The Young Turks - Trump Facing A LOT Of New Investigations And Nancy Pelosi Has Choice Words For Trump

Episode Date: January 4, 2019

The new majority in the House is wasting no time in investigating Trump. During an interview House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had some harsh words for Trump. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS 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. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. All right, welcome the Young Turks, Jank Uger, Anna Kusperin with you guys. This exciting day, fascinating day, Nancy Pelosi is back in charge for better and for worse.

And we're gonna talk about that in a little bit. Donald Trump has obviously lost his mind, but we knew that a while back, but he proved it again last yesterday, I should say. And we're gonna have some of the fallout from that, including his comments about Jim Mattis. And that's a little bit later in the program, and Anna, I said it yesterday on air, but let me say in person, congrats on winning the host challenge and winning it convincingly with You had a big, like you closed a big lead though, right? Remember when you closed a big lead?

And look at her rubbing it in. Look at her rubbing it in. Okay, I've been trying. Act like you've been there before. So I've been meaning to say thank you to everyone. Today's been a crazy day, it's been nonstop, there's been the news cycles out of control and super intense. But seriously, I just want to thank everyone who signed up for membership, period.

Even if you didn't do it under my name, you're helping the company out tremendously. But for those of you who did sign up under my name, I love you. Okay, all right, so the other guys, I like you. No, I love all of you. It's just, you know, for those who helped me win, you gave me the opportunity to do what I'm doing right now, which is make Jenk a little miserable. All right, I hear you. Anyway, we're all united again, tyt.com, so I join to become a member.

We have fascinating developments throughout today and including probably some live developments during the show. So, and then rebel headquarters, of course, and then the post game, and the post game that's just for members, I want to talk about the New York Times article against Bernie Sanders again. So that was the one that came out yesterday, not the New York Times hit piece on him from a couple of days ago. So we'll discuss that and break it down. This one is not as much of a hit piece.

It's very negative, but it's more of a mixed bag on how true it is. But I want to talk about the framing too. So t.t.com slash join and become member. We're almost at 43,000. It'd be great to get there today. But let's get started with the news. All right. The 116th Congress was sworn in today, meaning that Democrats control the House of Representatives

And starting on day one, they have begun their investigations. At least they have begun by outlining exactly what they plan on investigating. Now, Representative Nancy Pelosi, who has just been confirmed as the new Speaker of the House, says that Trump will be investigated on a number of fronts. In fact, she was quoted as saying that he was used to serving with a Republican Congress, House and Senate, that was a rubber stamp to him. That won't be the case, oversight of government by the Congress is our responsibility. That's the role we play.

So among what they plan on investigating, they want to look into Trump's immigration policies, specifically the number of children who have died in border patrol custody. They also want to look into the zero tolerance policy, and they want to get a specific status report on all the children who were separated from their families. They also want to look into Donald Trump's conflicts of interest. So his business ties and how they play a role in the decisions that he makes, and also some of his decisions to hold meetings in his properties, which means that money is being funneled to him through these meetings.

Also, they want to look into his tax returns. So Trump has refused to release his tax returns. Democrats in the House say that they're going to push for him to release his tax returns, And also security clearances for people like Flynn and Jared Kushner. So that's just a quick outline, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. So Representative Nadler, Jerry Nadler was on CBS's this morning. And he spoke about what he plans on doing. Let's take a look.

For the last two years, the president has had no oversight and no accountability from Congress. The Republican Congress was completely derelict in its responsibility to provide oversight. We are going to provide that oversight. We're going to use the subpoena power if we have to. We'll call in Mr. Whitaker, for instance. We'll have to protect the Mueller investigation and pass that legislation. We'll call in Mr. Whitaker, who's agreed to come in, although he can't seem to find a date. And we'll subpoena him if necessary, and we'll ask questions about...

Is that job one for you when you take over the committee? Well, it's one of two jobs. First job is to pass H.R. 1, which is the democratization bill to guarantee free elections, deal with gerrymandering, deal with campaign finance. people can't buy the elections so people feel that the elections are proper and that they control them, not-Risman. We've got to go, Congressman. But thank you, Jerry Nadler, thanks so much for being with us as well.

All right, you're talking about money and politics, we gotta go, we gotta go. I mean, they might have run out of time to be fair to them. But I just, that was such an abrupt ending. So I like the fact that Representative Nadler also mentioned that they want to get money out of politics, that is an important order of business, and it seems like he is focused on that, but they're also planning on focusing on, you know, Trump and some of his actions in his first two years as president. Yeah, so I believe that they actually ran out of time, but it was a funny moment where

they're like, somebody mentioned money in politics, right alert, red alert, get off the air immediately. Okay, you guys might want to look into that in the mainstream media. Turns out it might be a little bit influential. So I like that HR1 is their top priority because it's the cleanup elections. And that's wonderful, that's our top issue, because it's the issue that affects all others. Am I satisfied that H.R. 1 is good enough, not remotely, but that's, you know, standard Democratic Party leadership stuff.

They actually, I think the right answer, of course, is an amendment. This is dinking and dunking. I'll take it, I'm not opposed to small progress, I would just like big progress as well, and I'd like to fight for that. And of course, they're not going to do that. And in fact, a democratic leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, are the ones who fight against an amendment the hardest. I know that because I founded Wolfpack and Wolfpack fights to get an amendment and goes

state by state to do it. And Democratic leadership often calls in at the state level and says, do not let them do a resolution for a convention that would propose an amendment. So it's not just that they're for a little change. They are actually, as they are in the PAYGO situation, they are actively opposed to big change that progressives are in favor of. So the two main things that House Democrats want to accomplish shows you just how much of a mixed bag establishment Democrats are.

Because on one hand, while they wouldn't support a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics, it is important to elect them over Republicans because these investigations are important. I would want the same investigations if it were, let's say, Barack Obama, who was riddled with conflicts of interest, who was using the office or his position of power to enrich himself financially, right? And so I'm glad that Democrats are looking at that, but at the same time, of course, they have some significant flaws as well.

Yeah, I mean, look, I think we walked a walk a thousand different times, and if you watch the show regularly, you know that, and we thought the Clinton Foundation had significant issues. It was, the Saudis were not donating to the Clinton Foundation because they were in a charitable mood. Now they, unlike the Trump Foundation, actually did use it for charity. So it was infinitely better than Trump as usual, but that's a very low bar. And so in this case, I like H.R. 1 and I like it infinitely better than what the Republicans have done, which is steeped themselves knee-deep, neck-deep in corruption. But I can't stand that the Democratic Democratic Party is fighting against an amendment overall.

And so that's just the reality of it. So now in terms of the conflicts of interest, there's so many that it even overwhelmed me. I had missed this one until today, so sorry about that. It turns out that the Trump might have ordered the FBI not to relocate as it was planning to do. Why? Because it turns out the FBI headquarters is across the street from his hotel. It's a nice tourist draw.

Jesus Christ, should you investigate that? Of course you should investigate that. Jared Kushner has a ton of business interest that he is still actively involved in that is tied to foreign interests. That way other countries can funnel money to a person who was handling senior policy at the White House. How did he get security clearance? Should he have gotten security clearance?

Obviously Michael Flynn should not have gotten security clearance and he was a national security advisor, and he has now pled guilty to the things that caused them to have issues in the first place, why he shouldn't have gotten clearance? And so these are very legitimate investigations. And as usual with the Democrats, they're partly saying we're gonna go right now, and partly saying, whoa, whoa, I mean, look, you know, we're, let's take it easy on the tax returns. We're gonna take our time because we want to establish a potential relationship with Trump on things like the infrastructure bill, et cetera.

I would love for them to pass a real infrastructure bill, not one that just enriches Trump's friends and donors, but that doesn't mean that you have to slow down on asking for tax returns. Being nice to Trump is not necessarily a winning strategy. No, definitely not. In fact, it would be stupid for them to go out of their way to be nice with Trump, to try to negotiate with Trump. I think maybe in some cases negotiating could make sense, but he's not willing to move an inch for you, even if it's to the benefit.

of, you know, countless Americans. So why would you go out of your way to be nice to him? Now, Representative Elijah Cummings is not interested in being nice to Trump. In fact, he is the new chairman for the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and he's planning to immediately send out document requests and subpoenas to get to the bottom of the family separation policy, including documentation on every child who was separated from their parents at the border and where they are now. Some of those kids still haven't been reunited with their parents because their parents were

deported after the children were taken away from them. So they're still in US custody. The United States did not keep track of where the parents went. And so it's a complete and utter disaster. And luckily we have some lawmakers who want to get to the bottom of it. They haven't let go of that story. They want to figure out what's going on. Elijah Cummings also says, I want to probe senior administration officials across the government who have abused their positions of power and wasted taxpayer money, as well as President Trump's decisions to act in his own financial self-interest rather than the best interests of the American people. I agree with his priorities, and I like that he's focusing on the kids first because

that actually has time urgency. They are separated from their parents, we don't know where their parents are. We gotta fix that right now, right now. So they're gonna wait on some things, I like that they're not waiting on that. So overall, is it a good thing that the Democrats took over the house and we're gonna have some real oversight now? Absolutely, it's wonderful, okay? As usual, do we want them to go a little farther?

Yes, right? But as far as this is concerned, take your victories. It's a good victory, it's a solid beginning, and so I'm very happy with it. And I'll give you a little bit more context too. So how did the Republicans react when they had oversight power over Democratic presidents? Well, Representative Dan Burton from Indiana was in charge of oversight during the Clinton years. And he did things like investigate whether the Clinton's murdered Vince Foster. So that's an insane conspiracy theory.

And they spent taxpayer money chasing that. So Republicans, if you're saying, oh my God, you're going to do too much oversight and it's political, spare me your crocodile tears. That was Dan Burton. Kevin McCarthy was not as crazy. He was though more accidentally honest. So I'm going to give you his quote, this is when they were doing about. investigations on Benghazi.

So they always say, oh, no, no, no, it's not political. We care a lot about what happened in Benghazi. That's why we were doing these select committees, except that Kevin McCarthy accidentally admitted in 2015. Quote, everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee, what are her numbers today? Yeah.

So that is a direct admission that they did investigation of the Obama administration to try to do political damage on Hillary Clinton's candidacy, and then they brag later about bringing her poll numbers down. Right, exactly. So it was political, and if they had done the investigation once, then it's understandable, right? Because it should be investigated, there's nothing wrong with doing it once. But it became political when it became a nonstop, repetitive talking point, both on Fox News and among Republican lawmakers, became political when they insisted on doing the same investigation

over and over again, which had cleared Hillary Clinton previously. I mean, they did it for political reasons. It's abundantly clear. And so when it comes to Trump, I don't want it to be political. I think that these investigations make sense. And of course, Republicans are going to use that its political talking point to try to make it seem like this is nothing more than a witch hunt. Yeah, I give you that context, and the final piece of that context is, by the way,

they investigated nine different times every time they cleared the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing, any crimes, nothing, nothing, nothing. And that was the Republicans, because they, it just wasn't true. But they kept going at it again and again until Hillary Clinton lost the election. One month later, they disbanded the select committee. They were still in charge, but they're like, oh, we don't need that anyway, that was obviously political. They are absolutely brazen about it.

So we give you the context so that when the mainstream media calls it even and says, well, I don't know, no, no, no, no, we do know. The Republicans brag about how they make oversight political and they try to do damage to the other party. So Democrats, we don't want you to do likewise. We just want you to be appropriately aggressive and not worry about what the Republicans say, not worry about what Donald Trump says, and not worry about what the mainstream media says. So go forward.

For the moment being, it looks like they are, so that's good news. Moving on to some other news. Nancy Pelosi is disputing a talking point that we've been hearing in the mainstream media quite a bit lately, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Well, there's nothing in the constitution that says that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and this talking point is perpetuated by a Department of Justice guideline from back in the day. So Nancy Pelosi addresses us during a recent interview with the Today Show, and here's her take on it. Do you believe the special counsel should honor and observe the Department of Justice

guidance that states a sitting president cannot be indicted? I do not think that that is a conclusive. No, I do not. So you think it's possible that special counsel Mueller could legally indict a sitting president? Let's just see what Mueller does. Let's spend our time on getting results for the American people. As you well know, there is longstanding Department of Justice guidance that says that States, a sitting president should not be indicted.

But it is not the law. It is not the law. Everything indicates that a president can be indicted after he is no longer president of the United States. What about a sitting president? Well, sitting president when he's no longer president of the United States. A president who is in office. Could Robert Mueller come back and say, I am seeking an indictment?

I think that that is an open discussion. I think that is an open discussion in terms of the law. So I agree with her on that. Yes, there is Justice Department guidance on this, but it is not a law, it's not written in our Constitution. There's no indication that it would be impossible for a sitting president to be indicted. I mean, first of all, I think it really depends on the crime, right? The alleged crime.

So if a sitting president has been charged with something super serious, like let's say murder, right? What, that person can't be indicted until they're no longer president? Yeah. So, overall, I agree with her tenor. There's an important point I'm gonna disagree with in a little bit, but in terms of the end I mean the Justice Department guidance was from 1973, that doesn't mean it's wrong. And it's, it is their guidance and I think it has some weight.

The Supreme Court has never weighed in on it. Now, theoretically, I was gonna say if the president shot someone, we would, you know, impeach him. I don't know, with Republicans. But with the Republicans, you know, I don't know if that theory holds. So if they, and you know it's not going to be murder, okay, but then you get into how serious is the crime and will the Republicans impeach or not impeach. But a crime is a crime, so, and I don't mean jaywalking, I mean serious enough, like a felony, for example, the campaign finance violation.

So what if the Republicans say, no, we're not going to impeach, I don't care, but it is a clear felony and I mean any other person but the president would be charged, that's very problematic for our democracy to say that we will not indict a sitting president under any circumstance. And two years from now, a statute of limitations might have run, you know, and witnesses will forget and have faulty memory, prosecutors will have a hard time, harder time trying it, and you know how Democrats are, they'll say we don't look backward, we look forward, So, there are signs for concern about the Democrats zeal in pursuing this. We don't want it to be political either, but we also don't want to let him get away with

it if he actually committed a crime. Don't you feel like what's happening right now is not only testing our system of government, but also showing that it has glaring flaws, right? Because the whole point of, you know, three branches of government is checks and balances. And right now, especially over the last two years, we've had a Republican-controlled Congress that had no interest in serving as a check on the executive branch's power. And so when you have that failure in our political system and then you add on this guidance by the Justice Department, then that means that there could be no justice for the American

people if the president is found guilty of committing a serious crime. Yeah, and so it's a balancing act. So you don't want the opposing party to try to arrest. the president willy-nilly, trust me that the Republicans would immediately begin to abuse that. On the other hand, you can't let the president be above the rule of law. So that's why it's a balancing act. That's why it's not an easy answer for the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi, so let's be fair

about that. And Mueller has not come forward yet, so we don't know other than the campaign finance violations how serious it is. Although I can guarantee you the Republicans would not have paused for one second if Obama had clearly committed a felony as Trump has. So let's just be clear about that. But I would not want the Democrats pursuing a non-serious crime, to be honest with you. I didn't like it when the Republicans did it to Bill Clinton.

And you can disagree with me whether that was a serious or non-serious crime, but I don't think that it was worthy of impeachment or indictment. And if it was along those lines, and I thought Democrats were doing it for political reasons, I would not agree. In this case, we already have one serious crime on the board and likely far more coming up, Which then leads us to the impeachment discussion. Right. So now that we know what Nancy Pelosi believes in regard to a sitting president possibly getting

indicted, what does she think about Trump getting impeached? And this is a nuanced answer, I'll give you some more details after you watch the clip. Many Democrats are talking about impeachment. You've said it would be sad and divisive for the country to pursue impeachment. Are you willing to rule it out? Well, we have to wait and see what happens with the Mueller report. We shouldn't be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn't avoid impeachment for a political reason, so we just have to see how it comes.

Yeah, I actually think that's a nearly perfect answer. Yeah, I agree. She's gonna muck it up a little bit here in one other thing that she said, but first I want to give her credit, I think that's exactly right. Do not impeach for a political reason, but do not stop impeachment for a political reason either. And before the elections, Democrats for political reasons were very worried about bringing up impeachment because they thought that might hurt their chances in the election.

Now the Mueller report hadn't come out yet, so it's okay as they got lucky in that sense. But if it had come out and it was damning and they refused to talk about it because their ideology that, hey, all politics is the same as it was in the 1990s, which is preposterously wrong, then it would have been infuriating. But for now, I think that's the exact right balance. Yeah, I totally agree with you. I mean, if the Mueller report had come out and it was damning and it had proven that Trump was guilty of all the things that we suspect him of being guilty of, and she said, no, no,

no impeachment, it's gonna look political, then it would be ridiculous. But in this case, the Mueller report hasn't come out and she's doing the right thing here. I think that it would look really, really bad for congressional Democrats to go forward with any type of attempt to impeach him right now. So for example, no, look, and then that also depends too, of course. If Mueller report were to, for example, never come out, then I would say, yeah, I think you should probably go forward on the felony violation of the hush money that was clearly a crime, that Michael Cohen is going to prison for three years.

Why is one guy going to prison for three years and the other guy you can't touch? But it doesn't matter because Mueller report is going to come out. And I think it is correct to wait for it. So you have all the information before you make decisions. So it doesn't seem preemptive. It seems justified if that's the direction they're going to go. Right, but I actually, so look, for Democrats, remember, we're thinking about this from a justice standpoint.

Politicians are not going to think about it from a justice standpoint. I'm sure that that's a factor that they consider, but what they consider more than anything is how is this going to look? And for most Americans, unfortunately, they don't care about those campaign contributions. Even some Democrats that write into the show think, well, is there really any proof that this was a campaign finance violation? They just, even if they're wrong, they don't buy into it. So it would look political if Democrats went after Trump over that and that only.

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that. But that's okay, it's a fair disagreement to have and the Mueller report's gonna come out. So last thing on Pelosi, she told USA today that she does not intend to seek grounds for impeachment unless it's quote, clearly bipartisan. No, that I don't agree with at all. If the Mueller report comes out and there's really serious crimes in there, but the Republicans go, yeah, whatever, but Trump will have mean tweets about me and I'll get primaried, so I don't care.

That is an incredibly high likelihood. It could be so devastating that the Republicans go, okay, you guys are right, okay? But that's less likely. And so if we're gonna need Republican permission to pursue impeachment, if it is warranted, why did we put the Democrats in charge. I know, it just further proves that Democrats can be very weak, and it's sad. Yeah, she almost had it if she, and we would have been happy to give her credit today on a historic day where she's now Speaker of the House again, only two other people

have been non-consetive Speaker of the House twice, including Congressman Rayburn and Henry Clay. She's the first female Speaker of the House. She was back in 2007, here she is again, and I think that her comments on impeachment were just right until she had to say, well, I'm gonna wait till it's clearly bipartisan. And unfortunately, that gets to our frustrations with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership. Same thing on PAYGO, they want permission from Republicans.

We didn't elect Republicans. It was a title wave. 40 to 41 seats they picked up. That is one of the largest pickups in United States history. So when you have a wave like that, you're not supposed to go ask the other party for permission. Right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we are going to give you an update on the government shutdown. And I'm starting to think Lindsey Graham is actually trying to sabotage Trump.

Yeah, I don't think so. Okay, but it's an interesting conversation. Come right back for it. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The Republic or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom.

In each episode of Un-B-The Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, radio, radio, or sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught

in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, You must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. All right, back on a Young Turks, Jank and Anna with you guys. Jet 53 from the member section says, Anna, can you, you can brag that you won the host competition, just don't turn into Trump, don't start saying that you had a tremendous

one, a bigly win, a strong win. No, no, no, we're done with the competition thing. I'm actually starting to feel a little bad. Like, no, no, no, I'm being serious, though, like, because I don't want people to think that we're actually, like, hating on each other, like, we have a good relationship, like, I'm not really trying to make Jenk feel miserable. Like, let's keep you. I'm greatly amused by it.

I think I'm going to be okay. All right, by the way, we're only four people away from 43,000 members. So, t.yt.com slash join. But again, free trial continues. So tyt.com slash holiday if you want to try it out for a week, okay, so it's a great time to do it. Progressive Todd writes in from the member section, if a sitting president can't be indicted, then there should be legislation or an amendment to fix that, no one should be above

the law. You're here, brother. A sudden eternity on Twitter says, so Dem's first moves in control of the House, make progressive change impossible, check, start a bunch of useless investigations of Trump to distract from their betrayal of their base, check, go Justice Dems. First of all, hold for the vote, and let's see how people vote, okay, on PAYGO, and second of all, we can do both. I don't think that it's like, hey, you're doing Trump investigations.

That's it, you can't do any policy. Now they don't want to do the policy, that's what we're going to hold them to account for. And so on the other hand, if you said to me, hey, you're going to do Medicare for all. But in return, you have to let Donald Trump get away with crimes, I would say, why? Why do I have to let him get away with crimes? I can do both. Okay, politicians barely work, trust me that they have plenty of time to do both. Okay, math and magician, me says, welcome to today's S show and new.

era where Democrats will produce for the donors by screwing little people instead of Republicans. At least we have Jen and Anna to cover it. Well, thank you. We appreciate that. And last one is from YouTube super chat. Mishmonster says, today I was listening to NPR, they claim Bernie Sanders was too far left to win Midwest voters, infuriating. Also, by the way, let me just pause to say non-factual, he did great in the Midwest

in the primaries. So just not remotely true, again, NPR bias against Bernie Sanders for the billionth time in a row. We will talk about New York Times bias in the postgame for the members, t.yt.com slash join. I would love to listen to that. So if you can tweet us again and tell me which show on NPR, just for my own information. Sure. Anna has a pro NPR bias. Okay, no, but I want to know, I want to know because I could be wrong.

So please send that to us. And then Mish Monster says one last thing. Also, a longtime fan, shout out to you being solid trans supporters. I'm a trans woman in Florida. Thank you. We appreciate that. Much love to you. And we're here to protect everybody, to the best of our abilities, okay?

We fight for you guys. So, all right, let's go on on the next story. We are on the 13th day of a partial government shutdown. Of course, this is all over funding for the border wall, $5 billion that Trump is demanding. And Democrats so far have refused to give him that funding. Now, Democrats have proposed other measures. And it appears that Trump is unlikely to sign them. But right now, Democrats plan to vote through spending measures that would fund agencies

like the Interior Department through at least the end of September. The package of bills allots $1.3 billion for border fencing, but nothing for Trump's supposed wall, right? I have a surprising prediction on this in a minute. Okay. So before we get to Jenks' prediction, Lindsey Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham, wants Trump to continue doing what he's doing, even though there have already been some pretty severe ramifications in regard to this government shutdown. So here he is on Sean Hannity's show, urging Trump

to keep doing what he's doing. If he gives in now, that's the end of 2019 in terms of him being an effective president. That's probably the end of his presidency. Donald Trump has made a promise to the American people. He's going to secure our border. Every Democrat in the past has voted the border funding. Now they're changing their mind. So he apparently thinks it's a good idea. He thinks this is good advice for Trump to continue this government shutdown until Democrats finally concede and give him the $5 billion he's demanding for the border wall. And Lindsey Graham also says, hey, we have a really good deal for Democrats.

We can offer workers visas for DACA recipients, and they don't have to worry about getting deported for three years. What's so bad about that? No. But Democrats have not bought into that, and I'm glad that they haven't. So Jank, you have a prediction on this. First, real quick, on Graham, he, why is he doing this? He doesn't care that much about immigration.

That's not his main issue, his main issue is starting wars or maintaining wars. And so they're all like NASCAR drivers, and his biggest sponsor is the defense contractor. So the reason he's doing this is to earn credit with Donald Trump. Oh, Mr. President, you are so right about that, well, you need to stick strong and we're all behind you. And he's talked against Mitt Romney, he said, oh, people like Mitt Romney should understand that they need to fund the border wall. And Mr. Trump is so right on that.

Then he turns around in a meeting that he had a couple of days ago and says to Trump, now remember, you should stay in Syria and Afghanistan, right? Right. So there's a quid pro quo going on here. I'll back you on the wall and you back me on further wars. So that's a possibility and probably the likely possibility. The other possibility, though, is that he wants Trump out. And right now, the majority of Americans are blaming Trump for this government shutdown, and

they're angry about it. And so I would argue that there's a possibility, even though it's a small one, that Trump is being sabotaged by Senator Graham. No. He's purposely giving him bad advice. That would require politicians to be savvy and smart and strategic. And I've yet to see one playing chess, let alone three-dimensional chess as they claim in Washington.

No, they're generally simpletons, as I think Lindsey Graham is here. I think the quid pro quo is much simpler. And by the way, Mitt Romney for all of his tough talk from yesterday, says, oh, no, no, I'm for funding the border wall. Yeah, that's what we thought, okay? Anyways, now the surprising prediction. Now the Democrats have Donald Trump exactly where they want him. He's reeling.

The shutdowns lasted for a long time here. The Democrats have the House. They get to pass a bill to reopen the government in a way that is popular with the American people. There's no reason at all why they should give an inch to Donald Trump. I believe that they will soon give a surprising concession to Donald Trump that allows them to save face so that they could reopen the government. Why? Because their donors are going to start panicking about the markets.

The markets are going down and the Democrats work for their donors. They will soon be getting calls saying, enough, enough, the market's gone down too much. You gotta go make a deal, go in there, who cares, two and a half million, 1.3 billion for the wall, make some sort of compromise and let's be done with this. Now, we're gonna get to find out if I'm right, because I tell you ahead of time. You know, it's that's an interesting prediction and you could be right, but one of the reasons why, let's say the stock market just experienced another dip is because of the trade war. So these donors are blaming Trump and the trade war.

At this current moment, that's what they're blaming the dip in the stock markets on. No, that's true. But at the same time, if the government were to reopen, it would at least give a temporary bump up to the markets. And at some point, people are going to get jittery. And so they're going to call the people that they give a lot of money to on the Democratic side and go, let's go, let's go, let's go, we've got to have this thing headed back in the right direction.

They're not interested in losing money. And they are not interested in the markets crashing, even if it's true. Trump's fault. I know, but when it comes to destroying the markets, Trump has a multi-pronged approach, right? This government's shutdown is just one part of that approach. But I mean, Republicans are just as guilty, if not more guilty, of these giant campaign donations from corporations.

Oh, no, no, they're way more guilty, but that doesn't absolve the Democrats. My point here is simply that the Democrats will give a surprising concession when they don't need to at all, and I'm telling you ahead of time why they're doing it. And they will pretend that on July 18th, get excited. This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited.

Sorry. Smurfs. Only dinner's July 18th. There's, oh, well, you know, the government workers, they've been out for so long, and we feel sorry for them, and they're really important, and this just has gone on too long. No, I'm telling you ahead of time, it's because their donors will call them and say, wrap it up. Now, I shouldn't be right. This is a clear win for the Democrats. And so far, they're holding strong. So maybe I won't be right. Maybe it'll go another week, two weeks,

and Trump will concede. We'll find out. We'll find out. Well, Joe Scarborough, who's a Republican, does not want Democrats to concede. In fact, he spoke about that recently on Morning Joe. Here's what he had to say. 70% of Americans oppose his wall shutdown strategy. So when it comes, to pure numbers. When it comes to pure data, the Trump shutdown is a political bust. And the Republicans know that. The Democrats have a proposal on the table that would get the government open today and get immigration judges back in their courts and get immigration services like E-Verify that ensure that there are legal people who are getting hired by businesses. would get those e-verify services back online today and make our country saver, safer for legal

immigrants, safer for Americans. This is, again, a plan that Republicans and the Senate have supported. But you've got a president, Mika, who wants his phony wall on the Mexican border so badly that he has frozen the possibility of any meaningful negotiations taking place. No one wants it. Yeah, while the government stays shut down. And then he addresses Democrats specifically, and here is his plea to them. And there is no reason. Let me underline this.

There is no reason Democrats should give an inch on a phony wall that is nothing more than a political punchline for this president. Yeah. Well, I just laid out the reason. So we'll find out if they're on the level or not. But yes, any rational discussion of the politics of the situation would tell you that Democrats should hold steady and that the Republicans will put pressure on Donald Trump because 70% of the country is against them. That's a terrible situation to be in.

And the longer this goes on, the more they'll be blamed for it. Well, let's see what happens. I really hope they don't concede. I really want to win my bet, two for two. Let's see what happens. Right, and not only that, I mean, just based on the principle of it, I mean, this is a chance for Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, for instance, to prove that they can be fighters, to prove that they can do the right thing and not concede.

And if they concede just based on the desires of their donors, then I mean, I really hope you're not right, I just, I'd like to not be disappointed as much in 2019. I know that that's asking for a lot. Yeah, and I want to be clear, they wouldn't come in with a weird, complete capitulation. It would be too embarrassing for them. They wouldn't come in and go, okay, $5 billion for the wall, and you win, Mr. President. That would be preposterous. They will come in with a compromise concession that is a face-saving gesture to Donald Trump,

which lets them off the hook. So we'll see if that happens. Because there's no reason for them to budge at all, they should have Trump come to them. But my guess is that they'll rescue. So a lot of these conversations usually have to do with, you know, the negotiating that's taking place, what lawmakers are saying? But what are the real life consequences of this partial government shutdown? We're going to tell you that and more when we return from the brain.

At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying on. of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important.

ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired Magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EXP-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from The Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent

media become a member at t yt.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. All right, back on a young turks. Let me go in reverse order here. I'll go to YouTube super chat first. Florida fly fishing says, can you imagine what we could get done when a progressive president gets elected in fights like this for us and has public opinion on his or her side? Let us whisper of a dream. We whisper of a dream so much, we have a room in the studio called the whisper room. That's true, it's for quality control, but you could go in there a whisper of dreams. F. Drumpf writes in on Twitter, I shortened it.

I just wanted to say a big thank you for your support of trans people. I'm a trans man and you're the only newscast I watch, keep up the amazing work you all do. Thank you. Again, very heartwarming, really appreciate it. It's our honor to fight for you guys. So Ronan 1 in the member section says, NPR's idea of neutral is to be a plan from anyone who donates. Just look at the sponsors of some of their shows.

Their niches to cover up centrist and libertarian talking points in a veneer of liberalism from their left of center for their left of center viewers. So look, it's a mixed bag. So Anna and I disagree a little bit on that. But it's around the margins. So I think that NPR does some great work and has some great shows. And yes, I believe that they are in the same bubble of group think that the establishment in status quo is great.

And that Bernie Sanders would disrupt that. And they are not in favor of that. Editorially across the network. That's my opinion. I think that you're not as convinced of that, but that's okay. No, because I listen to it more than you, and by more than you, I think 100% Yeah, yeah, no, my only experiences from when, you know, it gets out and it makes news what they've said and, et cetera, and I've never seen a positive story about Bernie Sanders

made news on NPR, but it's nonstop negative stories, including the one that a viewer mentioned earlier today. Right, and also don't get me wrong, like the thing that I think, and people make that mistake with this network, and it drives me crazy, because on this network we have various hosts who have various opinions, and we don't all agree with one another. And so if one host says something that a group of viewers disagree with, then TYT network as a whole gets blamed. And I'm like, no, but I, that's not fair, I disagree with that too.

You know what I'm saying? Same thing happens with NPR. They have people on that I disagree with, they'll have guests on that I disagree with, but to say that NPR as a whole is against Bernie Sanders, I think is, it goes a little too far. Let's pick it up in the post game because I actually, I think that your perspective is a little skewed because you work here where there is no top down editorial control. Whereas at the New York Times, for example, there clearly is, and that's part of what

I want to talk about in the post game. Their editors do change the reporter's articles to be more negative against Bernie Sanders. That's a fact. So it's a great story by Matt Taibian in Rolling Stone about it, and I want to talk to you guys about that. And would I be surprised if NPR did the same thing? I wouldn't be remotely surprised if they tell people, hey, hey, hey, you should be more balanced against Bernie Sanders.

What balance? Well, when are you ever positive about it? And I do have a point of view that I want to share in the post game that does contribute to the points that you're trying to make. It's about where NPR is based and anyway, tune in because I think it'll be a good conversation. TYT.com slash join, obviously members get just more coverage and more of the show, try to make it worthwhile for you guys. Like I've said, $4.99 a month, it's basically a cup of coffee.

If you could do $10 as an activist level, you get a little bit more, and we really appreciate it. It helps build home of progressives. And by the way, I made a mistake in not focusing on that, because at least I could have beat you on that. And I lost by three on activist level members. Just three. Oh, yeah, yeah, all right, let's move on.

Okay. What are the real world consequences of a partial government shutdown? Unfortunately, that is a part of this shutdown story that I feel people are not focusing on enough. Yes, federal workers are either being furloughed or they're being forced to work without pay. They'll get paid later. But there are already some negative impacts on our environment, specifically in our national parks. Now, employees at national parks are not considered essential workers, so many of them have been furloughed. And as a result, the national parks are being vandalized in some cases.

There is an overflow of human waste, fecal matter. Since the government shutdown began on December 22nd, the nation's 417 parks, battlefields and monuments have become unsupervised playgrounds open to the public with few, if any, staffers to rein in rampant littering, illegal parking, and human waste. So the porta-potties and pit toilets have become so overflow that it's become a safety concern, a health concern. And so many of the parks are starting to shut down completely. They're not allowing people to come in.

Joshua Tree National Park, one of my absolute favorite national parks, is now shutting down the campground, so people are not allowed to go camping there. People traveled from out of state just to go camping there, and they've been turned away. The Yosemite National Park Twitter account tweeted the following. The Hetch Hetchy and Mariposa Grove are now closed due to lack of restrooms and resulting impacts from human waste. People entering closed areas are being cited. And then people are using dirt bikes in areas that they're not supposed to be using dirt

bikes and destroying Mother Nature in that way. It's out of control. I actually think it's a great allegory for the Trump administration. Total chaos, no rule of law, and rampant littering, illegal parking, and too much human waste. Pretty much nails it. Illegal parking to me is the Trump guys parking their businesses in the middle of our government and trying to profit off of us. They've littered the landscape with horrific tweets and ugly charges, et cetera, and the human

waste speaks for itself. So we cover all sorts of heartbreaking stories, but for some reason, like this story is beyond heartbreaking for me because these national parks, I mean, this is, this was, it's an escape, honestly. Like you're going through a stressful time, whether it's in work or your personal life, whatever It is, you go there, you reconnect with nature, you clear your mind, and you feel a lot better, right? It reminds you of the beauty in the world.

And to know that it's being destroyed like this, for instance, one report by Mother Jones says people are relieving themselves outside the confines of park bathrooms, many of which have been locked. Yosemite employee says, quote, there's more trash and human waste and disregard for the rules than I've ever seen in my four years living here. But what I also found fascinating in watching various local news reports about this story, is that locals in the area, especially at Joshua Tree, are blaming the federal government for it.

But one man was quoted as saying, as he's like volunteering to help with the cleanup efforts, he was quoted as saying, I'm not going to let the federal government do this to my backyard. But the federal government helps to keep your backyard clean in this case, right? It's the Trump administration, Trump specifically, who's refusing to even negotiate because he's demanding $5 billion in your money, taxpayer money, to fund the border wall. Yes. I mean, it reminds me of the sign that they had at the Obama protests that the Tea Party put together where they said, get your government hands off my Medicare.

Medicare is a government program. The government takes care of the parks, and when it's not around, you see that the disaster we have. But of course, they learn nothing from it. They twist it into, see, I knew it, the government can't do anything right. That makes no sense at all. And taking what is beautiful in the world and putting human waste all over. Like one of the few things, one of the few things left.

A great metaphor for Trump. I know. It's like, let us have one beautiful thing in this world. But no, it's got to be destroyed. So unfortunately, a lot of these parks are shutting down until the government reopens. Some of them are allowing people to come during the day, but they want people to leave at nightfall. So Joshua Tree is allowing people to come in, but you're not allowed to camp there for the

foreseeable future. So this is the real consequence, not only on the federal workers, but also to our environment, to our national park, something that I personally value a lot. And it's something that I wish we had a mature president to consider, but he won't. So the last thing is a volunteer at Joshua Park said, once those portal parties fill up, there's no amount of cleaning that will save them. At that point, I think I'm going to have to tap out. Yeah.

Yeah, I wish we could tap out of this administration. me too let's take a break but when we come back possibly my favorite whiny monologue from tucker carlson he tackles the issue of women who work thanks for listening to the full episode of the young turks support our work listen ad free access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcast at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon