The Young Turks - Trump Has Midterm Meltdown And Bernie Sanders' Interview Causes Uproar

Episode Date: November 10, 2018

Recounts are looking highly likely for a few key midterm races and Trump is NOT happy about it. Bernie Sanders' recent interview about race and the midterms has a lot of people upset. 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. Drop it. Power, power panel. Joe Sandberg, Jank Uger, John Idaho, a lot. Good to have you, Joe.

Good to be here. All right, amazing, fascinating show today. The president almost certainly committed a crime and prosecutors know it, and it does not lead the show. I mean, we are so easy. The president with an obvious, preposterous lie. We won't even get to it until the second hour, a provable lie. We're gonna show it to him saying one thing and then him saying the other about an incredibly

important topic. In fact, on the topic of his criminal prosecution, it's like the eighth story in the show. Things are happening so quick, so fervently and so important every one of these stories, including one that TYT investigates spoke about Mark Whitaker. So that's the guy who is now the acting attorney general. and they did a wonderful research into his background, and you're gonna find out all about that as well. But with all that being said, I'm gonna start with something super fun and goofy, because I like

to. I'm gonna go with the poll guys, t.t.com slash poll. And there's a very specific reason why. Bernie Sanders is later in the program as well, an incredible smear against him. Do not miss that. That is amazing. And that is, of course, by other Democrats in the media, unsurprising. So we've been asking you guys which of these different designs, all from our fans that

you like the most so that we can make a t-shirt out of it, okay? And- Oh, that's hard. It is really hard. In fact, you guys think it's hard because space invaders came out guns blazing or whatever it is that you do on space laser blazing. Anyway, but now in first place is we can do it with Anna. Nice. Hold.

And Bernie won Kenobi. They are tied at 405 boats apiece, but we will not do a recount. Okay, I'm kidding. That as much as I got annoyed by the tick, tick, tick, that's a really good design for it. Yeah, yeah. And so that is trailing. That's a third place.

Space Invaders just fall into fourth place. Anyway, t.y.t.com slash poll. We're going to close it at some point, I don't know, probably soon, and then we'll make the shirt, and then you guys can buy it on shop tyt.com, but it's all designed by you guys, it's voted on by you guys, so it's your shirt, okay? And then it'll be paid by you guys. Okay, all right, but huge stories, including Florida, which I appear to be in a good and jovial mood, and I am, but there'll be some rage in that story. Wait, you alluded to some big thing that was going to annoy me, but then you didn't

Actually say it? No, that's later in the program. We've been doing the challenge on who can sign up more members. Maybe we should get you at t.yt.com slash Joe. You turn on that aspiration thing and then all of a sudden, boom, we're goners. But anyway. Okay, so tune in for me being annoyed later. Yeah.

So John and I are neck and neck. We're in second, third place. Of course, in first place is Anna. She's signing up the most members through t. com slash Anna. That's not fair. She's invited to participate in this competition. I know, I know.

We got to get you in. I'll get you in. All right, we get invited in Jimmy late, and now he's in fourth place in closing. So let's see how it turns out. All right, let's get to it, though. Let's do the stories. It'll be interesting to see if anyone can beat Anna at this point. Okay, let's do it.

Right now, some of the most high profile races in this midterm season are still up in the air, with ballots being counted and in many cases recounts basically assured at this point. And while this is happening, Republicans, including the president and the governor of Florida, concerning his own race, mind you, are alleging that there is voter fraud going on, although they have yet to give any evidence whatsoever about how that's actually happening. So first I want to let you know about how close these races actually are, why this big thing is going on, why legal challenges are going forward. Crazy conspiratorial tweets are being tweeted. So over in Arizona, Representative Kristen Sinema is ahead of Representative Martha McSally by a mere 2,000 votes.

I think right now that's actually more around 9,000 votes, but it's still pretty close. Florida Governor Rick Scott leads incumbent Senator Bill Nelson by about 15,000 votes for the Senate seat. I believe that's 0.18%, which is very, very close indeed. Still in Florida, Representative Ron DeSantis, whom the AP declared the winner in his race is ahead of Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum by about 35,000 votes in the Florida governor's race. And nearby in Georgia, Secretary of State Brian Kemp is ahead of former State House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams by 63,000 votes in the governor's race. there. So understand that votes are still being counted. These are provisional ballots that are being confirmed or mail-in ballots that are arriving.

We don't normally really care about those votes that much because generally the difference between the two top candidates is large enough that those would not be able to swing the result. But in these cases where you have a number of races that are within a fraction of one percentage point, they are potentially enough to actually swing it. As we saw in Arizona, where Kristen Sinema, who was down at one point, has now taken the lead with some of those other ballots coming in. At the same time, some of these have already been called for recounts, as Stacey Abrams is calling for a recount.

They're still counting going on in Florida. And even though technically Andrew Gillum did concede, he's now saying that he wants every vote to be counted, which seems reasonable since we live in a democracy. Despite all of this, we're going to have some accusations of fraud and things like that. But are you at all surprised that we were a little bit depressed on Election Day? Some of these races are the ones we were watching the closest. And in pretty much every case since the Election Day, further developments have been beneficial to the Democrats, whether it's flipped a district or just brought it closer. Yeah, and no, I was surprised by one, just because of the size of it, which was Connecticut, I thought Ned Lamont had already lost.

And it turns out he came back and won. And so, but you guys have to understand something that we emphasize on every election night. So it's not like we're doing it now because of the story that when people are coming from behind, they're not actually coming from behind. It's the counting that's coming from behind. They all voted at the same time, right? So now I give you a perfect case in Florida. So that's the one that's the most contentious.

Now they've, you know, Trump, of course, has a wild conspiracy. theory about it, which we'll get to in a second. But they say, well, this is so crazy. Most of the votes coming in from Broward County, which is the latest in counting, are almost all coming in for the Democrats, Gillum and Bill Nelson. Well, that's true. Gillum is getting 68% of the vote in Broward County, and Nelson is getting 69.1% of the vote in Broward County.

You know why? Because Broward County is really Democratic. Other parts of Florida are more Republican, but Broward County is heavily Democratic. So does that percentage match up with previous elections? That's an important question. If in other elections, Broward County comes in at 50% Democratic, and all of a sudden here, they're coming in at 68 and 69, and you go, whoa, wait a minute, that's a problem, okay? That's where are they getting these votes?

Why is that so out of sync? So let's look at previous elections. Oh, look at that. In Broward County in the presidential vote in 2012, 67% Democratic. Then in 2016, 66% Democratic, right along similar lines. And in the last governor's race in 2014, 68% Democratic, exactly where they have it right now. So coming in a 68, 69% in favor of Gillum and Nelson is exactly where you would expect Broward County to be in.

So it's just a matter of when they count. It isn't like, oh, all the vote, most of the votes coming, seven out of ten of the votes coming in are Democratic. Yeah, that's because it's Broward County. If it was a Republican county, seven out of ten votes would come in favor of the Republicans. I didn't expect that live on the show, you would prove that Democrats have been cheating in multiple elections going back many years. If that's the case, then Republicans have been cheating in Alabama for a long time. But don't you agree that we need to tell our candidates not to concede not these close races because it does feed into a media narrative that's challenging for us if you concede and then you unsteed. and concede, obviously it doesn't change the substance of every vote ought to be counted,

but nevertheless. Yeah, Joe, that's exactly right. There's like this mad rush for concessions. Like, oh, you have to say it right away. You have to say it right away. Otherwise, it's not civil. First of all, we're still having that conversation with President Trump in office about civility and how quickly you concede.

Second of all, it doesn't matter. It's just optics. Joe's exactly right. In reality, does it have any legal force? No. Let's say that somebody won by 12 points, but they accidentally conceded. But they'd be like, sorry, sorry, you conceded, the other guy's the governor. No, it means nothing at all, right?

So, but, I mean, especially in Florida, why would you concede too early? Exactly. And it only helps the Republican framing. Look, I know they're trying to do the right thing, but yes, these ballots oftentimes come in late, and especially in Democratic districts, they will very likely swing towards Democrats. In fact, on election night, we emphasized over and over again about Florida and specific Go back and look at that tape, and you can, if you're a member, t-y-t.com slash join to become a member,

you get all of our coverage, and you will see that I said, Broward County has not come in, it has the lowest percentage of the vote that has been counted in Florida, and Broward County is the most heavily Democratic county, and so this race is not quite over yet, we said throughout the night. So when Gillum conceded with about one point, we assumed that it was. was over that Broward had mainly stopped counting. As it turns out, they're really slow in counting. And if they're, you know, if Republicans say, hey, they should have been quicker, I agree, they should

have been quicker. If they say they should have been quicker, so let's just not count the votes, no, hell no. And then there's a version of that, like saying I wish that we were totally wrapped up on election day is fine. I wish historically the California was faster counting votes, there's just some areas that aren't. But then there's a version of that that doesn't make any sense, Rudy Giuliani tweeted that after the first county is done counting votes, no votes should be taken from any other county. That's absurd.

What are you talking about? That's insanity. Then all you have to do is get one little rural county with seven people and they just rush through and count it really fast. And then, hey, we got 100% of the vote. Well, too, can play that game. If you want, we can do that in blue states or in all the states. Madness.

Just hurry up and count any Democratic county immediately. In fact, invent a counter of like three people. Okay, we all vote Democrats. That's it. The state's ours. Proposters. I mean, they say that with a straight face on television. Right?

Straight of a face is Rudy Giuliani can have. So why don't we turn to some of the assertions of voter fraud? As we show you this video, which is going to be of Donald Trump, I want you to look carefully and log all of the evidence provided for his claims as we roll this. If you look at Broward and Palm Beach to a lesser extent, if you look at Broward County, they have had a horrible history. And if you look at the person, in this case, a woman involved, she has had a horrible history. And all of a sudden, they're finding votes out of nowhere.

And Rick Scott, who won by, you know, it was close, but he won by a comfortable margin. Every couple of hours, it goes down a little bit. And then you see the people, and they were involved with that fraud of the fake dossier, the phony dossier. And I guess I hear they were somehow involved or work with the GPS fusion people who have committed. I mean, you look at what they've done. You look at the dishonesty. Look, look. There's bad things that have gone on in Broward County.

Really bad things. She's been to court. She's had a lot of problems. She's lost. I say this. He easily won. But every hour it seems to be going down. I think that people have to look at it very, very cautious.

Okay, so I really wish that if you're a conservative and you're watching this, whether you think that he's being honest or whether you accept that he is lying and you don't care, wouldn't you want a president who's going to put a little bit more effort into his lying? All he says is if you look at this, if you look at that, bad things are happening. He didn't give any specifics whatsoever. Now, he did say they're simply, they're coming up with votes. He has no evidence of that. They have votes, you can confirm all of them and we, I'm sure, all advocate for a verifiable

paper trail that makes it easy to confirm every single vote. Whoa, whoa, whoa, John. I mean, look, man, hey, in Broward County, all of a sudden we got magical votes, but of course we want actual votes. It's preposterous. Look at this tweet. So Rick Scott was up by 50,000 votes on Election Day. Now they found many votes, and he's only up by 15,000.

The Broward effect. How come they never find Republican votes? Well, here is the thing. It sounds like about 32% of the votes they found have been Republican votes. It just leans democratic, you moron. You can't, there's no more specificity or evidence provided in a presidential tweet at this point than some random person who's going to respond on Twitter when we post this video later on. Let me offer the bright side.

There's some who think that we're spiraling into an even scarier moment where Trump is being emboldened. I have a different take on it. I think this is an example of Trump actually being on the ropes. We won big on Tuesday. And perhaps on Tuesday night it wasn't so clear. But I think with the passage of a few days, it's clear that we won pretty well. And I think he's scared. And I think as it becomes more scared, he's going to act more erratically.

So I think there's an interpretation that we can all take from this that we're starting to win. Yeah. So let me address some of the things that Trump said. He said, they're getting the votes out of nowhere. No, not true. They're counting them. And he's like, they found the votes. No, they didn't find the votes.

They're counting them. They were votes were there the whole time. Now, to be fair, and look, we're not like the other guys. We don't make up stuff and we actually care about what's right and reasonable and legal, right? So a judge just ruled in Florida, this is breaking news, that Broward County has to explain how many people voted, right? And how many they have counted by Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern. That is, I think, that's a perfectly reasonable ruling by the judge. I don't know if the judge is Republican or Democrat or appointed.

by Republicans or Democrats, I don't care. Appointed by Joe Bush. Okay, that's okay, no problem at all, okay? So Friday, 7 p.m. when they voted on Tuesday, that's a long time. It's fair to say, hey, listen, we need to verify. We need a little bit of transparency here, where we need a lot of transparency, how many people voted. Now, if it was a Republican county, I would want to know how many people voted.

And if they were holding the votes, if Chris Colbeck was holding the votes and was like, I'm not gonna tell you, I'd be like, what, right? So, no, they got to let people know how many people voted. And when are you going to stop? When are you going to finish the count? Those are reasonable questions. What is not reasonable is saying, they're just coming out of nowhere, the votes, they're popping up, right? And they're cheating.

Wait a minute. Rick Scott is saying that there is fraud. Okay, then they asked them, logical next question. Reporters asked, oh, that's amazing. What's your evidence? He's like, oh, I don't have any. But I don't know. They're taking a long time account.

No, that's not a thing. get ready, he's going to make less and less and less sense as we put him more and more on the ropes. Well, and the thing is, I mean, in this area, I would love, like, we didn't have a Secretary of State running in, you know, controlling the election he's running in, but Rick Scott is deciding that, hey, I'm the governor, I can get involved if I want. I can send people down there. There's reports that Ron DeSantis is sending people as well. That's fine, as long as they're not sending, you know, thugs basically to intimidate the people into not counting the vote anymore.

But theoretically, Donald Trump, he's a guy who admires dictators all around the world. Could he take a more direct hand if some of these races don't go his way? I don't know, but on Twitter, he did tweet this today. Just out in Arizona, signatures don't match. Electoral corruption, call for a new election? We must protect our democracy. So, Kristen Sinema looks like she's going to win at this point. So maybe to protect democracy, he needs to invalidate the results of an election.

Now, if this was not America, if it was not Donald Trump, and you heard about that happening somewhere else in the world, what would you think about that development? Would you think that that's a good thing? And here, he seems to be indicating that that's what he wants to do. Wait, would you like to do a new election in Arizona, Florida, and Georgia? Oh, you wouldn't like to do a new election in the places that you claim you won. Interesting how that works. So it's, of course, preposterous, but there's one more important thing here.

What if we did a re-vote of 2016 right now? Yeah, why not? I mean, look, I- Can we do 2000? Hey, Trump said there was voter fraud in 2016. He said there were three to five million illegal votes. I mean, that's way more than an era, even the alleged, absurd allegations in Arizona or otherwise, maybe we should do, redo 2016. It's not my standard, it's the Trump standard.

Let's do the primaries too though. Yeah. Okay, so now look, to both John's point about how little homework he does and to Joe's point about how frazzled he is, he's trying to connect. the Democratic Senate candidate Bill Nelson's lawyer, Mark Elias, to Fusion GPS who did the dossier. Now, are they really connected? No, Elias represented Hillary Clinton.

So he's saying, since that lawyer represented Hillary Clinton who commissioned the Fusion GPS thing, I'm going to bring up the dossier out of nowhere and somehow connected to this case. That's a dossier that says terrible things about Donald Trump. If there was a dossier like that on me, I think I'd know the people who commit. commissioned it, and says he's like, GPS fusion, that's not the name. Like, that's amazing. I mean, don't you care like that he just has, he's not mentally competent, okay? I mean, if it was just one slip up, you say, oh, it's no big deal.

People slip up all the time, I slip up all that. But no, he just, he doesn't do any homework, he doesn't do any preparation. And the GPS fusion people are there. They're not there, they're not connected to this at all, and it's fusion GPS. Superfast, you also don't know for sure that he's not lying. He was asked this morning about comments made by Michelle Obama. said, I'm not familiar with it, so the reporter explained a little bit. He started to answer, and then he brought up something else Michelle Obama had said.

He said he wasn't aware of it, but he was lying about it. Yeah, of course. So last thing here, and this is the most important and serious part. So I'm gonna go to Graphics 55 and 56 here. So back in 2000, they stopped the recount in Florida, famously so. Two things happened. One, originally these thugs came in and started banging on the doors to people doing the recount down in Miami-Dade.

They were also trying to threaten Broward County. So the same Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach were a play in the Bush versus Gore, Florida situation. And they made them stop to recount because of this mob that had formed outside of their offices. And then eventually, since they stopped recounting, they never got to finish the count, it went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in the most political decision in Supreme Court history. They literally said in the decision, this doesn't count for anything else. We don't want it to be precedent because they knew that they were bending the rules

to make Bush president. They said you should not recount Florida. Whatever you do, do not count the vote. Well, here, it's not gonna happen this time around, okay? We cannot allow that to happen under any circumstances. Currently, the Gillum race is under 50,000 difference. So what that means, 50,000 vote difference. That means a manual recount is legally necessary.

Okay, so they must do, I'm sorry, an automatic recount, a machine recount. They must do a machine recount. The other race, Bill Nelson versus Rick Scott is under 25,000. It's at 18,000 right now, vote difference. That means that a manual hand recount is legally necessary. They must do that recount. It's not a matter of our guy winning or their guy winning. If it is those thresholds and if it was reversed and the Republicans said, hey, they should

a recount, and there's been other instances where we have said that. Yes, absolutely they should do a recount. So we're not gonna let him get away with it again. Here, let me show you the picture of 55 here of these folks that went down there and formed a mob to intimidate the people counting in Miami-Dade, and it worked. They stopped counting because of this mob. And then here's a famous picture of this same guys, the next picture, where journalists figured out who they were.

And they were all GOB. Turns out, not real people, not concerned citizens, as they claimed. They were GOP lobbyists, consultants, staffers, it was a fake mob. And it was sent by the Republican Party to intimidate people into not counting the vote. That's not going to happen this time. So if they start these shenanigans and they say, even though legally we must recount, we're not going to. Well, we can send people too.

And we're not going to be a mob and we're not going to do anything physical. I mean, how many people do we need? Do we need thousands? Do we need millions? But we will show up if they do something outrageous and say that they are not going to count the vote, there will be hell to pay, that you should shake the rafters, okay? Not physical, we're not the right wing, we're not violent, but as many human beings as possible, surrounding as many buildings as possible, to say you will count that vote under any and all circumstances.

recounting it is not acceptable under any circumstance. So I think I'm clear about that. Let's go. Well, right now, though, there's nowhere to go because there's no one has said that they're not going to recount. Yeah, but it's pretty far. We should start. 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, razor-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. I think they've got planes. Eventually they're going to do a hyperloop, right? Okay, don't worry, we can get there in time. Right now, by the way, again, don't panic, guys.

The process continues, it's fine, the judge ordered that they speed up a little bit, that's fine, get more transparency, that's fine. If at some point, though Rick Scott or the Republicans go, nah, who cares? Not gonna recount, even though by law I have to, no. Then we're gonna have massive, massive problems. Okay. Okay, all right, let's take a quick break. Donald Trump's clear law violations are still coming up, and so is the smearer

job against Bernie Sanders. We'll be right back. All right, back on a young Turks. Dan from Wisconsin wrote a long piece in the member section explaining why he voted for he became a member under t.com slash john, so I'm not reading it. No, in all seriousness, guys, try to keep it a little smaller because reading really long ones are hard. It's just hard when you're talking about, you know, me.

Yeah, yeah. Like how do you, like you can't do it in 10 words. Come on. Okay. Send in more. Two of your guy on. Okay. So in the competition of signing up members through our names, I had a lead for a long time against

John, but Anna had been leading all throughout. She's still leading all throughout. We haven't closed much on her. Has she gained a lot since? Jimmy's gained more on us than we've gained on her. Let's put it that way, and Hassan's now coming up. But all of a sudden, we've got a new second place person. Here comes John Ida Rola.

Wait, wait. I got second? You're in second. 135 to 120. I didn't prepare anything. I didn't know this was going to happen. 138 to 123. So being a Democrat, I will now concede.

No, I'm kidding. No free mature concessions for me. I demand a recount. That's a pretty thing, John. It's within the margin of error. I want a hand recount. No, no, stop it, stop it. You can only count things from, I'm going to say Connecticut and Texas, places I've lived.

All right. T.y.com slash jank to join up. And Anna's at 7,000. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. Okay, losing to Anna is one thing. Losing to this guy. Keep it up. Okay.

It's my theory is that Jank is hard to spell. All right, already making excuses. You see this? Okay, when Joe gets into the race, Joe is very easy to spell. We're going to be in trouble. We can do a write-in campaign if anyone wants to write in my name. All right. By the way, when you sign up, you get all 18 of our shows and members get

A lot of other privileges. Behind the scenes during election day was amazing. Please check that out if you remember. Okay, Cheryl writes, and apparently Trump doesn't understand the election process and mail ballots are arriving late. Epic fail, while I'm willing to bet that 2016 was the first time he ever voted. I remember the video of him copying Melania's ballot. That's right, I forgot about that. Remember he's like, huh, huh?

There's some chance he doesn't know how to vote. That's unbelievable. All right. One more here. Tickety boo, right, said on a YouTube super chat. Watching this from afar, it's admirable that you keep your sanity with this presidential buffoon. Well, we keep our sanity from time to time.

You should see us off camera. Okay. Well, you can if you're a member. That's true. That's true. Flash John. Right in Joe. That's not a thing.

So we, on the post game last night, Anna and I talked about how we keep our sanity. And then we talked about her Hawaiian vacation a little bit too as well. All right, anyways, we got to go. What's the next story, John? Okay, I apologize. You're probably not going to find this story to be interesting. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Bernie Sanders is being attacked for comments that he made during an interview with the Daily Beast,

where he spoke at length about his belief that racism might have changed the results of major elections in Florida and Georgia. But there's one line in particular that people have an issue with, and oddly enough, that's the one popping up in all of the head. So let's see. If we bring up this first one, I think that's the Huffington Post. Bernie Sanders says not all voters who feel, quote, uncomfortable with black candidates are racist, and then I think this might be the Daily Beast. We bring up this next one. You're going to see Bernie Sanders on Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams.

Many whites made uncomfortable voting for black candidates. So look, he did say something like that, and he said a lot more. Here is an excerpt from the actual interview. How difficult is it to be in that position when you have a midterm campaign led from the administration that is so heavily race-oriented and, you know... Why do we use the right word? That's not used the phrase race-oriented. Why don't we say race and stuff? Great.

How is that, how difficult has it been? Is that what ended up with these margins? Is that... I think so. I think that, you know, I was involved, you know, in the Gillip campaign. I think it was a brilliant campaign. I think he was a fantastic politician in the best sense of the word. I think he ran a great campaign.

And he had to take on some of the most blatant and ugly racism that we have seen in many, many years. And yet he came within a whisker of winning. And I think, you know, there are a lot of white folks out there, not necessarily racist, who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about, you know, whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American. And I think next time we're out, by the way, it will be a lot easier for them to do that. So there at the end, you saw the line that every one of the headlines is focusing on.

So now that's taking a life of its own, people in the media criticizing him, how dare you say that it wasn't racist, except for the fact that you just heard the video. That was the original interview. That was not later. The original interview, he said, when the guy said racially, he said, no, no, no, why don't we say that it's racist? And when asked if this is the thing that might have changed the margins, he said, yes, this is what may have made the difference. Yeah, and so he made the unforgivable transgression of being nuanced and said, maybe we could win over some of those people who voted on those grounds at some later date because they're starting to vote for or considering to vote for African Americans for the first time. Now, unfortunately, like, they're a little late, let's go, let's go, but that's exactly what Bernie's saying.

We said on the night of the election, look, Florida and Georgia in particular were clear. And I explained many other races where the Republican did not say anything racist. And so when they win, those are on other grounds, it might be on economic grounds, it might be, and it might even be on racial grounds, but they didn't say anything racist. You can't say it if it's not. But in those two races, DeSantis said voters should not monkey up this election. A clear reference to Gillum. And it's not even a saying, monkeying up an election is not a saying.

He forced that word in there to refer to Gillum. In Georgia, they did voter suppression that affected 7 out of 10 people that affected were African Americans. That action is even more worrisome than the comments. And that's why Bernie said in the beginning of the interview, why don't we call it what it is, racist. So if you're, like, I partly get the guy writing the headline wants to write something like eye-catching.

And Democrats saying that those guys' actions being racist is not that eye-catching because most Democrats agree that it is, right? But him saying like, well, maybe we can get those people who voted in that way in another election as they get more comfortable voting for African Americans. They're like, aha, okay. But now it'd be bouncing around the internet with all different reporters and media of claiming as if Bernie Sanders didn't say that it didn't clearly say it was racist when he clearly said it was racist.

No, come on. I mean, look, I told you right away, as soon as the midterm elections are over, you remember if you watch the show, me saying it clear as day, that they will immediately accuse Bernie Sanders of being racist. It doesn't matter, I said they'll make something up. I mean, how right was that? It is literally two, three days after the election and it has begun. Even though it's counterfactual, you heard the take yourself.

Yeah, look, I mean, and the thing is honestly, like, if he wanted, if he wanted, if his, if going into that interview, his objective was to minimize the effect of race and to focus on other things, he could have done that. I think he has incentives in terms of his political strategy to do that, but he's an honest guy acknowledging that race is probably what through this thing. And you can listen to the rest of it. He goes on to the way that Gillum campaigned, he says that he stuck to his guns in terms of a progressive agenda, ran a great campaign, but he had to take on the most blatant and ugly racism that we've seen in many, many years. So he keeps coming back to that.

The only thing I'm going to disagree on, like it pisses me off to see the headlines because I do believe whether these individual authors are part of it, one of the reasons this thing has become so big is because, like you say, they want to take him down. Again, not necessarily the individual authors, but a lot of groups do. But I will say in speaking with a number of people who are not a part of any of this, African-American people that I know, they don't like that statement. And so I would, in the future, I would say it differently. He's being diplomatic to try to win those people over, but a lot of people that I've talked to think that that is a racist thing to do. If you go into a voting booth and you don't want to vote for someone because of their race, they think that that is racist. And so I would word it differently. I get in the context of what he is saying that he is definitely focusing on the fact that all of this is racist, but I would word it more carefully in the future.

Well, I think that two things can coexist. First of all, anyone who doesn't vote for someone because of the color of their skin is racist. In addition, to build the kind of country I hope we can build, we need to change the hearts of people who are currently racist. And it seems like that was the nuance point he was trying to attempt to make. But as you mentioned, John, we should be clear that if someone doesn't vote for someone because of the color of their skin, that's racist. And you still want to change those hearts over time, though. So let me say two more things about this.

So I know exactly where Bernie's coming from. So I grew up in a Muslim family. I'm agnostic, right? But if somebody didn't vote, some white American didn't vote for someone because they were Muslim, Is that bigoted? Well, by definition, it's bigoted, right? But do I give up on that person forever? No, there's tons of anti-Muslim propaganda in this country.

And if they watch Fox News, they got brainwashed into that. Do I wish they hadn't? Of course. Is it bigoted? Currently? Yes, absolutely. Do I think that we have a chance of reversing that propaganda and getting that person to understand that a Muslim American is also 100% American and that they are not any different than

any other homo sapient, right? Do I believe that we can begin to get people comfortable in voting for Muslims, blacks, women, etc.? Yes, I do. And I believe that's exactly what Bernie was saying. And it's not just my belief. Look, so the second point is, it's absolutely clear in that original interview. He said that it was racist in the beginning, then he made the comment that's now theoretically controversial, and then at the end, John showed you that quote, I don't want to just breeze

past him. In the same interview, at the end, he said, I think he ran a great campaign and he had to take on some of the most blatant and ugly racism that we have seen in many, many years, and yet he came within a whisker of winning. So he said it was racist two times in that same paragraph. So it's like taking that sentence out of context, well, then does him a great disservice. Because that is not, he wasn't saying like, oh, what's the big deal about people not voting based on race.

I think he was giving folks who might not have voted for candidates of color because of their color too much of the benefit of the doubt. The fact is, if someone didn't vote for a candidate because of that person's skin color, that is racist. In addition, we shouldn't give up on trying to win over that person's heart in time. But we have to begin by honestly calling it what it is. is, which is racism. Well, in the example you gave, so you said, you know, what if a person didn't vote for someone

because they were Muslim? Is it bigoted? Well, yeah, it is. But you wouldn't want a message that way because you don't want to turn them off. But if somebody asked you specifically, is it bigoted, you'd be put in a tough situation. Because you don't want to say that it's not because you believe that it is, but you don't want to say that it is because you don't want to turn them off. So you get put in a tough position.

I think we need to be honest about it, though. Even if it perhaps frustrates the recipient of that message, you need to call racism, racism. If you read his interview, I think it is incredibly clear, including in his follow-up, which he gave, he put something on Facebook almost immediately after the criticism started. He has since addressed it several times. Sanders spokesman insists those remarks were taken out of context. Speaking to NPR, Sanders said any votes Gillem or Abrams lost over their race were entirely due to what he called racist campaigns run by their Republican opponents.

He says specifically, there's no question that in Georgia and in Florida, racism has reared its ugly head, and you have candidates who ran against Gillum and ran against Stacey Abrams who were racist, and we're doing everything they could to try to play whites against blacks, and that is an outrage, and we've got to continue doing everything that we can to fight all forms of racism. Before, I was just acknowledging that, again, some of the people that I talked to, these are not people who work for the DNC, some of them are non-political, some of them are Bernie supporters. They just say that specifically in terms of that messaging, just you'll come up with a different

way to say it, which he did the next day. I don't even think it's a different way of saying it. Yeah, but it's not for us to say. It's not for us to tell an African-American person you're wrong to not like the way this is being said. No, no, no, this is important, okay? So if they're coming out of genuinely and they saw the entirety of the quote and they say, hey, look, I get that he said it's racist at the beginning. He said it's racist at the end. In the middle, I didn't like the way he phrased it.

Nothing wrong with that at all. I get it. That's the conversation we just had. And that is larger the conversation that I had. Yeah. Right. That's right. So that's the, but I am seeing online people not doing that at all.

They're ignoring the context and they're making it seem like Bernie Sanders. I don't know, maybe they didn't see the full quote. That is entirely possible, right? We showed you too. And by the way, some of the reporters though, I'm some of the people saying that are reporters. Well, I mean, you should look at the whole quote if you're a reporter. And so I'll guarantee you now ahead of time what will happen. Everyone will forget the context and never ever mentioned it again outside of us.

And everyone will pretend that Bernie said that the Republicans were not racist in those. those races, when in fact he said it twice, right? So I don't like, I always think what if it happened to me? What if the shoe was on the other foot? And if Bernie had said, hey, they ran this campaign against a Muslim American, whatever, let's say Abdul al-Said who supported, he supported in Michigan, and it was a bigoted campaign and people that voted against him because he's Muslim, you know, maybe they're not, you know, bigots, but it was a bigoted campaign, I'd go, yeah, he's trying to.

to win them over, right? And maybe at most, it's an inartful middle of the paragraph, right? But he's clearly saying it was bigoted, but we can, maybe we can win them over in the future. I wouldn't be like, how dare you, Bernie? Apparently you hate Muslims. No, preposterous, right? And by the way, speaking of which, let's be absolutely clear, a lot of these Johnny come lately is supporting Andrew Gillum now and then trying to smear Bernie Sanders, where were you

when Andrew Gillum was in fourth place? And Bernie Sanders endorsed him, supported him, went down there and campaigned for him when everyone else thought he didn't have a chance of winning, but Bernie was there for him. Yes. And so to give you an idea of the angle of this that we're saying is more politically motivated, we showed you two screenshots, but you can find many, many more of those. And probably going off into the future, we just summed it up a little bit. But there is, I'm not going to say coordinated necessarily, but I would not be surprised

if there were some aspects of that, it was not long in many of these headlines suddenly popping up sort of suspiciously quickly. Yeah, much more to come, guaranteed. And like I said, almost no one else in media will ever quote the context again. And so the smears have begun. Well, and this is, I think, this is, we'll get you ready for what is sure to be a smooth, clean primary in 2020. It will be an easy, fun, light experience for all of us.

All right, we gotta take a quick break, guys. So we still, now with the next story, it's the smear of Alexandria Ocasier-Cortez. But we have got to get to Donald Trump's clear violation of the law. I mean, look, impeachable offense is the fourth in the rundown. But anyway, we'll be right back with that. 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.com slash join today.

In the meantime, enjoy this free. All right, back on the Young Turks. Sir Townsend writes in, sadly most people don't read past the headline and mainstream media knows that. 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 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 t-y-t, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. Unsurprising, there was a lot of support for Bernie Sanders in the members section, and you

could become a member by going to t-y-t.com slash jank. Denise. That's sneaky. Yes. By the way, yesterday we did a TYT Classics that you're going to see tonight, if you're a member. It was me, Dave, and Jesus playing Dave Kohler's America. It's a blast. That's an old game we used to play.

It's a clip from 11 years ago, and then we replayed the game. You're going to absolutely love that. They can see the old ones too, right, if they become a member. Yeah, yeah. So if you watch last week's, I think it is, me and Brett, we went over some old clips we did. The first year I worked here, and I did, I think, the most cringe-worthy. Like, I was shocked when I saw some of the stuff that I was. I said in these early clips.

So, t.y.t.com slash John. This guy. All right, Denise Rice, and the word is inflammatory, Jen. The writers wanted to write something misleading and inflammatory and fair. And last one is Karen Shea says, yesterday when Jenks said if a shooting hasn't happened near you, it will, my thoughts at the time were, no, not here, this is a safe city. Today's schools were closed due to a threat, it can happen anywhere. Of course, but guys, there's no safe city.

You think you live in a safe city? if it's like a rural area where there's almost no robberies. In a rural area, almost everybody has guns. A Thousand Oaks is one of the two safest cities, like year after year, in the whole country. Yeah. And so it only takes one unbalanced person with a gun, and that's it. You think there's no unbalanced people that live in your town? And everybody's going, oh, no, that's true.

There are unbalanced people. That's true. And it's in every town. All right, let's do the next story. Okay. Congresswoman elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said that she is, as of right now, in a kind of tough position where there's going to be a three-month period before she starts drawing her congressional salary, where she is going to have a very hard time

affording an apartment in the D.C. area. It's an incredibly expensive place to live. She did not make much money while she was running for Congress, obviously. And Fox News apparently thought that that was hilarious. I think that quote was preceded by a year and a half ago I was tending bar in Brooklyn, which is true, by the way. Well, that's plain to her base, but the fact of the matter is Washington, D.C., and the greater metropolitan area is the most expensive county in the world to live in America now. So I think what she's talking about is all of the money in Washington, all of the wealth in Washington, all of the power, and a little simple person like her from New York can't find a place to live. It is a brilliant political line. On the other hand, her resume that Shelby just mentioned about being from the Bronx, it turns out when you read deeper, she had a lot more former of years in Westchester County, New York, it's a little ritzier than the Bronx. I'm from New York. I don't want to throw stones in any boroughs or counties. But she, her resume doesn't always match. And some of those shoots during the campaign, she had these multi-thousand-dollar outfits that could pay a month's rent in Washington, D.C. You're right. Well, I live in Washington. It's very expensive. But she's been all over the map on some.

of this stuff. Okay, so let's get to the facts there. There was one or two people who sort of defended her. For the most part, they might have said she's still being political and bringing up in the first place, but it is expensive. And you need to understand that last year she made $26,500. I'm sure Ed Henry knew that when he was criticizing her. And while you might think, well, it looks pretty bad to tell a woman to sell her clothes

to afford rent, she couldn't actually do that because he's simply repeating the same myths about her that went around the internet a couple of months ago. She did do a photo shoot wearing several thousand dollars of clothes that she did not own. And she has already corrected this on Twitter back at the time saying the all right doesn't seem to understand the concept of magazine shoots. You don't get to keep the clothes, duh. I don't pretend to fight for a living wage and Medicare for all. I do it and get used to me slaying looks because I am an excellent thrift shopper, making

that my favorite tweet ever. That's months ago that came out. Ed Henry, what's Twitter? I don't know. And so in response to that video, and there's more to it, we didn't play you all of it. She put out this tweet saying, Fox News, why can't any of your anchors say my name correctly? It's been five months. In other parts, two of the hosts set her name incorrectly.

It's bizarre to see 1% salaried anchors laugh at the U.S. housing crisis and never purchased pricey clothes and always told my story, but repeating lies until they are believed is your thing. But this just further illuminates the contempt that the right actually has for their own voters. there's so many voters who voted for Trump thinking that he was going to be a true populist who themselves couldn't afford to live in Washington, D.C. And this just continues to expose the real feeling that the right has for most Americans, which is contempt. Yeah. Yeah. So it's ironic because before they made fun of her for being a bartender. So which one is it? Is she ha-ha, low-paid bartender or secretly really rich?

And if you, the part that Ed Henry was referring to is about how, Her family did move her to Westchester to get a better education. The part he leaves out is that all of her family chipped in to make sure that they can get her to a place where she could get a decent education. And they would go back to the Bronx every weekend and they were from the Bronx and they moved back to the Bronx and her whole family's from the Bronx. But they had to make an extraordinary effort to make sure she got a decent high school education. That part they conveniently left out.

And they showed her house some hack right wing reporter as if it was glitzy. It was a tiny little house in Westchester because it was the only thing that the entirety of her family could afford. And so in this case, it's not her clothes, but Ed Henry misleads on it. I mean, look, if he's a real reporter, he should issue a correction because he claimed that it was her thousands of dollars of her clothes as if she's a liar and a fake, et cetera. And it's not true, you're the one who's doing literally fake news. But this is the whole point of quote on Fox News.

Ed Henry is not one of their opinion anchors. He's supposed to be one of their straight reporters. And the minute he gets somebody like Icosio Cortez, oh yeah, right, yeah, look at all those fancy clothes. She's weren't. Wait, I thought you were a straight anchor on a news channel. Come on, this is all a joke. And finally, look, you have no idea how hard it is for these progressive candidates to run.

So Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a Justice Democrat, and you can't pay yourself on the campaign. Different states have different laws, but so she couldn't get paid then, she has no money. Now she made only $26,000. Think about that, she only made $26,500 last year, right? So she has no money, and there's no legal way to get that money, right? So she's like, how am I, literally, how am I going to live in Washington right now? It's a real thing.

Alison Hartson, another Justice Democrat that ran in California, she had no money. She had to cash out her entire teacher's pension from back when she was a passion, totally broke and had no health care. Yeah. That's how you run. And then they still make fun of you and pretend that you're secretly rich. It's gross. And that's why people voted for Ocasio-Cortez, because they trust her.

She's not one of these millionaires who got rich off of politics. She's a real person. All these just Democrats are real people. And they have the temerity to make fun of them on Fox News. And look, they're terrified of her. I think that's been clear for month after month. They don't like that she has become such a big figure. They like the idea that we can go back to a time when, whether it was Democrats or Republicans,

largely all the politicians looked exactly the same. They were all 76-year-old, pale, old white men. And then you could sort of call it even. But now, the Democratic Party every year is getting more and more representative. You have two of the youngest congresswomen in history being elected in this cycle alone, a ton more diversity in terms of sexuality, race, and religion. But it's not occurring on both sides. And one side looks more like America with every passing year and speaks more like America,

speaks more to America. And that is exemplified best perhaps in Alexandria Ocasor-Cortez. And so they desperately have to take her down. And they especially have to attack her as they try to in this case, specifically on her strengths, which is her authenticity and the fact that she is like us. They cannot allow, it's not like they're going to get through to the Democratic voters or whatever. But they are worried that Republicans might see this and hear it. and hear what she's pushing for in terms of her platform and find it appealing.

And so they have got to spread these lies to undercut, you know, her appeal that potentially could cross over. Don't you think that they go after her also more of a superficially because she's a woman? You know, there are a lot of men in Congress that share apartments, you know, three, four people to an apartment because they can't afford their own place. And you don't hear them ridiculed. Yeah. But here you have, you know, a young, inspirational woman who's struggling economically to pay the bills and they're mocking her. Yeah. Yeah.

And final thing is, I think you both are totally correct. And I remember the earlier Fox segment that we covered where they sent someone to cover one of her rallies. And the person came back and said she was afraid. And they're like, oh, what do you, why were you afraid? She's like, well, I was afraid that she was going to convince me because, and convince other people because I need health care. And she was saying we were going to do Medicare for all and get health care for everyone.

Yeah. That's right. Be afraid. Okay. You want to move on to some big news? Yes. Okay. Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that Donald Trump might have been a little bit more

involved in those hush money payments to his mistresses than he has persistently said over the past year or so. The Wall Street Journal found that Mr. Trump was involved in or briefed on nearly every step of those agreements. He directed deals in phone calls and meetings with his self-described fixer, Michael Cohen, and others, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan has gathered evidence of Mr. Trump's participation in the transactions as well. It's not just the media, the people actually investigating him have documented evidence of him having lied about being involved in things that

are theoretically campaign finance violations. And to give you an idea of what he has previously said, in an October 23rd interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Trump declined to address whether he had ever discussed payments with Michael Cohen during the campaign. Trump said Nobody cares about that, and he described Mr. Cohen as a public relations person who represented me on very small things. And maybe some of the women were short, I don't know. But that's what he always does. As soon as they flip, as soon as they go down, suddenly they're coffee boys.

This guy really likes coffee. He was surrounded by them. Now we've got more information. Back when Michael Cohen pled guilty back in October to campaign finance violations, prosecutors filed a 22-page charging document asserting that Mr. Cohen's, quote, coordinated with one or more members of that campaign, including through meetings and phone calls about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments, that unnamed campaign member or members referred to Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the document. We suspected that at the time. It has now been confirmed. That was with Donald Trump. And Michael Cohen has also described to prosecutors his discussions with Mr. Trump and a Trump organization executive about how to pay Mrs. Clifford, that is Stormy Daniels, without leaving the candidate's fingerprints on the deal.

So this is super important. Number one, he clearly did it, and the prosecutors have that information. I'm going to give you a little bit more details in a second. Number two, that's federal law that he broke, clear impeachable offense. So that leads to the question of, what are they going to do about it? So, you know, the House is not controlled by the Democrats, you know, but they swear up and down that they won't impeach him. What a bizarre claim that Pelosi says.

Like, what, doesn't it depend? Like, if you said to me, I'm not going to impeach him based on the fact that I don't like him politically, I'd say, oh, good, I don't, I wouldn't want you to impeach him because you don't like him politically. That's not what impeachment's for. If you said to me, I'm not going to impeach him without seeing the evidence, good, great. I don't want you to do it blindly. That's weird.

What would you impeach him on? Right. But if you say, I won't impeach him, even if he clearly violated the law, but that's weird. And then, of course, if the Democrats do that, what will the Senate do? Will they just say, no, it's okay, the president can break the law? He clearly broke the law here. So let me explain why I think that, why the Wall Street Journal clearly proves it, and how this all started. All the string got around.

Remember, Michael Cohen's fixer, he said he would take a bullet for him and then flipped on him. Why did he flip on him? David Pecker was a great friend of his had been buying and spiking stories for Donald Trump since the 1990s, David Pecker flipped on him. Why did they flip? Because they got Cohen's documents. And in the documents, Cohen kept the record of Pecker, the guy from the National Enquirer, saying,

hey, look, I'm going to give $150,000 to McDougal to bury the story of how she had an affair with Donald Trump. You have to pay me that $150,000 back later. They realized, oops, if we do that, that is clearly a federal crime, because I'm giving an in-kind contribution over $2,700 to a candidate, and it's clearly for a political purpose, because then Trump is going to pay me back. In the McDougal contract, the National Inquirer pretended that it was for business reasons, that they were going to have her on the cover, that she was going to write columns.

They didn't ask her to write a single column, even though she wanted to. They never had her on the cover. It was always for a political reason. When they realized, oops, if Trump pays us back, it'll be obvious we did it for the election and not because we wanted her to be a writer, right? So then he said to Cohen, burn the documents, get rid of the documents, I'll just eat the $150,000. That's what David Pecker said, except Cohen didn't burn the documents. So when investigators went into his house and his apartment, they found it a clear document saying

Trump will pay back Pecker for burying the mistress story after the election. Oops, federal crime. So Cohn is caught red-handed, and he goes, yeah, we did it. They go to Pecker, they say, we got the documents, and Cohen said, you did it. And Pecker goes, yep, we did it. Those are two of Trump's top guys. He was named, Trump was named as an basically unindicted co-conspirator, an unnamed co-conspirator by federal authorities when they charged Michael Cohen, and he pled guilty to that federal crime.

So now we know because of this new Wall Street Journal story for a fact, before it was clear, but now we know for a fact that it was Trump who coordinated the entire thing. In this story, he has personal meetings, phone calls, which Michael Cohen recorded, saying about how they're going to pay Pecker back for the story. clear violation of campaign finance laws, they have them on tape, they have the documents, and they have the two guys who flipped on him. It's over. He did it.

There's no question about it. The only question that remains is, will they impeach or won't they impeach? You want to bet? No, I don't. And let me also clarify this. This is also very important. In order for them to, if they went to trial, in order to convict Trump, they'd have to get two things to be clear, but that both the McDougall and the Stormy Tannials payments

were about the election, because John Edwards got away with a very similar thing, and he's a Democrat, because he said, no, no, no, I was paying them to cover up about my wife, not for the purpose of the election. So it wasn't any kind contribution, because it wasn't about the election, it was because I was embarrassed for my wife, okay? Now in this case, though, Pecker saying Trump is going to pay me back because of the election, And then panicking and changing his mind and saying, oh, no, no, no, don't pay me back. Otherwise, it's clearly illegal.

But they have the document showing that they originally agreed and Trump himself agreed to pay him back because it was about the election. So good night, Irene, that's part one. Part two is they have to show that he willfully skirted the law. Not that, hey, I didn't know, et cetera. But Cohen's on tape, we've run those tapes for you before because they were released earlier. He's asking Trump, should we transfer the money to David Pecker to pay off McDougal? And Trump says, yes, he willfully directs Michael Cohen. Clearly, it's not an accident, it's not I thought I was paying Michael Cohn for an amusement

park and instead I got a, you know, an in-kind contribution or a cover-up, et cetera. They have them on tape willfully doing it. Well, I think that the following part of the tape gets more to the willfulness because he tells him to do it there in terms of whether he knows that he's telling him to break a law, he asks, he says something, do it this way, not the other way, because he knows one is easier to track. That implies that he knows they might be tracking it. Exactly, it was about cash versus check.

They had David Pecker buy the story for the National Inquirer in the first place, because they thought that it'll be harder to track and they won't get caught doing the illegal thing. Furthermore, on the Stormy Daniels, remember, they used fake names because they didn't want Trump to get caught. That also shows willful intent to evade the law. Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, they got him.

So he, this is totally an impeachable offense. By the way, people go to jail for this. You know who went to jail for it? Dinesh D'Souza. He broke a very similar campaign finance law about in-kind contributions or it was a direct contribution in his case. He lied about it, showed willful intent, they convicted him. By the way, who's one of the people that Donald Trump pardoned?

Dinesh D'Souza. Because he knows he did the same thing. So it's just a matter of time now. I'm not saying it's a matter of time before they take him out of office, but it's a matter of time before this becomes an absolute decision point for the country. Do we allow presidents to break the law or don't we? So tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. Gotta get that shirt.

Okay, all right, we gotta take a break. Joe, thank you for joining us. I appreciate it. Okay. You, whatever. A whole new- Right in Joe when you set up for membership. Again, do you like what you're seeing here?

The only way you can strike back is signing up at t.ot.com slash John. All right, writing in me when you sign up. All right, we got a whole new power panel coming up for you guys. Equally amazing stories, this time about the corruption of the attorney general, the new interim attorney general, and that is also part of how Trump is trying to cover his tracks. So we'll break that down for you. Those are also amazing stories. Right 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 Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.