The Young Turks - Trump Is Really Good At Incriminating Himself And His Admin SUCK At Covering It Up

Episode Date: January 15, 2019

An explosive New York Times article outlines a president constantly under multiple investigations. Mike Pompeo and Kellyanne Conway attempt to defend Trump and fail miserably. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Jank you, Granite, Kasparing with you guys. I'm in a mood today.

So I'm going to obliterate Donald Trump on a couple of these stories. And as usual, progressives are attacked in the presidential campaign. We will explain the full context. I've yet to see one attack piece on Kamala Harris or Beto O'Rourke or Kirsten Gillibrand or Cory Booker. Not one. Main Street media. I just can't seem to find their accountability backbone when it comes to establishment candidates, not one, not one.

But when it comes to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, one after another, after another, after another. So we'll get into that a little bit later in the program too, and you can tell where I'm going to go with that. So, but first, we're gonna start with Trump. You miss any part of the show, you're crazy, become a member, t.t.com slash join. Don't miss any of it, because there'll be a lot of fun later in the program, but also Well there, but also a significant amount of rage today.

All right, let's get going. All right. The New York Times published an explosive piece indicating that the FBI did open a counterintelligence investigation into the President of the United States following his decision to fire James Comey. Now there were other reasons for this counterintelligence investigation, and it also had to do with what Trump had to say in an interview with Lester Holt. Did you ask for a recommendation? What I did is I was going to fire, call me, my decision.

It was not- You had made the decision before they came in the room. I was going to fire, call me. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election. Okay, so the fact that he fired Comey and the statements that Trump had made during that interview convinced FBI officials to open this counterintelligence investigation into Donald Trump, and we didn't learn about that until recently.

So I just want to give two pieces of context before Anna gives you more of the information. The FBI, there's two types of investigations, criminal investigations and counterintelligence operations to make sure that someone in our government almost never the president, but now we're in a unique situation, is not working with a foreign government for a number of reasons. In this case, they combined both of those investigations because of possible obstruction of justice and because they were now officially worried that Donald Trump might be an agent of a different government, in this case, Russia. And there was actually five different reasons why.

The Comey firing was just the straw that broke the Campbell's back as to starting an official investigation. They were concerned all the way dating back to the campaign for reasons that we'll explain here. Yeah, yeah, I mean, the two reasons that I outlined were the factors that finally pushed them over the edge, because there was a huge debate among FBI officials as to whether or not it made sense to open a counterintelligence investigation into the president of the United States. That's unprecedented.

And so finally, they're like, okay, I mean, there's too many, there are too many factors here that make us suspicious about Trump's ties to Russia. So according to the times, counterintelligence investigators had to consider. whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence. So they didn't know whether Trump was knowingly involved with Putin, working in Russia's favor against the best interests of the United States, or if he was just unwittingly

doing Putin's bidding because he had been influenced. Both are incredibly possible because I think that after dealing with the president for some time, they realize the man is one of the least intelligent people we've ever met. So could he be an accidentally be a dupe for Putin? Yeah, it could be a dupe for anyone because he's a dupe. But in this case, I tend to think that it's much more active and for reasons that we'll get into. Now, Trump was also quoted as saying what I'm about to tell you after he had fired Comey.

And this is relevant because he was actually speaking to Russian officials in the Oval Office following Comey's firing. And he said, quote, I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off. Okay, see, that's even more devastating than the video you just saw of him on NBC. So they're inside the Oval Office, talking to Russian officials, and he assures the Russians,

don't worry, the pressure's off on the Russia situation. What are you doing? Are you nuts? I mean, it goes both to being complicit with the Russians and being deeply unintelligent. If he was like some sort of secret agent man that had any kind of savvy at all, you wouldn't say that in the Oval Office, you schmuck, but he's too stupid. So he's like, don't worry, guys, Russia's my best friends, don't worry, I took the pressure off, I fired the guy who was investigating us, us, me and you.

I fired him, don't worry. How is that not collusion? I mean, look, guys, I think whether you're right wing and there's some left wingers that are still holding on to this idea that, oh, golly gee, this is all innocent, man, take your blinders off, man. If any president tells any foreign government, let alone an adversary in the Oval Office, Oh, don't worry, I fired the head of the FBI because he was looking into your government and me.

You did, what? What? What? That's crazy. So should you investigate that? You should be fired if you don't investigate that. Look, now let me explain the other factors, but this is plenty enough. So during the campaign, first of all, they see, well, the guy won't say anything negative about Putin

or Russia, and it keeps giving him incredible praise. That alone would not be anywhere near sufficient. You could argue for allies like Israel, every candidate does that, flowery praise of whether their government is left wing or right wing, et cetera. So it's a small data point. Then they move on to, well, they weirdly, now this is a real thing, they weirdly change the platform, the Republican Party platform to be more pro-Russian. Well, that's gratuitous, and we all saw that in public.

We commented about it on the Young Turks as it was happening. We're like, wow, that is brazen. You're being accused of, even at the time we knew that they had connections, some connections to Russia, and Trump weirdly on the campaign is like, Putin is great, he's wonderful, he's so strong, right? And then all of a sudden they changed the platform to make it pro-Russian. That's a huge red flag, in this case almost literally, okay? And then, so then there's the steel memo, and you can say steel memo is uncorroborated,

and that's true. Parts of it have now been proven to be correct, but at the time, it's a small data point. I wouldn't take that, and I didn't at the time take it too seriously. Now I take it a lot more seriously because a bunch of stuff in there that seemed crazy or outlandish were proven correct. So okay, but that's another data point. But to me, the absolute one that put it over the top is he has four different people working on his campaign deeply connected to the Russians.

That is massively weird. Look, I did a video over the weekend and used this example, but you could fill in the blanks on any of them. If Obama had four different people working on his campaign that were all connected to the Iranian government and the Grand Ayatollah, would that be a red flag? Of course, of course. Why does Obama have four staffers who are getting paid or are connected to the Grand Ayatollah who is an adversary of ours?

In this case, take out Mullah, put an oligarch, take out their leaders. and put in the hominae, I guess, and put in Putin, right? And that's the same exact situation. So the FBI's like, wait, and they still didn't investigate. They still didn't open a counterintelligence investigation into Trump. Then he becomes president. Then he's like, oh, Comey's looking into the Russians, I fire him. Then he goes on TV and says, I fired him because he was looking into the Russians.

Then he brings the Russians in, says, don't worry, I fired him. If you don't start an investigation as to whether he's working with the Russians at that point, You are not doing your job. Right. People are saying that this is debatable. It's unprecedented, that's definitely true. But we've never had another situation where the president of the United States might be so deeply immoral and corrupt that he's working for a foreign government.

But it is not debatable. You'd be crazy not to open an investigation with this fact pattern on any president. And it's not just about Trump's complimentary tone when it comes to dealing with Putin. It's not just about the fact that he had all of these campaign officials deeply tied with Russia. There was that huge story that broke last week involving Paul Manafort and how he had handed over campaign data, polling data to Russian officials. But it's also the fact that Trump's policies toward Russia are very different from previous

policies. So for instance, the White House following Trump's election was much more favorable to Russia and its annexation of Crimea, whereas the Obama administration imposed some pretty strong sanctions against Russia for doing that. And so it's, again, it's about Trump's actions, not just his words. His words give you a clue into what motivated his policy decisions toward Russia. So look, let's look at the Crimea example, because he's done a number of things that are considered pro-Russian, but some are debatable.

So he wants to withdraw from Syria. But to be fair to him, he said that during the campaign, that he wanted to withdraw overall from the Middle East. And I think there's an argument to be made that we agree with on withdrawal. That doesn't mean he's doing it for the right reasons. He might be doing it because he's in bed with the Russians. But I'm giving you that as, hey, no, that one's debatable, right? And there are others that you can say are debated.

Maybe he's obsessed with destroying NATO because they're not in his mind paying their bills. It could be, I think that's less debatable, but all right. But randomly turning around and saying, oh yeah, Crimea, that probably belongs to Russia. Yeah. There's no logical explanation for that. Now you said, hey, he's not willing to go to war over Crimea, okay, totally fine, different conversation.

He's not willing to ruin our relationship with Russia and working on other projects, okay, we're having a conversation. But gratuitously saying, well, they probably should have annexed it. That's against all U.S. foreign policy, it's irrational, it makes no sense. He wouldn't put the sanctions into place until he was absolutely forced to, come on guys, You gotta be blind, deaf, and dumb here. Not to realize there's something special going on here. But the last one, and it's a different story and we'll do cover it as well and don't miss

that one. But now the Washington Post reporting that whenever he goes to talk to Putin, he takes away the notes of the interpreters and won't have anyone else in the room. Oh yeah, yeah, the president's normally, presidents never do that. Gee, I wonder if there's a special relationship that Trump has with Putin that he doesn't want anybody else to find out about. When he says to the interpreter, you better not share anything you have, here give me your goddamn notes.

Gee, I wonder if he says something to Putin that he doesn't want anybody else to find out. Now if you're saying you still don't believe there's a connection between Trump and the Russians, you're just choosing to be completely biased for whatever reason, because that's what you believed in the past, that I'm gonna hold on to it for dear life. The guy clearly is connected to Putin. I don't know what the exact contours of the deal are, I'm not sure anyone does. But there's a goddamn deal. It's clear as day.

If you're trying to avoid it, it's your problem and you will not face the obvious facts. Right. And you know, in addition to Trump saying that Russia is essentially, or was essentially entitled to annexing Crimea, he's also repeatedly attacked NATO and NATO allies. And NATO is, you know, a form of defense against Russia, essentially. Eventually. And so all of these things, you know, when you put them together kind of draws a narrative that he is deeply tied to Russia.

We don't know exactly why or how, but that's how this all appears. And by the way, we don't know what the findings of this counterintelligence investigation were or are. We have no idea. That was not outlined in the Times piece. So what you're gonna hear over and over again from Trump and his allies is that, oh, they didn't find anything. No, that's not true.

The Times didn't report anything about the outcome of the investigation. I mean, this is something that we'll find out in the future. Now, with that said, Trump did appear on Janine Piro's Fox News show, and he was asked about this counterintelligence investigation. Here's what he had to say. Are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President? I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked. I think it's the most insulting article I've ever had written.

And if you read the article, you'd see that they found absolutely nothing. But the headline of that article, it's called The Failing New York Times for a reason. They've gotten me wrong for three years. They've actually gotten me wrong for many years before that. But you look at what's going on. You know, I fired James Coney. I call him Lion James Comey because he was a terrible liar. And he did a terrible job as the FBI director.

Look at what happened with Hillary Clinton in the emails and the Hillary Clinton investigation. one of the biggest screw-ups that anybody's ever seen as an investigation. And what happened after I fired him, Andrew McKay, Peter Strach, his lover, Lisa Page, they did it. And, you know, they're all gone. So he doesn't answer the question. Like, he says that he's offended. It's such an offensive thing to ask him. But he doesn't really answer the question.

He immediately deflects by mentioning FBI officials and the former FBI counsel. who were not fans of Trump, but who also were not fans of Hillary Clinton. He keeps latching on to the fact that they had exchanged text messages that were critical of Trump. But the fact that they were critical of Trump never was involved in the actual investigation of Trump or collusion or potential ties to Russia. So it might be that his lawyers are pounding into his head the last couple of months in the last couple of years. Hey, if you actually did something, do not strongly deny it on the record, because it'll come back

to bite you. So in this case, he didn't deny it. He just said, oh, I find it offensive that you would ask. Okay, so now, I mean, look, you have a child for a president. I call him lying James Comey. It's very clever. What is that? What is that?

I mean, if you're on a campaign trail and you think it's a populous thing to do, et cetera. Okay, that's one thing. You're already president of the United States. I called the former FBI director, lying James Comey, because that's really clever. No, it's not. No, it's not. That means you're a goddamn moron. Like, I call them lying James Comey, like a third grader.

And you know, they call it the failing New York Times. No, nobody calls it that, except you. I have a Bonapigua New York Times on different biases that they have that are actually pro-conservative. Yes, your head can go ahead and explode if you're a conservative. Oh, no way, man, they like gay people, they're so liberal. I got it, I got it. I'm not going to get into that.

But look at this child, are you a Russian agent, Mr. President? I call them letting James Come in the daily New York Times. Answer a serious question on an incredibly serious topic. I want to go to the next video because he makes a claim here that I think is important to address and debunk. Take a look. If you ask the folks in Russia, I've been tougher on Russia than anybody else, probably any other president period, but certainly the last three or four presidents, modern-day

presidents, nobody's been as tough as I have. any standpoint, including the fact that we're doing oil like we've never done it, we're setting records in our country with oil and exporting oil, and many other things. So, which is obviously not great for them, because that's what they, that's where they get their money for the most part. So Trump argues that he is tougher on Russia than any other president, except, and this is according to the Washington Post, Trump has dismissed Russia's election interference as a hoax, suggested that Russia was entitled to annex Crimea in Ukraine, repeatedly attacked

NATO allies, resisted efforts to impose sanctions on Moscow, and begun to pull U.S. forces out of Syria. So look, again, as Drake had mentioned earlier in the story, Trump has been wanting to pull troops out of Syria, so we'll give him that. But all the other decisions by Trump suggest that he is not tough on Russia, he's the exact opposite. He says these outlandish things. The Senate passed that resolution 98 to 2 to put sanctions on Russia.

And Trump said, I don't want to sign it. All right, I have to sign it, and then he refused to enforce it for a long time until he just was not remotely, legally permissible anymore to not enforce it. And finally, begrudgingly, and again, he's so unintelligent that he says it in public. I don't want to do this. I think these sanctions are a bad idea on Russia. Poor Russia, I don't know why we're doing this to Russia, but okay, fine, I guess I'm gonna have to do it.

Hey, if you wanna make it seem like you're not in bed with Russia, you might pretend that you were in favor of the sanctions, but he's too stupid to do that. So I've been the toughest ever on Russia, based on what, you child. So look, I don't know that, like I said now, we're clear on the facts. Do I know, I don't know the exact details of what deal he is. might have with the Russians. But look, I'll be honest with you're frustrated with the left wing. Right wing, I get it, they're maga.

You put on that red hat, that means you stop thinking. And you don't care about facts or logical reason, right? But some of the left wing, well, that means that we can't concentrate on Medicare for all. Really? That's so hard. Like, okay, Trump might have been working with the Russians, and we must pass Medicare for all right now.

Wow, I just did it. Oh my God, I must be a genius. No, you could do both things at once. I also don't agree with the establishment who's like, hey, listen, we gotta focus all of our energy on Trump and Russia so we can't do Medicare for all. No, no, that makes no logical sense. You can do both. It's not an either or proposition.

So anyone who can't see it, this connection is trying super hard not to see it. And yes, that means you're totally biased. So the reaction from Trump's administration was swift. A number of his officials did appear on various cable news shows or network shows over the weekend. Mike Pompeo happened to be one of those officials, and he was tight-lipped about the recent New York Times article regarding Trump being investigated by the FBI in the form of a counterintelligence investigation because there was some concern that Trump is possibly working in the best interests of Russia over the best interests of the United States.

So what did Pompeo have to say in response to all of this? Check it out. What is your reaction to this? I'm not gonna comment on New York Times stories, but I'll certainly say this, the notion that President Trump is a threat to American national security is absolutely ludicrous. Just to clarify, since you were CIA director, did you have any idea that this investigation was happening? Margaret, Margaret, Margaret, I've answered this question repeatedly, indeed on your show.

The idea that's contained in the New York Times story that President Trump was a threat to American national security is silly on its face and not worthy of a response. Okay, so the investigation aside, Trump is a threat to national security. He's a threat to national security at this very moment, with Russia not even involved. I'm not even considering Russia. We have a government shutdown right now, and we have TSA agents calling in sick in record numbers because they're not getting paid for their jobs. That is a national security concern.

So yes, he's a threat to national security. But once you couple that with the fact that Trump is potentially looking out for the best interests of Russia because he could potentially have some sort of deal with them, yes, he's a national security risk. And Pompeo's smart in not elaborating further because he probably doesn't want to incriminate himself. 100%. When you hear someone not address the actual question and they just say, oh, that's ridiculous.

That means I do not want to be put on the record denying this, because it likely is very much true. She asked a specific question. She didn't repeat her earlier question. She said you were the CIA director, so you would know if that came across your desk. So did it come across your desk? Well, I answered this before. No, you didn't.

She asked about when you were CIA director. You know, the idea is that Trump would be a national security dangerous, ludicrous. She didn't ask that. She asked, did you see that investigation? when you were a CIA director. And he didn't answer that question because he doesn't want to answer that question, because likely he did see it. And so these guys like Pompeii, look, I, in terms of Rex Tillerson, I think that he was in

one of those Putin meetings, the one in Hamburg, they sat there, and Tillerson was the only one allowed other than the interpreter. So a lot of these, and now, and then he eventually got super mad at Trump. And I think that he's worried that Trump incriminated him. And now he's got significant legal liability, right? But every one of these guys is in that situation, Pompeo, if he saw the report saying Trump might be a Russian agent, and he was a CIA director, and he ignored it, and then he became a secretary of state, well, then what is Pompeo?

And so that's why when he's on TV, he's like, oh, ridiculous, ludicrous, just don't ask me again. Whatever you do, do not ask me again, because I will not answer on the record, okay, I got it. And finally, Kellyanne Conway also addressed the New York Times report. Here's what she had to say. It sort of confirms what the president has said all along about some of the rogue actors at the very tippy top of the FBI who are no longer there because they were fired and worse.

Some of them were deemed to be leaking and lying, sexting each other, obviously with her tremendous biases against this president. So I think it confirms what he has said all along. So she's referring to Peter Struck and Lisa Page. They were not the top FBI officials that took part in this counterintelligence investigation. Like again, these are two separate issues and they're purposely conflating the two in order to make people think that this is nothing more than some sort of partisan attack on Donald Trump. It is not.

The FBI debated whether or not they wanted to launch this counterintelligence investigation. And the reason why they did decide to do it is because Trump himself was publicly incriminating himself, especially when he called in Russian officials into the Oval Office and started bragging about how he fired James Comey because of the Russia investigation. Okay, it's time for a young Turks guarantee, okay? I guarantee you that Kellyanne Conway after Donald Trump goes down will come back around and go, guys, I never believed any of that stuff. I was so obvious, that's why I had my husband, George Conway, constantly saying that what

Trump was doing was wrong and shameful and pointing out why it was wrong. You think it was a coincidence that my husband was saying all those things publicly? No, that was my way of trying to warn everybody. So I was actually a good guy. I guarantee she says that after the fact. Now let's note right now as things stand today, that's not true. So if she thinks she's being clever by doing that, well, that's not clever, that's not interesting. Because you are aiding and abetting Donald Trump right now, right now.

Every time you go on TV and you lie on his behalf and you cover up his crimes, you are guilty of aiding and abetting him. Just having your husband tweet every once in a while does not make it any better. We gotta take a break. When we come back, we will talk about another explosive report this time by the Washington Post that focused on how Trump has super secretive meetings with Vladimir. 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-F-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. Mayor Putin. All right, back on a young Turks, Jenk and Anna with you guys. Please share the stream wherever you're watching because things are about to get more fiery. Also later in today's programs on TYT network on Rebel headquarters, I'm going to talk to someone who does not agree with me about federal background checks on guns. So buckle up, brace for impact, okay? So that ought to be interesting.

All right, now I'm going to read some member comments here. The math magician says, you know the sad part is that if the GOP didn't openly change their platform in 2015, which all had all of us shaking our heads at the time, Trump might have gotten away with working for Russia because it could be explained away. And by the way, that is why I've said from day one that he will leave office in shame and not complete his first term because he is not intelligent enough to do this cover-up. And it doesn't actually take much. If you've already gotten to become president, you know how easy it is to do a cover-up?

Because you just say, it's an outrage. How could you investigate the president? An outrage. And he has all this executive privilege, et cetera. But he's too much of a bumbling fool. All right, Gabby Marita with an excellent point. I'm going to predict that at some point in the next week, Rudy Giuliani will say the words to the effect of even if Trump is a Russian asset. That's not illegal.

Probably live on Fox News, she added. I am sucks as Jared Kushner, has deep ties to Russia and Saudi Arabia. What a coincidence that the Trump administration lives sanctions on Russia and helps bury the Khashoggi murder. These guys are two-bit criminals that have captured the US government. Anyway, last one, Valerie says, if I was that interpreter, I would fear a bit for my life. Valerie, you're not playing. We're gonna give you that full story right now.

And I thought the same thing as I was reading the stories about the interpreters that have the notes or they were the only ones in the meetings with Trump and Putin, God, somebody get some protection. I'm not remotely joking. So, all right, thank you guys. These are all member comments. TYT.com slash join to become a member. All right, what's next, Anna? Following a New York Times story involving the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his ties to Russia, the Washington Post released a report indicating that Trump has been very secretive in his meetings with Vladimir Putin, so secretive that he's. He actually, in some cases, prevents interpreters from being in those meetings.

And in one case, in one meeting with Putin, he told the interpreter not to share the notes with anyone. So according to this Greg Miller report in the Washington Post, Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Putin, including on at least one occasion, taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist. the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials. Can I just pause or sorry? Sure.

That is extraordinary. No one has ever seen anything like that before. They went and talked to all the former officials, hey, did you ever have a president say, hey, in this meeting, everybody gets out of the room, I don't want any aides, I don't want anybody else listening in, I'm just going to have a conversation with this foreign leader. Never, never. Grabbing the interpreter's notes? What?

What? So, and does Trump do it with other officials? Maybe it's this thing, oh, he's got some sort of privacy fetish or whatever. And now, again, I don't mean to say it a fetish, we all should have privacy. But he's the president of the United States. He needs other people in the room. So let me quickly explain why he needs it. Number one, when you're negotiating or even having a conversation, not about a particular treaty

or anything like that, but about your relationship with another country. You need to make sure things are clear. You need other people in the room to confirm that there was no miscommunication. That is super important. You need other people in the room taking notes so they can execute later on what you agreed on. That is true in business meetings, in small business meetings, let alone giant meetings between two of the most powerful nations on earth.

When somebody says take everybody else out of the room, they're about to discuss something That is secret about them, not in regards to the US. Other people have security clearance, they need to be in that room. Come on, man. How can you not see that he's obviously has some secret deal with Putin that he doesn't even want the interpreter to know? He doesn't want to get out in any way, shape, or form. And he doesn't, as far as we can tell, does not do it with other governments.

It's not like, hey, I'm meeting with the leader of Canada, everybody get out of the room. No, it's just when it's Putin. Everybody, get out of the room. Get out of the room. I gotta get my notes for my boss. And the fact that he went the extra mile to talk to the interpreter and ensure that that person does not share the notes with anyone or talk about the meeting with anyone is also telling.

Now that meeting took place in 2017 in Hamburg, but there were other meetings that were held in privacy. So US officials said that there was no detailed record even in classified files of Trump's face-to-face interactions with a Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. So in one instance, he was talking to Putin at length. No one else was part of that conversation, no one else was present. And there's no record of what they discussed, how they discussed it. And one of the concerns by his aides, some of whom spoke to the Washington Post in private

or anonymously for this story, said, look, AIDS are hyper aware of possible manipulation. that could take place. So it could be possible that Trump is being manipulated by Putin, but he's completely unaware that he's being manipulated. And so AIDS, following these meetings, will put together these reports that help to inform the president so he can move forward in the best way possible. But it's impossible to do it if no one's present and if all of these meetings are taking place in secrecy.

One other thing that I thought was kind of amusing in this piece was the aides put together the reports and then they share it with Trump. and administration officials. But oftentimes when he meets with world leaders, negative things are said about Trump and his administration officials. And so they're usually a little reluctant to share that information with Trump. But in the case of Putin, they don't even get the opportunity to do that. So look, it got worse and worse as it went along.

First in Hamburg, there's the interpreter and Rex Thurson, who's the Secretary of State. Now, why did he allow Rex Lawson to stay in the room? One of my original theories, which is still very much active, is that the former CEO of ExileMobil, that's Rex Thurson, was brought in to be Secretary of State, which is super weird, completely out of the blue, random, never heard of before, to be the Secretary of State. Why? Because there was a half a trillion dollar deal with the Russians on oil, where ExxonMobil had the deal with the Russian oligarchs.

So did they discuss that deal? And that's why Trump maybe felt comfortable with Rex Tillerson being in the room. So, and then Rex Tillerson, after that meeting and other things go awry, it's like, I got to get out of here. Because God knows what he said, and then he grabs the interpreter's notes, and if you're Tillerson, you're probably thinking, I thought it was going to be subtle. But this idiot is just saying things in the room with Vladimir Putin with an interpreter. Oh my God.

And that is why later, among the reasons why Tillerson called him an effing moron, okay? And then ran out of his administration with his hair on fire. So Tillerson's now gone. And now that's in Hamburg. In Helsinki, there is no Tillerson, no other official, only the two interpreters. And then it gets worse in other meetings where he just, Putin and him just talk one-on-one. Putin's interpreters there, so we don't even have a US interpreter. Oh, come on, you're telling me that the president of the United States is going to meetings

with any foreign government, let alone an adversary, without even using our interpreter. How do you know if his interpreters interpreting things correctly? I mean, that is preposterous. Okay, even if you think that he has, I mean, at this point, really, you'd have to be mental to think he doesn't have some deal with the Russians. insane. No, this is all normal. President's going and don't even use interpreters when they're meeting with adversaries.

It's just you're wrong, you're wrong, it's not even close to true. But even if you think there is no deal, well look at this, this guy's a buffoon. He was asking the Defense Department, it was a different story out today, hey, why can't we just blow up Iranian boats? Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is like, because it would then start a war. Do you want to start a war? No, I just want to blow up their boats. So at a bare minimum with no one else in the room, do you know how easy it would be to manipulate

and take advantage of this fool of fools? A guy who does not understand any of the consequences of his actions? What did he promise the Russians, even if he was on the level? And then is he going to follow through? And then if we don't follow through, does the word of the United States government mean anything? I mean, it is both deeply incompetent while also being deeply corrupt. And when you take the fact that he insists on having these meetings in secrecy and couple

it with all the other potentially incriminating aspects of Trump's relationship with Vladimir Putin, it draws a picture that's hard for Trump and his administration officials to deny. I mean, he has pushed for policies that are favorable to Russia, including making statements about how Russia is entitled to annexing Crimea. He has been very hesitant to impose sanctions on Russia. The fact that he fired Comey and openly said on various occasions that he did so because of the Russia investigation once on television and the second time when he met with Russian officials in the Oval Office.

I mean, how is it that he, and by the way, every other day there's a Twitter storm, a tweet storm about how there was no collusion, even though there was nothing to provoke that reaction from Trump on Twitter. Just out of nowhere, he'll bring up Russia. It's incredible. Now, he was asked about these secret meetings, and he claims, no, no, I'm not hiding anything. Of course, he was on Judge Jeanine Piro's show, and she's very favorable and complimentary to Trump, so he was in good company.

But here's what he had to say about this Washington Post report. Why not release the conversation that you had with President Putin in Helsinki, along with some other stuff that might involve the FISA, Broussor, and the whole lot of them? Well, Janine, I would. I don't care. I mean, I had a conversation like every president does. You sit with the president of various countries. I do it with all countries. We had a great conversation. We were talking about Israel and securing Israel and lots of other things. And it was a great conversation. I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I couldn't care less.

I mean, it's so ridiculous. These people make it up Washington Post. That's basically the lobbyist for Amazon. You know, he uses that Bezos who's got bigger problems than anybody right now. God, what an embarrassment Judge Jeanine Piro is. I mean, and the fact that she still uses the label judge in her show. But anyway. So everything he said, as usual, is totally false and a lie on purpose.

So, on the Hamburg meeting, Rex Tillerson did a small readout of some of the topics that were considered. But then, okay, so let's say that your secretary saying, you don't want to make it public, that's totally reasonable, okay? So you gotta separate out things that make sense from ones that are extraordinary, right? But then within the Trump administration, his own national security advisor asked both Trump and Tillerson, hey, can you tell me what happened in the meeting so we could all prepare? because this is, I'm the national security advisor.

I have to know what we said to the Russians. And even Tillerson refused to tell H.R. McMaster what happened? What? I mean, that is record shatteringly unprecedented that where the Secretary of State says to the national security advisor or the defense sector or everyone in the government, no, I won't tell you what we talk to the Russians about. And then you go turn to the president and he's like, not only will I not tell you, I I stole the interpreter's notes.

You want to say he didn't steal him? He just grabbed him and he has a right to grab them. Okay, if you don't think that's curious or suspicious, there's something wrong with you. Your cognitive abilities need a little bit of repair, okay? And then, okay, like I said, it got worse every time. In Helsinki, there's only their interpreters, he doesn't even allow anybody else in. And again, he tells the interpreters, you are not allowed to say anything about this meaning to anyone.

Then he only uses Putin's interpreter, he doesn't want any Americans in the room. Okay, so here are more cases. In 2017, there was a global conference and only Putin's interpreter was present. That's one of the ones that I'm referring to. And then they had another conversation at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires last month. And again, Trump refused to have anyone else. He just would pull Putin aside with Putin's interpreter and they had a conversation where they were making their, well, they're obviously having a literal secret conversation that

our president does not want anyone else in the United States government to know about. Just let that sink in. The president does not want his own secretary of state, his secretary of defense, or his national security advisor to know what he secretly told the Russian president. Okay, if you still think there's no secret deal, you're not that bright, okay? So sorry, but that's the reality. And by the way, we know who the interpreter in Helsinki is. Somebody get her some protection.

I'm not remotely joking. Luckily, we don't know the identity of the interpreter in Hamburg. I hope the FBI and the special counsel know his or her identity, but do not please other media organizations, don't reveal their names. I'm not kidding. And look, you might say, hey, as journalists, it's our job to find out. And I hear you, but you're putting their lives in danger. So Putin has people assassinated on a regular basis.

If there's only one other person in the room that heard what Trump and Putin are talking about, their lives are definitely in danger. Let's take a break. When we come back, we're going to switch gears and talk about the story that Jank referenced, Iranian ships and how Trump just wants to sink them. Oh, God, all right, if you haven't heard this story, and your blood's not already boiling, that'll set you over there. 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 cyber criminals. 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. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. All right, this show has been pretty fiery, and it promises to keep on going that way. We're going to turn to the Democrats in a little bit, but we're not done with Trump yet. So if you miss any portion of it or you can't catch some of it live, t.t.com slash join.

And the free trial continues, by the way, TYT.com slash holiday. That gives you a week free. So check that out. And I'm going to be in New York on Wednesday of this week. So if you want to see me in Nomeki-Const, we're doing a people's fundraiser, Bitley slash TYT4 for Nomiki, as is the number four. So that's the way to get tickets. It's $27.

You can give more. In New York, they take your contribution and multiply it by eight if you're a New York resident. So it's a wonderful way to support candidates that you like. Nomi's running for public advocate in New York. Please support her. And even if you can't come to the fundraiser, make sure you vote. And one more thing, the just Democrats have started a primary fund to primary Henry Kuehara, who votes with Donald Trump.

69% of the time is anti-choice, pro Wall Street, and the list goes on and on. So that's J-DEMS.U.S.S.q.R. Fund. Okay, so check that out. Okay, now your comments real quick. Xenophobia says the media is more complicit in this. They keep treating these people as if they are legitimate. Yeah, look, media's in a tough spot, but, and they have been pretty critical of Donald Trump. But what do you do with the president who might be a Russian agent, and it's unprecedented. On this one, I don't blame the New York Times, et cetera, for trying to figure out what is supposed to be our journalistic standards here, when the president might be an agent.

Ah, man, do the best you can in calling it out exactly as it is. Is there a weird, difficult times? Sartorial Narwhal says, wait, he asked the interpreters not to talk with his own administration. Oh, for the love of dot, dot, dot. I mean, anyone, that's what I'm saying. When he tells the interpreter, you are not allowed to tell anyone else in the U.S. government what I just told the Russian president. Why?

Name me one legitimate reason that any president would do that, let alone over and over and over again. Okay, smooth says, is Jenks suggesting Putin would have someone assassinated? Putin would never. Those people dropped the pianos on themselves and definitely shot themselves while in handcuffs. So, good point. And eclectic miscellaneous says Trump doesn't need an interpreter, he speaks fluent corruption. All good points. All right, Anna, let's do the next story.

All right. Donald Trump seems to be a little emotional when it comes to his foreign policy decisions. In fact, during a Axios report, it was revealed that Trump actually wanted to sink so-called fastboats that Iran uses to to harass our own navy. Now, Trump repeatedly asked his national security team for plans to blow up Iranian fastboats in the Persian Gulf during his first year in office. So these fastboats are annoying, there's no question about that. However, Iran has used the fastboats less and less to harass the United States.

But they are armed with machine guns and rocket launchers. The military will respond accordingly, but the reason why we don't sink those ships or those boats is because that will lead to war, which is exactly what Jim Mattis had told Trump. So Trump was quoted as saying the following. So these boats, they get in, they come in really fast, they come in really close, and they might have explosives on them, and we don't even know, can you believe this? And we don't do anything. And he also said that Iran's fastboats, I'm sorry, he's not saying this, this is according

to Axios, Iran's fastboats were harassing U.S. Navy vessels less than in previous years. Such a disproportionate response from Trump could have quickly metastasized into war with Iran. So I mean, it's interesting because he seems to contradict himself. On one hand, he doesn't see the point in remaining in Syria, we agreed with him on that. So he's withdrawing troops. He doesn't understand why the United States is still involved in this war in Afghanistan, which is why he wants to bring half of the US troops from Afghanistan back to the United States. We agreed with him on that.

But then on the other hand, he has these uninformed knee-jerk reactions to things that could pull us into more war, unnecessary wars. So I mean, it just further proves that he's the type of person who really just shoots from the hip. He doesn't really have a strategy or a clear foreign policy moving forward. I hear people are upset when I call the president dumb. I don't know what you want me to call him. So look, you're gonna be surprised by the first thing I say, which is defending Trump.

You will not be surprised by the second. So I think there are two unacceptable things here, but the first is not related to Trump. It's Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. When the president asks you for an option on how to blow up the boats, you give him an option on how to blow up the boats. It's not negotiable. So I don't agree with Mattis. I think that was terrible.

So it doesn't matter if the president is wrong. He's asking you for an option, a military option. Your job as a defense secretary is to give him that military option. I disagree with you 100%. I think in any other circumstance where you have a president who is at least somewhat informed and has the intellectual curiosity to sit through an intelligence briefing, then yes, I I agree with you. But you need some mitigating factors within the Trump presidency.

And in this case, Mattis luckily served as a mitigating factor. If it weren't for Mattis and he just did what Trump wanted and sunk Iranian fast boats, that would have pulled us into an unnecessary war. No, I didn't say sink the boats. I said give them an option. So let me do point two and then see if you still disagree. Okay. But point two, the problem is not Mattis just deciding on his own that he's not going to follow

the president's order, what he should have done instead is say, Mr. President, here's your option for how we can blow the boats out of the water. It's very simple. This is the kind of missile that we would use and we would sink them. Then what would happen next is Iran would respond by doing X and then we would have to respond by doing Y. And then that would increase the chances of war by, in our estimation, whatever the number is, 40%, 80%.

And now here are the consequences of a war with Iran and lay out all the consequences. Because then you've done your job and you've given the president all the options and consequences. The problem is Mattis short circuits the system because he knows the president is not intelligent enough to understand the consequence of his actions. So the underlying problem isn't that Trump is asking for options. The underlying problem is that the president is so unintelligent that the defense secretary doesn't want to give him options because he doesn't understand consequences of his actions. So at that point, Mattis has got to lay it all out for him.

And if Trump says, yeah, blow him out of the water, then Mattis should resign and say, Mr. President, I'm confident that you are going to start a war, that you do not want to start, and you don't understand what you're doing. So I cannot follow that order. You should find a defense secretary that can follow that order. You have every right as president to have a defense secretary that'll follow your orders. But I'm not the guy to do it, because I'm not going to unnecessarily start a war with Iran. So that would be honest, that would be principled and disciplined, right?

Instead he goes, well, he's so stupid, he doesn't realize what he's doing, but he's so stupid he won't realize that I'm not even ever going to give him that option. And by the way, that's what happened. So Mattis never gave him the option and Trump forgot about it. That's right. And I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. I mean, look, you're making the assumption, I'm not really sure why, that Trump would sit through

an explanation, a lengthy, informed explanation about the consequences of sinking these both. Then, okay, no problem, no, do I think that Trump would understand or comprehend any of that? No, I think he's one of, literally one of the least intelligent people in the country, period, okay? If you're going to think that's extreme statement, it's not. Everyone who works with them goes, in the immortal words of Rex Tillerson, his secretary said, effing moron, one of the dumbest people you'll ever meet, okay? So what should Mattis have done? If Mattis then says, Mr. President, I must explain to you the consequence of the war.

And the president goes, I don't want to hear it, I don't want to hear it. I immediately call for the 25th Amendment. I would convene the cabinet and say the president is a child. Well, that I agree with. And he does not have the mental capacity to be president. This is a danger to the country and to the world. We must convene the cabinet to at least have a discussion of the 25th Amendment. If that gets me fired for insubordination, no problem at all.

I can live with that. I can't live with starting a war with Iran if the president doesn't have any idea what he's doing. Okay? So his foreign policy advisor at the time, H.R. McMaster did lay out the consequences, not in the way that you mentioned, but he essentially, I'm going to give you the quote. So he said, Mr. President, this has happened in the past, meaning the Iranian fastboats harassing our military.

But Department of Defense is telling us that it hasn't happened lately. So they're not that concerned about it. So he essentially gives Trump that statement and Trump backs off. But again, I mean, look, I agree with you in invoking the 25th Amendment and going after Trump in that way. But I think we've learned through this presidency through the Trump era that Republicans and his administration officials do not have the backbone to do that. They're not going to do that.

And so if this is the only mitigating factor, then I'll take it. because I certainly don't want to start a war with Iran. So, but I just want to be clear, if you're asking me why, why do I have this position that Mattis should have given an obnoxious? Because there are two different problems here, guys. One is the temporary, but very, very important and urgent problem of Donald Trump, who is mentally unstable and not fit to be president, cannot make decisions, does not understand the consequences, it's just, he's a danger to the country, okay, and to our democracy.

So that's a gigantic problem. But do not take your eye off the other problem, which is the establishment saying, I don't care who the president is, right wing or left wing, I'm not gonna listen to the president, I'm just gonna do whatever I want. So, and you'll have to always think what if the shoe was on the other foot. And I remember when Obama was president, and he said, give me options on Afghanistan, increasing troops, keeping them the same, and withdrawing. And the Pentagon came back, and they did not include the option or withdrawing.

I would have fired that general on the spot. I asked you for an option on withdrawal, you didn't give it to me, apparently you're hard of hearing or not that bright, you're fired, who's next, okay? So if they, let's say someone we support, Elizabeth Warren is president of the United States. She says, give me an option. Defense Secretary does not give her that option, fire him on the spot. Because I, and it's a giant difference between Elizabeth Warren, who is brilliant and a Harvard professor, and Donald Trump, one of the least intelligent people you've ever met in public life,

in public life, but you must do your job and you must do it in a principled way. Right, and look, there's another difference, aside from the fact that we're dealing with someone who has a different, who has some limitations when it comes to intelligence. Look, with Obama and Afghanistan, he wanted various options because he was genuinely curious, and more importantly, he wanted to make an informed decision moving forward. Trump didn't really want options. Trump wanted to sink the boats. He wanted to sink the boats.

He didn't want options. He wanted to know exactly why we're not sinking the boats and when can we sink the boats. That's really where he was coming at it and where he was coming at it from. And so look, again, I get what you're saying, but also consider the fact that this might have been one of the first times, maybe even only time that Jim Mattis didn't want to provoke a war. Yeah, I know, that's unusual too. So normally guys like Mattis in the establishment push for more war, but they at least have enough sense to do it in a rational way and at the time of their, theoretically our choosing

as the country and through official channels, et cetera, hey, we did these sanctions, we gave you this opportunity, et cetera, you want to be able to justify it to your allies, otherwise you won't have their backing and then you'll be in a worse situation. It's one thing to attack Iran unilaterally and then risk your relationship with China, for example. It's another thing to build an alliance, et cetera, they did with Iraq. Now that alliance was poor in Iraq and it was still a terrible decision, but there was a method to the madness.

Here there was no method, there's just madness. Well, there's some more madness that I want to share with all of you in this fourth week of government shutdown. We are currently in the fourth week of a government shutdown. In fact, government workers have now gone past a pay period without getting paid. However, we are getting some more insight into the negotiations and what happened behind the scenes and how Donald Trump actually spoke down to his current chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. Now, there are no winners here, but I will say that I enjoy hearing about Mick Mulvaney

getting a dressed down by Donald Trump, by anyone. Mick Mulvaney is a terrible human being. But with that said, here's what happened. So Mulvaney tried to negotiate a compromise sum of money and said that if Democrats weren't okay with $5.7 billion for the border wall and the president wasn't okay for $1.3 billion, he was trying to say we should find a middle ground. So this is how the negotiation starts. This negotiation happened on January 4th.

And at that point, Trump interrupts him and says, quote, you just effed it all up, Mick. In the middle of the room. Yeah. With Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in the room. Nice. Okay. Okay. Look, if I'm in a business meeting and we're doing negotiations, and this is small time stuff,

right? We're not talking about the whole United States government and the shutdown, etc. But we're not talking about billions of dollars. But if I'm in a business meeting and one guy yelling, you know, Tells that another guy on the team, you just effed it all up, Mick. I think, okay, these guys are clowns, okay, total and utter unprofessional clowns. And two, I think they didn't do any homework. They didn't bother talking to each other before the meeting.

Of course they didn't. Of course they didn't. Jake, he doesn't want to sit through national, like, intelligence meetings. He doesn't want to sit through that kind of stuff. He wants picture books to explain how our government works. He doesn't even know how the government works. I mean, of course they don't communicate with one another. Of course they don't know how to negotiate.

He is not a master negotiator. If he were a master negotiator, if he didn't know how to make good deals, if he were a good businessman, he wouldn't go bankrupt six times. Sorry for that rant, but I mean, it's just, it's nonstop chaos within his administration. Yeah, so if you were an effective manager, you would have a strategy going to be to talk to the other side. Hey guys, I want 5.7 billion. Dave offered 1.3.

What's our strategy? So now I'm going to say this and then make you say that and then maybe my chiefest, well at this point he's acting chief of staff, or another aid might say something else and we're going to get to a point landing point where we can be comfortable. Here's a range of where, hey, I'd like to get to 4.2, but you know what, we'll take it if it's 3.5. And maybe you even do a good cop, bad cop, whatever it might be, right? You have some strategy going into the meeting.

Instead, they do no homework, no preparation, they blunder in. And then Mulvaney, for the first time in his life, says something reasonable. He's like, I don't know, can we meet in the middle? You want 5.7, they want 1.3, how about in the middle? Which is actually a fairly reasonable thing to say. And then Trump loses it. Oh, why are you saying to Mick? You just do it all up.

Well, why didn't you talk to him ahead of time and tell him not to say that? And you didn't think that anybody might say, hey, why don't we meet in the middle? That didn't occur to you? That's unbelievable. Right. And he's, Trump is frustrated with Mick Mulvaney because Mulvaney had offered Democrats the original sum, which Trump seemed to sign off on originally, but then he got bullied by the Ann Colters and the Rush Limbas of the world on television and on radio, and then he decided

to completely change his mind. So instead of taking personal responsibility for his lack of communication, for his lack of being an effective negotiator, for his inability to stick to what he claims he wants, he's decided that he's gonna take it all out on everyone else, including Mick Mulvaney in front of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Now with that said though, if you're Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, especially if you're Nancy Pelosi, and you see this dysfunction right in front of you, what incentive do you have to cave or concede to Trump and give him $5.7 billion for the border wall.

You have no incentive. In fact, if Nancy Pelosi does sign on to that in the future, which I'm hoping she doesn't, she would look like a giant clown. Because the ball, I mean, the ball's in her court, and the reality is like she has the upper hand here. She has all the leverage. Exactly, yes. Right?

So I don't want to get to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and what they might do wrong. For now, they're holding strong, that's good, okay? But let's, I want to talk about one last thing here, that it's important. So we're talking about preparing ahead of the meeting. But you could also talk about what you would do after the meeting. So here's another possibility. So they prepped in front of the meeting and they all had an agreement that, hey, guys, the lowest we're going to go except for the walls, 4.2 billion, right?

And then Mulvaney screwed it up and said, okay, should we meet in the middle? And the middle is not 4.2. So could that happen? Sure, it could happen. And in that case, it would be Mulvaney's fault because he did not do what. what they plan to do ahead of the meeting, right? But even in that scenario, the person in charge should not yell at Mulvaney because you guys still look unprepared and clownish and incompetent.

What you would do if you were a good manager is, you know, wrap up the meeting somehow, and then afterwards go, Mick, why did you do that? We said 4.2 was our bottom, and then you offered something that was in the three range. And so you wanna dress them down afterwards? You wanna criticize him afterwards? Okay, that would make sense. But when you do it in front of the people you're negotiating with, you then lose further leverage. But he's, again, does not have the ability to comprehend simple things like that.

He's the worst manager. And look, I just, I'm now at my breaking point, I mentioned the 25th Amendment a number of times, now I'm positive. I thought we should consider it, it's a possibility, et cetera. No, this guy is a danger to everyone. You combine all the stories of today, you know, he talks to Putin and will not allow even U.S. interpreters. When he does, he tells the U.S.

he grabs their notes and won't let them talk to anybody inside the U.S. government. He then turns around and doesn't realize that sinking the Iranian ships would start a war. I mean, on that alone, that's it, we're done with him, 25th Amendment. That's not that you're not supposed to start a war with Iran, unfortunately. I think that's a terrible, terrible idea, but other presidents have started other terrible wars. But the fact that he does not have the mental capacity to understand that it would start a war. No, 25th Amendment, immediately. And this, like just on its own, no, it's not worthy of the 25th Amendment.

But it's a billionth straw on a camel's back, which has already been. It's been pulverized. It's gone. It's gone. It's gone. Right? By vertebrae. That's right.

So 25th Amendment, you gotta get this guy out. He's a danger. And so, but I know they won't do it because the Republicans are like, oh, danger to the world. On the other hand, it helps my political career a little bit, so not going to do it. Let's see what Mueller says. And then if, I mean, Mueller would have to come in with such overwhelming evidence for the Democrats to take any action, let alone the Republicans.

So I am a little concerned because here we have overwhelming evidence of Donald Trump's lack of mental capacity and everybody's pretending that the emperor has clothes on. The emperor doesn't have any clothes on and an emperor doesn't have a mind. When we come back from the break, we will discuss the recent teacher strike happening in the LAUSD, it's the second largest school district in the country. I'm going to tell you what their demands are and how this could have ramifications nationwide. Thank you for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more

by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.