase a gun. He lied on the, you know, background check form when he applied to obtain that firearm.

So obviously, I mean, I would be shocked if Republican voters were somehow providing cover for Trump for lying, committing fraud, especially on government forms, when on the other hand, they're furious about what Hunter Biden did. No, that's a brilliant point. I mean, Mago, you tell me, is lying on a government form important? Or not important, or do you want to just say, well, we like it when Trump lies, but we don't like it when Hunter does it. Okay, try to stay principled. So, and also, I'm sure the MAGA defense isn't going to be that it's, I'm sure for some of them, they'll say numbers don't mean anything. Numbers aren't actually numbers.

But a lot of them will probably say, like, what's the big deal? Of course you lie to the government. Of course you cheat to try to make more money. That's a smart thing to do. That's what all businessmen do. And there's actually a little bit of a kernel of truth to that. So I'm going to get to that one second. But one last hilarious part of this case, the Trump's suing the judge.

Yeah. What is that? I've never seen that in my life. That's such a Trump move. You can't try my case. I don't like your rulings against me. You can't try me. You're biased. So I'm going to sue you for being biased. Yeah, you're coming for me. I'm coming for you. Yeah, that's not gonna work. You can't just sue the judge that's a sign of your case and get him out of the case. I give him credit for trying. Yeah, that's at least innovative. It's different.

Yes, it's because when you have no evidence on your side, you got to try innovative legal strategies. True. Okay, now what's the kernel there and it gets us back to the timing? Guys, for the MAGA world, I get it, guys. What you say is, I don't know all businessmen do this. First of all the answer is no. Not, I'm in the business community. No way all businessmen do this. But do some businessmen do this? Yes, okay? Do most of them get prosecuted? No. Do some of them get prosecuted? Yes, okay? In fact, there was a pretty high profile case in our industry in digital media. Ozzie was the company, and they actually went to go prosecute them for fraud. Okay, so it does happen.

But guys, what you're missing is, did they let Trump skate on this? Like they let all the elites skate on it for years and years and years. Yes, not because like he's being specially persecuted now. It's because he is among the elites. He was part of the establishment. That's why they didn't bother prosecuting him on over the top outrageous fraud. But now the establishment doesn't like him and they're like, okay, all right, all right. This is a big weird thing, but we're going to prosecute one of our own.

That's true. That's such a great way of putting it because that's exactly right. I mean, Donald Trump has been engaging in all sorts of financial fraud for a long time. And that's based on testimony from his former close confidants, former personal lawyers, reporting that looked into his tax returns, reporting that looked into the various ways in which Trump and his father in particular worked together to dodge the taxes that they were supposed to pay. I'm not talking about, you know, using the tax laws in a super clever way to legally skirt having to pay your taxes.

I'm talking about creating like weird shell companies and, you know, falsifying documents just to dodge the taxes that they're supposed to pay. And I just, look, to me, it's an issue of fairness, right? It really is. Because had any of us had any normal, you know, working class individual lied in their taxes or lied to obtain insurance and loans, if they had committed fraud, they would get prosecuted. And you wouldn't have a very pricey defense team looking out for you. Very likely most people would have to rely on, you know, a defense attorney because it would be a criminal prosecution in most cases.

Last thing is, look, a lot of Republicans run small businesses, mid-sized businesses. That's part of why they're Republican. They don't like paying taxes. They don't like the regulation, et cetera. So guys, if you're on a small business or mid-sized business, you're the most likely to get targeted for this stuff. You commit a little bit of fraud, which you shouldn't. That's why they'll come after you with guns blazing, right? At the very highest levels, it barely ever gets prosecuted.

So if you're saying, oh, no, no, you should come after my business if I make a slight mistake, But you should let so-called billionaires like Donald Trump skate because they're so rich they get to cheat. That is a very ironic message to have for a populist. So get back to actual populism and be anti-establishment. All you want, I'm in favor of that, even though we might not agree under different policies. But backing a guy who's committed fraud his whole life and gotten away with it is pretty ironic. And that's not what you're supposed to stand for. But hey, up to you.

If you think, yes, he cheated. I love that he cheated. Okay, have out it, Ha'clock. Now, Ugar, I might open up a civil suit against you. We are not making good time today. But when we come back from the break, we're going to get into another massive story regarding the Federal Trade Commission and its lawsuit against Amazon.

All right back on TYT, Jank, Anna and Catherine Stenson Lunt. Catherine just joined by hitting the join button. And Croco 47 gifted five Young Turks memberships, love that. Casper. Well, some big news coming from the FTC today, let's get started. The FTC accuses Amazon of not just raising prices on their platform. from consumers and sellers, but they say the ripple effect, because it's a monopoly, has such a big impact. It's inflating prices for everybody.

These days, it feels rare to see a cop on the beat protecting consumers. But when it comes to FTC chair Lena Khan, we do in fact have that cop on the beat. And the Federal Trade Commission, under her leadership, along with 17 state attorneys general, have filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, on alleging that the company abused its power to raise prices for shoppers and also levy all sorts of high fees against businesses that happen to sell on its platform. Now, the lawsuit, which was filed in Western Washington District Court, alleges that Amazon engages in illegal behavior in both its online shopping marketplace and in the many

services it offers to third party sellers, allowing the company to extract monopoly rents, from everyone within its reach, and that's according to a news release about the suit. Now, this means that Amazon can boost its own products in search results over others that are better quality and charge costly fees to sellers that rely on the tech giant to stay in business. So I'm going to give you the exact details on how those allegations are kind of playing out in this suit. But really important caveat to mention, right above, like right at the top of the story. The FTC is not seeking to break up Amazon. That is not what they're trying to do here. It appears that they're pursuing this lawsuit to

find Amazon over its business practices. There could be attempts to break up Amazon in the future, but that is not what this particular suit is about. Now with that said, Donald Trump missed the memo on that and put this out on truth social. Whether you like Amazon or not, How can the Federal Trade Commission sue to break it up? Well, it's not suing to break it up, but nonetheless, he continues. Are they going to deliver to half a country or one third of the world, letting some other company do the rest? Wouldn't a company like that have to be united? It certainly can't be done only by region, just asking.

Well, I mean, it's not just about where Amazon delivers, that's not what this is about. It really is about the fact that part of Amazon's business is to have a platform for other vendors or other businesses to sell their products. But what Amazon has done is essentially use data in regard to, allegedly use the data in regard to some of the most sold items on their platform, and then they'll launch their own private label version of that product and ensure that when you search for a particular product, their private label version is at the top of the search results. And it tends to be far more expensive. And according to the suit, worse quality than other vendors who also have

to pay a fee to be on that platform and get penalized according to this lawsuit if they happen to provide discounts for buyers. Right? So they want to discourage the discounts. They essentially want to ensure that their private laboral items, Amazon's, are sold, and they generate more revenue and more profit in that way. Okay, so if you've been watching this show carefully, you know that I have, in my mind, the tech antitrust lawsuits are not the best use of antitrust. I've said that in the past. Other industries like airlines, hospitals, health insurance, etc., are my

much better case or the health industry overall. And I was gratified to see Tim Wu, who's an expert on this, go on and see NBC recently and say the same thing. So, but this is an exception. And by the way, and I state our perspective and bias each time, almost all these companies are our partners. Amazon is a partner in a sense through Twitch, which it owns, right? Now, having said that, this is the one situation where this is antitrust. And it's an excellent use of the government to go after this. I think that they're handling it nearly perfectly because I wouldn't break up Amazon either. But there's three things that are huge here.

One is if they're basically forcing everybody to use their distribution system. And if you don't, they bury you so your businesses have no chance of success. So I'm going to come back to anecdotes about that in the second three people I know. Number two, if you don't buy an ad, they bury you. So then you're kind of forced to buy an ad. But to me, the most important one and the one that everybody who's on Amazon talks about the most is the one Anna Mansion, which is like, and I've had friends that went through this. They come up with an incredible product and it's so hard. You try 10, 20 different products.

You finally get one or two that are working really well. And then Amazon comes in and goes, because of their algorithm, they see that it's selling well. They just copy it right away. And then their algorithm puts their version of that product at the top and buries your version of it. Yes, by the way, anyone who uses Amazon has noticed this happen, has noticed that, like for instance, if I'm super busy with work and we're out of groceries and I have no choice but to use like Amazon Fresh, right? That's a grocery delivery option on Amazon. What I've noticed throughout the years is the brands that I typically like are nowhere to be found. And all of a sudden, the Amazon Fresh brand version of that product is what's like right in front of my face.

And that's the only option I have to buy. Yeah, so that's from the consumer perspective. Yes, exactly. And then eventually once they have monopoly power, they can also drive up prices because you can't even find the alternatives. Exactly. And I've noticed that too. The price is consistently rising for the Amazon private label version. Now, from the small business perspective of people trying to do business on Amazon, I asked my friends who do this. I said, well, why don't you get off of Amazon? Because it seems like there's almost no chance of success.

You have a tiny window in which to make money before they copy you and bury you, right? And they say, well, first of all, we're all kind of going off Amazon in a de facto way because they're bankrupting most of us, right? That's right. But secondly, the reason why it's a monopoly, and they didn't say monopoly, but it's, their description is a perfect monopoly. They're like, there's literally nowhere else to go. If you go and try to sell the same products on eBay or any other website or your own website, there's not enough traffic. You just cannot sell enough.

They own the whole market. This is a perfect case for a monopoly. And I remember when I saw that they were doing that about copying the products and burying the others, I thought, oh my God, that's brazen. That's basically telling the government, I don't think you have any power and you're not going to do a goddamn thing about my monopoly. So now they're doing something and they should be really commended for it. In fact, in regard to Amazon using its data, the sales and the algorithm data in order to decide whether or not they're going to launch their own private label version of the products

that are experiencing high sales on their platform, Jeff Bezos was actually questioned about this. And let's go to Graphics 7 here. In 2020, then CEO Jeff Bezos testified before a house anti-transism. trust subcommittee that he couldn't confirm that the company didn't use data collects regarding sales of products in its marketplace to launch its own private label goods. And then he says, quote, what I can tell you is we have a policy against using seller specific data to aid our private label business. But I can't guarantee you that policy has never been violated.

Don't be ridiculous. They do it almost every time. It's preposterous. Anyway, they're going to go to court and they're going to get a chance to prove. Oh my god, it's such a tiny exception. Is it? Well, we're going to find out. And what's interesting is that, like, the CNBCs of the world are so hurt on behalf of Amazon. Yes. So let's tell you about that. Yes, this is this is actually my favorite angle to the story because CNBC can barely contain itself. Like corporate media despises Lena Khan because she actually tries to hold corporations accountable. She actually tries to intervene when there is an antitrust issue at play. And, you know, they just can't, they can't stand her. Any commentary you see from one of their hosts in regard to the current FTC under the leadership of Lena Khan is just dripping with salt.

Now, with that said, they actually recently had a gentleman that Jenk had referenced earlier, who is actually an advisor to the Biden administration in regard to antitrust issues. And so here he is speaking to CNBC about Lena Khan, specifically, and what, it just shows how much CNBC can't stand what is happening with the FTC under her leadership. Let's watch the first video on that. This administration, this antitrust division, is taking some big swings. And when you take big swings, like in baseball, you miss some and you hit some. So they're rejecting the old approach, which was like, we're not going to hit.

They're nowhere near for winning a batting title. In fact, they wouldn't even, they'd be sitting on a bench. They haven't had many, they haven't had, they haven't had many at bats yet. They've won random house, they've blocked a whole bunch of other mergers. I think they're doing all right. The FTC did lose, did lose the Activision case. But that was a, you know, tough case to win, I'll say. So, you know, they're going for it.

And it's a different kind of approach. They're happy to win, you know, they're happy to bat 500, 600, the Obama administration wanted to bat like a thousand. They wanted to be perfect. I think this administration has a different policy. So they didn't bring actions that they thought they were going to lose. I mean, I was in there. We're like, well, we don't, if we're going to win this, we're not going to bring it.

We'll settle it. Obama administration settled a lot. This administration's going to trial. I mean, it shouldn't be the perspective. sometimes it is with Lena Khan that everything's bad and we're not going to let anyone merge. You're about to hear a little more from that guy at the very end in just a moment, but that's the biggest like attack that I've seen against Lena Khan. Just the notion that she has the audacity to try to hold these corporations accountable and try to prevent these

mergers from happening, the audacity of trying to protect the consumer, and in some cases also protect businesses. Because in the case of this Amazon lawsuit, it's not just about the consumer suffering from higher prices as a result of what Amazon is doing, it's also the business practices of Amazon translating to real harm for other businesses that are selling on that platform. But CNBC can't have it. I mean, to have a, to have a government official, a cop on the beat, looking out for ordinary people, we just can't have it. How is this going to hurt the shareholders?

Yeah. So he mentioned there at the end, the CNBC anchor. So you can't just have it be that no one can merge, except that's not true at all. There's been tons of mergers that she has not blocked. In the media industry, there's merger after merger after merger, and the great majority of them are not blocked. He just doesn't want any of the mergers blocked because he believes in corporate power and the more power corporations have, the better CNBC does. And that's how that works. But I want to compare Obama and Biden real quick and then Biden and Trump.

So what I want you to focus on what Tim Wu said there, although Obama folks would only bring the cases they were positive they could win, which meant they brought a lot less cases, which means that they let corporations slide over and over and over again because they were so worried about their precious ego and their careers. Well, I want a good batting average. I want CNBC to say I batted a thousand. So I'm not going to bring all these cases that I should because I might lose some of them, right? Whereas Biden's team is doing a much better job. And they're going, no, I'm going to bring the cases that are right to bring. That's right. And then we're going to give it our best shot.

And then if we lose, that's okay. But at least we're doing the people's work, right? Now, compare Biden and Trump. And that's really interesting. Because if you remember, Trump threatened Amazon because he didn't like, what the Washington Post was saying about him. And Bezos owns Washington Post and Amazon. So he's, oh yeah, we're gonna have to look at Amazon.

I don't like this Bezos guy. And what are you saying about me? So on the one hand, you have Biden trying to protect consumers, trying to protect small businesses. On the other hand, you have Trump trying to protect himself. Yes. And now that he's not getting criticized by Bezos or whatever, he turns around and defends Amazon.

That's right. And he's like, what is this? totally misunderstands like the moron that he is, of course, misstates every part of the case. He's like, well, are they going after a good corporation? I love corporations. I love the rich and the powerful. Oh, okay, that's what I thought. Okay, we got to go to the final video on this CNBC segment because this is the part that was infuriating to me. Let's watch. I think that they want to enforce statutes as written. And the Clayton Act says that anti-competitive mergers should be blocked, you know, and they think that they, they, the last

administration got too conscious. Even if consumers benefit. I mean, there, there are times when companies shouldn't be in business because they're not. I think they believe the last 10 years, last 20 years, a lot of mergers happened that did not benefit consumers. Airline mergers, mergers all over the health health care industry, and they're looking back, a lot of hospital mergers, like, look, prices went up, things got worse, we blew it. Health care is a lot different. technology though. It is, but it's actually worse, I think, in some of the merger practices.

Where do you think? Most of the hospital mergers you look at have led to higher prices, worst patient outcomes, and have led to workers getting less money. You don't think the base case should be let the markets decide on what happens? No, Congress said something else. Here you have the government does one thing

and that causes unintended consequences for another thing and then that causes this to happen and that kind of stay out of it. Well, I'll say two things. First of all, you can take that argument to Congress. Congress did pass the law banning anti-competit the mergers. So, you know, that's a view. Second, I think that, you know, they got to shake stuff up. A lot of things that haven't been very smart in the last couple of years. Well, you know, but they do still, as far as I know, control what the law is. In other words, the dominant message in that

segment from the CNBC host that you heard from is, wouldn't it be great if there wasn't a cop on the beat looking to protect the consumers from predatory behavior by these corporations, by essentially anti-competitive actions through these mergers and acquisitions? Wouldn't it be? be awesome because it'd be so much more beneficial to the dominant corporations and the shareholders that have invested in these corporations. That's the decoding of what was actually being said in that segment by the host that you just heard from. Yeah. So look, Tim Wu's also a law professor of, which I'm a little proud of. And he had receipts. And so he explained, like, you're like, oh, yeah, well, it's wrong. And then he's like, this is how it led to higher prices. This is

the specific examples. It's passed by Congress, take it up with Congress, etc. But my favorite part of that whole interaction was when the CNBC anchor is like, oh, I didn't you just let the markets decide. So tell me you've never read Adam Smith without telling me you never read Adam Smith. So the whole, like, he's basically considered the original founder of capitalism in a sense. At least he explained it and popularized it. And one of the things he clearly outlined is, you must not allow monopolies. If you allow monopolies, it will be against free markets, not in favor of free markets. It will destroy free markets. And this goes like, yeah, so what, man? Yeah, let the markets decide everything, including monopolies. They just crushed the competition

so there's no more free markets. What's wrong with that? Huh? Okay. Everything. That's not capitalism. That's corporatism. And that's exactly what CNBC's in favor of, supporting the current behemoth corporations, even if they hurt consumers and the free markets. Listen, the only merger and acquisition that CNBC host should be concerned with is his brain acquiring a little bit of critical thinking and knowledge. Okay, that would be good. With that said, though, let's take a break. When we come back, we'll talk about Trump's threats and allegations that he would throw his political opponents in prison. Apparently, those who worked very closely with him say there is cause for concern. We'll tell you who that is and more when we come back.

and thereby became an American hero. Casper. It's good to our next story. There is a new piece in the Atlantic, and part of that says that Millie has told friends that he expects if Trump does return to the White House, which he's obviously trying to do, that the newly elected president will come after him. And Millie has reportedly told people, quote, he'll start throwing people in jail, and I'd be on the top of the list.

Do you think that's a justified concern? CNN's Caitlin Collins is speaking to Trump's former secretary, of defense, Mark Esper, to essentially comment on recent reporting alleging that Donald Trump would imprison his political opponents should he get reelected. Now his joint chiefs of staff, the chair of the joint chiefs of staff under Trump, General Mark Milley, was allegedly concerned that he'd be on the top of that list. This was disclosed in a recent Atlantic piece, which I will share with you in just a moment. But Trump's former defense secretary, Mark Esper, says, there is some cost.

for concern. Let's watch. Look, I think it's a legitimate fear. If you recall from my memoir that you mentioned to the top, I cite a circumstance where the president, egged on by his close advisors, wanted to call back to active duty, Admiral McRaven and General McChrystal to court marshal them for some things that they allegedly said in the public domain. And Millie and I had to talk the president out of doing that for any number of reasons. So is it possible that a new loyalists sitting around Trump in the Oval Office will say let's call up Millie. Yeah, it's quite likely. Now, the good news is if there's a silver lining in all this is Trump's kind of poisoned a well. I don't know that a jury could or anybody would find that he could be

given what we would call command influence that such a thing could happen. But nonetheless, I think it's a legitimate fear. The president's also said that a second term would be about retribution, right? So I think these are all legitimate concerns. And just to give you more details about the context behind this conversation and exchange, as I mentioned earlier, it comes from a recent piece written about General Mark Millie in the Atlantic titled The Patriot. And in it, Jeffrey Goldberg writes that Trump and his allies have already threatened officials, they see as disloyal with imprisonment. And there is little reason to imagine that he would not attempt to carry out his threats. Millie, meaning general Mark Millie, has told friends that he

expects that if Trump returns to the White House, the newly elected president will come after him, quote, he'll start throwing people in jail and I'd be on the top of the list, end quote, he said. But he's also told friends that he does not believe the country will reelect Trump. When I asked him about this, Millie wouldn't answer directly, but when I asked him to describe his level of optimism about the country's future, he said, quote, I have a lot of confidence in the general officer core, and I have confidence in the American people, the United States of America is an extraordinarily resilient country, agile and flexible, and the inherent goodness of the American people is there. I've always believed that, and I will go to my grave believing that.

Jank, is that at all comforting for you? Not at all. And so, first of all, I'll address that last quote first. Guys, I've seen it happen in other countries, including Turkey. When the strong man comes into power, they don't just leave that good general corps there. When Millie says he likes the general corps and they're principled and moral, that to Trump is a sign that he should fire them all and put in his own guys. And so how did the strong men do that?

They talk to the colonels, the generals, and all the different officers until they find people who are accommodating of breaking the rules. and being on the side of the strong man instead of being on the side of the Constitution. These institutions will not hold. The executive branch can fire anybody they like. They're not going to hold. But then once the military is gone, everything is over. So, okay, now back to the political prisoners. First of all, MAGA, you have to understand something.

We're talking about arresting people for no reason, for just criticizing Trump. free speech advocates you guys are just unbearably hypocritical you don't believe that at all that Trump you're like oh you really criticize Trump we don't like that imprison him okay well that's not a thing you have to break a law you have to break a law and also by the way if Trump was in office should have prosecuted Bob Menendez absolutely you know why he's a Democratic senator but he broke the law that's why you imprison people not because they disagree with you. That's literally what dictators do, okay? So now, I want to emphasize something. Esper is not Biden's defense secretary. He was Trump's defense secretary. He's saying, I worked

with the guy. Not only did I work with the guy, and I'm positive that he would, he didn't say positive. You saw the quote. He said it is credible to believe that he would, he would imprison people, okay? That just for the crime of disagreeing with him. But it's not theoretical. He He considered doing it already. Now there's no brakes in the car. But even when there were breaks in the car, even when there were establishment guys in the administration, he was like, okay, McChrystal and Raven, McRae,

so whatever you think of those generals, I mean, they're considered like top generals that, quote unquote, gave their lives and careers to the American military. And you're going to imprison them because they disagreed with, That's what we do in America now? Tin pot dictator. So guys, for all of the establishment media and Democrats, you know, constantly talking about Trump and tell you democracies on the line, et cetera, they don't really believe

it. They think like, oh, no, it's okay. They think it's just like marketing. And that's why you have to vote for Biden, et cetera. I actually believe it because I have eyes and ears. So when his defense secretary says, we considered arresting political opponents, he's not kidding, he's not exaggerating. If Trump comes back, I would bet any amount of money that he starts arresting his political opponents for no reason at all other than criticizing him. He wants to be a dictator.

He has praised every dictator, including the North Korean dictator, including the Chinese leader, including Putin. that he, every time there's a dictator, he's like, oh, I love, strong. I like how everybody has to bow and applaud. So he's going to arrest all these people, and then people are going to say, oh, nobody could have seen a cover. Oh, this is way worse than we expected. Well, the guys who work with him are telling you 24-7, wake up. And by the way, don't run a guy who's in the 30s against this guy.

You're going to lose. You're going to lose, and we're going to lose the whole country. Okay, well, we move on from one alarmy story to another, although this one has a caveat and a little bit of a change of story, which we'll get to in a moment, but let's do this. blaring, the president is yelling. What's he saying? I can't make it out. I hear him say hang repeatedly. Hang, hang, hang, what's not about? They are calling for the vice president to be hanged. The president is okay with it. He doesn't want to do anything. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. He thinks Mike is a traitor. This is crazy. We need to be doing something

more. That was a portion of Rachel Maddow's very lengthy book reading session. She was reading an excerpt from Cassidy Hutchinson's memoir enough. Cassidy Hutchinson's, of course, was an aid to Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows. And if what Hutchinson wrote and you just heard was in fact true, that would mean that Donald Trump enthusiastically cheered for the assassination of his own vice president on January 6th as the Capitol rioters were chanting Hang Mike Pence. Now, does the story track with what Hutchinson previously testified to the January 6th House Select Committee investigating the riots? Before we find out, let's remind ourselves of the actual situation that took place and unfolded on at the Capitol on January 6th.

Now with that in mind, let's go back and watch Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony before the House Select Committee. Mark hung up the phone, handed it back to me. I went back to my desk. A couple minutes later, him and Pat came back, possibly Eric Hirschman too. I'm pretty sure Eric Hirschman was there. But I'm confident it was Pat that was there. I remember Pat saying something to the effect of, Mark, we need to do something more. They're literally calling for the vice president to be effing hung. And Mark had responded something to the effect of, you heard of Pat, he thinks Mike deserves it, he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. So there's a little bit of a change in what she says in the context.

of her book and what she said in this testimony for the House Select Committee investigating January 6th. So in the clip that you just watched, Hutchinson testified that she heard Trump's statement's second hand. However, in the book, Hutchinson claims that she heard Trump firsthand. Yeah. Which I think is a little bit of a concern here, no? No, yeah. So the book is super unclear. She says she heard hang, hang, hang, hang. But she doesn't say that Trump said it. I couldn't tell if she meant the TV or Trump. But okay, so that leads to a very important point. Guys, what she's alleging there is not a little thing.

And I, and this is what drives me crazy when people don't pick up on the most important story, like, of maybe of all, like it's certainly in my lifetime, right? And so if what she's saying is true, it should end the conversation. So the president didn't mind if his supporters. murdered his own vice president, murdered him, and he was totally okay with it. If that's true, how could you possibly vote for him? And maybe MAGA thinks that's cool. That's cool.

Of course the president should try to murder his own vice president if he dares to disagree. By the way, this is the same guy who said when Mark Millie disagreed, treason, and he- He should be executed. And he said the punishment is death, and he capitalized death. That just happened within the last week. So anyone who disagrees with them gets death. So now, guys, I'm not just going to take Cassidy Hutchinson's word for it because this is too important when you can't get this wrong. Okay.

So she said, Mark Meadows said he doesn't mind. Pat Cipollone was there. So we need those guys on the stand and they need to either say it didn't happen or corroborate. If they say it didn't happen, then maybe it didn't happen. And at a minimum, you've got conflicting testimony. But if all of them say, yes, Trump definitely said he did not mind if his supporters murdered his own vice president. Well, Magna's got a decision to make. Are you guys comfortable with it?

Are you going to deny every piece of reality? Or do you not mind the murder of the vice president if he supports true? Guys, it's, this is not a normal story. This is not a little story or midst. This is the biggest. Just imagine if Barack Obama had said, I don't mind if they, if Obama fans murder Joe Biden. It would literally would have been the story of the century of the century. I'm not, it's not one percent hyperbole.

So when Trump says it, we've got, we've normalized it because we think, well, yeah, of course, he's a lunatic, a maniac, a deranged psycho. Yeah, maybe you shouldn't put a deranged psycho back in office. So I want to see Cipollone on the stand, I want to see Mark Meadows on the stand, did he say it or didn't he say it? Because if he said it, well then look, and Maga, you see that and you're still in favor of them? Well, brothers and sisters, then we got nothing in common. Because I'm not in favor of dictators, not in favor of monsters who want to murder people who disagree with them. So if you are, you got your conscience to deal with.

But I will, I will do everything in my being to stop that monster, okay? And he is a goddamn monster. And Democrats, wake up, wake up! This guy's going to be talking about executing people. And you're like, well, we wouldn't want to offend Joe Biden. He's definitely going to lose to him. But hey, we bow down to authority. Joe Biden's ego demands a second term.

Screw Joe Biden's ego. We're going to lose a goddamn country to a tyrant and a dictator who's telling you ahead of time that he's going to murder people. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you? Jesus Christ, and Merrick Garland, you're the worst attorney general ever. What did you wait two and a half years for? That wasn't serious enough to bring the case?

You goddamn loser, you incompetent, selfish prick. Merrick Garland is the worst. They should have brought this case on day one, day one. Oh, well, he's among the elites. He's a former president. None of us want to be held accountable. So we'll wait to see if he's going to run. The worst, Democrats stop being such losers and pick someone who could beat the tyrant.

Otherwise, we're going to lose the country. And they're going to put you in jail, you dumbasses. Wake up. All right, we should take a break. So when we come back, we've got some more news in the second hour, including some of the other revelations from Cassidy Hutchinson's book in regard to the chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and what was transpiring with classified documents. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free,

access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jank Huger, and I'll see you soon.