The Young Turks - Total Clown Show

Episode Date: September 6, 2022

A judge has granted Trump's request for a special master to review Mar-A-Lago documents. The Israeli army admits Shireen Abu Akleh was killed by Israeli soldiers. Women who stay single and don’t have children are richer, statistics show. Donald Trump accuses John Fetterman of using hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. Jim Jordan encourages republican lawmakers not to be scared of banning women’s rights. Hosts: Ana Kasparian: Cenk Uygur *** The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. 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 Watchlist ▶ https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey ▶ https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt Unbossed with Sen. Nina Turner ▶ https://www.youtube.com/unbossedtyt 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 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. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now.

I get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. Now? What about now? Whenever it hits you, wherever you are, grab an O'Henry bar to satisfy your hunger.

With its delicious combination of big, crunchy, salty peanuts covered in creamy caramel and chewy fudge with a chocolatey coating. Swing by a gas station and get an O'Henry today. Oh hungry, oh Henry. We're going to be able to be. I don't know. All right, welcome to the Young Church. Jake Ugar, Anna Kasparian, with you guys.

Lots of amazing stories in today's show. Okay, so you know what, guys, let's just get right to it. Let's get right to it. We begin with two Trump-related stories involving two Trump-related investigations, because this man is investigated for many things. We begin with the classified documents investigation and a Trump-appointed. judge who's doing favors for him. A federal judge who was appointed by Donald Trump has granted Trump's request for a so-called

special master to review documents that were seized by the FBI in his Mar-Lago residents. Of course, this is the continuation of the investigation into Trump's possession of highly classified documents, documents that he had multiple opportunities to return to the National Archives but refused to do so. Now, Trump made the argument that some of the documents that were obtained by the FBI from his residents are protected under executive privilege or attorney client privilege. And so his lawyers tried to get this federal judge to agree to a special master who will review the documents and ensure that there's nothing protected by privilege in this cache of documents that the FBI is now investigating. However, what's really going on here, and I want to be clear, is that Trump is implementing the same tactic that we've seen in every other investigation, which is delay, delay, delay.

This is all meant to delay the process, and it appears that he is succeeding in that. This means that federal prosecutors for now are barred from using key pieces of evidence as part of their investigation. That's not permanent, but for the time being, that is the case. Now, here is the background to the story. Judge Eileen Cannon of the Federal District Court of the Southern District of Florida ordered the appointment of an independent arbiter to review a trove of materials seized last month from Trump's private club and residence in Florida. She also temporarily barred the Justice Department from using the seized materials for any investigative purpose connected to its inquiry of Trump until the work of the arbiter, known as a special master, was completed. Let's also acknowledge that special master is probably the most badass title that anyone could possibly have.

And it's unfortunate in this context, but you get what I'm saying. I think that it's one of the funnier titles. I want to be a special master. I think I know some special masters out there, but what they're masters of is a different question. All right. So now, listen, this is an interesting situation because for the first time I'm now deeply worried about how much Trump has contaminated the judge pool in this country at the federal level.

So you can't say, hey, listen, to Anna's point, what do you mean for us? Are you crazy? Look at all the judges he put on. But now this is practical. It is the first time we're seeing it live in action. So this is, there's some parts of a ruling that I find to be, you know, relatively straightforward and normal. You know, I've sometimes people in this, that was from media, you're freaking out about everything

that she said, and I don't think that's justifiable, I'll give you some nuance in a second, right? But a lot of parts of the ruling where you're like, huh, I don't doesn't even make any sense at all. But if she gets appealed, it's the 11th Circuit where six out of the 11 judges are Trump appointed. And if that gets appealed, it goes to the Supreme Court, where six out of the nine justs are conservative and three of them appointed by Trump. So there is a Trump ladder here all the way to the Supreme Court that can say we don't give damn what the law is, Trump is not guilty because he's Trump. And she came close to saying. Yeah, she did. So I want to get to that because I think that's the most relevant part of her

decision here. Because the Justice Department in its court filing, which we covered on the show, tried to make it clear that they don't see Trump or anyone in a position of power as someone who should be treated differently from an ordinary person who does the same thing that he did, right? He took, he broke a law, which was, by the way, made harsh. by Trump himself in 2018. You know, he wanted to make a point about Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email server. So in 2018, he made the classified documents laws far more robust in terms of the punishment. And an individual found guilty of mishandling classified documents could serve as much as five years in federal prison.

Again, that was Trump's doing. But in response to what the DOJ was arguing in its court filing, this judge, was like, no, I think Trump should be treated differently. No, she didn't say it in so many words, but I'll give you the words that she did use. Really close. Really close. So here it is. Her ruling seemed to carve out a special exception to the normal legal process for the former president and reject the DOJ's implicit argument that Trump be treated like any other investigative subject. She writes in her ruling, even if any

assertion of executive privilege by plaintiff ultimately fails in this context, that possibility, even if likely, does not negate a former president's ability to raise the privilege as an initial matter. Judge Cannon said she had made her decisions to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances. Okay, so let's pause right there. He's claiming executive privilege. He is He's not the president of the United States. He took classified and top secret documents home with him from the White House when his term was over.

What executive privilege? And what are you talking about when you refer to this as, you know, the appearance of fairness and integrity when in reality anyone else who was caught taking classified documents out of the White House, taking it home with them, would certainly suffer consequences far greater than what we're seeing from in regard to Donald Trump and how he's being treated by the courts here. Now, Judge Cannon invents concern that Trump might suffer reputational harm from a search that was not conducted properly or, as she added, from a future indictment that was based even in part on property that ought to be returned. Okay, so let's pause. So what do you mean search that was not

conducted properly, a federal judge signed a search warrant that had to determine that there was probable cause that Trump had broken the law here. So what do you mean improper search? There was absolutely no specificity in that regard. Yeah, so she kept saying extraordinary circumstances over and over again. Why is she saying that? She's saying it because she wants to make a Trump exception to the law. And she's basically acknowledging it by saying, yeah, if it was another defendant, we wouldn't have the extraordinary circumstances and we would apply the law to him. But he appointed me, I'm a Trump head. I don't want to apply the law to him. So I'm going to find this, try to find a loophole in the law because the extraordinary circumstances of the

harm that the beloved Trump would face here. Well, there's one reason he might face that harm because he stole classified documents and took them home. And that's what this case is about. Can you be neutral for one second? Can you be fair for one second? She's avowedly saying, while saying, hey, we really got to be careful to be fair here, saying, now remember, this ruling is, I am not going to be fair. I am not going to apply the law to Trump as I would to any other person. Now, the one part that I think she has an interesting case to make is actually an executive privilege. Now, Biden says, and this has been the rule the entire time, hey, you're former president, I get to decide as a current president who has executive privilege and who doesn't.

So that has been the case for a long time. And the National Archives agrees. Everyone in the government agrees, right? But she says, look, the Supreme Court never ruled on it. And maybe the Supreme Court can say executive privilege applies to people that, to presidents who also leave office. Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Kavanaugh, has actually said something in a decision that makes you go, uh-oh, he might think that if you're a former president, you could just claim executive privilege for the rest of your life. Yeah, and keep evidence hidden so that you're not prosecuted on it. Now, that sounds terrible, and that's the Trump ladder I'm talking about, where they just

say, I don't care, extraordinary circumstances, he's allowed to break the law, right? But is it conceivable that the Supreme Court would say that, that yes, no, Trump is allowed to hide some of this evidence because of executive privilege. for the first time allowing ex-presidents to have. Yes, it is conceivable that the Supreme Court would say that. So buckle up, brace for impact. So, and by the way, going all the way to the Supreme Court, having them rule on it, delays this for such a long time, which is of course what they want to do.

Don't look at those documents. Whatever you do, don't look at the stolen classified documents that Trump took. What are you so nervous about? If he didn't do it, won't you want to adjudicate it right away? I know I would, right? If I didn't do it. So, look, last thing on this that's important. Anna kind of bred you a part of this, but she said Mr. Trump face, quote,

unquantifiable potential harm by way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public. I mean, think about how absurd that is. No, there are now people saying, wait a minute, way more than normal number of American spies were caught and killed last year. That is an actual danger, okay? We have to actually take care of that. We don't know exactly how that happened. That's the whole point of an investigation, right? And these things were sitting in an unlocked linen closet or basement, et cetera,

and people walking in and out with different boxes. God knows what these are real dangers, but she doesn't think so. She thinks the real danger is the Trump. His reputation, his poor, poor reputation. And the harm to his beloved reputation. So this is a deeply biased ruling overall. And by the way, you should know what a special master is for. It isn't for this at all, just so you're not confused.

Right. A special master is for attorneys that are then charged, like better call Saul, right? And if you've got a criminal attorney, you're bringing someone to make sure that they protect the client's information so that while prosecuting the attorney, you don't actually accidentally see how his clients are guilty. So you bring in a special master and say, hey, you could use that against the attorney, but you can't use that stuff because it implicates his clients. They just took that random law and they were like, maybe it applies to the president. Right. And she's like, yeah, sure, why not? Maybe delay it and see how it goes.

And every legal expert who has commented on the judge's decision here in the press has stated that this is unprecedented. And I want to read you one legal expert that was quoted in the New York. Times is the last graphic. Judge Cannon had a reasonable path she could have taken to appoint a special master to review documents for attorney client privilege and allow the criminal investigation to continue otherwise, said Ryan Goodman, New York University law professor. Instead, she chose a radical path. And look, she chose a radical path because she was put in her position of power. She was appointed by Trump in her position of power, specifically to do this, right? Not specifically on this issue, but there's a reason why the right wing has

been hyper-focused on installing all of these federalist society judges. And to be sure, she is absolutely a federalist society judge. In her Senate questionnaire, she described herself as having been a member of the conservative federalist society since 2005, and Trump nominated her in May of 2020, and the Senate confirmed her on November 12th, which, as you guys already know, It's only nine days after he lost reelection. Yeah, and of course the idiot Democrats are helping Republicans confirm these judges. And Trump always attacks every time a judge rules against him. He says, oh, Obama judges.

By the way, to this point, the Trump judges, at least in the election cases, have been fair. Okay, so that's important context. So they all ruled against Trump. They said you never presented any evidence of election fraud. Every single Trump judge ruled that way. In this case, it looks like we've got a Trump judge saying, no, Trump's more important than the rest of you guys. So we're really worried about it. But whenever anything goes against Trump, he goes, Obama judges, Obama judges.

And his followers believe it completely. They think real judges are the ones that are biased, et cetera. Now, whenever it's a Trump judge doing something outrageous like this, Democrats never say it because it's the sanctity of the courts and we don't want to be biased. And other Democrats will yell at us if we say things about Trump judges. So as usual, we have an uneven playing field. Well, we move forward to yet another Trump-related investigation, this time when it comes to the attempts to overturn the election. CNN has obtained footage showing a fake Trump elector escorting operatives into an elections

office in Coffey County, Georgia, where that same day there was evidence that their voting system was in fact breached. So we're gonna show you the video and then I'll fill in all the details. This is Kathy Latham we're showing you. She's the former chairwoman of Coffee County GOP, already under investigation, this woman is, for posing as one of those fake electors who signed documents that declared Donald Trump was the winner of the 2020 election. Latham can be seen here escorting a team of pro-Trump operatives into the Coffey County Elections Office, including an IT specialist who was working with Trump attorney Sidney Powell. This all happens on the same day the voting system in that office was illegally breached.

And that voting system was illegally breached. There was evidence indicating that literal ballots had been scanned. And so this is an ongoing investigation that's not only taking place in Georgia. There are other states that had similar issues, Michigan being another one of them. But to give you some more details into what's going on here, the two men seen in the video with Latham, Kathy Latham, Scott Hall and Paul Maggio, have acknowledged that they successfully gained access to a voting mission. in Coffey County at the behest of Trump lawyer, Sidney Powell. By the way, this all happened on January 7th, one day after the Capitol riots had taken place.

Now, text messages, emails, and witness testimony filed as part of a long-running civil suit into the security of Georgia's voting systems, show Latham communicated directly with the then Coffee County election supervisor about getting access to the office, both before and after the breach. One text message, according to a court document, shows Latham coordinating the arrival and whereabouts of a team led by Paul Maggio that traveled to Coffey County at the direction of Powell. Obviously, breaking into election systems and scanning people's ballots is against the law. With CNN obtained in terms of this surveillance is obviously some damning evidence in regard to

what Latham was up to along with some of these other Trump lackeys who thought that it would be a great idea to try to overturn the election. The thing that's also amazing about this is coffee county Georgia isn't some like liberal utopia. In fact, 70% of the electorate there voted for Trump. That county went to Trump. Why are they breaking in to the election systems, voting machines in Coffee County when their daddy, their preferred candidate won, 70% of it. the vote. It just makes absolutely no sense. And by the way, Hall was also recorded saying

some pretty incriminating things. So he said, quote, I went down there. We scanned every freaking ballot, Hall says in the recording. He should be saying from a jail cell, but okay. Exactly. Hall also suggests that the same group of people who orchestrated the breach in Coffee County also gained access to voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan weeks before. He says the same people that went to Michigan, Oklahoma, and did all that forensic stuff on the computers. And they sent their team down to Coffee County, Georgia, and they scanned all the equipment, imaged all the hard drives and scanned every single ballot, Hall says, in the recording. These people are just 70% of the voters voted for Trump in Coffee County, Georgia. Yeah.

They did this to find evidence of widespread voter fraud. No, I know. But you know, if you take counties that went 70% for Trump and say that they went 80% for Trump, hey, you know what? That could do the trick? Now, do I think they went to go rig the vote? I don't know. I suspect that they were trying to catch the Democrats and their voter fraud. And that's why they breached the system. But either way, it's wildly illegal. And Republicans, I know you don't care about logic or truth. But in your or the least open-minded people in America. But let's try it anyway for a second. What if the shoe was on the other foot? For real. What if the Biden's team had breached the voter files and was doing the same exact thing as these guys? And scan them. And scanning them.

Well, what do you think you guys would say? You know what you would say. Stop to steal. We know it. Voter fraud. Hugo Chavez, Dominion. You know, you do it now and you don't have a shred of evidence. So you'd go nuts over this.

But when Trump's team does it, what are you going to do? I guarantee you every right wing out there, you're going to get down on your knees and lick Trump's feet and say, okay, I'll do anything. I'll lie for you. I don't care what you do. Break the law. Break the law. I hate the law.

I hate this country. I hate our democracy. Why aren't I in charge anymore? Why do they give equality to minorities? That's what right wingerers are. Obviously, these guys should be in jail. They admit it to the crime. And guys, that's the last thing for me on this.

It's been like nearly two years now. Is anyone ever going to be held accountable in the right wing? Or do they just get to break the law, say it in public, rub it in our face and go, ha, ha, everybody's too weak to stop our fascism. Well, Latham is the target of two criminal investigations. So all of these Trump lackeys absolutely are facing investigations and there should be legal ramifications for what they've done. there's just so much evidence in the form of these recordings that I just shared with you featuring Hall and what he admitted to taking part in. Three days after the breach, Kathy Latham texted the coffee county election supervisor, quote, did you all finish with the scanner?

According to the court documents, Latham testified she did not know what Hall was doing in Coffee County, but when confronted with her texts about the scanner, she asserted her Fifth Amendment rights. In other words, she's guilty. She's guilty, yeah. I mean, again, there's just damning evidence indicating that they breached the voting machines. They scanned ballots. And they did so, you're right, in an effort to find evidence of widespread voter fraud,

but obviously they didn't because it didn't exist. And in the meantime, they did something illegal in a county that overwhelmingly voted in favor of Donald Trump. It's just a total clown show. So we'll see what ends up happening with them. But, you know, what I'm also curious about is the election officials who were working alongside Latham in this effort. Because obviously they had to give these Trump lackeys access to the voting machines. Yeah. Look, lock them up.

Just for God's sake, do your job, lock them up. So otherwise, they're going to do this every time. They're going to break into voting offices, steal the documents. scan them and next time they'll just start changing the votes because there is no law in America anymore if you're right winger. So look, they're investigating them. It's taking for goddamn forever. They've admitted it. The Fifth Amendment, Trump and all of his lackeys have taken the Fifth Amendment. You know what Trump said about people who take the Fifth Amendment? He said, well, they must be guilty. That's why they're saying they don't want to incriminate

themselves. That's actually one of the few logical things he's ever said. And so I've never liked the Fifth Amendment. You can get on me if you're a civil libertarian about that. I think It makes no logical sense, but okay, it's so a defendant declaring, well, if I answer the question, you'll obviously know I'm guilty. Okay, well, that's what she just did after they caught her lying. So for God's sake, lock him up already. All right, we got to take a quick break, but when we come back, the IDF in Israel has concluded their investigation into the shooting deaths of an Al Jazeera journalist.

seems like they're finally willing to admit that it wasn't Palestinians who killed a Palestinian journalists, but the story will still enrage you. We've got that story and more coming right up. All right. I'm back on TYT, Jenkinana, with you guys. More news. Let's do it. They said that they do believe that there were militants northbound of here. Now they say the soldier is sorry, but most importantly is that the soldier will not face

any criminal consequences. The military advocate general of the Israeli military says that's because they do not believe he deliberately fired his weapons towards a non-combatant. The Israeli military has concluded its investigation into the shooting death of an Al Jazeera journalist by the name of Shireen Abu Ackle, Palestinian journalist who was wearing a vest that indicated that she was press, was shot and killed. There was one shot to the head that killed her. And in the beginning, there was an attempt by the IDF to blame Palestinians for her death. But after an immense amount of pressure and after an investigation by CNN, which was actually

a pretty good investigation. It became pretty clear that a member of the IDF was actually responsible for this. And so the outcome of this investigation is that the IDF says, yeah, it's actually pretty likely that we did it. But the person who did it isn't going to suffer any consequences for it. Here's more on that. It's been nearly four months since Serena Blakley was killed while covering that Israeli military operation in the West Bank. And this IDF, the Israeli defense forces investigation essentially comes to the same conclusion that several investigations including CNN's own has come to. And I'll read to you from part of this report.

They say it appears that it is not possible to unequivocally determine the source of the gunfire, which hit and killed Ms. Abu Akle. However, there is a high possibility that Ms. Abu Akle was accidentally hit by IDF gunfire, fired towards suspects identified as armed Palestinian gunmen during an exchange of fire. Now, what the IDF says is that they believe that it was a soldier in an armored military vehicle who had a limited range of sight and was south of where Shereen Abuakle, was standing who fired that fatal shot. Now they say that the soldier had no idea that he was firing towards journalists and

thought he was firing towards Palestinian militants who were firing at the soldiers. This despite the fact that it's very clear in the images and videos we've seen that Shrina Bwakle was wearing a protective vest and helmet that clearly says press on the front and back. And CNN's own investigation did not find evidence of militants in the exact vicinity where she was standing. So understand the excuses that the IDF provided. for the shooting death of this Al Jazeera journalist.

Oh, well, you know, the vision or the view of the IDF soldier was obstructed, and they couldn't tell that she was a journalist except she was wearing a vest that said press both on the front and the back. They also claimed that there were enemy combatants shooting at IDF soldiers at the time, and CNN's investigation indicated that that was not the case. And so all of these excuses were meant to provide cover for the soldier who opened fire and killed this journalist, so he or she doesn't have to face or suffer any consequences for it, any criminal consequences for it.

But in reality, look, there are just excuses that are easily debunked. And regardless, the IDF had no interest in the Israeli government had no interest in ensuring that justice would be served in this case, especially considering the first reaction they had to this story was, it wasn't us, it was the Palestinians, when there was absolutely no evidence indicating that was the case. Yeah, let me be super clear. Israel's lying. So people are so reluctant to say that. Why? Well, you give governments, all governments, way too much credibility. As of like, whoa, I mean, the government wouldn't lie. Yes, it would. It lies all the time. U.S. government lies all the time. Saudi government, Israeli government, Turkish government,

Russian government, you name a government, they lie. They lie 24-7. So why are we treating them with any credibility. This should be dismisses the joke that it obviously is. Look, even the official was like kind of winking and nodding throughout. Like, ha ha, we murdered her, who cares? We're like Muhammad bin Salman and we're going to get away with it. They said, hey, there didn't seem to be any militants near her. He's like, well, maybe not right next to her, but there could have been something around. I mean, why don't you just flap us across the face while you're at it? That's like saying, oh, of course, a sniper hit her and hit her in the neck right between her protective equipment below and above, right?

There's no militants anywhere near her. And the official reporting is saying it's not our fault. Says, well, you know, there weren't any miltons next to her, but maybe a couple of miles away. And he says, oh, we shot her in the back. So we couldn't see that she was a journalist. You think that's a good excuse? Well, we shot a random Palestinian in the back. We never thought a second about it.

We didn't hesitate at all murdering that Palestinian. Oh, it turns out it's a Palestinian. And by the way, an American citizen journalist that said press on her back. Right. Right. But, hey, we just thought we were murdering a normal Palestinian. And their lives don't matter at all. That's why we shot her in the back.

The official says, the official says, okay? So look, guys, Israel is murdered her just like the Saudis murdered Khashoggi. And they didn't dismember her, but Khashoggi and her were both dead, so it doesn't really matter either way. But the difference is America covers for the Saudis, doesn't punish them at all, but says bad boys, I cannot believe you did that. In this case, they're like, oh, Israel shot and killed her. Well, we were trying to even lie for them and say maybe they didn't. Okay, now that they've admitted that they killed her, we believe them 100% that it was a pure accident. And the kid, the guy who shot her says, he's sorry.

What else do you want? And besides, she was just a no good Palestinian American citizen. Okay, so one piece of pessimism, and then we'll end with one piece of optimism. Believe it or not, coming from me. So the pessimism comes, or my pessimistic commentary comes in regard to what Al Jazeera wants in terms of a separate investigation. and I think that what they're calling for is crazy, considering how bias the U.S. government is when it comes to Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. Al Jazeera condemned the IDF investigation, saying the delay of more than 100 days since the shooting

is intended to evade the criminal responsibility of bears for the killing of Shireen Abu Ackle, and they called for an independent investigation to be done by the United States. But an investigation by the United States will yield the exact same results. They have no interest in, first of all, ensuring that there is consequences, there are consequences for the IDF soldier who opened fire and killed this clearly labeled press, member of the press, right? So that's the pessimistic stuff. But the optimism is, did you ever think there would be a day that CNN, of all places, would do a role? robust investigation into the Israeli defense forces and their killing of an Al Jazeera journalist. Now, normally I have the optimists on the show, and that is fantastic.

And UCS criticize mainstream media all the time, but we also give them credit when creditors do. And they did a fantastic investigation here at CNN. See, we have no agenda. You give us a great report that actually tells us the truth and prove something wonderful, great journals. If you did that all the time, I would praise CNN to no end. But even though I'm the resident optimist, I'm going to turn to one of our members here on Twitch for a bit of pessimism on that exact issue. They said, Nate Dogg XX, Rodin, they'll probably be fired now since CNN is turning right wing. That's true.

And I hadn't thought of that. Yeah. And he makes it, unfortunately, he makes a great point. Uh-oh, the actual journalist at CNN that did that brilliant reporting that was so conclusive that even Israel had to admit that they were half-law. their job is probably in great danger as we speak now, because the right wing has taken over CNN, their owners are a Republican, and he's already fired two people for telling the truth on air, so it's, and he's trying to send a message, you better not do anything but kiss right wing, Republican ass. And in this case, the right wing in Israel likes to be able to kill

Palestinians and keep them in an open air prison for decades on end and treat them as subhuman. So that's what the agenda will be going forward. And I'm scared of that. And another member by the way, made a great point. Ian Kuhn wrote in, there's no such thing as an accidental long range headshot. By the way, I'll add from a sniper. It was a sniper. He didn't accidentally miss by hundreds of feet or miles since there wasn't militants in the area for miles.

All right, we're going to switch gears a little bit. go back to some domestic news slash economic related stuff and give a shout out to all the single ladies. women. They're chasing their careers. Many of them are probably doing it due to social pressures. Many of them are doing it because they really want to do it. And for that, nothing but respect. Of the women who are not being honest with themselves and are more concerned about social pressures than what they truly would want, maybe a family, I don't think they'll admit it. They'll be 40 and they'll say, nope, life's great. I've never been happier. Young when we'll see it. They'll be 45. I love my life. I'm single and I'm

living it up in the big city. They're going to be 55. And they're going to say, you know, well, it has its charm. They're going to going to be 60 and they're going to go to the young people and say, I've made a terrible mistake. Don't make the same mistake I did. But by that point, there's going to be a generation or two that believed the lies. Now, contrary to what Tim Poole says, there is immense social pressure for women to get married and have children. And also contrary to what Tim Poole says, the women who have decided to forego marriage and children are actually doing real well. And that's not according to me. That's according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,

which recently put out a study about the financial health of women who have decided don't want to get married and definitely don't want to have kids. Here's what they found. Single women without kids had an average of $65,000 in wealth in 2019 compared with $57,000 for single child free men. For single mothers, that figure was only $7,000. And it's understandable why that would be the case in a country that provides absolutely no support for individuals who might want to start a family because having children in a country

with diminishing social safety nets is very expensive. And the cost of child care is definitely right up there in what is causing families to have an unstable financial situation. Now, as we've talked about before, less people have interest in starting a family altogether. A Pew Research Center study last year found that 44% of a Americans ages 18 to 49 who don't have kids say it's not too likely or not likely at all that they will procreate someday. An increase of seven percentage points from 2018. Also, if you take a look at where we were in 1990 versus today, you can see how stark the numbers are. In 1990, there were about 71 births per year for every 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. By 2019, that had dropped

closer to 58 births, according to Census Bureau analysis. At the same time, the share of women ages 25 to 34, who don't have kids, reached a record in 2018, the most recent available data going back to 1976. So it is kind of interesting to see Tim Poole and his gaggle of people make these arguments Is it like, oh, you're going to be so miserable if you're in your mid 30s and you haven't started a family yet. But the date proves otherwise. One of our members wrote in Louis B. Tim Poole, that's why all these women aren't dating me.

That's got to be it. Is it? I mean, it is crazy. I mean, he puts out all that jazzy music that all the ladies are usually clamoring over. Oh, the meaning. Yeah. They go nuts with it. All right.

Anyway, t.com slash join become a member. we do the show with us. All right, listen, here's my, I got a bunch of questions with these guys, but here's my main question. They say, oh, these women, they're going to regret it. They're going to get into their 60s and they're going to be miserable, but it's already too late. They already lied to the young woman. How do you know? How do you know that they're going to be miserable? They're not going to be miserable. You don't know them at all. That doesn't make any, like, what do you base that on? You base it on your goddamn opinion, not theirs. Well, I mean, how do they not see

They're enormous bias and the fact that they're literally mansplaining. Now, let me tell women what women think, okay? They think this, and I know it. Well, I mean, that is a fair question. And Tim Poole delivers. So in the next video, he'll explain exactly where he got his expert analysis and data from. Let's watch. We're citing Jordan Peterson so often in this.

He was saying something that after 35, you better have a family because that's when things start to break down. That's what the conversation. Were you interested, right? No, no, I don't think so. Yeah, when what things start to break down? When you start to be lonely, you're going to have no friends. Like if you don't start a family around 35, you're going to be left out. Yeah, this is colloquially called the wall.

And I'm sure you've heard of it if you've been a denizen of the internet for any length of time. All women supposedly hit a wall when they're about 35. And if you don't have a family, you are going to be lonely. And you're going to have a problem. You're not going to be able to find a good date. It doesn't matter how much money you make because that's not what men look for in a spouse. I do think that there are exceptions to that. So citing Jordan Peterson, I mean obviously the correct arbiter of happiness, you know,

especially as someone who can't stop himself from crying in like almost every video he puts out on the internet. See women wants to get past 35, they're all miserable. Wait a minute, it looks like you're miserable, dude. Okay, so now here's my other question then, why do you guys care? Like let's assume for a second that you're right, which is a preposterous assumption. And women are happy in the beginning, but then they're not a. happy later, et cetera, like what business is it of yours? Why are you interfering in their lives

and go, hey, Susan, don't do that. Don't do that. I'm going to judge you. I'm judging you right now. You're going to be miserably. Why do you care? They're constantly in other people's business, right? And then they ironically say, oh, the liberals are going to make you drinks Starbucks coffee every day. Because their idiot minds project and think, we want to control every part of their lives, so they must want to control every part of our lives. No, Tim Poole, Jordan Peterson, all of you idiots, you make insanely bad decisions all the time for yourself. I don't care. Go cry on air, go do weirdo things. I don't care. I'm going to defeat your ideas. I care about that. I don't want anybody who's gullible and low IQ to accidentally think you're

right. But in terms of what you do with your personal life, it's impossible for me to care less. Yes, let me jump in real quick, because it's really important for people to understand that there is no new era of conservative ideology, okay? It's always the same thing repackaged and sold to the American people as if it's like a new shiny thing. It's the same social conservatism that we've been dealing with for decades and decades in this country, right? And so, yeah, it is none of their business, right? If you want to get married, get married, great. You don't want to get married, don't get married. What business is it of ours?

But the context of the discussion they were having there was how the no cause divorces, I think that's what it's called, where there's no specific reason. You just kind of grew apart and you want to divorce. They think that that is one of the worst things that's happened in this country, because it's made divorce too easy, of course. Why do you care? Who cares? Yeah, exactly. Okay, no, you have to prove to me that your marriage really sucked.

Otherwise, I'm not going to let you out of it. Why? What business is in here? Do we want to force you into a marriage? You don't want to be in. You want tyrannical government, big government, to tell, say, okay, no, government's saying, tell me why you guys are getting divorced. I don't want you to have your goddamn freedom.

I want you to be miserable together for the rest of your lives. We've got to make white babies. Oh, that's what this is about. Okay, because they're panicked. Oh my God, women aren't getting married and they're not baby machines that they use. to be, we're not going to have enough white babies. Oh my God, the replacement theory. Yeah.

They're not here for your goddamn pleasure, okay? They have their own lives and they like to lead their own lives and not being dictated by a bunch of jackoff men who are going around and going, here's what I think you should do, here's what you see how you really feel, and here's what I'm going to make the government do, because I care about you and I don't want you to be lonely. Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, and it is interesting that their brain immediately

goes to making it incredibly difficult for people to get divorced when in reality, maybe they should consider pressuring the government to make the environment a lot more welcoming for people who do want to get married and who do want to have families. And I'm not just talking about tax breaks, okay? That's pretty much all our government does at this point. You get a tax break if you have kids. So congratulations, if you're a millionaire who's having kids, you're going to save a lot of money on taxes, but you don't need the goddamn money. Right. Well, here's the thing, though, ordinary people absolutely do, and they need more than just tax breaks, they need help with things like, you know, child care. For instance, the expenses in bringing up a child

born in 2015, and of course this number has already gone up considerably, through age 17, will run an estimated $310,605, according to the Brookings Institution, which adapted a government calculation to adjust for inflation trends. Adding about another $26,000, the projection doesn't even include the cost of a college education. Okay, so it's obviously very expensive. Literally hundreds of thousands of women permanently left the job force during the pandemic because of how unaffordable child care is. So it is right now with how our economy is, how wages have been stagnant since the 1970s, it is impossible to live in a household that relies on one income. And if you have kids, you definitely need a dual income household. And so I just,

I'm curious how they want this all to work out, right? They want women to stay home. At the same time, it's incredibly expensive to raise children in this country. They want to offer zero support in that regard. No child tax credit, no paid family leave, no nothing once the baby's born, right? And they're like, now women, make more babies. We're not going to pay for a goddamn thing, but make more babies. Hey, by the way, how come your standards don't apply to men? How come we don't have nonstop conversations about men need to get married? Men need to shut up and make babies and know their goddamn role.

How can we never have that conversation? Why is it always men will be miserable if they don't make babies and if they don't take care of them? How come that conversation ever happens? And by the way, look at how insulting every part of this conversation is. Women, if they don't have babies later, you know, they're going to feel so lonely. There's going to be no one to take care of them. Why? Why can't they have other family and friends who take care of them? Well, I mean, there's a million ways to take care of yourself.

No, no, but you should have children. You should have children just so they can take care of you in your old age, because that's not selfish and terrible to do. It's like the world's worst reason, and people say it all the time. They do, like it's normal. Like, yeah, I had kids because I want someone to take care of me when I'm elderly. Oh, okay, great. You're bringing a person into this world for an incredibly selfish reason.

By the way, saved the $300,000, spend it on nurses later, problem solved. Okay, but look, the first stat that Anna ran you is devastating for the right wing in this country. And so, and not just politically, like culturally, because look at what she explained. If you're a single mother, then your wealth is only $7,000. You're devastated. It's really hard to take care of the kid, right? And so right wing loves that because they say, see, you better not be a single mother. You better get married.

We're going to force you to get married, okay? But wait a minute, it turns out if you're a single woman who doesn't have a kid, you make more than men. Your wealth is 65,000. The single men's wealth is only 57,000. So you don't need the men at all. Oh, they hate that. They're like, wait, they don't need us.

How are we going to control them? Oh, that's right. You can't. Hashtag suck it. Yes, yes, Jake. So, look, by the way, every part of this, put aside the politics, every part of this is these stereotypes, these mythology is coarse crap, okay? I know couples who are married, never had kids, they have the time of their lives. They go traveling all the time.

They're not at all miserable. They're not going to go, oh, who's going to take care of us? They're having a great time. By the way, I know couples like me who had kids, and I love my kids. I'm thrilled that I had kids because that's my personal decision. And my friend made a different personal decision and he loves it. His wife loves it. My hairdresser this weekend never had kids.

And by the way, some people including some of our members ordered, some of them can't have kids. And now they're getting yelled at by these monsters. Yeah, absolutely. Yep. But my hairdresser decided not to have kids with her husband. She's going on travel trips and rallies and having the, I mean, the adventures she had, I couldn't fit into a lifetime, right? Oh, she sounds miserable without having more.

my babies. Does she? She sounds like she's really happy. She's going to hit a wall. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You guys hit the wall and that's why you go around yelling at women to mate with you. Not the world's best strategy either. All right, let's take a break. When we come back, we've got Donald Trump defaming Federman by alleging that he takes drugs with absolutely no evidence. We've got that and more coming right up. All right, back on TYT, Jane Canana with you guys. Oh, and one member here at least, Marcus Travick just joined by hitting the join button below the video on YouTube. Thank you.

We appreciate it, Marcus, and everybody can do it at t.com slash join. Come do the news with us. Casper. Let's do it. Sermin supports taxpayer-funded drug dens and the complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, including heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, and ultra-lethal fent. And by the way, he takes them himself. You just heard Donald Trump accuse Fetterman.

In fact, defame Fetterman. as someone who takes drugs like fentanyl. Now, of course, Fetterman is a candidate running against Trump's preferred Republican candidate, Mehmet Oz for a Senate seat in Pennsylvania. And Oz is not performing so well in the poll. So of course, there you see Trump stumping for Oz in an attempt to save him in this election. We'll see if it plays out for him.

But nonetheless, here he is just straight out saying something that's incredibly defamatory. And what I'm curious about Jenk before we go on to more of his insane speech is whether Trump could be sued by Federman for that. Because he didn't say, I think Federman takes fentanyl. He said that he takes these drugs when there's absolutely no evidence indicating that he does. Public officials are actually allowed to lie in public. Like if he was still in elected office, he could have made that statement without any fears of legal ramifications, any fears of like a defamation lawsuit. But he's not an elected official. Yeah.

So look, he's in the political arena. I think that that lawsuit would be very difficult. But I think politically, there's something that's, as usual, driving me mad because of the gaslighting. So that was an outrageous lie to say that somebody's taking meth and fentanyl. I mean, imagine for a second if Joe Biden picked a random Republican senator was like, I think Mark Rubio is on fentanyl. I think Ted Cruz is doing meth.

And he does not, he just says it, right? No evidence, no nothing, he just says it. And he's like, not a big deal. They're doing meth. I know they're doing meth. I know they're doing fentanyl. That's all the country would talk about. And they would say, after what an outrageous statement.

He needs to apologize. This is non-becoming, not befitting of a president. How could he? I mean, we'd talk about it for years. Remember when Biden made up that Rubio and Cruz were on meth and fentanyl? Right? I mean, it's, he said. semi-fascist ones. They're still talking about it. How could he? This is outrageous. And that's just

his opinion, right? Trump says it. It's barely a news story. Why? Because we all know, including his own fans. We all know he's a pathological liar. He lies nonstop. No one takes him seriously because he's a goddamn clown, right? Yeah. But they then they then turn around and go, no, he's perfectly credible. No, no. Oh, we're saying that Trump is lying. That's not neutral. No, That'll get you fired on CNN now. The double standard is insane. Well, the lunacy has been fully normalized. So when you say this didn't even get much attention,

it's because his lunacy is normalized. It's another day. It's Tuesday, right? Literally. But then when you call him a lunatic, his fans are like, how dare you? You have no evidence of that. A liar, he's never lied in his life.

You can get upset at us calling him a lunatic. He's a lunatic. You can't go around accusing people of doing drugs that, they're not doing and there's no evidence of them doing. Can we do it? That is defamation. Can we just say? I mean, we've speculated that Trump and other politicians, not just Trump, you know, might take some stimulants before doing speeches.

And, but it's one thing to say, oh, he seems like he's sniffling a lot. Seems like he might have snorted something prior to this speech. That's different than saying like Donald Trump is doing cocaine. You can't say that. There's no evidence indicating that that's the case. Yeah, guys, there's all the difference in the world. There's all the difference in the world between making fun of Charlie Kirk. We're constantly doing this while I'm talking.

All right, okay, then they're saying, I know Charlie Kirk does meth. I don't even know what drug makes you do this. I don't know, okay. So, but just Trump, but Trump, former president of the United States says it. And everybody says two things that are completely contradictory. Well, it doesn't count because everyone knows Trump lies all the time. So you can't take him seriously. And two, Trump never lies, and I can't believe the fake news says that Trump lies.

It's unfair and it's not neutral. You can't have it both ways. Well, there's more from his speech. So let's take a look at the next portion of it where he attacks fetterman on his views on criminal justice reform. He's a raging lunatic hell bent on springing hardened criminals out of jail in the middle of the worst crime wave in Pennsylvania history. He wants everybody out of jail. And by the way, he wants to get rid of your police. But does he?

Does he? So, like, obviously, I don't trust anything Trump says, and for good reason. And so I looked into Federman's views on criminal justice reform. And he's absolutely right on criminal justice reform. I'll give you a few examples. So one of the specific issues that he came out in support of was, you know, pardoning all the people that are serving time in prison for simple marijuana. possession, which is insane.

So this is from six days ago. It was posted on the website for Pennsylvania's governor. Governor Wolf and Lieutenant Governor Federman announced effort to quickly pardon thousands of Pennsylvanians from marijuana related convictions. These are nonviolent individuals who are serving time behind bars for possession of a plant. And so I totally agree with him on that. But if you- That's weird, it's not fentanyl or meth.

It's almost like he made that up. Yeah, totally, yeah. And later when he talked about how he wants to let go of all the murderers and rapists, and it turns out it was just people who smoked marijuana, it almost seems like Trump made that up too. Yeah, yeah. Well, and the details in that press release that was posted on the governor's website said this, Governor Tom Wolfe and Lieutenant Governor John Federman announced a coordinated effort

for a one-time, large-scale pardoning project for people with, select minor, nonviolent marijuana criminal convictions. Look, Americans love pot, including many of the Americans who support Donald Trump. Do they think they should spend time in prison for their love of marijuana? I think not. Now, if you go to Federman's website and look into his views on criminal justice reform, he's not some abolitionist. He's not someone who wants to do away with policing, do away with prisons.

In fact, he writes, as your senator, I will fight for a criminal justice reform. legal system where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. I will work to make sure that serious crimes receive serious punishment while also alleviating the burdens placed on prosecutors and judges by focusing on effective diversion programs for nonviolent offenders and prioritizing sentencing reform. That is the most measured view on criminal justice reform imaginable. But it doesn't matter. The truth doesn't matter to Donald Trump, whose candidate is flailing. Okay, Oz is suffering immensely because of his own terrible candidacy, and Trump is trying to save him, and he's trying to do so with lies about Federman.

Yeah, look, Fetterman's position is exactly down the middle of the lane. So I can't imagine that there's too many people in the country, Republican or Democrat, that disagree with him. Yes, there's a super far left fringe who says no prisons, Shangri-La, I'm sure the criminals will be lovely after therapy. let's just take a chance and let them run wild. I'm not in that camp, as you can tell, and neither is anyone else. There's seven people on the internet that are in that camp, and that's it.

And on the right wing, they say no, marijuana, some say, not very many either. Some say, no, marijuana is super dangerous. If you ever even looked at it, you should be put in prison for a long time, lock everybody up. But the overwhelming majority of Americans say, no, let the guy on marijuana possession go. That's the equivalent of having a coarse light. No one cares. You're costing us money. You're taking away their freedom.

And by the way, we all smoke pot. On the other hand, they don't want to let murderers and rapists go. That is exactly Federman's position. It's not 1% controversial. But it sounds controversial when Trump lies as he did in that speech and says that Federman wants to let murderers, rapists, and child molesters out of jail. Not remotely true. Just made it up.

And if you ask a right winger, they'll say, well, obviously he made that up, but he never lies. Okay, now there is one other clip from this speech that I think he lost his own audience, too, on this. But it's funny. But, but is it, so let's watch and see if he had a signetable. Yes. As a disaster, he comes in with a sweatsuit on. I've never seen him wear a suit. A dirty, dirty, dirty sweatsuits.

It's really disgusting. So we've told you this before. One of the things that triggers the right wing mind, and especially Donald Trump's, is discussed. It's number one, actually. Fear is number two. These are based on studies. And so if he doesn't like something, he'll always call it dirty.

Immigrants are dirty. John Federman's dirty. His sweatshirts dirty, right? But if you notice, the crowd, which loves to laugh at the most insignificant things that Trump says, didn't find that amusing at all. Why? Because they're Americans. They wear sweatshirts.

They don't think sweatshirts are dirty, dirty. and anyone who wears them is poor, middle class, yuck. That's what Trump is actually saying. Now, this story just broke and it's not good for Oz. All right, so you guys ready for it? Jezebel reporting on an interview that has been unearthed featuring Dr. Oz weighing in on the issue of incest. This is from 2014 when he was on the breakfast club. host Angela Yee asked Oz to weigh in on a question sent in by a listener about someone struggling

with an incestuous relationship. I'm going to ask you this and you tell me if this is safe for this person, okay, ye prompted Oz. Well, he said, ye, I can't stop smashing my cousin. That means sleeping with. Thank you, Yee. So that was the question, right? And then she continued to read out the question.

We hooked up at a young age and now in our 20s, she still wants it. No matter how much I want to stop, I always give it to her. Help me, what advice would you give that person? But Oz took it in a direction that you probably didn't expect. Oz said, if you're more than a first cousin away, it's not a big problem. He responds with, okay, so second cousin is fine to smash. Charlemagne says, it's so funny because I knew that, DJ Envy says, how did you know that? Charlemagne says, because I'm from the country, and Oz says, yeah, it's fine.

It's not a standard answer. Smash and cousins, Dr. Oz in favor. But okay, so look, in reality, in the old world where Dr. Oz is from, not just Turkey, but a lot of immigrants, are there second cousins that are married to one another? Of course. Is it also true in the country? As Charlemagne said, yes, okay. Is that a thing you should say and celebrate on air?

not, right? Now let's flip it. Let's say that Federman had said it. What would the right wing say to him? Oh, they would. They'd be like, oh, dude, he's a groomer. Look at what he's saying. He wants incest. And then they would go, they'd call him, you know, a fan of incest for the rest of his life. And they would never, ever stop. So you'll see this Dr. Oz story. People get a giggle out of it. And then you'll probably never see it again. Yep. All right. we end the first hour on that light note. When we come back, we'll talk about the GOP's continued war on women with Jim Jordan giving his fellow Republican politicians really bad advice. That and more coming right up.

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, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.