The Young Turks - Trump Green-Lighting MASSIVE Immigrant Raid

Episode Date: July 12, 2019

Massive raids will hit ten cities. More reasons why Nancy Pelosi sucks. 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. Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm Anna Kasparian.

John Iarola, not only did his morning show. today, the damage report, but he's filling in for Jank. Yeah, I'm gonna coast a bit, but I am here. I doubt you're gonna coast, you're not a coaster. We'll see. It's the furthest thing from the truth. I'm glad to be here because we have not done the show together in a very long time. I know, I was actually thinking about that the other day, so I'm glad we're doing the

show together today, and we have so much to get to, just so you guys know, we are going to update you on the whole citizenship question in the census. As we were going live, Trump was still speaking. And so we will have the updated version of that story ready for you guys after the first break. But in the meantime, we're going to focus on other immigration-related news because there's quite a bit of it. Later on in the show, I'll be joined by Philodius Monk and also Brooke Thomas. And we're going to talk about some social commentary stories in addition to more political news. So I'm looking forward to that as well.

I hope you are. And with that said, let's get started. Whether they are or not, let's do it. You're watching, so I'm hoping you are. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. But we have, again, great stories for you. But let's start off with some potentially disastrous news. Donald Trump's nationwide raids on immigrants are reportedly scheduled to happen this week,

by the end of the week on Sunday. And the New York Times is reporting that as many as 10 major cities will experience these ice raids, and they know about this thanks to both current and former Homeland Security officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The raids, which will be conducted by immigration and customs enforcement over multiple days, will include what they refer to as collateral deportations. In those deportations, the authorities might detain immigrants who happen to be on the scene even though they were not targets of the raids.

Now, this is an important distinction to make, because right. Right now, Donald Trump is arguing that they are not going after nonviolent, non-criminal immigrants. But I mean, here's what he says, and then I'll fill you in and tell you what the reality of the situation is. Well, I don't call them raids. I say they came in illegally and we're bringing them out legally. These are people where we have the papers, we've gone through the court system, they'll

be starting fairly soon, but I don't call them raids. We're removing people that have come in, all of these people over the years that have come in illegally, we are removing them and bringing it back to their country. So while he might argue that that's the purpose of these raids, in reality, as you can tell from the collateral deportations, they will also go after individuals who happen to be on the scene as they conduct these raids. What's with the, I don't call them raids? They're here illegally.

Okay, from your point of view, they're here illegally. You're still doing a raid to catch them. What's with the weird picking of the language there? I've been noticing a trend of right wingers, including Donald Trump, attempting to kind of launder themselves from their white supremacy and the statements that they've made in the past. I don't know if that's what he's trying to do there. I don't know if he's trying to garner support among more Americans in response to these

raids. But I do want to give you a few more details. The Trump administration's goal is to use the operation as a show of force to deter families from approaching the southwestern border. It's incredible how they keep using the justification of deterrence when over and over again, regardless of how cruel the policies have been, it hasn't deterred migrants fleeing their countries. I mean, maybe we should take a quick look at what's happening in their countries, and maybe

we can focus on providing some sort of aid to improve conditions there so they don't have a reason to leave and come here to the United States. But of course, American policy 101 is let's just put a band-aid on a gushing wound. And more importantly, something that never gets talked about is there are people who are companies, corporations, who are profiting handsomely off of this type of treatment. These individuals will be detained before they're deported. Yeah, I don't say detained. What do you say, John?

I don't know, whatever helps. Yeah, the thing is, like the argument either always is or we find out secretly is deterrence. that they're gonna do X to scare people from coming into the country. But you really do have to ask yourself, because as you pointed out, it hasn't deterred people. Is it incompetence? Is it following a strategy that clearly is not working, or are they lying? And it's not actually about deterrence, it's about the domestic effect. It's not that we're separating families, we're making kids sleep on concrete floors,

we're gonna do all these raids, so that people outside of this country see that and don't come or is it we're going to do that because my base really likes when we do that. Bingo. And it doesn't matter if it deters people, we can say that. And hell if it deters people, maybe that's a good thing, but it doesn't really matter. I just know that this is literally the only thing I can give to my base these days. Well, my read of it is very similar to what you just said, but I think there's one other component to it.

So yes, I think that this does play well with his base, as many of our viewers have written in and expressed, this type of cruelty, especially. at these detention facilities is not a bug, it's a feature, it's something that appeals to a portion of Trump's base, if not the majority of Trump's base. So there's that. But there's also the fact that this is a business. I mean, what's happening with these detention facilities is these private businesses, these private prison companies that run and operate these detention centers are making a ton

of money off of us, the U.S. taxpayer. I mean, they're getting these massive contracts, right? And they're spending, allegedly spending, you know, $7 to $800 a day on each migrant. We know that it doesn't cost that much money to, especially when you consider the conditions they're living in. People are making money off of this. And I think that's part of the story that doesn't really get much coverage. There's a reason why the stock value or the share price for Geo Group shot up as soon as Trump

was elected. And we missed it. I would never invest in it. It's just an ongoing terrible joke about how horrible country is. It's weird, of course, that you can decide that we're just gonna detain everyone now, rather than go by the Obama policy where you register the people, you release them, and then 90% come back in for court proceedings. He can just decide to keep them, and then people get rich off of it.

The only surprising thing though is that thus far, we can't prove that Donald Trump is personally getting rich off of it. It really seems like he would have figured out some way to do that by now. I mean, why go to all this trouble to enrich people who hypothetically might donate some to his campaign, but he could just make the money himself? Well, I mean, that could well be out there. He's not competent. He's not competent enough to make money himself, right?

Like, at least in a legal way. But what I do want to just point to though is he is worried about campaign contributors. Like the Mercer's have completely pulled support from Trump, which I think is fascinating because The Mercer's, one of their top issues was, you know, supporting Netanyahu in Israel and giving Netanyahu what he wanted, and that's what Trump has done. But they've decided to pull support. So they're worried. The Trump campaign is worried about campaign funding.

I mean, of course they're going to want and welcome campaign contributions from private prison companies, especially in Geo-Gro. And from regular people. I mean, after all, Donald Trump actually does get a lot of money, you know, from small dollar donors, which is sickening that some of these people who are, who are. They've been left behind as other people have by this country, but they have flocked to the guy that wants to actively go after them even more, this guy that they love and they wear his hat and all of that. Yeah, so I think, I mean, he's already raised a ton of money. This sort of thing, whether the geo group gives them money, I mean, regular racist Americans will because they love this.

And it's weird that we're in a system where, like, what are the different things that Democratic candidates are considering to try to get people invested? in politics and interested. You know, like something to do with taxes or education or climate change. It's always they're coming over the borders. It's a caravan today or it's the raids or that's all. It's a couple of years now. Right. They run on fear and it works.

But it used to be a little bit more diverse fear. Now it's like specific. There's always been a boogeyman in a Republican administration. I mean, during Trump's administration, it was a, you know, a terror. terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban. I'm sorry, what did I say? Trump. Okay, sorry, I meant Bush.

Different nightmare. Exactly. Feels kind of similar, but different. But anyway, during the Bush administration, there was the boogeyman, right? Like we have to, and to Bush's credit, he didn't go out of his way to demonize Muslims overall, but he did have a boogeyman, you know, the Muslim extremists. Fast forward to Trump, and you're seeing very similar behavior, but now the target is. migrants, or coming from, you know, Central American countries.

So I want to also focus on one other component of the story that is driving me nuts. And it's been a theme lately. So Donald Trump had threatened to do these mass deportations about a month ago, right? But there were agents within the Department of Homeland Security who thought, this is not a good idea, this is problematic. According to the Times, New York Times, agents have expressed apprehensions about arresting babies and young children. The agents have also noted that the operation might have limited success because word has already spread about how to avoid arrest, namely by refusing to open the door when an agent approaches

one's home. Now that is what DHS is currently concerned about. But they were also concerned previously because when Trump threatened to do these raids about a month ago, he put out these threats on Twitter, right? And so ice agents were like, this is not a good idea. They're worried about their safety, but they were also worried that people would leave the homes that they're supposed to be found in. But here's one thing that stood out.

Last month, days before the operation was to begin, Trump forecast the plan on Twitter, blindsiding ice agents whose safety officials feared would be compromised as a result. After he did that, Nancy Pelosi also reached out to him. And so Pelosi was like- Oh, good. Yeah, so Pelosi urged him not to do it. But Trump told her, all right, I'm gonna go ahead and postpone this for now on the condition that you work with Republicans in Congress to pass legislation that would get rid of loopholes when it comes to amnesty.

Now of course we know he's not really concerned about loopholes, he just wants to make it increasingly difficult for anyone to be granted amnesty in the United States. The loophole is that amnesty is a thing. Yeah, that's exactly right. For him, that is what the loophole is. Now, guess what? After that whole negotiation happened, what did Nancy Pelosi do? She gave Trump what?

$4.6 billion. The back of her hand? No, of course not. Money? Money. Wait, but she's our leader in Congress. That's weird. She's not much of a leader.

So $4.6 billion to border patrol, border security with no strings attached. There was nothing that would, essentially, be binding to force the Trump administration to improve the conditions at these facilities or these detention centers. So they got the money. They got the money with no strings attached. Pelosi, instead of attacking Trump for now saying he's gonna do these raids in 10 major cities on Sunday, she has been on the war path against freshman Democrats like Representative

Acacio Cortez or Rashida Talib, Ilhan Omar, Ayana Presley for refusing to vote in favor of that appropriations bill, which by the way, passed. Trump signed it, he got the money. Yeah, and it wasn't just the four, there were 93 Democrats that voted against it, close to as many Democrats as voted with Republicans in support of it eventually. No matter what, that back and forth that you just described between Trump and Pelosi was a product of some foolishness on the part of Nancy Pelosi, I hope that the foolishness is just that she believes that they will spend the money on the migrants, which probably won't be the case,

but she thinks that they will, and that she actually foolishly thinks that the cruelty and suffering we're seeing at the border is principally a problem of not having a funding, which is, again, not the case, that's foolishness. But if she actually thinks that she postponed it, like that he would have done the raids if not for her making that deal, that's insane. They didn't postpone the raids because Nancy Pelosi stepped in. They postponed the raids because he announced a massive undertaking that was literally impossible.

They could not have done it. That's exactly right. You can't deport millions of people. Like ICE agents responded concerned for their safety. The ICE leadership was like, what are you talking about? That's an insanely complicated, expensive process that would involve operations in literally every state. You can't just come up with that, and then the next day we begin doing it, it was never going

to happen. So she actually provided cover for him by pretending that he had backed off because he was it was bipartisanship. He backed off because it was insane and absurd. And if she had not provided that cover, that would have been more obvious to regular people. That's such a great point. And finally, at what point do Democrats understand that bipartisanship in today's climate is not a thing?

It's not doable. Like with the Republican Party, and especially the Trump administration, they have no interest in working with you. They have no interest in negotiating or conceding or compromising. There's no interest in that. And so it should infuriate voters on the left or infuriate independent voters as well. who don't identify as Trump's base, should anger them that their hard-earned money is going toward enabling this behavior right now.

And I get it, $4.6 billion is a drop in the bucket when you really look at the grand scheme of things, but it's still enabling Trump. It's an unprincipled way of going about this whole debate. And the fact that she just gives him what he wants, when she has control of the House, Democrats have control of the House. They are supposed to serve as a way of mitigating Trump, and they're doing the opposite. It's so devastating. Yeah, it's a way to seem like you're doing something, like you take it seriously, and

maybe it'll help a little bit. Yeah. And it's a lot easier than actually fighting him and making sure that you help the situation. Exactly. You know, the country was infuriated by what was going on, still is. I mean, Epstein has taken some of the attention away from it, like, it was as if he had the leverage. He didn't have the leverage. He wanted money. You could have provided leverage. You could have said, okay, we'll give you $4 billion. We're also going to shut down

ICE and we're going to totally kneecap DHS because it's out of control. Oh, you don't like that? Well, what are you going to give us? Right. In return, they control half of the legislature. I know. But Nancy Pelosi acts like she got beat in 2018. I'm going to reference Ryan Grimm again because his explanation for why establishment Democrats are so weak makes a lot of sense. She and Biden and other establishment Democrats, they're worried about experiencing or re-experiening what they saw during the Reagan administration, you know, when Democrats really did take a beating in elections.

But we're in a different time. And if you're going to operate based on what happened in the 1980s, well, then your antiquated way of going about legislating is not what I would consider master legislating. I mean, that's what she refers to herself. That's what establishment Democrats refer to Nancy Pelosi as. You were not a master legislator. You're not even a leader. A leader fights for the common good. And she is doing the exact opposite.

She is enabling the person who violates that. All right, we got to take our first break. When we come back, we'll have the update on what's happening with the census. And also, a crazy person on Fox News goes after AOC in an insane way. Come right back. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-Ing the Republic or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful.

But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTRTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you'd 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. Welcome back to TYT, Anna and John with you. Gabby Marito writes in in the member's comments

and says, if Donald Trump isn't personally enriching himself off to Portrait, people, I'm willing to bet he's definitely tried to find a way to do so. I mean, absolutely. I mean, he's found a way to use the office of the presidency to enrich himself. And that appeals court said, you know what, that's a thing now in America. You can just be, you can make yourself rich as president. Brian Wagner makes a great point, and I agree with you, if $4.6 billion is only a drop in the bucket, why can't we spend a couple of those drops on health care, education, student

loan forgiveness? When it suits their donors, the money is no problem. You're 100% right. Healthcare doesn't deport people. It doesn't play into the fear politics, right? Which helped the Republican Party so much. And I want to show some TYT live people some love. Now we prioritize members' comments because members help keep us afloat without them.

This show wouldn't even be possible. So we want to find ways to thank them and show our gratitude. But for our TYT live members, TYT live commenters, we also take a look at what you have to say. Mark writes in and says, Pelosi is not a good legislator, she's not a leader, she is not a representative of democratic values or what the people want. You know how I feel about that? Totally agree.

She is extremely skilled at keeping powder dry. That's what she's good at. Dryest powder around. Get that powder wet girl, like get some stuff done, you know, but she doesn't have it in her. She's just, she needs to step down and have a real leader take charge. All right, so let's give you guys an update on what's happening with the census. The Trump administration has been fighting aggressively to include a citizenship question in the census. And of course, the Supreme Court ruled against it, arguing that the reasoning behind why the Trump

administration wanted to do this was not good enough. But they did leave the door open for other potential reasons. that would be valid. Well, today, Trump has updated the American people about how the census will not include a citizenship question. And of course, I mean, the Supreme Court had already ruled on this. The administration had no other reason to include that citizenship question. And so, remember, we had updated you on how lawyers in the Department of Justice had asked the judge to step down from this case, probably because they realized there was no case, and the judge had actually blocked them from doing so.

So I'm a little surprised, I got to be honest, because this morning it was reported that Trump was going to pursue an executive order to include the citizenship question, but now it appears he has given up. But I do want to let you know that he says he's ordering every federal department and agency to provide the Commerce Department with all records at request pertaining to the number of citizens and non-citizens in the country. Trump says he will sign an executive order to put this new plan into effect immediately. We'll update you guys on that as the story develops.

This just broke. But I want to get your thoughts. Yeah, I mean, they could come up with some way that that also will be terrible, but I could see him just losing interest in that because that doesn't accomplish the goal. The goal is to get people to not respond to the census, to be too scared to. Now, he got some of what he wanted already because all, like we, we talked about this a lot in the media and we needed to to help get to this point where the Supreme Court ruled against it.

But just the conversation being out there is going to scare some people. Some people will be left with the idea that it will be on there, it won't, but they're not going to find that out and they will be too worried to answer it. So that's unfortunate. So now it's on us to make sure that everyone knows that they can freely answer the census. But the thing for me, like, there's been this constant back and forth. And you never know with Trump what he's going to do. But there was a little bit of dread that I was feeling where you were like, well,

there's really no case because the Supreme Court ruled against it, which is true. But if he had just announced today that he was going to do it, then what would have happened? Nancy Pelosi would have kicked down the door and stopped him? Thank you. I don't even know why he's not doing it. Who would have stopped him? No, you just, first of all, you made a really great point. Thank you.

I made that point as well. I don't know if we still have that video available. Can you guys give me a thumbs up if we do? because when we previously covered this story, I brought that up. I brought up how, well, you know what, why don't we watch the video and you'll see what I said. My line of reasoning on this story had everything to do with the people who continuously enable him in government. Over and over again, the individuals who refuse to hold him accountable for his actions. Yes, that includes Democratic leadership, Nancy Pelosi specifically.

If he is told that he's above the law, if he's told he's able to possibly commit crimes with absolutely no repercussions, why wouldn't he? Why wouldn't he ignore what the Supreme Court has decided on this case? Why wouldn't he move forward with what he wants? Now, look, this doesn't mean that the question will definitely be included in the census. It means that Trump doesn't want to give up fighting on this. And according to NPR, U.S. District Judge George Hazel is now giving the administration until Friday of this week to decide whether it will enter into a written agreement that confirms it will no longer pursue, including this citizenship question in the census.

But knowing Trump, he will not agree to that. He will not have, he will not put that in writing. He will continue with this nonsense. And it's going to cost us, US taxpayers, quite a bit of money as a result. So I'm happy that he didn't actually pursue the executive order. I don't, I don't know what, I mean, maybe he's worried that our political institutions still have a little bit of strength, a little bit of inertia, that they would fight back against him.

But the point that you were making specifically about the census there was my argument now for what feels like a year or two about impeachment, where people who oppose impeachment after seeing what he's done have signed on to the idea that if he does break the law, there shouldn't be any consequences. That is the lesson that was sent to him. And so when he chooses not to, like in this instance, I'm honestly baffled why he didn't just put it on there. So before we continue with that part of the discussion, can you just talk a little bit more

about why it is the Trump administration wanted to include this question, right? Because they would argue, oh, it's gonna help us track undocumented immigrants, as if people are gonna honestly- Well, the argument, what they actually said was, we need this information so that we can comply with certain components of the Voting Rights Act. So it's not that we're racist, we actually wanna do something that's unracist, and that made it a little bit more obvious that they were lying, the Republican attachment to the Voting Rights Act is not so strong that Donald Trump would make it a multi-year campaign to get on there. Nobody actually believes that.

But that's what they said. What they actually want to do is make it so that some people who either are here illegally don't have documentation or worried about being deported won't want to be tracked in something that is explicitly concerning immigration status and citizenship. It doesn't matter to Trump if the Constitution actually says you're just supposed to count the number of people, as we've pointed out many times. The idea was that you could scare people off. And then that was why I was saying before my fear is that just as having had this conversation

might leave some people with that fear, even if the actual question isn't present. So I'm glad you explain that because as always, the way that the right wing operates is based on projection. So they want to scare people away from actually responding to the census because they know that in previous administrations, let's say when there's a Democrat in charge, they've been afraid to answer the census. In fact, I came across an old TYT video from back in 2009. Now, I didn't include any of Jenks' commentary, but I did include, you're the worst, but

I did include a back and forth between Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachman, okay? So again, this is in 2009, which makes sense 10 years ago, and hear what they have to say about the census. I think there is a point when you say enough is enough to government intrusion. And you had mentioned this earlier, 28 pages. I have the survey right here, Glenn. This is the 28 page survey. This is the short form that every American will get next year.

Does the federal government really need to know our phone numbers? Do they really need to know, like you said, the date and time that we leave, mental stability? You know the one question that's not on this survey, Glenn? Are you a U.S. citizen? your perfect opportunity to find out how many illegal aliens are in United States. Guess what? That's the one question they don't ask on this, your resident status. Can they, because I've considered not filling it out when I get it, but I want to make sure that they don't use this as a loophole to, you know, say that I can no longer have a permit

for my gun, etc., etc. Oh, so, no, of course they're not doing that. That's not what the purpose, the census is not meant to be like a political or a politically charged document, right? Like, or survey or questionnaire. The whole point of the census is to have an understanding of how many people are in the country, how many people are in various districts, it has to do with allocating federal money based on the population, right? And representation.

And representation, yes, exactly. So it's not meant to be a, there's no political motive behind it. But the reason why I show you that old video is because you have a Democrat in charge and they're like fear mongering about like, they're gonna take our guns away. The census is gonna, because they plan to use the census for political purposes. Yeah, yeah, and it's 28 pages, so many, what do they want it to be? Like, you just text everybody in the country, you know you up? Fit it on an index card.

Yeah, I guess like, yeah, we need some information. It's used for a lot of things. Some of them not nefarious, but gathering data is a scientific. It's a naturally they're going to be a little bit concerned about it. And I think one of the things that's made this discussion a little bit difficult is it's one thing to say, well, the Constitution is very clear, count the number of people. But I think some, especially considering that political representation is based off of the results of the census, some people who might not be hard right wingers will say, well, but

is that really fair that more representatives will go, not based on number of citizens, but based on how many people are there. That doesn't really seem fair, but that's just based on a couple hundred years of this weird attempt to make people think that citizens are the only people that count inside of our borders, or that the US government is designed only to serve the interests of citizens. We've always had non-citizens in our country. We designed it that way, actually, in some notable ways that eventually need to be fixed things to the Civil War.

But the idea that we don't want representatives to only be there. for our citizens. If there are a lot of people living in an area, we want the government to function. We want things to work. It doesn't matter if they're not citizens. We want our country to work efficiently. That's a rational way to run a government. And also keep in mind that if you include a citizenship question in the census, not everyone

in a particular household is a citizen, right? But that doesn't mean that everyone in that house is a non-citizen. So it discourages actual American citizens. from being counted or responding to the census. So it's not a black or white issue. As always, I mean, American government operates in this weird black and white narrative. And it's nuanced. It's much more complicated than that.

And again, this is something that is protected in the Constitution, and you have the Trump administration attempting to politicize it. And the last quick point I'll make is, so this is good, hurrah, but understand that Even before they were attempting to do this, black and broad Americans are already undercounted by the census. So just bear that in mind. It's not like we fixed the one threat to the census and the apportionment of political representation.

It's already unfair in the way that it's done. It's complicated. We don't have the fix for it on the show right now, but it's a problem that still needs to be fixed even after we've had this victory. Well, let's move on to our next immigration-related story. We're looking at someone who's basically wants to give you the wish list for terrorists, the wish list for criminal cartels and sex traffickers. And you have to wonder, is she working for them or is she working for the American people? That was a Fox News panelist. Her name is Rachel

Campos Duffy. And a fun story, her husband is actually representative Sean Duffy. Anyway, she thinks all sorts of terrible things about AOC and what her motives are. But before we get to a longer version of that video, so you hear her reasoning or lack thereof, let's just go back and hear from Representative Acacio-Cortez and what her reasoning is when it comes to wanting to do away with ICE. She says, because the core structure of ICE, I believe, and frankly, the entire Department of Homeland Security, you know, this was established by George Bush in the wake of 9-11, right? As the Patriot Act and all of these different institutions that were, frankly, very large threats to American civil liberties started to get established. And people sounded the alarm back then that these agencies are extrajudicial, that they lack

effective oversight, and it is baked into the core foundational structure of these agencies. And she's absolutely right about that. I mean, let's just stop and think about what's happening in these detention facilities. Is there oversight right now? I mean, you as a member of Congress can't even get in. And if you do get in, you're not allowed to have your phone on you. They're not allowed to take photos, you're not allowed to hold these individuals accountable. How crazy is that?

So there is a lack of oversight, and I think that the evidence bears that out. But let's hear a little more from Casio Cortez. So a reporter from the New Yorker says, would you get rid of Homeland Security too? And she responds and says, I think so, I think so. I think we need to undo a lot of the egregious mistakes that the Bush administration did. By the way, this is something that Obama should have done. I feel like it is a very qualified and supported position, at least in terms of evidence and in terms of being able to make the argument that we never should have created DHS in

the early 2000s. Now that's not to say that there shouldn't be border security. There was border security prior to DHS, we all know that, but we know the evidence. And I would argue that this Fox News panel also knows the evidence, but regardless, let's hear the fear mongering that comes from it. She's hardly concerned about, you know, many conservatives were worried that, you know, we're creating this big federal agency when Bush created it. That's right.

That is not the concern that AOC has. AOC likes big federal agencies, the bigger, the better. Her concern is with the mission of DHS. She doesn't just want to eliminate DHS. She wants to abolish ICE. She wants to get rid of Border Patrol. She agrees with Julian Castro in decriminalizing illegal border entry. So we're looking at someone who's basically wants to give you the wish list for

terrorists, the wish list for criminal cartels and sex traffickers. And you have to wonder, is she working for them or is she working for the American people? The American people, especially those constituents that she represents in New York City want the border secure where we already know, Juan, that it's not just desperate economic migrants from Latin America. We have seen people from terrorist countries come across. Terrorist countries. So, of course, you got to add the, you know, the whole country.

The fear-mongering about terrorists, yeah, exactly. Something in the dirt. Yeah. She also, just a few more points about who Campos Duffy is. She got in trouble last year because she claimed, you know, she's a supporter of the zero-tolerance policy, essentially ripping these children away from their parents at the border and detaining them. And she argued that those, that black Americans told her that those detention facilities

were nicer than government provided housing. Now, there was absolutely no evidence that she had that type of conversation and the fact that she brought up black Americans. I mean, so she got criticism for that. But just think about how disgusting you have to be to support ripping children away from their parents at the border. Her grandparents, by the way, immigrated here from Mexico. Yeah.

But her family got hers, got theirs, so who cares about everyone else? If I had influence, like if I was the wife of a congressman and I heard that this public housing was worse than detention facilities. My next question would be to my husband, hey, what are we going to do to raise the quality of these public housing? That would be my next move. It's not a terrorist wish list. There's like a cell in Oman. There's not some leader who's like, oh, I want to reorganize border security. Like that's not, that's not the concern. All of these components existed. Did you know we had a military before 9-11? It existed. There was border patrol. It already spent decades every year pumping more and more money into it.

It already existed. We had all of this. It was a reorganization, and AOC's concern, and it's a justified one, is that in that reorganization, some of the concern for civil liberties was cast aside. There were some advantages, sharing of information or whatever, but the concern for individual privacy rights, a lot of that was jettisoned. And so if we were to take apart the DHS and go back to the way things were before, it wouldn't solve all of our problems, but it would perhaps assure the rights.

of Americans to their privacy, other civil liberties concerns, and things like that. Now for anyone who might be on the fence on this issue and you might think, well, I mean Anna and John, they're progressives, they're biased, so of course they're going to agree with AOC. I just want to note that Justin Amash, who is by no means a liberal or a progressive, said the following, conservatives used to want to abolish DHS, as well as many other departments and agencies that bloat government. If only today's members of Congress cared as much about defending the Constitution as they do about defending ICE, an agency that's existed only since 2003.

All right, so there's a conservative making the argument. And AOC also says 132 members, including GOP and independents, voted against creating the Department of Homeland Security. Don't let people rewrite history as if DHS slash ICE always existed or is a no-brainer. It's a young agency ill conceived after 9-11 and sacrificed our civil liberties like the Patriot Act. And I remember that time, I remember the outrage on both sides of the aisle regarding how the Bush administration was encroaching and violating our, encroaching upon and violating our civil liberties. But now all of a sudden, in the Trump era, everyone's lost their common sense on the right.

And one other thing I wanted to just mention is, look, the whole issue. of, you know, lack of oversight is real. Six children at least have died in border patrol custody during the Trump administration. And recently, one of the mothers who lost her child as a result of this brutal behavior by the Trump administration spoke before Congress, and AOC couldn't even keep it together. So let's take a quick look at what that scene looked like. To suffer and dying this way, Maria could keep here with us, but she is not. Next month she would have been three years old.

That was a very painful date for me. It's painful to not have her with me and show her what I feel and say what I want for her. I had no words to describe that. So that was Yasmin Juarez and she also told Mother Jones the following. He told me in these words, you know that this country is for Americans, that my president is Donald Trump, and we can take your daughter away from you. And you, we can lock you in a cell. I remember that I started to cry because I was at a loss for words for how I could respond.

So she's responding to or detailing the type of treatment she received. And remember, her daughter is dead. So that's the situation we're dealing with, the lack of oversight. is real. People are dying as a result of that. And our taxpayer money is funding that behavior right now. But I see who you saw there. She's an actress. She's just a dumb, dumb actress. I mean, not only is she trying to get the Democrats for the right track, but she's also, like, moonlighting as a person trying to remind conservatives of what their ideology supposedly is. Right. In terms of concerns for government overreach and big bureaucracy and all of that,

like she's trying. But it takes a Democrat and a Republican has been booted out of the party to try to get them to remember what they supposedly believe. It's incredible and devastating. Super fast. Right there you saw how genuine AOC is, also how she has a better understanding of history and ideology than conservatives, some of whom were in government at that time. She was, I don't know, in elementary school, but she has a better understanding of that time and the politics and the power dynamics of that time than they do. And that is why these conspiracy theories about her being an actor have got to develop

because Republicans and many centrist Democrats, whether they believe it or not, their goal is to convince you that a better world is not possible. Part of that is believing that better representation is not possible. And so when you start to suspect, oh my God, there's someone who actually cares and is intelligent and is authentic, it's got to be fake. It's got to be, don't trust it. Don't believe that we can have more people in office like AOC. It's all a big scam, she's just an actress.

And unfortunately, some people are gullible enough to believe that. We gotta take a break. When we come back, we have more news for you, including Jenks' appearance on Cuomo. It was bananas. 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 our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech.

And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and 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. Hey guys, welcome back to TYT, Anna and John with you. Our breaks are a little crazy right now because I'm getting updated on stories and I haven't screened these ahead of time.

But hopefully you guys don't troll me like Dave Rubin gets trolled. So Bro 420 writes in in our member's comments. Anna just debate Sam Cedar. I see you, I see you, bro, 420. Wearing my TYT marijuana shirt in Midtown, New York City, got a shout out this morning, too strong. Boom, love it. Brenticorn says, John said before that Nancy Pelosi keeps acting like she's lost in 2018. The thing is, she did basically lose when AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Talib, and Ayanna Presley won their primaries.

That's true. Nicholas Ward says 100 years ago, women didn't count. 150 years ago, African Americans didn't count. 200 years ago, non-property owners didn't count. History arcs toward inclusivity. I would argue, though, that in certain ways, those groups still don't count to people in positions of power. Oh, yeah, yeah, definitely.

You know, I mean, I would be lying if I said things are as bad as they used to be in, like, the time frame that you gave, but we know that there's still a lot of brutality, a lot of discrimination, inequality that these groups still face today. Yeah. All right, I want to have a little bit of fun, you know, break up the seriousness of the news. So let's have some fun with this next story. There was not a lot of prosecutors involved. It was Acosta.

He made the decision. I don't know why you keep sitting up for a guy who was so lenient on a child molester. No, Dave, it's my turn. That was Jank on Cuomo primetime last night, and I absolutely love. how furious Jake gets when someone interrupts him, because I know from personal experience. No, lots of AUSA's involved. Jake, it's my turn. It was so good.

Stop stepping on my lines. Anyway, so he was actually debating David Urban on whether or not Alexander Acosta, who is, of course, Trump's current labor secretary, essentially let Jeffrey Epstein off with a very easy, you know, process. So what's the debate to be had? I mean, there is no debate. And when I found out the jank was going to go on the show to talk about this, I'm like, there isn't going to be someone on the other side who's going to make excuses for Acosta who went

behind the victims back as the prosecutor and pursued a non-prosecution plea deal with the defense attorney for Jeffrey Epstein. Like who the hell would be stupid enough or terrible enough to go on national television and defend that kind of behavior? And here you have it, his name is David Urban. Let's take a look. Lots of AUSAs involved in this, lots of folks involved in this. You know, the secretary didn't make the decision on this alone.

He didn't overturn. But he did cut the deal. He's the name on the deal. Chris, he didn't overturn anybody. He went according with all the people in his office, all the career prosecutors, FBI. What he got was a deal that no one else was getting at the time. So I think, look, it's a terrible thing. I'm glad that the Southern District of New York is prosecuting this.

this guy who's by all accounts a really bad individual. And in retrospect, look, maybe the state could have done something differently. The evidence must not have been there at the time because I promise you, Chris, that the good men and women, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office back then in the Southern District of Miami were doing their jobs. They were trying their best. Do you think anybody there wanted to let this creep go? So he's arguing there wasn't enough evidence, right?

Which, Jank is going to debunk that in just a second. I do want to focus on how he's trying to like muddy the waters by pretending as if there were all these other prosecutors involved who worked on this. No, no, no. Alex Acosta was the lead prosecutor who pursued a non-prosecution plea deal behind the victim's backs. In fact, a judge ruled that that action was illegal. I mean, I don't know what the consequences were for that.

It appears that certain people are above the law. But that was wrong. It's abundantly clear that was wrong. And there was an abundance of evidence, which we'll get to in just a second. Yeah, not only the extra evidence, but also it was easy on him and included this inane thing where any future co-conspirators that are found are also included under it. So we just don't have the evidence. But if we ever do, I want to make sure that we can't do anything about it.

Because those people are going to be grandfathered into this amazing deal where this guy goes to jail for eight hours each night. He gets to leave and do whatever he wants, which is another way of saying you got a free apartment. It was a sweet that he only had to go at night. I mean, that's basically my life right now, except I pay rent. A 13 month sentence where six out of seven days he's able to leave for, I believe, 16 hours a day. At the very least, if it's a 13 month sentence and you're only there eight hours a day,

they should only be counting it during the hours you're there. Now, Jake is about to detail some of the evidence in this next clip. Acosta comes out today and says it was a different time. What was it, 1908? It was 2008. That's not that long ago. Well, in 2008, did you let child molesters get away? Was that the time that we were living in? No, that is the worst excuse I have ever heard. Then he blames it on state prosecutors. State prosecutors came out today and said, absolute lie, not remotely true. And we're not talking about the FBI here, Dave. I know you Republicans hate the FBI and you hate the rule of the FBI these days. Okay, don't just characterize anything I say. So hold on, hold on. So then,

The FBI did their job and they got amazing evidence, about 30 women of 53 page indictment. And then what does Acosta do? He lets him off the hook. He let him get out of jail for six out of the seven days. Why? Because he's rich and he's connected. And he's represented by Kirkland and Ellis, a law firm that, hey, look at that Acosta used

to work for. So a bunch of rich people get together and go, hey, should we let our buddy off? Well, you guys are representing him, so okay, so fine, let's let us. I'm shocked that Jank didn't get black bagged and pulled off the stage as he's revealing that. Like they should just like his window just gets pushed off the screen. No, look, to Cuomo's credit, he continues having Jank on, which I think is important because it's not often you see a progressive on any cable new show.

But more importantly, Cuomo does seem to care about what the facts of the story are. Yeah, he's not one of the worst people on these networks, that's true. He's not. He's not. The higher-ups could push his window off the screen, that's all I'm saying. So there's the evidence, right? So Jank referenced it, there were 30 women, 30 victims who Acosta essentially, again, went behind their backs, didn't tell them, and pursued this non-prosecution plea deal with Epstein,

and then there's the 53-page indictment. There was evidence, there was a lot of evidence, it was detailed by, you know, the Miami New Times, I believe it was, and it's complete BS that there wasn't enough evidence. If that's not enough for you, just take a look at how, you know, the response that we're about to see from the individual that Trump, that Jank is debating. What I'm not getting from you in response to Jank is what made the deal okay when the witnesses were available then and they weren't even told about the deal? Chris, listen, I'm not, I, I can't litigate each part piece and portion of that thing, okay?

I'm not going to say. And what doesn't make sense? Well, no, Chris, I can't, I can't give you an answer on that part of the way. But you're saying it doesn't make sense. What doesn't make sense? No, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense. You just said it doesn't make sense.

What he's saying about this giant collusion between, you know, I worked at this law firm, we're going to let this law firm, wink, not wink, we're going to let this really bad guy go. It's not, doesn't it makes sense. It doesn't have a straight face test. Acosta says that the pressure from the defense counsel. All right, so David Urban has no response. It was not his finest hour. No response.

Why? But like, what are you doing? Why does he feel the need to defend Alex Acosta? In this case, Jake is absolutely right. Like, we're dealing with a child molester. And he decides to go on national television to defend the prosecutor who got him off easy. By the way, I know, look, I don't do booking for a video. big show like that or whatever, but David Urban said, do you really think they would let someone

like that go? Yes. This is a grown man who, I don't know what his job day to day is, but he's brought on to comment on politics who's surprised to find out that powerful people help each other. If you can't pass that bar, you don't get to be on TV, like on cable news commenting. Totally agree. Now the unfortunate thing is, as Cuomo had some great questions there, he's letting jank on, that's all good.

Is Cuomo gonna bring that guy back on? Probably. Probably. I don't know for sure. That's frustrating. But look, this has been an issue at CNN for a very long time. At first they did not have a progressive to counter the nonsense coming from, let's say, Trump surrogates.

Remember, Scotty Nell Hughes, like one of the dumbest women I've ever seen in my entire life, was on CNN regularly. Constantly. And she made no sense. She would lie, she would get facts wrong, like on a regular basis, and they still had her on constantly. Yeah. So this is, believe it or not, a little bit of an improvement because at least you have

the other side countering the misinformation. Yes, progress. Exactly. All right. Speaking of misinformation, the view. What do you mean? I don't, what are you talking about? The ladies of the view, sometimes, not sometimes, oftentimes disagree on political issues.

But it appears that we have a situation where they agree and it has to do with their love for Nancy Pelosi. Take a look. And they were once on the cover of Rolling Stone together after the election. And lest we forget, it's Pelosi who delivered midterms, okay? And that's what I would say to these four women right here. It was her leadership, which I once questioned on this show. I no longer do.

I would also like to say she's 79 years old. And she could be with her grandkids. She could be with her family. And I don't like her. I don't agree with her politics, but she's still serving her country. And that deserves respect from younger generations. Okay. She was talking about Pelosi, but she was thinking about her dad that whole time.

That's all that was. You think so? Seventy-nine years old could be home, but serves their, it's the exact same thing. That is a good catch. I didn't- I could be wrong, maybe I'm being unfair, whatever. But she delivered midterms? Okay, that's what I want to focus on. What are you talking about?

How did she deliver midterms? I don't, I can't explain that any better, which means that I am as qualified on this as she is, because she can't explain that any better. What does that mean? Just think about the fact that if she had delivered midterms, if she had been such a huge component of the blue wave that happened in the midterm elections. Why was the first debate in the House of Representatives following that election, okay, how do we make sure that Nancy Pelosi is not Speaker of the House?

That was like the big debate, right? There was a fight within Congress, within the House of Representatives about how there needed to be a challenger to Nancy Pelosi. Now, unfortunately, what ended up happening was that the candidates who were likely to replace her were further to the right than Nancy Pelosi is, which would have been a disaster. And that's the reason why, you know, I don't even know why it worked out that way. But you had more conservative, Democratic members of the House pushing for someone further to the right of Pelosi.

And then I think that would have been so bad that people kind of gave up and they decided to support Pelosi instead. But anyway, my point is, Pelosi has actually fought the core tenets of that blue wave tooth and nail from the very beginning. I mean, right now she can't stop herself from going after freshman Democrats. She's been fighting them more aggressively than the Trump administration. I mean, it makes sense from her point of view. It takes up time and she has now decided that she's all in on we're not going to impeach

Donald Trump. So I need to find something to fill my days with. So let's just go after AOC and Ilhan-on-Warr. Yeah, exactly. Well, because every day, so she's decided that. For better or worse, that's her strategy. Every day, Trump and his administration do terrible things that demand investigation. People like AOC and others, they're the ones who are pushing for those sorts of investigations.

But can you do those investigations? If you've said we're not impeaching him no matter what, then can we really delve too deep into the terrible things that he's doing? Because the more we reveal about the terrible things he's doing, the more pressure there'll be to impeach him. But I've said I'm not going to impeach him. So I now have an incentive to protect Donald Trump from scrutiny. I mean, Justin Amash, of all people, who is conservative.

I mean, he's now an independent representative as opposed to a Republican because the Republican party is so insane. But I mean, he himself has said, Pelosi's making a big mistake here. Because when she publicly says, oh, there isn't enough to impeach Donald Trump, she is minimizing what Trump has done in office so far. Yeah, right, and then it's amazing, and you're absolutely right, simultaneously she keeps making this argument about how terrible Trump is. Okay, well, so is he terrible or is he not terrible?

Yeah. Because if he's engaging in a cover-up, which he accused him of, then why are you not pursuing an impeachment inquiry? Yeah, and by the way, as a general thing that was out there during the midterms, where the Democrats saying we're gonna stand up to Trump or we're not gonna stand up to Trump. It was pretty clear, investigations, get the taxes, all that stuff. That was not the only thing that the campaign was about. But to the extent that it was about Trump, it was about finally having a counter to him.

And now she's in power and she's doing everything she can to disarm and to give him whatever he wants to avoid conflict because even though you just won an election on we're going to have conflict with him, she's now terrified that if she stands up to him that will somehow lose a 2020 election. Let's take a look at the next video, the conversation continues. I was texting memes to my friends. Let them fight. Let them all fight it out because it's Democrat on Democrat crime. It's like fratricide. It's fascinating to watch. Republicans don't do this when it comes down to the wire. Democrats do it all the time. Well, we don't anymore.

And I will say, lining up behind this fashion. Yes, they are. Wow, great. I mean, is that what she's proud of? So Megan McCain is proud of Republicans lining up behind a fascist? Mm-hmm. Well, she says, she wants to have her cake and eat too. She wants to say that she's not a fan of Trump, but I hate the other side more, I guess. I don't know, it's a difficult path. So I think it's true that in some instances, especially among progressives, there's a lot of nitpicking that doesn't need to happen, right? But yeah, we hold our own accountable.

Like, we have high standards for members of our party. And the whole point of that is to improve, right? To push toward progress on a number of policies that honestly. have stagnated in recent decades. Yeah. Yeah, no, she should be horrified at the state of her party because it is entirely become a cult of personality. I mean, Justin Amash was booted out of the party. Why? Because he wanted like mandatory gun roundups around the country? No, it's because he said, yeah, it sure looks like Trump committed impeachable offenses. That's just an honest read of, an honest

read and an honest understanding of your constitutional responsibilities. Yeah. And he admitted that, and that's a deadly sin. I would be horrified to be a part of a party where if you go against star dear leader, we're going to instantly boot you out. Even if you've been hardcore right winger the whole time, support of the president's agenda, and we'll continue to be supportive of the president's agenda. And by the way, when she's like, I once questioned her leadership, but I don't anymore. Like Bernie's got that list of anti-endorsements that sort of prove a point that these are the people who don't like him.

Let's start to put together a list of endorsements for Nancy Pelosi. Because if people like Megan McCain are on your side, maybe you're not doing what's necessary to appeal to us. If you're appealing to right wingers in that particular way. That's a great point. All right. We got to wrap up the first hour, Philodius Monk, and Brooke Thomas will join me for hour two. John, everyone should check out damage report, by the way, every day.

Brent will be on tomorrow. Every morning. Awesome. Yep. And thank you. Thank you for doing the show with me today. Thank you. All right, guys.

We'll be back. 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