The Young Turks - Trump Makes Contradicting Kavanaugh Investigation Statements

Episode Date: October 2, 2018

The scope of the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh was thrown into confusion when Trump repeatedly contradicted the precise scope of the investigation. Senators Jeff Flake and Chris Coons spoke on '60 Minutes' about the intense, last-minute decision to ask for an FBI Investigation. 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. All right, well, I'm the Young Turks, Jake, Eger, Anna Kasparan with you guys. If you're wondering, hey, is that a new jacket on Jenk? Yes. So obviously, it'll be discussed in the post game.

It fits? It looks good. Interesting. Okay. Lots of kid around and discussion of that, for those of you who like that kind of stuff in post game in old school, which are much more lighthearted. In old school a couple of weeks ago, I explained how rich people can tell I'm not one of them. Okay, a telltale sign that I have, which I think you'll enjoy.

TYT.com slash join to get all the Young Turks shows, the super serious ones and the lighthearted ones. So today's show is largely on the more serious side. I don't know if I'll be angry or amused at Kanye West or Yee? Is it Yee or Ye? I don't know. Okay. Craig? Is it Ye?

Yay. Okay. Yay. We'll be talking about Yay later. And his drive to abolish the 13th Amendment which outlawed slavery. Yay! I don't get it. looking for a spot on Turning Point USA?

Like, you're making your money, Homeboy. Like, what are you doing? No, no, first of all, he's bankrupt. Let's just remember how he was begging Zuckerberg, et cetera, for money. He's like, what's $50 million among friends? So back then, he was using race to his advantage. Anyways, we'll discuss that story later. I just would like to do like a victory trot on told you he's a lunatic.

Anyone who thought it was genius, sorry, not remotely close. one of the dumbest people in the country. Okay, anyways, we'll get to that story a little bit later, so hang in there. We've got an interesting and in parts fun show for you today. So, let's get started. All right. There's been some confusion involving the FBI investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.

The White House was pretty clear in saying that they wanted to limit the scope of the investigation, but following an NBC report. that really delved into how limited the investigation would be, Trump denied that he was trying to limit it at all. In fact, he disputed this report from NBC News and then also said that the White House counsel's office provided the FBI, sorry, he disputed the NBC report, but the White House counsel's office provided the FBI with a list of witnesses. They are permitted to interview about two of the three claims made against Brett Kavanaugh. Now that was the news as of this morning.

So Julie Swetnik, who was the third accuser, was not included on that list. Diane Feinstein was fighting rather aggressively in order to obtain that list of people that the FBI was allowed to speak to based on what the White House said. And then all of a sudden Trump is now changing his tune and he's saying that he will allow for the expansion of this FBI investigation. So this just recently broke. He said, I think the FBI should do what they have to do to get the answer. He also said, now with that being said, I'd like it to go quickly.

And the reason I'd like it to go quickly, very simple, so simple, because it's unfair to Kavanaugh at this point. So no one is trying to change the one week timeframe, but based on what we were learning as of this morning, it seemed as though the FBI was only allowed to talk to four individuals. And that is not enough. There are a bunch of other witnesses who could provide information to the FBI. Julie Swetnik should be someone who the FBI speaks to as well. Now it appears that that will likely happen given the pressure on the Trump administration.

Yeah, so two things here. First off, let's acknowledge the obvious. The investigation was limited in scope in the beginning. It is now apparently less limited, which is an admission that it was a real. originally, limited. You can't, if it was unlimited to begin with, a new policy would not be necessary. So that's a fact. And so the question as to how limited it was, there's a good question, you know, there's

some reports out that it was limited to just four people, which is a joke. And obviously that doesn't do enough. But there's one other thing that people are not considering though, when we talk about the scope of the FBI investigation and the timing of it. So they have a week. The question is how much manpower do they have? I've seen that discussion almost nowhere, right? So if you have a week and you've got two guys chasing it down, you'll get nothing.

If you have 20 guys chasing it down, you might get something. If you've got 200 guys chasing it down, a week might be plenty. So I don't know the answer to that question. It's one that I think should be asked, but no one is asking. And then we get to Swetnik, which is point two here. So she has super significant charges, not, I mean, if attempted rape wasn't horrific enough for you, she alleges gang rape involving Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, that they were part of a group of guys who would spike people's drinks and then quote unquote train

them. If you've never heard of that term, it is many men taking turns on one woman. I remember seeing that in pop culture and thinking, well, that it was a myth, that never really happened. And then I remember naively thinking, huh, man, if it ever did happen, man, it's funny what people are into. No, idiot, no, they weren't into it. The way that it happens is that they are, their drinks are spiked, et cetera, they're unconscious

in some way. Of course, of course. But if you've never done that type of thing, it wouldn't even occur to a decent, person, what in the world that that would entail. But the reason I bring it up in this context is, if it's really as outrageous as Kavanaugh and Trump suggests, wouldn't you want the FBI investigating that to be able to disprove it and get an easy layup? My God, that would help your case so much.

All you had to do realistically for Kavanaugh, if the FBI says, ah, Ramirez or Swetnik, or anyone does not have problems with their stories in any way, shape, or form. They could easily come on, be like, that's it, we told you, we told you, right? So the fact that they don't want people looking into sweat, Nick, man, that's weird. Well, there are two issues here. So, of course, the number one issue that's front and center includes the allegations, the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. But there are also issues in terms of his testimony because he is being accused of lying

about a number of things, including his drinking when he was in high school and college. So previously, the FBI was not allowed to talk to any of his former classmates who argue that he lied about his drinking habits. And I thought that that was fascinating. Look, Republicans have been basically pressured and forced into this investigation. They've been trying to prevent the investigation from happening. And I think that means something. Because if you genuinely think that the person you're trying to confirm as a Supreme Court,

justice is innocent, and this is nothing more than a smear campaign that's being launched by the Democrats, you would want the investigation. And I understand wanting to limit the timing of the investigation, because they're very much concerned that, hey, if it takes too long, we might lose power in the Senate, and then we're going to deal with obstruction from Democrats when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. But in this case, why did they try to limit it to only four witnesses? Why did they have to get pressured and forced into the investigation, even after Democrats

told them, all right, we're going to limit the timing of it to one week? They think he's guilty. That's my perception of it, because if you genuinely think that he's innocent, you wouldn't have to be forced the way that Republicans have been forced. But let me break it down to two different categories. I get why they want to limit it in scope in some respects. So what they want to say is, hey, I don't want you to go into perjury issues. then Kavanaugh's in a lot of trouble.

So as we've explained on a number of occasions, he perjured himself earlier in the judicial hearings on a couple of cases, including his handling of Charles Pickering, when he was at the Bush White House, Emmanuel Miranda situation. So they're saying, let's not go back and relitigate that. But also very importantly, Kavanaugh is clearly lying about how much he drank and the effects that had in college. And as we have said repeatedly, Sheldon White House pointed out, his descriptions of what he wrote in his yearbook meant are obvious lies.

Everyone in the country knows that those are lies. So the Trump people are saying, don't look into those. I don't want to get into perjury. We just want to look into the sexual assault allegations. I understand their motivation, right? And so, okay, that's one thing. When you look into the sexual assault allegations, you cannot limit the sexual assault allegations. You cannot limit the scope there, I think.

And again, so here, let me give me an extreme example to give you a sense of why I wouldn't want to scope limited if I was the one that was charged. So I'm going to give a preposterous example here. If someone accused me of being a jockey, as in the guys who ride horses around for a living, I would say, no, that's outrageous, I've never done that. And if you want to get into an investigation of that, and there are several different charges, and you want to get into whether I ever rode a horse. Okay, well, I can see how you'd be concerned.

Maybe they twist that and say, hey, does that lead to it? But I've never got paid. This is getting crazy enough as it is. But let me get to the extreme part so that it's crystal clear. If one of the three accusations is that I used to ride unicorns, I would say, please, please investigate that. Because whether I'm guilty or not guilty of whatever insane charge in this example, right, I know I didn't ride unicorns, I know they're going to be able to disprove that pretty easily.

So whether I'm correct or not on the rest of it, I would want them to look into the unicorn thing because it would disprove the charges. So Kavanaugh and said her should be like, look at Swetnik, look at Swetnik. I mean, the gang rape, are you insane? Are you insane? Look into her allegations. There's no way that's going to hold, right? But they're like, no, no, no, don't do. And those are the most serious allegations.

I mean, look, they're all horrible. Don't get me wrong, but none of the allegations, with the exception of Julie Swetnick's, involved penetration, actual, like, physical penetration rape, right? And so why is it that that was the one accusation that, or one accuser, that they did not want to have the FBI look into? Look, I like that they got pressured into expanding the FBI investigation. I like that for once, Democrats are doing the right thing and they are fighting aggressively. The fact that Diane Feinstein was really raising the alarm or the, yeah, raising the alarm

regarding that that list that the White House gave to the FBI, I don't think we would have really known about it. We wouldn't be as aware of it. And so I think that the Democrats putting pressure on Senate Republicans and Trump's White House is really making an impact here. And by the way, for me, I don't, if he gets cleared, good, good. At least we know, hey, if he gets confirmed, he's not guilty of doing this, right? Based on what the FBI investigated and what they found or didn't find.

But this investigation needs to happen to either clear his name or find out that he did it and has no place in the Supreme Court. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Devil's triangle is not a drinking in. Yeah. Kavanaugh, all right, I'm going to say one last thing about this, although I have plenty of opportunity. But anyway, James Comey wrote an op-ed saying, here's what we know at the FBI.

Little lies are usually an indication that there are bigger lies. And Kavanaugh told a lot of little lies. And so if the FBI is not allowed to investigate perjury and those little lies like ralphing because of drinking, not because of spicy fish or whatever he claimed. Yeah, spicy food. And the devil's triangle is not a drinking game, et cetera, right? I get it. They're not going to keep them off the Supreme Court for those lies, although perjury is perjury.

And Kavanaugh wanted to impeach Bill Clinton based on perjury, just like that. But if it, in fact, does lead the bigger lies, that's the heart of the question. And if I'm an FBI agent, I come in thinking, well, everybody in the country knows you were lying about what you wrote in the yearbook. So now I'm curious to see what else you were lying about. Exactly. All right. We got to take a break.

When we come back, we have Jeff Flake on 60 Minutes, what he had to say about this investigation. And then later on, Tucker Carlson, Alan Dershowitz argue that this whole whole. Kavanaugh thing is a race war because they're insane. Oh, Jesus Christ. All right, that when we return. All right, back on a young church, Jen and Anna with you guys, member section comments. First, Captain Cornball says, do you think Swetnik's choice of lawyer may have had anything new with how limited the scope of the original investigation was?

Well, her lawyer should obviously be irrelevant to this. But I'm going to go to a tweet here because it's on the same topic. Old Turk says, Trump believes Swetnik, he wouldn't have blocked the FBI from the layup otherwise. Love him or hate him, Avanotti is batting a thousand. So, well, we'll see about that. But I know that Trump and the Republicans can't stand Avanati, but that's irrelevant to whether this actually having a sweatnik or not. Meg says

they only allowed this investigation as covers so they can vote yes. Certainly the go-to plan Meg. We'll see if that works or not. And that's why they wanted it to be super quick. Obviously, their bias is clear. And so, last one

from the member section, Gabby Marita says that this FBI fiasco is exactly what Trump would do to the Russia investigation if he got rid of Rosenstein. Pick who the investigators are allowed to talk to and demand that they do it within a timetable solely determined by him. Yes, very, very likely. Now, we were in the member section before I go anywhere else.

Let me just do a quick check on the thermometer here. We haven't checked out in a couple of days. So, oh, 32,4001. Can I see 32,500? Can I see 32,500 by the end of the day? Okay, very unlikely, but let's give it a shot. Why? 99 people.

That's not too much, we're 99 people. So, t-y-t.com slash join, obviously, to become a member. Last two things here are from Twitter. So lefty green 75 says, perjury is perjury, whether it's a little lie or a big lie, Cavs should be facing impeachment, not confirmation. Well, Kavanaugh's standards on that same issue, it says, yes, absolutely right. Kavanaugh believed that Bill Clinton should be impeached for perjury on a sexual issue. By his own standards, he should definitely be impeached.

Last one is Aloha Debt Free Rights in using hashtag TYT Live. I thought a red wave was coming in November. If that's true, why not take as long as you need to do the FBI investigation? Yeah, it's such a great point. That's such a great point. Yeah, well, what happened to the red wave? It seems like you're a little concerned that perhaps it might be a blue wave. Fascinating.

Okay, and by the way, if you're not, if you're already a member or you want to help in any other way, we created a link just for you guys, t-y-t.com slash yes. If you like what we're saying on air and you want to help contribute to the home of progressives and to the message that we're spreading, and a lot of you says some wonderful things and we really, really appreciate it throughout our Kavanaugh coverage. This is a good way of doing it. Aty-t.com slash yes. You can get, like, you like some?

Yeah, I like your hair. There's a buck. Okay, whatever you can afford, if you want to do that, that is also very, very much appreciated here and helps keep the lights on. So thank you guys. All right, Anna, what's next? All right. Senators Jeff Flake and Chris Coons were on 60 Minutes, and Flake said something really

interesting about what he would do if he were seeking re-election. Now, he was specifically commenting on the FBI investigation involving Brett Kavanaugh. And if you can recall, Flake did something pretty remarkable last Friday when during the Senate Judiciary Committee's voting session on Kavanaugh, he called for this FBI investigation. Now, it was after two sexual assault victims approached him and confronted him at an elevator. But nonetheless, here's what Flake had said during this session to vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation. And I think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to, but not more than one

week, in order to let the FBI continue to do an investigation limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there. 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 not learn 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.

So that was unexpected, it was surprising, and he was asked about it while appearing on 60 minutes. And here is what he had to say. Senator Flake, you've announced that you're not running for reelection, and I wonder, could you have done this if you were running for re-election? No. Not a chance. No.

No. Because politics has become too sharp, too partisan. There's no value to reaching across the aisle. There's no currency for that anymore, there's no incentive. I think that that's both super obvious and in a sense a startling admission at the same time. So it's, and I know that the interviewer there is doing a good job of drawing out the answer, and so I don't think he's actually startled, but it frames it that way. And in a lot of the conversations on television, it is assumed that these are good honorable

people that actually have their own opinions and are acting based on their ideology and principles rather than political expediency. And that is a super annoying and obviously massively wrong assumption. And here you have two senators, a Republican and a Democrat, both nodding their head to this. And the Republicans saying, if I was up for election, of course I would have done the dishonorable thing. Of course, I would have done the thing that I don't believe in. Of course I would have tried to block the truth.

Of course, of course. So it's just, and then why do I say it's a startling admission? Because the politicians almost never admitted. This is Flake on his way out going, what did you guys think we were doing? Of course we're not going to ever reach across the aisle. And so this is why, like it's so frustrating, Anna, because when Obama was president for For eight years, we said on this show, stop trying to reach across the aisle. Why?

Because we're doing likewise, or we'll punish you if you do that? No, because it is obviously not reciprocal. And anyone paying a modicum of attention to politics in today's environment understands that the Republicans will never reciprocate. Because it's, and it is a ridiculous, naive proposition that they have real principles and that they're making decisions based on anything but possible. politics, and by the way, a lot of political expediency, it's not just about the votes, it's about whatever their donors told them to do. That's the people who determine whether

they're going to get elected more than anyone else. So for Obama, they have played into that force for about six out of his eight years as president was atrocious. He was wrong. I don't know if he did it on purpose and he was just winking and nodding, like, ha ha, I'll play along because I actually want the Republicans to halfway win. Or if he was really that ridiculously naive. And the entire Democratic establishment went along with that. And the entire media went along with that. Can I get an apology now?

You were wrong and we were right. The Republicans were never, ever going to bend. And it is about politics. It's never about their principles. So having beer summits with them is honestly the dumbest, biggest waste of time. So one thing that I have so many thoughts on this. So one thing that stood out to me about Flake's decision, And his actions on Friday was once he had already internally realized that he wanted the FBI

investigation, he actually decided to step outside with Senator Coons and discuss it with him. And so, as you know, Coons is a Democrat, and they're actually genuinely friends, which I did not buy into before, but I looked into it further. And they are, they're friends. And the fact that they're willing to work together, you know, would give me some hope if Flake didn't give up, right? Look, and I don't agree with Flake on 99% of things, but the fact that he's willing to look at a situation like this through the eyes of a human as opposed to a Republican is a good thing.

Now, let me just put that aside real quick. No, I know, but it's just, again, he's saying I wouldn't have done that. I wouldn't have done the right thing, but I was seeking reelection. So, so let's address that. As you guys know, when it comes to Kavanaugh, like I've mentioned the corporate donors. He's a very business friendly, corporate friendly judge. And I think that's one of the main reasons why there's this urgency to push him through. That in addition to the fact that he would probably help Trump in this whole Mueller investigation.

But there's also a third issue here, right? And that is the voters. Jank, you shared that survey, that poll that showed that the majority of Republican voters would still want to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, even if he did do this. even if he was found guilty of these accusations. What does that mean? They're doing this based on partisanship, right? They're not doing this because they think that Brett Kavanaugh is a good guy or that they

don't genuinely think that these accusations are horrible. They're doing this because Kavanaugh is their guy and they're going to support him no matter what. And so what are lawmakers supposed to do when voters are like this? Yeah. And now here's where the media will again do false equivalency. And they'll say, well, you guys are driving people to the left. No, no, we're driving them to the center based on actual polling.

There's a giant difference between my Republican donor told me I have to fill in the blank, start a giant war, give a giant tax cut to the rich, make sure Kavanaugh is approved because he votes with corporations nearly every single time an issue comes up and is one of the most draconian judges against employee rights in the whole country. So, appealing to those donors, and by the way, a lot of Democrats do likewise, is totally different than actually appealing to your voters. Well, my voters don't want me to cut Social Security and Medicare. Yeah, of course you should be responsive to that.

It'd be crazy not to be responsive to that. By the way, a lot of the mainstream media and the corporate Democrats do push you to be non-responsive to your voters. They go, how dare you? We need bipartisanship, not on anything that would help Americans, but on things. that would hurt America's. It would be true bipartisanship to cut Social Security and Medicare, but the left doesn't want us to.

No, 84% of the country doesn't want you to. That's a poll, that's reality, that's, et cetera. Now the Republicans on the other hand, driven almost purely by corporate donor interests, say no, no, no, no, no based on what those billionaire and multi-billion dollar corporations want. That is a completely different animal. So please stop having disingenuous conversations. And I laid this out as a marker. Now Flake just admitted it.

Now we all know, it's not what do you think Flake's different? Do you think that the other Republicans are more principled? No one in their right mind believes that, right? So will the media now adjust and go, oh, well, of course, the politicians are doing things based on politics and based on their donor's wishes, not based on what their voters, one. No, they will never admit it. They will ignore this. This is the last time you'll see it in the mainstream media. I mean, look, I see a little more of a willingness to call out the politics, but definitely not the corporate donors. You hear very little talk, if any,

talk about corporate donors and how much they influence these lawmakers to do the things that they do. But one other thing that Flake touched on that I thought was interesting was the issue of perjury. Now, Kavanaugh has been accused of lying on multiple occasions. Let's just focus purely on the last hearing that happened involving Dr. Blasey Ford, totally minimized his drinking, lied about the Renata alumni reference in his yearbook. I mean, one lie after the other. And so Flake was asked, you know, what do you think about this? What if he's found to have lied? What would you do? Let's take a look. If Judge Kavanaugh is shown to have lied to the committee, nominations over? Oh, yes.

I would think so. No, I don't believe him. Yeah, that I don't believe either. Yeah, I mean, look, it's a totally fine line of questioning. It's as, you know, as good a job as mainstream press is going to do. I know, I'm sorry if that sounds condescending, but look, and you wouldn't get the interview otherwise. Let's just keep it real, too. But if I was asking Jeff Flay questions, and there's a reason why he wouldn't come and do an interview with me,

I would say, well, okay, Senator Flake, do you really believe that the devil's triangle is a drinking game? Or do you think that perhaps Judge Kavanaugh lied about it? You really believe that the Renata alumnius is a reference to how much they respected that one woman that 14 guys referenced in their yearbook? Do you really believe that? Or do you believe that might have been perjury? Do you really believe that his references to, I mean, you can go on and on, Ralphing, Boof, whatever, dof, whatever it is? Do you believe any of those things? Do you believe that his drinking was not in excess when almost all of his classmates

say that he regularly drank the excess and was stumbling drunk and aggressive when he drank with all of these witnesses who account to that, he claims he's just a normal drinker. I mean, look, that's what drives me crazy about Kavanaugh and what leads me to believe that he's lying about everything because he didn't have to lie about any of those things. Right, right. No one cares if you drank a lot in college. I know you're trying to protect yourself, well, if I drank a lot and I might have blacked out and you might think that I did this thing.

I understand that whole context, but if he said, look, guys, I didn't do the sexual assault, but yeah, I drank way too much in college. No one would have cared, but he's a natural liar. And he has said, you know, let alone the political lies, the Pickering, the Manuel Miranda Miranda lies from earlier hearings. So it's not true that Flake thinks lying would disqualify him. I guess what he's alluding to, if I'm going to be generous to him, is if he lied about the sexual assault, then that would be disqualifying.

And yes, if they proved that, I would imagine it would be disqualifying for a lot of people, not just flake. Right, yeah. I mean, look, if that's what he's being specific about, it wasn't clear in that answer. But remember, that Senate Judiciary Committee vote happened the day after that special hearing involving Dr. Blasey Ford's testimony, and it was so clear that he was lying in that case. So clear. I mean, there were so many references.

By the way, one reference that we just didn't have time to get to last week when we covered all of his lies was that he kept reiterating that when he was 18, at that point in Maryland it was legal to drink. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. At that point, the law had already changed to 21 and older. Come on. See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

What a ridiculous lie, because it's such a minor issue. in this case quite literally who cares you drank as a minor no one cares why does he lie about that no because I'm I did everything right I was a choir boy

I didn't drink excess I didn't drink when I was a minor I never broke the law why because he's lying he's lying about this this and this I mean again it's not a great guy to quote but James Comey in the op-ed saying when you're an investigator little lies usually are indication of much bigger

lies and he lies about every little thing when he doesn't need to. It's almost like an instinct. I think I've seen that somewhere else before. Trump. But look, this FBI investigation, it's, we're all on the edge of our seats. The whole country, I think, is on the edge of our seat. If they do a real one, my guess is they will expose many different lies.

Here, look, I'll give you a sense of what's coming up next. They're talking to Debbie Ramirez, the one who made the allegation, about him exposing, Kavanaugh exposing himself to her and putting a penis in front of her face while they were drinking. She then gave a list of the people at the party. If they get one person to confirm that that's exactly what happened, bad news for Kavanaugh. Now look, if they get no one and people say we were at the party and it didn't happen, Good news for Kavanaugh.

So we're all on the edge of our seat. Right. All right. Well, let's talk a little bit about what right wingers are saying about the Kavanaugh case. Members of the right wing do not believe that the allegations about Brett Kavanaugh and this whole debacle has anything to do with sexual assault or the mistreatment of women. In fact, people like Alan Dershowitz and Tucker Carlson believe that this is all part of a giant race war.

Now, there were two specific segments on Fox News that touched on this, and I want to give you Tucker Carlson's reaction first. Now, according to Carlson, the reaction to Kavanaugh demonstrated the left's war on old white men. Carlson ran a whole segment on his show devoted to race with one of the Chiron's on screen reading, quote, left makes Kavanaugh hearing about race. Now, I'm gonna show you some video in a second, but when did the left make this about race? race? Like when? Other than the very accurate statement involving the double standard in our

justice system regarding accusations of sexual assault? Like, we're very quick to accept similar allegations when someone of a person of color is accused of something like this. But when you're a wealthy person, you deal with the upper level of the justice system, which affords you the benefit of the doubt. That is the only time I've heard anything about. race. Now with that said, here's what Tucker Carlson had to say he's talking to a guest about this whole situation. What the hell does race have to do with this case? It has nothing to do with it, Tucker. But I mean, I think there are a couple of things going on here. Number one, what we're seeing is a phenomenon that's been happening in America

over the last few years. And it has become fashionable now to be beat up on white men and whites more generally because we have this culture of spoils where we are being told that you are entitled to certain things in society, in certain jobs, in certain places. Are you worried that if dumb people like David Gergen or all the rest it's seen in keep up with the race hatred, that that will actually encourage some kind of conflict? You've seen this in a lot of different countries, we really don't want it here. But could we get there if they don't stop? We have it, Tucker.

Oh my gosh, so on Berkeley campus across the street where I'm helping with litigation over there, there are places where whites are not supposed to go. I mean, that is apartheid. It's apartheid on our college campuses. It's outrageous. But at a higher level, stepping back from the cultural disintegration of this phenomenon, the Democrats are seizing on any kind of club that they have handy. So if you got a white man in front of you, let's beat up on him for being a white man.

If it's- Yeah, I mean, maybe it works. You're right. I mean, maybe it works short-term, but it seems like the long-term cost is potentially just way more than we'd ever want to- Very corrosive. Let me just mention that all 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are white men. So to make an argument that they're at some sort of disadvantage and this is the left's war on white men is ridiculous, especially when you consider that the first accuser and

the person who testified during this confirmation, I'm sorry, during this hearing is a white woman. This is not about race. I mean, it's absurd that they're trying to pivot the conversation to this nonsensical point. Okay, so boy, there's a lot to break down here. Let me note that by the way, I will have a conversation with Tucker Carlson and Politicon about this later this month. So Politicon.com and then enter the code TYT to see that live.

And I give you a preview of one thing that we're gonna talk about, which is that I don't know anyone in this country more obsessed with race than Tucker Carlson. Exactly, exactly. So what he did was he took quotes of people. just noting that all 11 senators on the Republican side are old white men. Now the operative word there isn't white, it's just a throw in. I don't know why they threw it in, I wasn't one of those pundits, right? Old is relevant because a lot of the power structure in DC is incredibly old, and there's nothing

wrong with being old. One of our, of course, our favorite political figure is not young either, it's Bernie Sanders. But there is the old infrastructure which is held on the power and their corporate donors, etc. And yes, it's also on the Democratic side. Diane Feinstein is 84, certainly on the Republican side with Hatch and Grassley, et cetera. And we noted that. The fact that there are men in this context is clearly relevant.

In 202 years of the Judiciary Committee, the Republicans have never put a single female senator on that committee. So when issues like this have now, unfortunately, arisen with some regularity. The race part is a throwaway that I think either has barely been mentioned, certainly not something that has been trumpeted on the left or done big, long segments how this is a race issue. You know, we, after over a week of covering this, finally begrudgingly talked about how perhaps they might have seen Anita Hill with a slightly different lens than they saw Dr. Blasey Ford.

And that is in a way saying, well, they treated Blasey Ford fairly. So it's not even a negative connotation within that context of these hearings, right? The only one going nuts over race is Tucker. Right. Right? Just saying, oh, my race, race! And then what is that discussion of a conflict that might arise? What are you talking about?

A race war? That's exactly what he's talking about. And he's the one who is purposely pushing for that. Because again, the Kavanaugh thing has nothing to do with race. No one's arguing that this has, like, there's a racist issue here, like there's definitely an issue in terms of our lawmakers being out of touch. And I feel like that's been proven time and time again on a variety of issues and certainly with the Kavanaugh hearings. But to say like, oh, this is all about race and there's going to be a race war is insanely dangerous.

And by the way, is a way of deflecting. I mean, he's deflecting so people don't pay attention. His viewers don't pay attention to the real issue at hand. And that issue is possible sexual misconduct. But by the way, Tucker Carlson wasn't the only person on Fox News who was spreading this nonsense. You have Alan Dershowitz who appeared on Fox in Friends for a segment. Here's what he had to say. Imagine if the situation were different. Imagine if a liberal Democrat president had appointed the first Muslim American to the Supreme Court. And somebody said, oh yeah, I remember he was a terrorist when he was 17. The ACLU would be all over this case. No, you can't presume guilt of terrorism. Everybody would be saying the burden of proof is so heavily. But when the

shoe is on the other foot, when it's a white man being accused by the left of sexual offenses, all the rules are called off, the rules of presumption of innocence, the rules of due process. We know he's guilty because he's a white man, she's a woman, she's a survivor, that's the end of the inquiry. So curious example, Dershow was picked. First of all, I like, how he, his mind automatically connects Muslim American to terrorists as the example, okay. But that's okay, that's okay. Let's go a little bit further into that. Imagine if a Muslim American was appointed to or was being considered for a high post, like

for example, the head of the DNC, and they pulled up charges from back when he was in school, not of being a terrorist, but of perhaps associating with Farrakhan, who is anti-Semitic. I mean, they would never bring that up, right? A white, that did happen, and they did bring it up immediately, and both the Republicans and the Democrats joined in on the frenzy to try to destroy his career. But I mean, Keith Allison was the first Muslim American in Congress. They wouldn't bring up any sexual issues with him. Oh, right, they did in his race currently today.

You could not pick a worst example. He's in the middle of a scandal as we speak, the idea that somehow the press, the Republicans, or even corporate Democrats. Wouldn't bring up those issues if it helped them? I mean, it is factually incorrect on its face as we sit today, let alone you don't talk about terrorism in the 50th district in Congress, Amar Kappa Najjar is running against Duncan Hunter Jr., who's actually in the middle of a corruption scandal, and Duncan Hunter Jr. is running ads saying that Amar Kappa Najjar comes from a terrorist family.

His grandfather, who died 17 or 27, I forget now years before he was even born, is what the charges are about. But Amarq on ajar, A, has never met his grandfather, and B, is Christian, was a youth minister. His mom is Mexican American. But according to Dershowitz, they would never, nobody would ever bring that up if he's a Muslim American or even people if they think he's a Muslim American. They thought Obama was a Muslim American. They went after him, even though he wasn't Muslim.

You couldn't pick a worse example. But you know why they do it? Because in their minds are like, oh my God, we used to get away with everything. Now they're nitpicking us and now we're under a microscope too? I mean, Muslim Americans, you think they're the ones that are powerful in this country? Yeah. I mean, are you insane? No, they're the ones you pick on a regular basis.

Now basically what he's doing is he's crying. Because, oh, what, now we have to apply the same standards that everybody gets to white men? To white men? We're going to apply the same standards and outrage. Where's the race war? Yeah. By the way, just to be clear, if there were somehow miraculously a Muslim Supreme Court nominee and there were credible allegations against that person, I would also want an investigation.

But remember, you know, Dershowitz brings up the issue of due process. Obviously, this is not a criminal investigation. Kavanaugh is not going to get convicted of anything. This is about a job, right? This is about a job. So let's go back to the facts and realize this is not about a criminal prosecution. This is about further investigation to figure out whether or not someone has any right to be at the top of our justice system.

By the way, due process. Okay, due process would mean that you investigate the allegations to either. clear the person's name or find out if they're guilty. But the Republicans didn't want the due process. The Republicans were the ones who were skirting the issue of an FBI investigation from the beginning. It was Trump's White House that tried to limit the number of witnesses the FBI could speak to during this very short one-week investigation.

And it wasn't until they were pressured into expanding the investigation that they allowed the FBI to speak to more witnesses. So you want to talk about due process, the only people that are trying to do away with due process in this case are the Republicans. So lastly, let's also note, quick aside, that Tucker's guest, Dylan, civil rights attorney, hilarious, said that there are certain places on Berkeley's campus where white people are not allowed to go. Is that true?

Of course not. Just another thing that's made up by the right wing. There was a proposal in 2016 that there would be spaces of color. Now, I'm not sure that I agree with that proposal, but it's basically like an African-American group getting together. and saying, this is our student group, and so we'd like to have a private meeting, right? How dare you? White people are being banned at Berkeley.

And it didn't even, to the best of my knowledge and what I've read today, it didn't even pass. So, oh my God, it's begun. It's begun. They're discriminating against white people in Berkeley. Okay. So, look, they force us into these conversations. So I don't know of any African-American group, Latino group, Asian group, or anyone planning a race war. Who are the only people who have talked about race wars?

The shooter in Charleston, South Carolina, that shot up a black church, talked about a race war. Several different right-wing shooters, actually, and this doesn't get a lot of press coverage, in their manifestos talking about race wars. I don't know anybody on the other side talking about race wars. I do know several right-wing killers, murderers, mass murderers, who've talked about race wars. And I know Tucker Carson talking about race wars. And 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 cybercrimin. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine.

So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EXPRESVPN.com. TYT. Check it out today. Tucker, remind me if there was a war against any particular race in this country, which one it was against?

I'm pretty sure it was against African Americans. Which race enslaved the other race? Which race took away the other race's rights for hundreds of years? Look, I know that you are aggrieved that you cannot do it anymore. I know it bothers you to your core that some of the things that you cherish, like being able to oppress others, is slowly, way too slowly being taken away from you. But no one on our side is talking about starting any kind of race war, because that's mental. And we're not holding people to account for what happened hundreds of years ago. But if you're going to have a conversation about if there was a race war in this country, well, there was one.

And it was done to black people in this country. It was done to Native Americans in this country. So don't pretend that they're, that all of a sudden like, oh my God, white people about race and again, being discriminated against. Your group, and I don't mean white people, I mean conservatives, right-wing zealot conservatives, oppressed different races in this country for hundreds of years. So you don't get to turn around now and pretend you're the group. grieved party here.

And my God, what if there was a race war? There already was one, Tucker. And it was your right-wing brothers and sisters who did that race war and enslaved and lynched and murdered people in this country for hundreds of years. So at least, please have the decency to shut up about it. Let's take a break. When we come back, more news, including how the House. passed additional tax cuts when no one was looking.

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 second. All right, back on TYT, member section first. Demstar says, what is a white man going to finally get a fair shake in America? We're all wandering, damn star. Poor guys.

I like with the point Anna made. They just having to get 11 white men on the Republican side in the Judiciary Committee, even though they're so badly discriminated on. I mean, what a lucky break they happened to catch. They managed to succeed in that, you know, despite all the obstacles in their way. Yes. Ruth M. says, and 11 white men on the Judiciary Committee come from an era when grope and grab was common in the workplace for us older women and still persist today.

If any of them were investigated, they would be guilty as hell. I don't know if that's the case, Ruth, but I do know they do seem personally agitated. TYT Rebel Warrior says, only a liar would not want an FBI investigation into their actions in the past since lying to the FBI is a crime. Also, proud to finally be an activist member, you guys keep everything 100 and have given me the best on both sides of the issues. Thank you for noticing that. We really do appreciate that. We appreciate you being an activist member as well. You can do that at t.t.com slash join.

And activist members do also get a little bit more as well. And then two quick ones from Twitter here and YouTube super chat. So Joy Division 851 says this anti-white race war has gotten out of control. rich white man can't even get away with rape anymore. So that apparently is kind of what they're complaining about on Fox News. And finally, Gina Tricky on YouTube Super Chat says, even with all the coverage and investigation, the Crip Keepers and the GOP are going to end up confirming them, everything they do is a giant FU to all liberals.

Well, that is partly related to the last story that just came out during the break, which is Mitch McConnell saying, we're going to vote by the end of the week. I don't care what happens. So there you have it. You were more right than you knew. Okay. Speaking of which, there's breaking news. Yes, all right.

In a breaking news story, we are learning that there are other witnesses in the Brett Kavanaugh case and they want to provide information to the FBI as part of their investigation, but have had difficulty doing so. As a result, they've reached out to media. sources and we're learning about the material that they have. So Kerry Birkham is one of the people who's trying to get text messages to FBI investigators, and Kerry has had a difficult time doing so. But here's what we know about these text messages.

So apparently, in the days leading up to Deborah Ramirez's accusations, there were texts indicating that Brett Kavanaugh was preemptively reaching out to people he went to school with. in Yale specifically, to make sure that he could get their support as soon as this story broke. And this was the story that the New Yorker wrote about. Ronan Farrow was one of the writers for that piece. Now, the text between Berkham and Karen Yarosavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggested the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez's story in advance

of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. Ramirez was the accuser who alleged that during a drinking game, Kavanaugh took his pants down and then put his penis in her face. The text also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years later. So Berkham says that one of the things that Kavanaugh was looking for was a photo featuring Deborah Ramirez and and Kavanaugh, and they're both smiling in the picture. It's not just the two of them. Apparently this was a photo taken at a wedding. And Berkham also says that she noticed that Deborah Ramirez was incredibly uncomfortable around

him. In fact, she says that Ramirez clung to me, she never went near him, and she found that odd. Anyway, the thing that take away from this is this is potential evidence that could help with the FBI investigation, it appears that it's been very difficult for witnesses to get that information to the FBI, and that needs to change. I understand that this investigation will be limited to one week, but even so, I mean, if you have people who know Kavanaugh personally and they have some evidence, the FBI needs to reach out to them and get that evidence from them.

Yeah, I'm not surprised that Kavanaugh is reaching out to people to try to make his case. I don't think that that's overly shocking or anything. And he's got every right to try to rally witnesses to his defense. This one seems to have backfired because it looks like there's someone saying, no, no, Ramirez was clearly uncomfortable around Kavanaugh. It's a small piece of evidence, but it's something. And larger piece of evidence could be that now Debbie Ramirez has given the names of other people she believes were at the party where Kavanaugh did what he did to her, according to her

allegations. And look, that's why the FBI investigation might, might be dispositive, that they might look at it and go, all right, guys, here are, for example, four people who were at that party at Yale, and every one of them says Kavanaugh didn't do it. That either it didn't happen at all, and Debbie must be remembering a different party or a wrong party or it didn't happen or et cetera. She was intoxicated. She admits to that very openly, almost aggressively so and says talks about her lapses and some of her recollections and a lot of the witnesses say she is over the top honest, right? And so they might look at that and go, hey, you know what? There was a reason why she was honest because she really couldn't remember

someone. Or they can say two or three of the people of the party say it did happen and it was Brett Kavanaugh. Well, then I think we're done with this thing. So we'll see. But all the damage control in the world and a photo of a big wedding where you both happen to be at the wedding is not going to overcome those witnesses if they exist. Exactly. And one other thing I wanted to add, look, as more potentially corroborating evidence starts trickling in, you should pay very close attention to how Senate Republicans react to it. So in this case, in regard to these text messages, a spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee

Chairman Chuck Grassley said the following, the text from Ms. Birkham don't or do not appear relevant or contradictory to Judge Kavanaugh's testimony. This appears to be another last ditch effort to derail the nomination with baseless innuendo by Democrats who have already decided to vote no. These are Kavanaugh's classmates who have potentially like relevant evidence in this investigation. Why are you guys so afraid of that? It's like, They're desperate, desperate to skirt this issue, to pretend like he's 100% innocent. They didn't want the investigation to begin with. Anytime you have something that could potentially be corroborating, they want to deny it.

I don't know, they're just acting very guilty to me. Yeah, so Mitch McConnell along those lines, also breaking news just now, said we will be voting this week on Kavanaugh. So I don't know how he's counting the week of the FBI investigation. I don't know if that means they're voting on Friday, Sunday, et cetera. But basically, we got to go. We got to wrap this thing up right now. It seems like they're in mid-panic about what the FBI might find out.

So, but there's only one way to find out. We've got to see what the FBI says, and then we'll react accordingly. All right, one more Kavanaugh-related story, and we'll move on to other things. Recently, Kellyanne Conway was on CNN, and of course, she was giving the usual defense of Brett Kavanaugh. But while she was doing so, she opened up about something personal. Take a look. I feel very empathetic, frankly, for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment and rape. That, I'm a victim of sexual assault.

I don't expect Judge Kavanaugh or Jake Tapper or Jeffrey. Flake or anybody to be held responsible for that. You have to be responsible for your own conduct. That point made no sense, okay? Like, I acknowledge what she said, that it was very personal, and I commend her for sharing that about herself. But at the same time, did so, like, did Dr. Blasey Ford come forward and say, Joe Schmoe sexually assaulted me, and so I want Brett Kavanaugh to pay the consequences of that?

I don't understand what her point is. Her point makes no sense. There are now three credible allegations or accusers against Brett Kavanaugh, and they involve Brett Kavanaugh. They don't involve Jake Tapper. They don't involve, you know, Joe Schmo. They involve a very specific person who could be our newest Supreme Court justice, the highest court of the land.

So I don't understand how that point made any sense at all. Look, Kelly Ann, we'd be the first one. to defend you if you had suffered that kind of crime against you, and no matter what the politics of it, no matter who did it, if we thought that you had gone through that, which obviously you have, you're bringing it up here, not for any particular reason against someone, right? You didn't name who the person was. So we'd back you on it, because we actually care about the issue. But it's, but that doesn't give you the right to make nonsensical points.

There's a very specific allegation here, or as Anna pointed out, three specific allegations about this particular person. We didn't, nobody picked a person out of the blue, right? It wasn't like there's all these accusations against other people, but we decided to put it on Brett Kavanaugh. So I, we're literally trying to figure out a way to help you here. in making sense of that statement, but it just doesn't make any logical sense. Well, this is now the second time that she's tried to make this point.

The first time, she said something along the lines of Brett Kavanaugh shouldn't have to bear the burden of the entire Me Too movement, right? Yeah. But that's not what Brett Kavanaugh is bearing at the moment. What Brett Kavanaugh is dealing with, again, are very specific allegations against him, Brett Kavanaugh. It would be different if, you know, let's say someone came out and said they had a bad date with Brett Kavanaugh, which was similar to the one comedian we did the story about.

Aziz Unsurray. If he was dealing with Aziz Unsari type allegations, then I would be the first to say, okay, let's move on, okay? Because that was a bad date that was blown out of proportion. We talked about it on the show, I don't want to relitigate that. But these are very serious allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, and so he's not bearing the burden of the entire Me Too movement. If anything, maybe it's bad timing for Brett Kavanaugh because women feel empowered to come forward

with their allegations. But he's not bearing the burden of other people's accusations against other men. I don't remember Kellyanne Conway making the similar points about Al Franken. I don't remember her saying, hey, that seems to be an obvious joke photograph where he's actually not touching her. Why is he bearing the burden of the entire Me Too movement? I don't remember Kellyanne Conway having that point. I don't remember her bringing up her past in the context of that conversation.

In the context of this conversation, as Anna is pointing out, and I pointed out earlier in the first time she said it, and I feel bad because we shouldn't get too much into degrees here. But if it's a lighter allegation, right, you could then say, well, you're putting Weinstein and Roger Ailes and what all those other guys did on top of this, much a lighter allegation. But in this case, the allegations are attempted rape and gang rape. So it literally cannot get any more serious than that. If those allegations turn out to be true, shouldn't he have the full weight of the entire

movement on him anyway? And besides which, that's not what anybody's asking for. They're just asking that he be judged on his actions. And we're not even saying that we know for sure that it was his actions. That's why we asked for an FBI investigation. So, we're doing the exact opposite of what you're claiming. We're talking about a specific person and saying, let's wait till all the evidence is in. Isn't it exhausting?

Like what she does, is it worth it? I mean, to contort yourself, to try to come up with, you know, excuses for one group of men while simultaneously, you know, condemning another group of men just based on politics. Isn't it exhausting? When the Franken allegations came out, after we saw that picture, we condemned him. And guess what? That's liberating to be able to comment on something fairly without taking politics into account. But her entire job is to defend terrible actions done by terrible people.

Now with Kavanaugh, again, for the billion of the time, we don't know for sure, which is why the investigation should take place and then hopefully we'll find out. But the double standard there, like making things up about Kavanaugh while simultaneously condemning the other side of the aisle when they're accused of something. It's pathetic. And ironically, of course, at the end, in her view of alternative reality, she said that survivors and perpetrators are being treated differently, quote, based on their politics and based on their gender.

No, they're not. So Weinstein was a Democratic donor. Did anyone take it easy on him? No, everybody ripped him to shreds. And so Cosby is whatever the hell Cosby is. And everybody ripped him. Charlie Rose. I mean, I don't know.

They say he's part of the liberal media. I have no idea what his politics is. They ripped him. Roger Ayles, Bill O'Reilly, Conservative. Same thing. So where are you getting this double standard from? Except for one person and one administration. It's you, Kellyanne.

You're the one who has a different standard, and you work for the administration that has a different standard. As we just pointed out, if it's a Democrat that's charged, you enthusiastically jump in. Or anyone that can loosely be connected to a Democrat, you're like, Aha, we know it, we know it, right? And whenever it's a Republican, hey, just come on, let's wrap this thing up already. Oh my God, you guys are being so unfair. It's called projection.

Should go see a therapist for it. All right, let's take a break. When we come back, the new trade deal with Canada and Mexico, we'll give you some of the details on that. And also, the tax bill that House Republicans passed. It's unbelievable, the tax bill. They have no shame whatsoever. Anyway, and the media drives me crazy. All right, we'll talk about it when we come back.

Thanks 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.