The Young Turks - Trump-O-Nomics

Episode Date: February 3, 2024

You’re vital to our work. Support as a member: https://go.tyt.com/signup. Trump's federal 2020 election trial postponed indefinitely. Fani Willis, the DA who charged Trump in Georgia, subpoenaed by House GOP. Trump Accuses Fed Chairman, Who He Nominated, of Trying to Improve Economy to Help Joe Biden: ‘He’s Political’. Marjorie Taylor Greene calls to censure and deport 'Ilhan Omar of Somalia' over debunked video translation. Nikki Haley claims states have the right to secede: ‘They can do that’." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Book club on Monday.

Jim on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday Out on the town on Thursday Quiet night in on Friday It's good to have a routine And it's good for your eyes too Because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers You'll know just how healthy they are

Visit Spexsavers.cavers.cai to book your next eye exam I exams provided by independent optometrists If you must insist, you may drop it. Welcome to the power panel, everyone. I am John Iderola and we've got an amazing hour of news for you. Joining us in studio right next to me. In the center square. In the center square, Mark Thompson is back.

Mark. It's been a while since we- Am I allowed to look here even though we're in boxes? I don't know how that's supposed to work. Hi, Mark. How's it going? Hi, John. Wow, I can't wait to see you.

It's a great someday. Weird that your background so closely matches mine. Now looking quite different, of course, to the far left, the extreme left, the radical left is how I would term it. Brett Ehrlich, host of the Happy Hour, Brett, how's it going? Listen, many hoped that Mondale Robinson, the mayor, would be here. Unfortunately, he suffered what we in the business call a Wi-Fi disaster. He's fine, but the Wi-Fi didn't work.

So I apologize for my being generally, but I'm glad to be here. It is a come down, though, if I can just say that for the audience. Yes, no, but regrettably, while he's, his network went down, our greater network of people who could be on the show came through. So Brett, thank you for coming in at literally the last minute. So please everybody, don't expect Brett to know anything that we're talking about. And I don't just mean on today's program. I mean, in general, and that will really help us anyway, despite the tenor of this conversation, we have some serious news to talk about, including the breakingest of news.

So why don't we start with that? District court judge Tanya Chutkin announced, and this is a bombshell for the election that the federal trial of former President Donald Trump on charges related to his attempt to steal the 2020 election will be delayed indefinitely while the appeal goes through for his claim of absolute presidential immunity. Basically, he can do whatever he wants and thus the charges need to be dismissed. So we don't know it was supposed to be on March 4th And now it's been delayed. Now interestingly, on that appeal, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in relation to that claim of absolute immunity back on January 9th, which is a span

of time in the past that I would define, I think in legal terms as a whole hell of a long time ago. But despite that, they have not yet issued an opinion. They have not laid out any schedule for when they would issue an opinion. And I would just remind you that the special Council attempted to get ahead of this by asking the Supreme Court to weigh in and just take up the absolute immunity thing. They declined to do that, interestingly. So now we're waiting on the appeals process. And of course, regardless of what they end up deciding, it's gonna have to go to the Supreme Court anyway. So it's interesting that they added this roadblock and now we have no idea when we're gonna move forward. And since this is perhaps

the most serious of all of the charges facing Donald Trump, and it's the most most important case for the voters to have some clarity on. This is a massive shift to the election. I wanna start with you, Mark, what do you think about this? I mean, we literally may not know until after the election. I think it's clear. I mean, there's, it's clear that we won't have any clarity on this. And sadly, this absurdist notion that the president could have absolute immunity.

I mean, it's just on its face, it's ridiculous, right? And yet the courts are dignifying it long enough and delaying such that we really are going to see probably Trump avoid really answering and facing the music on this issue. Again, it's sad because of its absurdity, I think more than anything else. Right. Listen, I am just so disappointed that I'll have to wait indefinitely to find out whether Donald Trump is a piece of turd. You know what I mean? Like here's the thing, is there are, yeah, the whole idea of the chronology of all of this was that this originally was supposed to

to start this trial on March 4th and March 5th was Super Tuesday. The argument against having it start on March 4th or happen at all in the prelude to the actual general election was a lot of people were like, oh, this is a political move intended to make Donald Trump seem like a criminal. Basically it's a perp walk, it's the equivalent of having a mug shot, but we already have those things is my argument. Everybody who's going to be affected by whether Donald Trump is in like legal jeopardy or not. If you haven't made your mind up on this, I just don't see how you would change your mind. I think look, I would I would take your everyone and I would add a almost everyone, probably way too many everyone, but not everyone everyone. I think that in an

election that could be determined by 10,000 votes here, 5,000 votes there, I think it's the sort of thing that we can't totally write off as possibly influence the outcome. And I would also remind everyone in terms of stakes, the stakes are not just how it might influence the election. And I would say that look, we're tapped into all of this. Obviously we have a bias in how we want this thing to go. But the American people deserve to know what evidence the special counsel has put together. There's all sorts of things that could be, you know, could condemn him or could be exculpatory. I don't know, but they deserve to know. But the stakes are also the trial itself, because

if it isn't wrapped up by inauguration, if Trump does get back in office, then there's not going to be a trial, he's just going to snap his fingers, it's done, and he will have, in effect, gained the absolute immunity that he desires so much. That's a really interesting point that John is making, the notion that somehow he can just seize it and do what he wants and have the courts work it out later. So if it's not resolved in courts ahead of time, then Trump can just act on the assumption that it's okay, let them litigate it if they don't think I can get away with this. You know, I know Jack Smith tried to go to the Supreme Court.

and leapfrog this process, which was smart, okay? But Jack Smith, if I can just spend a second on him, he, I think, really made a huge error when he had the documents case go to Florida, because that's one that you can easy. I think John's right when he talks about the J6 case is the most significant on some level, and this immunity case is massive.

But the documents case is easy for voters to get their heads around. Like, what was this guy doing with all these documents? You know, so many, I mean, in bathrooms, in ballrooms, et cetera. And I mentioned this because that, I think, would have an effect on the election. And I think you could have brought about a speedy trial there, were it not for the fact that Jack Smith chose Florida as the venue there. So I would have hoped that he would have, as smartly as he leapfrogged to the Supreme Court, I wish he would have made the smart notion of trying that case on Washington where it should

have been tried. Yeah, he's sort of delayed it. And now Chuckkin is delaying it after the Supreme Court decided not to take it up. Everything seems to be lining up for us to never have clarity on exactly what happened. The big loser here is Nikki Haley, who I think is just sticking around in the race to see whether Trump goes to jail first. Yeah, it's not good news for her. That's certainly the case. We will be following it. We do need to move on to other news because today there has been a tsunami of it. This morning, the district attorney of Fulton County, Fannie Willis, who indicted Trump, of course,

last year, was subpoenaed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. And it has to do with the request for documents that regard allegations that she misused, federal grant funds, effectively that money was provided for certain uses, and she used it for other purposes. That's what's being alleged here. Jordan cited her failure to comply with two previous voluntary requests for the materials as his justification for leveling the subpoena against her. Basically, they're saying that there's a former employee who said that she fired her shortly after she raised concerns about how a Willis campaign aide turned county employee hope to use federal grants for items outside the scope of a youth violence, gang, and

prevention program. And Jordan expounds on this in his letter, saying instead of using these federal grant funds for the intended purposes of helping at-risk youths, your office sought to use the grant funds to, quote, get MacBooks, swag, and use it for travel. Moreover, the whistleblowers direct supervisor stated that these planned expenditures, quote, were part of your vision. So saying it was not just a thing of the office that she, Jordan believes at least, that she is directly implicated in this. We don't know yet whether these allegations are true. Perhaps the documents will shed light on that.

At this point, there's only one thing that we can say with absolute clarity, which is that Jim Jordan's interest in this has to do with how much he cares about federal grant funds and at risk youth. That's it. There's no other thing. That's been his passion, his entire life, and it's good to see him continuing to act on that. Brett, what do you make of this?

Yeah, I'm having some audio issues apparently, so the people on the stream might be frustrated with me talking anymore. But yeah, I'm sure that the main priority that Fannie Willett, that Jim Jordan has in all of this is making sure that justice is served and not some BS political move so that he can seem awesome and cool. And like he's defending us all in the face of injustice. I'm sure of that. He's never found Trump water that he won't carry. You know, and so he has his jihad and it continues and yeah, this is a, look, I think there are all kinds of issues with this Georgia prosecutor on the one hand. When I say all kinds of issues, I mean, I think you can have legitimate conversations around that, but this probably isn't one of them or I would think a lower on the list of legitimate conversations. Yeah, and look, if that's something that the office did, let alone if she was directly involved in it, then you can't do that.

That does see, we would need details, but we wouldn't want anyone to do that. Let's just not pretend that that's why Jim Jordan is spending his, is very busy time, the little bit of time that he has left over on that. Nobody truly believes that. But there's other actual news having to do with this with some related matters. Fulton County DA Fannie Willis has at last admitted that the alleged relationship that she has with one of the investigators of Donald Trump in the ongoing Georgia case did exist saying attorney Willis and I developed a personal relationship in addition to our professional association and friendship, but made some clarifications that we'll get into, including that the relationship

allegedly only developed after the hiring, not beforehand. So you can say that that's inappropriate or that it should have been disclosed, but it's not quite the same thing as hiring someone who you are already in a relationship with, although that nuance, which I think is fair, I am sure will be lost on the right. But this traces back to last month when Trump co-defendant Mike Roman accused Willis of engaging in an improper romantic relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade, who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in state funds for his work on the case, sort of alleging that that money was only spent because of the relationship. Both Willis and Wade have been subpoenaed to testify. They're expected

to be questioned at a hearing on February 15th. Now I want to give just a little bit more of the clarifications or caveats I suppose that were provided in a document that Fannie Willis released saying any personal relationship among members of the prosecution team does not amount to a disqualifying conflict of interest or otherwise harm a criminal defendant. She also wrote to be absolutely clear the personal relationship between special prosecutor Wade and district attorney Willis has never involved direct or indirect financial benefit to district attorney Willis. So bear that in mind and effectively is making the case that she should not be be removed from the case nor should the case be simply dissolved because of the now revelation

that there was a personal relationship. Yeah, she's saying, I didn't hire this guy so that he could then get the money train of being the prosecutor. But that is what the right is saying. And I think John appropriately notes that will be, the timing of when their relationship started is going to be lost. And Trump is already playing it as, oh, she was just paying off her lover, hundreds of thousands of in taxpayer money. That's something Trump would do. And I think that would probably lead his thinking. But in this case, at least from a timing standpoint, it doesn't appear that that was the case. It seems very obvious to me that Trump is against romance and the heart and love. And also, okay, great, great idea. Relationships that people have should not carry over into the legal

world or our political world. So why the hell was, you know, Jared Kushner in charge of Israel? Why is it that, you know, he's appointing people in his family to have very high profile roles in government policy besides his wife, who is the only person who should be involved in that because the first lady's job is to put on adorable dinners and decorate the house. Like, keep it in only those scenarios and I'd be happy. But but yeah. Yeah, that's totally fair. But again, as I'll say with a story that we talked about earlier, if it turns out that there is reason to believe that the timeline that's been described is not accurate because we don't have to simply accept what's been presented as necessarily being true. But you could

also say that they were friends beforehand. So should he have been appointed based on the fact that they already knew each other? Of course, if you're saying that that's unacceptable, than like the vast majority of political jobs suddenly go up and smoke because that's who they're provided to is people that you know. So it is complicated in that respect. But if this was designed to sort of enrich this individual, then that would be corrupt, if not necessarily directly illegal. We would want to know about that. But the one thing that I would point out that is most important and the reason I pointed out is that the right definitely wants you to forget this and all this is whether they were dating beforehand or not, whether Wade has made money off of this or

not, has no bearing whatsoever on whether Donald Trump tried to overturn the results of the election in Georgia. It doesn't, it's not like, oh God, they had actually started dating a month beforehand, so suddenly his phone call to Brad Raffensberger asking for him to find 11,000 votes, doesn't bother me. It's no longer anti-democratic whatsoever, it's no longer corrupt or authoritarian. How is that logic exactly supposed to proceed? Now they're not making that case because you sound like an idiot if you try to, but that's what they want you to think. They want you to think, well, there can only be one corrupt person in a story. So if suddenly she's the new one, she like a sith apprentice replaces the master, that's not

how anything works. That's not how reality works. I don't know if Fani Willis is innocent in this respect. We can get into if you want, there are other cases where she appears to have sort of done things in a way that I would not have done necessarily in raising money or speaking about cases that were ongoing outside of even this prosecution. But that does not mean that Donald Trump did not do the things we know he did in Georgia. Mark?

Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And I'm so glad you underscore it because precisely what you're talking about is what is going on now, which is no one's talking about what really happened in Georgia. Everybody's talking about what's happening in the Georgia attorney case and the hookup, and when did it start, and how much money did he make? And so the real notion of undermining. a legal election with the president of the United States on the phone to the secretary of state trying to jack up the Georgia results. I mean, that's lost in this entire conversation. And,

you know, it's that when the evidence is not on your side, you start banging on the table and screaming. That's really what's going on. There's banging on the table and screaming going on so that we lose all of this in the smoke. Yeah. Yeah, I personally have to choose one side. So no matter what Fannie Willis did, I have to support her, even if she is corrupt. No, no one, no one Things like that. Everybody like go, burn them all. I don't care. Like, all I care about is justice. That's actually easier for me. And it should be easier for everyone to just, you know, pick a value that you support. It should be something like justice or rights for everybody, protecting democracy. And then proceed accordingly. The worst thing that could happen, in my opinion, is if Fannie Willis is being corrupt and Donald Trump is guilty of these crimes. Just because Fannie Willips is corrupt, now Trump suddenly gets off from being, you know, one of the chief agents to try to destroy democracy, which we already have so much evidence that he tried to do. That would be the worst case scenario. So I want to avoid that at all costs. But please, can we dear America and dear right wing and left wing politicians who are, you know, tribalist in nature, like let's just get back to focusing on justice so we can do this thing like, you know, preserve democracy. What is being said, John, I'm sorry, but just a book quickly is by Trump, of course, is just that.

Let's dissolve this whole thing. The prosecutors compromised, boom, case closed. All right, next to the next case. But what people will tell you who are in the business of the federal prosecutions, they've told me this, I have on my show this week, who said, no, the case isn't going away. They may reorganize, there may be recusals, et cetera, but the case against Trump will continue. The problem is it may be delayed, and as noted earlier, these delays only help the Donald Trump camp. So normally in this sort of situation, especially with this sort of breaking news, the way that I would want to end this segment is to have us respond to Donald Trump freaking out about this.

But unfortunately and uncharacteristically, he hasn't responded to these revelations. He chose to go the high road, and I respect that in the former president. I'm kidding. He immediately bleated about it on true social. So let's turn now to that with the revelation that Vonny Willis. did apparently have some sort of sexual relationship with the special prosecutor Donald Trump weighed in saying funny Willis just admitted having a sexual relationship with the prosecutor she in consultation with the White House and DOJ appointed to get President Donald J Trump to be clear she did

not admit that that's what he was appointed for by going after the most high level person and a Republican nominee she was able to get her lover much more money almost a capital M million dollars that she would be able to get for the prosecution of any other person or individual that means that this scam is totally discredited and over which again is not how that's not how anything works that's barely how the English language works and as one example of that your whole case or your defense of yourself in this bleat is that she had a sexual relationship with him so you get off but you said that he was her lover which

Which implies that you doubt that it's true, in which case she didn't have the relationship with him and you're guilty once again. You see how the logic of this works? What does he think those quotation marks mean in practice? Yeah, he's very loose with the quotation marks. But I will say this, just to be fair, and again, this may lead to both of them recusing themselves or who knows what's going to happen, they'll have to reconstitute this case in Georgia in some way.

But just to the Trump remarks, a sexual relationship is what Trump had with Stormy Daniels. was a sexual relationship. It was pure sex, right? And it was over and she got paid off. The kind of relationship that Fannie Willis had was a, it's a love relationship. They went on vacations. There was like a real relationship there. Romantic relationship. Yeah, romantic. Thank you. That's the word I wanted. And so it really is a, it's disparagement in the extreme to just reduce it to a sexual relationship. But again, that's on the Trump playbook. But I'm just saying, come on, man. It's, you know. But Johnny, at the end, what is? he say. Yeah, so it's all over. It's all compromised. You know, let's get out of here. Let's close

the courthouse down. That's really the end goal. 100%. Yeah. Okay. Listen, I was just going to say, listen, if you want my jokes, John, you'll get jokes. Listen, listen, romantic relationship, take it from me, I'm married. Romantic relationships are not sexual relationships. See, that's what I was waiting for, Brett. Thank you for delivering. Anyway, that will not, worst case scenario for her, I suppose, that she gets taken off of the case. But the idea that he's just Scott free now, I was going to say that that's not how it works, but that is often how it works for him, actually. So good strategy, Trumpy.

Okay, we're going to take a break. We come back, lots of more to talk about. Welcome back to the power panel, everyone. I am Johnarola. He is Mark Thompson. Brett was getting on my nerves, so we booted him off the panel. Now unfortunately we're having tech problems that we weren't able to work through, but we've got this thing.

Yeah, I think I think we'd handle the news. You know what, let's at least try one story, okay? Whenever you're ready, let's jump into this. Jay Powell, the Fed chairman, is talking about a soft landing. Do you believe we will see a soft landing? Well, I think he's going to do something to probably help the Democrats, you know. So you think he's political? He's just going to cut rates to help.

I do. I think he's political. Yes. That is Donald Trump declaring that the head of the Federal Reserve is being political, that he's making the decisions he's making not for the strength of the economy, or, well, in Trump's telling what he does would improve the economy. but he shouldn't right now, because if he does and the economy improves, that would help Joe Biden. So Jerome Powell is corrupt and political, which is interesting because do you know how Jerome Powell became the head of the Federal Reserve?

Donald Trump put him on there, but you sort of knew that that was coming. And when he nominated him back in 2017, he said, he's strong, he's committed, he's smart, but let's hope if I'm ever not president, he won't be that smart because I want to screw over my successor. Yes, sir. Anyway, look, the economy is doing well. That's the pressure that Trump is feeling. That's the pressure that the Republicans are feeling. The, at least in certain metrics, of course, people are suffering, but the metrics that they like to go to on channels like Fox News are not working the way that they want them to. The US economy added more than 350,000 jobs in January, which was significantly higher than was expected. The jobs numbers for December were modified and

updated. They were, I think, 113,000 jobs more than we thought back in December. And the S&P 500 closed at a record high. That's the stock market, of course, at record points. And as we all know, that's the entire economy, or at least that's how the news always talks about it, but now it's a bad thing. Or is it? Maybe the stock market going up could still be a good thing if only Trump can get a grasp on it. Take a look at his attempt. The Biden team can say, well, if things are so bad, how come the stock market's on a roll? Because they think I'm going to be elected. You think the stock markets rally because people think you're going to be elected?

Yeah. If you take a look at Iowa, if you take a look at New Hampshire, the stock market's been going crazy since then and long before then. When I announced I was running, I took the lead early, and then I beat everybody, including run to Santis. I call them DeSantis and I took the other names. You know, honestly, that's beautiful. He is amazing. There's nothing that could happen that would not be good for him. I love, by the way, why did you have to talk about the DeSantis thing, you weirdo? So when I announced back a year ago, if the economy ever started to improve, then that's me, baby, that's just what it is, because they know I'm gonna win.

So if the economy like goes down or if gas prices go up, is that because they think Biden is gonna win? Like, don't try to track it out, John, it doesn't track out. You have to just go. He is amazing, though, in his almost slight of hand use of rhetoric, and it just keeps coming, which is why the Ron DeSantis thing, it's just, it's stream of consciousness, but he's very keenly aware that his messaging constantly will punch through. And so, of course, and he's talking to Maria Bartramo, who sold her soul long ago. I mean, she's just crawled so far up Trump.

It's really embarrassing. But his application of his involvement in stock market success is nothing short of rhetorical magic. But the thing that is odd to me about Trump is just when you talk about Jerome Powell and the fact that he's a Trump appointment, it extends to other Trump, like Christopher Ray. Christopher Ray is a Trump appointment as well at the FBI. when he starts talking about FBI vulnerabilities or issues or he's testified before he can Congress, Ray becomes a target for Trump. So Trump doesn't care really as to the pedigree, who appointed who. He's just going to go after anyone who he feels might be politically helping him.

100%. And look, look, on one level, I think you can try this little game, Trump. You're going to tell the American people that like if things are moving up for them, which these numbers are good. If you didn't have a job and now you do, that's good news. If you have the money to invest in the stock market, this is good news. By the way, there is also data in the most recent numbers that pay has increased, I think it was at 4.5 percent so faster than expected.

So overall good news, maybe good news for almost everyone. And you're going to tell them, oh, don't give credit to the president because it's only because I'm going to be elected. Yeah, good luck selling that message. I'm not even saying that the president should be the one who always gets the credit or the blame, but that's the way that it works. You benefited from that at times or hurt by it at other times. That's the pie, okay?

It's already baked. You were eating it for years and the metaphor has gotten away from me. So, but I would also say. That it was a solid pie. Thank you for, I was trying. So, but here's the thing. If this is a game that we can play now, well, dear God, if everybody thinks that Trump is going to get elected and that's somehow going to be good for the economy,

which is why the stock market is going up and that's why he gets credit for that, Well, the economy is going to be going up soon, which is probably why all of the migrants want in, because there's going to be so many jobs and so much economic growth, which means Donald Trump is guilty. He is the one responsible for the border crisis. Isn't this fun, this magic that we can play with causality? That is 3D chess. Very well done. I think I've got a brain bleed going on. But yeah, no, I don't, I don't think this is a winning message. This is a good development for Joe Biden, I don't know how convinced I am of what like, what responsibility for it, he deserves.

I guess if anything like the Fed has been making changes that the right theoretically wants them to make. They think interest rates are too high. So look, I don't know. It's just the weird politics of the presidential election in the economy. Well, I mean, it was a serious challenge. Just to you want to talk the economics of it, there's a serious challenge to this administration on inflation and they really don't have control of the Fed.

As you know that the president doesn't have control of the Fed. And so you saw Fed raising interest rates at a record clip, and that, you know, slows the economy down. And that could have really been a very, very tough spot. So to see positive economic news come out, no, I think you'd like to see the interest rates drop so that things get more affordable. Money gets more affordable. People can buy homes more easily, this sort of thing. But I'd say that that's one of the true sad aspects of the American economy in general. And it hasn't happened during this administration.

And you can look at the last 10 years. And you can just see how the, or even 15 years, how the, the dream of homeownership has slowly escaped or maybe quickly escaped the vast number of Americans. That's not at the foot of Joe Biden. It's not even probably the foot of Trump. It's been happening. And I think it's a sign of the has and have nots and that schism that we talk about a lot on the show. Yeah. Yeah. But certainly the economic improvement is happening at a time when Joe Biden could certainly use it.

He can crawl about it. And as you say, John, we don't, you know, some of it he deserves credit for and his team deserves credit for. Some of it, perhaps not. But it happened on his watch and he's allowed to take credit. That's true. That's true. Now, of course, you know, and I'll close on this, he might not be in charge of the economy in the next year. And so obviously we're going to be watching to see if the economy over the next year does really well or maybe, you know, maybe we fall into recession. And that'll be important not only for the effect it has on people's lives, but also because whether it's really good economy or a really bad economy, that will

be used as justification for Donald Trump's first act as president, which is proposing trillions of dollars in new tax cuts. That's right. That's the way it works. The economy's doing bad. We need to juice it with tax cuts. The economy's doing good. We can afford more tax cuts. Now, these last tax cuts, the tax cuts under his administration, $10 trillion added to the deficit. Ten trillion dollars. Yeah, but on the other hand, he net lost three million jobs while he's president. So that's good. You have that. Let's turn from him to an arguably more horrendous human being, starting with this. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Clause 2A1 of Rule 9, I seek recognition to give notice

of my intent, to raise a question of the privileges of the House, the form of the resolution is as follows. Recognized. Centuring Representative Ilhan Omar of Somali, I mean, Minnesota. I see what she's going for there. Yeah. Or she honestly doesn't know because she didn't pay attention in geography. I'm not sure, but that is Marjorie Green. And she was, as you saw, talking about Ilhan Omar and based on a completely purposefully mis-translated version of a speech that the Congresswoman gave and wants to censure her. Now, censoring is what she is trying to do on the floor of the House. She would love to go much further than that, as she will explain on Twitter. Today I introduced a censure resolution against Ilhan Omar. And the reason why I did

that, and I'll just say this, censure is not going far enough. If it were a censure, to me, we would expel Ilhan Omar and deport her out of the United States. Her comments are outrageous. She's acting as a foreign agent within our very government. She said the U.S. government will only do what Somalians in the U.S. tell them to do. They will do what we want and nothing else. They must follow our orders and that is how we will safeguard the interest of Somalia. She also said, for as long as I am in Congress, Somalia will never be in danger. Its waters will not be stolen by Ethiopia or others. Sleep in comfort knowing I am here to protect the interest of Somalia from inside the U.S. system.

Ilhan Omar needs to be censured. But censure is not enough. I'm telling you right now, she's acting as a foreign agent on behalf of a foreign country. So first of all, I'd like to give some credit to the Congresswoman for mostly pronouncing those words correctly. So she clearly prepped for that. Kudos to the Congresswoman. But that's insane. Not only because the quotes that she read are not anything that Ilhan Omar has ever said.

But even if she had said those things, you cannot deport an American citizen, you ignorant monster. Or if you can, if that's the new world, well then I would like to start a social media campaign to deport Marjorie Green. And I know what you're thinking. Where would we deport her? She's not from another country. I don't care, we're in Bizarro world now. There are any number of planets where I think she would be quite comfortable. Deport Marjorie Green. See, this is the crazy world that they want us to live in. And I wanna go to the actual comments that Ilhan Omar made. We're gonna get to the politics of this and all that. But here's a little video that contrasts what right wingers are lying about what she said and what she actually

said. Take a look at the gap here. The translation on the clip claimed that she said this. The U.S. government will only do what Somalians in the U.S. tell them to do. They will do what we want and nothing else. They must follow our orders and that is how we will safeguard the interest of Somalia. Now CNN translated her speech. Here's what she actually said. Quote, the United States government would do what we tell them to do. We need to have confidence as Somali people. We live in this country. This is the country that we pay taxes in.

This is the country where a girl was born from you all who is sitting in Congress. So a few small differences between the version the right wing was pretending she had said and what she actually said. Now, it actually arguably gets worse than what we've already shown you. But I do want your commentary on her trying to censure Ilhan Omer for something that she did not at all say. That's absurd. But in Marjorie Taylor Green's world, absurdity seems to rule the day. It's offensive. It's absurd. Those are kind of the coins of the realm in Marjorie Taylor Greenland. It's a fact that even if the utterances that Marjorie Taylor Green read through, which were completely twisted as we've just seen, Even if those were accurate, I don't see any reason to censure her.

I don't see any reason. You know, so the Ilhan Omar censure, I think it's bankrupt, even with this twisted, ridiculous, made-up quote. But merger-teller-green shouldn't be even in Congress on a tour. She's offensive, she's grotesque, and she deserves not to get any media oxygen whatsoever. Yeah, it's so fascinating. And like George Santos got booted. He lied in like a crazy person to get into office. And then in office, he was kind of just a regular corrupt politician.

Marjorie Green is a monster. She's one of the craziest people that's ever served in government. And yet she remains. And I'll get to how she is even more guilty than she might already seem in this case. Because of course, you can't call for the deportation of a US citizen. Someone who's been a citizen since they were, I believe 12 years old for For two and a half decades, she's been a citizen and you think you get to deport her. Gee, I wonder why you think that you get to make that call.

And no matter how many decades of her life, Ilhan Omar spends in this country, she will never truly be an American citizen. I wonder why that is. But let's move to a little bit more of this. I want to get at least a bit of what Representative Omar has actually said in response to all of this. She said, when I heard that people who called themselves Somali signed an agreement with Ethiopia, this is into the actual politics of what she was talking about in this speech in Minneapolis back last month, many people reached out to me and said I needed to talk to the U.S. government. They asked, what would the U.S. government do?

My answer was that the U.S. government will do what we tell the U.S. government to do. That is the confidence we need to have as Somalis. So that means two things. First of all, if you believe that the U.S. government should change its foreign policy, then have confidence in yourself and advocate for it. And also, if we don't ask for it, it's not going to happen. That's what that means. But I want to broaden this to a different context.

Here, this is about a water dispute involving Somalia and a breakaway section, an Ethiopian, all of that. But the point that Marjorie Green seems to be making is, if you advocate strongly for our approach to a different country to shift based on what we here believe, if you, you know, theoretically share like an ancestry with another country or a kinship, and you care enough about that other country that you want to change our policies towards it, that you deserve to be deported. I am assuming she means that only in the case of Somalia. Because if she believes that like people who theoretically might have family in Israel or might be Jewish

by descent or something care strongly about what happens in that country, I don't think she would want them deported for trying to lobby the US government on its policy towards the region. Does anybody believe that? Or is it just a thing that that would be allowed? Or you know, if you care about Finland or something and you're Finnish, you can advocate for a foreign policy there. But it's Africa, suddenly it's different. Of course, it's ridiculous, but that is 100% what she means, that it's based purely in a racism. She's talking to her constituency, and that's who she should be talking to. She's representing them. That's why she's a representative. That's the way it works. Yeah, I want to end with one more,

like if we need an indictment of like Marjorie Greene, I don't think that we do, but one more. So that happened yesterday. She read something online that she liked the sound of, didn't care to look into whether it was true, and turned what should have just been a retweet, a boneheaded conspiracist, racist, retweet into action on the house floor. And you might think that's as bad as it can get, but actually it gets worse. Because that was yesterday and she was debunked, she was mocked online, she was like viciously attacked as she should be for doing this. This morning, she tweeted,

She tweeted, thank you, Representative Finstad for co-sponsoring my resolution to censure for an agent Ilhan Omar. She's still pretending that that's what Representative Omar said. She knows that it's not. She doesn't care. She's lying to her constituents. She's lying to her followers on social media because she cares more about her hatred for a prominent, outspoken woman of color than she does about the truth. And she's seen it work, honestly, John, she's seen at work. I mean, just pounding away with the lie has sort of now been the new MO on the right.

Yeah. So sadly it works. Well, and they censured Representative Talib. Thank you. You know, there's sort of a pattern to what Marjorie Green is advocating for here. I'm not smart enough to figure it out. Maybe we can get Congresswoman Green on the on the matter. But anyway, it's ridiculous. Thankfully, with it being so thoroughly and obviously debunked, it shouldn't go anywhere, but they have control the house, so honestly, who knows? Anyway, with that said, we need to take our final break.

of the hour, but stick around. We've got more news. We've got one, maybe two more stories to talk about, so why don't we jump into that? Nikki Haley got herself in trouble this week with her comments on Texas potentially seceding. And now she is trying to backtrack. We're going to evaluate that backpedal in just a few. But in case you didn't see her original comments, this is what she said. That's a lot of time. Thank you.

Would you use force against Texas if they tried to succeed over the border issue? Because I remember in 2010, you said you, U.S. states should have the right? to succeed. Do you still believe that? I believe in states' rights. I believe that everything should be as close to the people to decide. We know that's not going to happen. That's not the issue. If Biden's saying, no, cut that fence. I mean, a state has the ability to do these things because states' rights do matter. And I think that states need to be able to do that. Would you use force against Texas if they ever tried to succeed? Use force against them? Yeah. No, we don't ever use force against our own Americans. Okay. I guess I don't mean like

military or anything like that. I'm just talking about, like, would you be strong against them doing that? I mean, I think, you know, states are going to make decisions, but let's talk about what's reality. Texas isn't going to succeed. I mean, that's not something that they're going to do. So why did you say you believe in that in 2010? What was the context of it? You said, I think you said you believe that states have the right to succeed. That's what you said. You believe the states and the United States have the right to succeed from the United States. I think that they do. I mean, the Constitution says that. I think states have the right to make the decisions that their people want to make.

If Texas decides they want to do that, they can do that. So I love that the Breakfast Club and Charlemagne brought the receipts on that. She did say that. Context is irrelevant. She said she believes they can do that, which I just want to point this out. Minor point, they can't. That's crazy. It's particularly crazy.

Maybe even more important, it's crazy that as a presidential candidate, you're like, oh yeah, yeah, I want to be president of the country. whatever's left over of it. You know, California can go that way, Oregon that way. Maybe it's like five states, ten states. We have a little party. That's cool. I don't care.

What are you talking about? But as I said, I want to be fair. And before we discuss, she attempted to sort of backtrack on her comments. That's how it's being reported anyway. Here are those comments. He was talking about something from years ago. They're not going to do it. That's not even the issue.

What should be the issue with Texas is, look, they are dealing with a terrible illegal immigration crisis. The federal government Joe Biden is not being there for them. We should let them do whatever they need to to keep Texans safe and to keep Texas protected. That's the goal. That's what we want to do. It's not about secession. Nobody's going to do that. That's not what people are talking about. What they are talking about is why isn't the president there keeping Texans safe? So dear viewer, you might have seen all of the headlines that she has backtracked on her comments. And I ask you a question, did she? You just listened to that tape. Did she say they can't secede? No, she said they're not going to. She didn't say that she, oh, whoops,

I misspoke. No, they can't actually break apart from the union. She didn't say that at all. She said the exact same thing she said on the breakfast club, which is, it's probably not going to happen. But dear God, have you seen what's happening at the border? That's not a backtrack at all. It's not a clarification. It's a doubling down on your boneheaded view of the Constitution in American history. And the rhetoric out of Texas, even from the governor, Abbott, has been about taking up arms, if necessary, to protect our rights and to protect our border. I mean, you've got to say, that's some saber rattling around this issue that would suggest

he's not using the words secede, but he's saying, you know, we got to do what we got to do here, feds, and you don't understand the situation here. And I do accept even the notion that the border is a. with a lot of issues that probably the feds don't necessarily appreciate completely, as does some residents who lives within a mile of the border. That said, the calls for violence or even references to violence on the part of the governor. Yeah. I mean, that's just outrageous.

Yeah, it's pretty amazing when Nikki Haley can be like really clear and tough with Charlemagne. We would never use force against Texas. Talk to Abbott because that's what he's threatening. Why don't you tell him, Texas should never use force against the federal government? which I want to be the leader of. Why don't you be as tough with the governor as you do with the host of the breakfast club? Or is that maybe asking too much? She really, and by now it's clear the more she does interviews and the more she's in the public square,

she really just, you know, shapes her message to the room she's in, don't you think? Yeah, she does. She does. And by the way, I like the point that you made that, you know, at the end of the day, the people in those states know more about certain issues than the federal government necessarily does. Well, first of all, I would say talk to people there because not everybody agrees that we should be setting up concertina wire and shooting migrants in the leg or anything. But even if you believe that that was the case, you have two senators, they're supposed to be working on this border bill. Are they gonna vote for it? You know, if you believe that

Texas knows what's going on and the federal government doesn't, then you should put a lot of pressure on your representatives that serve in the government to get something done. And they very well might just decide, no, we're not gonna do that. Why? Because we care more about what what Donald Trump says, then what all of these right wingers in Texas apparently are telling them. Yeah, you should be offended if you're a Texan who's concerned with the border by any notion of not doing something on this border bill, which is right there in front of them. I mean, it's really outrageous. John's making it a really important point. Look, it's there. That cake is baked. All you have to do is vote it and serve it. And now you're hearing,

I don't think we're going to make a border deal because Donald Trump doesn't want us to make a border deal. Yeah, yeah, and also like, I know that the border deal is now being seen exclusively through the lens of Donald Trump's impact on it. But let's also stop just to point out, I look, I've been covering politics for like 12 years or whatever. I'm struggling to come up with an example in which a bill is being crafted almost wholly to the interests of the minority party. They control the house. That's right. They don't control the Senate. They don't control the presidency.

They just have the House and this bill is being done almost exactly how they would want it to be done. Not how the Democrats would want it to be done at all and they might turn it down purely because of politics. If you're a conservative, you're a MAGA person, you should be frothing at the mouth mad that they have this amazing once in a generation gift given to them by the Democrats to do it the way they want to do it, the way that you say it should be done. And they're not going to purely to hurt Joe Biden election year. That's crazy. Yeah, it's unreal that they have a situation that they've waited for, but there is a competing situation which is purely political, and that is the re-election of Trump.

And he's handed it down from Trump Mountain. I don't want any deal here because I want to run on this issue. Again, it's obscene, is what, you know, especially when there is a legitimate problem at the border that can be addressed in many ways. I think this is overreaches this bill based on what I've seen, but nonetheless, it's it addresses it. Yeah, by the way, just on the off chance that Nikki Haley is watching this program, bear in mind, she could be president. I don't think it's incredibly likely, but she could be.

So, you know, one of the components of this show is to educate people. So I'd like to educate her about this because she is dead wrong and has been wrong for at least a decade about this. In the 1869 case, Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the union, and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature that was the matter of Texas v. White, even if ratified by a majority of Texans were, quote, absolutely null, which is not vague, it does not compromise, it's very clear. And by the way, I want to give a quote, if you go to graphic three, Antonin Scalia, who I think was a liberal on the Supreme Court, he said the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the civil war, it is that there is no

right to secede. It is indissolvable. We are a union. You cannot just leave. And the thing that baffles me the most is, considering how constantly horny for the Pledge of Allegiance Conservatives are, you think they would remember the One Nation indivisible part of it. It's pretty clear, it's even set to music. Anyway, that's all the time we have for the program.

I love a John Rant at the end. Very nicely done. It's so obvious that she's wrong and she'll never learn. John, let me make your shameless plug for my YouTube show. I was going to request a shameless plug. Thank you. It's called the Mark Thompson show. You can find it. right here on YouTube, if that's where you're watching us right now. And we'd love for you to come by.

We do a two-hour show and we break it up into videos and stuff. It's a lot of politics. It's politics-centric, but there's also a lot of fun stuff on the show too. So the Mark Thompson show here on YouTube. I think the politics might appeal to our audience. They seem to be into it, I guess. We have Ti-T years that come over. So subscribe, even if you don't watch, I guess the subs help us is what they tell me. So definitely support them. I'm with the damage report every day. Some people like it, I don't know why. That's it for our hour out. Thank you.

It's great to see you. Hopefully we can make this a more regular thing. Thank you. Everybody stick around. The second hour of the owners is up after this. Drop it. All right, Power Power Power Panel, Jank Hugo, Rayvana, Jackson White, both Ray and Staxon are on Rebel Headquarters, or you can check them out. I know those messages are coming in, so I'm just preempting it. It's stuck in, it's stuck in there now.

It just is what it is now. Yeah, yes, indeed. Okay, all right, we got a lot of stories for you guys, including a broader war in the Middle East, yeah, no. Okay, right, take it away. Yeah, so we're gonna start with that bit of breaking news, so everybody take a look at this. We can now report that US strikes in both Syria and Iraq

at spots in locations in both of those countries, have begun. That is official from two U.S. defense officials. As you just heard, the United States military has begun striking targets in both Syria and Iraq as part of their retaliation against Iran-backed forces after the death of three United States service members in Jordan. Jennifer Griffin at the Pentagon elaborated more on what to expect following these initial bombings. What we have been expecting all afternoon and for days now, frankly, is that the U.S. campaign led by U.S. Central Command, which will involve, we're told air assets as well as sea assets, as well as space assets, this is going to be a multi-tiered campaign. It's going to last days. It's going to strike multiple targets. I'm told upwards of a dozen to two dozen targets in Syria and Iraq targeting those Iranian proxy forces, the bases where they store the rockets, the drones,

the command and control, and that is what they're going to be focusing on. As there often is with breaking news, there was some initial confusion in regards to the strikes, a little more on that. ABC News reported, an initial battery of strikes in Syria did not come from from the United States, sources say US strikes are still anticipated. However, shortly thereafter, additional confirmation came from US sources that the military did indeed strike Syria. And President Biden and other top US leaders had been warning for days that the United States would strike back at the militias. And they made it clear that it's not just going to be one hit, but a tiered response over time. So this from a statement from the president.

This afternoon at my direction, U.S. military forces struck targets at facilities in Iraq and Syria that the IRGC and affiliated militia used to attack U.S. forces. Our response began today. It will continue at times and places of our choosing. So some more details about the strikes that happened today. The massive barrage of strikes by manned and unmanned aircraft hit more than 85 targets at seven locations. including command and control headquarters, intelligence centers, rockets and missiles, drone and ammunition storage sites and other facilities that were connected to the militias or the IRGCs could force,

the guards expeditionary unit that handles Tehran's relationship and arming of regional militias. It continues on US Central Command, said the strikes used more than 125 precision munitions, and they were delivered by numerous aircraft, including long range bombers flood from the United States. One official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the operation, said B-1 bombers were used. Now it was unclear what the next steps will be or whether

the days of United States warnings have sent militia members scattering into hiding, which would make it more difficult to detect and strike them. Katab Hezbollah, one of the main Iran-backed militias, did say in a previous statement, that it was suspending attacks on American troops, but it's clear that that statement had no impact on the Biden administration's plans and de-escalation was not a tactic. They were interested in deploying here, especially given the ambiguity and the question surrounding the strike in the first place, what the United States service members were doing in Jordan, why their anti-drone technology didn't intercept the strike and protect these three service members. But one thing is clear

here, Jenkins, this is an escalation and nothing good is going to come of this. So first, let's talk about the pattern that I've seen now throughout my entire life, which is we go agitate in the Middle East, we, in the way back in the day, we used, well, not that back in the day, actually we kind of didn't interact. If there was a leader we didn't like, and in some of the cases, like in Iran in the 1950s, it was a democratically elected leader, but he didn't let US corporations rob his people blind. So we deposed them. We did a coup. And so that is one example, but obviously we did it in Iraq a couple of times and we go and agitate,

agitate, agitate. Sometimes we do a massive invasion, sometimes it's strikes, sometimes it's just supporting Israel in whatever offensive, you know, the campaign that they're doing, and then somebody strikes back and a couple of our guys die. And then we go, oops, nobody could have seen that coming. No, I see it coming. And more of our troops will die because of what happened today. And then they go, well, what am I going to do? We got to widen the war. I mean, otherwise it'd be weak. What do you want us to do? Three U.S. troops killed? Do you want us to not seek vengeance? That'll be weak. That'll be appeasement, broaden the war, brought now all of a sudden America is bombing Yemen, Iraq, and Syria

right now as we speak. Why? That's insane. Don't tell me they killed three service members. They killed three service members because we went and bombed the living crap out of them and helped everyone who was bombing the living crap out of them. And then what would we expect them? Like this is the Israeli logic, which is why don't they love us? We're in the middle of bombing. and killing them. We demand their love. Oh, they don't love us. That's it. Bomb them more. Bomb them more. Now we're in the middle of a giant war in the Middle East, bombing three different countries at once. What kind of lunacy is this? Totally absurd. So the neo-conservers are back. But this is what I told you. Joe Biden is not, I mean, what you think of a Democrat,

do you think like FDR, JFK, et cetera? He's not a Democrat. He's a Republican. He's been a Republican in his whole life. He voted for the Iraq war. He votes for all the wars. He's totally controlled by defense contractors and by every other donor. So great, he brought neo-conservism back. And now because he's a Democrat,

we'll get a whole bunch of all of the Democratic leaders and all of the media will now bow. OGS, of course, war, we need bigger war, wider war. Let's get into another giant war. Oh man, the one they really want to go after is Iran. By the way, if you don't know, The neo-conservists way back in the day before Iraq war, before 9-11, did a policy paper. General Wesley Clark outed them and many others did, but they outed themselves often times

writing about it. And they intended to attack seven different Muslim countries in the Middle East and to depose all of their leaders and basically take over and put in puppets who will serve us instead. Now, do you want to know who one of the original neocons were? Now you might know some of the names if you studied this, you know, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, etc. But not every neo-conservantial was from America. One of the original neoconservators was a guy named Benjamin Netanyahu. And he's been trying to get us to attack all of his enemies in the Middle East for the last 20 years.

Congrats, it's another victory for Netanyahu. He's now dragged America into the middle of the most needless. war in the world. So what? We could support our so called ally in brutalizing five million Palestinians and to oppress them for decade after decade. That's the noble cause for which we're starting a gigantic war in the Middle East. So dumb, so immoral. And look, if you don't want me to point out that Benjamin Netanyahu is stronger than any American president in control American foreign policy, I'm sorry, but my job is to deliver the news. And you've all seen it.

Obama didn't want Netanyahu to come back when he was president. And Congress ignored Obama and they went and he, he gave a speech to our Congress. And they gave him standing ovations when he was saying that our policy was wrong and that we should adopt his policy. And here we are, a Republican or Democratic president, it doesn't matter. Here we are doing exactly what Benjamin Netanyahu wanted. Wow, what a strong country we are, Jackson. Yeah, I think one of the best points that you made is the reality of Joe Biden and that he's a conservative. And often what people forget about that is that's a lot of why he won in 2020 and a lot of why he was able to rally corporate America and even conservatives to his side and going into 2024 in terms of polling numbers that could end up being his saving grace, which is sad, but it's a reality because, as you pointed out, he's a Republican and he always has been.

But on a broader note, it seems to me you mentioned throughout your life, what you've seen, and throughout my life, what I've seen is the United States always has some reason to be at war because we invest so much in it. I mean, like war and conflict is a reality of not just humanity, but all living things, but just like everything else in life, what we feed tends to grow. I mean, every single year, I mean, well, administration, you pointed out, whether it's Republican or Democrat, every, the military constantly gets more money. The budget gets increased no matter who's in there. And you can see with Joe Biden.

I mean, it's not as if Joe Biden doesn't know that the conflict in Gaza is really hurting his polling numbers and like the swing states and stuff. But look at how much influence the military industrial complex has. He's like, I can't, you know, he passed that little executive order the other day that I think sanctions four people and opens the door for a little more. But nothing really, because it's like, ah, do I really want to have that fight? Because the military is that powerful, 800 bases around the world. I mean, somebody's bound to get hurt, somebody's bound to get hit up.

There's always an excuse. So at the end of the day, we invest too much in it. And unfortunately, we all got to pay the price. But this is what our tax dollars go towards. Yep, okay. You know what, I'm gonna give the last word to one of our. members, Lou B wrote in funniest line in every wartime announcement, quote, it'll last for days. Oh, I'm sure. And by the way, I love that comment and I love our

members. Thank you for being part of the show, t.wit.com slash join. So because that's what they're saying on TV right now. And yeah, maybe this round of bombing lasts a couple of And then the next round of bombing in the next round of it. But this is exactly how we get dragged into every single war. And do you know if young Turks is the longest running daily show in the history of the internet. So we were actually around before the Iraq war. And at the time, the neo-considerers said that the Iraq war would cost $1.2 billion. It costs trillions, okay?

They said we would be greeted as liberators. liberators, I'm not making this up and that they would throw roses at our feet. Every time it's the same load of crap and they get their puppets in media to go vomit that crap out to the American people to brainwash them. You remember Brian Williams when Trump bombed Syria? Oh, Trump, the anti-war guy who bombed Syria, murdered the top Iranian general, pulled us out of a peace deal in Iran, moved our embassy in Israel all to agitate for What? More war. No matter who you vote for, all you ever get is more war and a bunch of idiots on TV going, oh, it'll only last a couple of days, and they'll throw roses at

our feet and we'll greet it as liberators. In America, we stand for freedom. That's why we had to murder people in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, and then we had to help Israel murder people in Gaza, and when they had to light the whole world on fire, and then we had to go and add more to the fire, but everything's going to be great, everything's going to be great, because we're the good guys and remember dirty, dirty Muslims, bad guys, we had to kill, kill, kill more of them. I don't know why they hate us though. In the infamous words of Joe Scarborough, he literally said this once. They hate us because they hate us. They hate us because they hate us. They hate us. They hate us because they hate us. He said it three times. The effing moron that apparently Biden

listens to more than anyone else. Oh, that's your trenchant analysis for the Middle East and why we just coincidentally get dragged into every single goddamn war in the Middle East for the last 20, 30 years. Was they hate us because they hate us? Okay, I will counter with maybe they hate us because we keep occupying, bombing and killing them. Wow, what a revolutionary thought, but not allowed on television because television is filled with liars who do propaganda for

indecent leaders that start endless wars for profit. But I think I'm clear on it. So let's, you wanna go to the next story, Ray? Yeah, let's do this. No? No, alright, let's take a break, let's take a break. Okay. Because we're gonna, all right, you'll see. All right, I get worked up, as you can tell.

I was supposed to give the last word to that guy. All right, anyway, we'll be back. I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to be. All right. All right, back on TYT, Jank, Jackson and Rayvana with you guys, but also Patrick Money, your money, Your money, Patrick, and G's and BH, new members, they hit the join button below.

We appreciate it, box, gifted a membership, and Jesus H. Hoover, Christ did it again. Gifted 10 memberships, appreciate it. By the way, you can also check out Ray, not only on Rebel Headquarters on, but on taking the L podcast, and Jackson on not only Rebel headquarters here on the TYT network,

but also he's the host of politics and paper. All right, Ray, take it away. Yeah, so I recently found out that Joe Biden and I have at least one thing in common, which is our prolific use of the F word. Take a look. At his rally, he jokes about an intruder, whipped up by the big Trump lie,

taking a hammer to Paul Pelosi's skull, and echoing the very same words used on January 6th. Where's Nancy? And he thinks that's funny. He laughed about it. What a sick. My God. During his speech at Valley Forge last month, marking the third anniversary of the January 6th

insurrection, Joe Biden stopped short of saying how he truly feels about Donald Trump. But apparently in private, he doesn't pull his punches. So let's take a look at this report from Politico. The president has described Trump to longtime friends and close aides as a sick F who delights in others misfortunes according to three people who have heard the president use the profane description according to one of the people who has spoken with the president with the president Biden recently said of trump what an effing a whole the guy is which uh profane description sure accurate also yes now this is also not the first evidence we've seen of joe biden's

potty mouth as it were axios reported last year that biden has a quick triggered temper while in private. The president's admonitions, admonitions, excuse me, include, God damn it, how the F, don't you know this? Don't effing bull as me? Get the F out of here, according to current and former Biden aides who have witnessed and been on the receiving end

of such outburst. That doesn't compare to Amy Klobuchar, but definitely berating the workers a little bit. The New York Times said in 2021 that Biden's speech in private, he's frustrated with AIDS is often laced with profanity, but they also added that he never erupts into fits of rage the way that President Trump did. But still, every once in a while, Biden lets it slip. Interesting enough, some of his aides said that they wished he would let it slip a little bit more when talking about Trump in public. They thought it would be more

relatable. I couldn't agree more. But back in 2022, Biden was also caught on a still hot Mike at the end of a White House meeting, one of those instances where he let it slip with some choice words for Fox News's Peter Deucy. Okay, I actually love this story for a couple of reasons. Now, some people might not care about, you know, Biden having these moments where he swears or whatever. I couldn't agree more with his aides that if the line for the Democratic Party moving forward is that Trump is an existential threat to democracy,

which I couldn't agree more with, then I think it's completely reasonable that you would describe him in these terms that you would use profanity when talking about the threat he poses and what a ridiculous president he was and how dangerous he is. But the Biden administration has been trying to paint themselves as, you know, a return to civility, but I don't know, to me, maybe you guys disagree, but to me, this just seems relatable. I think that this makes him look better, at least to the public to some extent, and I think that it voices the frustrations that a lot of people are feeling. So trying to keep this under wraps, that you know, at least says it comes in reference to Trump is silly.

Yeah, so the two of our members just took the words right out of my mouth. I just read their comments. So I'm gonna read them to you and then I'm gonna give context for it. Art guy wrote an okay, I kind of like Biden a little bit more now that I know he swears like a sailor. I totally agree. I prefer that Joe Biden 10,000 times more than the actor that is playing this genteel old grandpa. So, So we'll talk about that more in a second. And it's true, we do do our show with our members. So t.wit.com slash join or hit the join button below.

The next member, abortionist B daughter dragon and B stands for something longer wrote and say it. If you wanna say it, say it, say it, Biden, I will say it with you. I wanna say it with you. And that really, really exemplifies what was running through my mind. I'm like, look brother, okay, so let's break down how much BS politics is. So they want to paint Biden as this is all this old guy from Scranton is a regular Joe. He takes the train, I've heard this my entire life because he's haunted me my whole life in politics.

Oh, the regular Joe takes the train from D.C. to Delaware, can you believe it? And from a little Scrant in Pennsylvania, guys, he's been in D.C. for the last 50, 60 years. We all have eyes, okay? So please stop feeding me this load of crap. And then whenever you hear about Joe Biden reported in very, very few leaks like this, and I'm gonna get to why it's a leak in a second, you hear him cursing and being a regular person. But then the press forgets about it and then go back to, oh great, wonderful grandpa, a cool comfortable sweater, et cetera, right?

It's all fake, everything is fake, right? And so, and then second of all, why, why are you doing it to the point of our other member made? Trump says everything out loud. He says awful things. He won in 2016. You barely beat him even though the whole half the country despises Trump. Last time around, he's got a huge, Trump has a huge lead this time around. There's nothing wrong with saying it.

Why do you believe this dumb, dumb idea? The Democrats, all the Democrats, that Republicans should rip your face off and the Democrats should be gentlemen, shall wear white gloves, play by Queensberry Rose, I do declare we missed badminton time. Come on guys, just say it, God damn it, say it. What is wrong with you guys? They're stuck in the 1970s and 90s. And we should be civil to one another.

Oh, I do declare the Rapscallian Republicans have done it again. Jesus Christ, get the fight, get the fight, okay? So now understand why this story's coming out at all. Because you know the press, they're the dogs of the establishment. Corporate media and corporate politicians are 100% in bed together. So corporate media never tells you who Joe Biden is. So why are they telling you now? Because it's leaked by three sources close to Biden.

You know what that means? That means they wanted it in the press. Why do they want it in the press? Because they want the appearance of being tough on Trump because they're donors, even Joe Scarborough, a lot of the Obama people are demanding that Biden be tough with Donald Trump, but in public, Joe Biden has so much trouble actually criticizing Republicans. It's like the most painful thing in the world to him. And he's like, a maga, bad, but I love Republicans. Oh, Mitch McConnell, where are you? Let's cut taxes again for the rich, right?

So he can't get himself to say it in public. Plus, it's a dumb, dumb strategy. So instead, they leak it to the press so that Biden looks like a tough guy without actually having to be a tough guy. I think that strategy is pathetic. If you're gonna do it, do it. If you're not, shut up, go home and you should have let someone else run. I think that there's, I mean, the reality is this is a race to the bottom, you know, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump are in rather pitiful positions. So Joe Biden really doesn't have anything to lose by doing this. And at the end of the day, if there's anybody, as you reference, there are people in this campaign who leaked this out. If there's anybody who's willing

to take positive data, then they'll see that people responded well to this. So they definitely have something to work with if they'd like to. That's up to them. That's their choice to make. But yeah, definitely that kind of goes against Biden's traditional brand. But at the same time, whenever Biden kind of steps in this direction, people embrace. And by people, I just mean like people take notice more so than when they're snoozing on him. Oh, Joe Biden did something. Oh, he stepped up. He said something. He passed something or whatever it may be. Then he gets the dark brand. And so yeah, I think that it's a good idea for him to go down this road. But, you know, that's obviously up to him or not. So we'll see what he does.

Yeah, it's definitely interesting, you know, little switch up in their, you know, attempts to frame Joe Biden in this way when, you know, as I mentioned, they've been really pushing the, he's a return to civility. He can reach across the eye and work with Republicans kind of person. I mean, he praised strong Thurman. Segregation is strong Thurban for his civility in the past. It's touted their good working relationship, you know, previously. So. You know, trying to switch up on that now is a little silly. I would like to mention that the Biden administration did not respond to comment on this article. Of course, they didn't. I mean, why would they? They already got their message out. The Trump campaign absolutely did respond because they would never miss an opportunity to have a petty moment and said this. It's a shame that Crooked Joe Biden disrespects the presidency both publicly and privately. But then again, it's no surprise he disrespects the 40th president the same way he disrespects the American

people with his failed policies. And I reading this could just feel like the vein in my forehead about to burst. I'm so angry to see a Trump campaign advisor saying that Biden is disrespecting the presidency, which I would agree, not because he swears, but you know, maybe for the continuation of the genocide of Palestine bombing in the Middle East, for those reasons. But coming from Trump's camp, talking about disrespecting the office of the presidency, you know, let me not say what I was going to say. I was going to have a Biden moment, but you know, unlike him, we are bound by certain rules of what I can and can't say. So yeah. Well, look, so I share your disdain for the Trump team 200%. And I'll just I'll go further as usual.

and I'll say to Maga, are you guys joking? Like when you say things like, oh, can you believe he disrespected the office of the president? You know that Trump's your boy, right? Like when he talks about grabbing women by their, let's, I have to say genitalia, but like we're really having that conversation, let alone every other dumb thing he's ever done, every terrible thing he said, remember what he said about Megan Kelly, she's bleeding from our eyes, and from wherever. Remember when he talked about his penis on a debate stage?

We're talking about disrespecting the office of the president. Get out of here. Maga, never ever say the word respect or pretend that your guy is a gentleman or civil. Because you sound more insane that you normally do. Every time you say that, the rest of us laugh and laugh. Look at these idiots. Pretending that Trump was a civil gentleman. I mean, of all the absurd things you've ever said, that'll take the cake.

And lastly, it's similar to something that Ravana said. But again, like they almost took the words from my paper right to their comments. Eclectic miscellaneous wrote in another one of our members. I'd much rather Biden drop an F bomb in public than drop actual bombs in the Middle East. Thank you. Yes, I don't care about the F bomb at all. Do 2,000 of them. Who cares?

But actual bombs kill people. And that's exactly the problem with Biden and the Democrats. So he says, you know, can you believe this monster, Donald Trump, were joking around about how Paul Pelosi was hitting the head with a hammer by one of his lunatic supporters, Trump's lunatic supporters. That is true. I share his disdain and I double it for that. But then brother, there's 27,000 dead Palestinians. 70% of them are women and children. Do you see the same kind of emotion from Joe Biden about that?

You see him getting really upset and say, this Netanyahu, he's a sick app. No, he goes, oh, Netanyahu, do it, do it again, do it again, kill more Palestinian babies. Oh, can you believe how impolite Donald Trump was? Yeah, no, I'm not interested in any of you monsters in Washington. Jackson, last word. Yeah, I was just lastly laughing at the Trump camp talking about how Biden was disrespecting the presidency, because it's like, one of the funniest things about MAGA is like, they don't really have anything to say back to you unless you love you some Joe Biden, which nobody really does. You know what I mean? So it's like, well, Biden, there's Biden that. And you'd be like, yeah, I agree with you. He definitely messed up here, messed up there. And then they just look silly. Like they just look like a bunch of. overly invested NFL fans, hockey fans, baseball fans, it's, it's it really truly is a cult. But you know, hey, Donald Trump may become president again. He may not, but he just might.

So we'll have to find out, we'll have to wait and see. Despite the fact that he's a clown, this is where we are. Yep. All right, we got to take another break. When we come back, okay, Kirsten Cinema. I mean, if you thought Cory Bush spent a lot, especially on security, Way too yet a load of Kirsten Cinema. Some of those things that she spent money on, donor money on, unreal. Almost all of our politicians are total and utter crooks. I mean, how come nobody in mainstream media, they all think that they're such serious journalists, right?

And none of them report that these people are all crooks. You should have nothing but disdain for these low lives. We'll talk about that when we come back. I do want corruption. I'm going to be. I'm like, Laia Laia

La La La La La La All right, all right on TYT, Jank, Jackson and Ray with you guys and Sam Monica gifted five Young Dorps memberships. And by the way, if you become an annual member or give over 50 bucks at t.com slash join now,

you'll get a gift. And the gifts are, they're not huge or anything, but they're fun. I like those gifts that we're giving you. So check it out at t.yt.com slash join. We appreciate it. All right, Ray, what's next? Yeah, so we've got to talk about the perjury that is going on in Trump's civil trials. Take a look. Alan Weisselberg fiercely loyal to Donald Trump, I should know. But I think one thing we forget about, which the New York Times noted tonight, is that he got a $2 million severance package that required him not to cooperate with any law enforcement investigation unless he was legally required. That was stunning to me. I've never heard of such a thing. I don't think that's enforceable to say you won't cooperate with law enforcement.

I mean, it certainly undermines what prosecutors are trying to do. You just watch CNN legal analyst Ellie Honeg get blown away and rightfully so by a clause and former Trump organization CFO, Alan Weisselberg's severance deal, which would have prevented him from cooperating with law enforcement in the contract so that he could receive his severance. Now in October, forms reported that Weisselberg lied under oath when he testified testified about figures he gave regarding the size of the Trump Tower penthouse from that article. As part of the potential agreement with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Weisselberg would have would have to admit that he lied on the witness stand in Trump's recent civil fraud trial.

Now Weisselberg also would have to say that he lied under oath during an interview with the New York Attorney General's office, which is what brought the civil fraud case in the first place. Apparently, it wasn't really up to Weisselberg if he wanted to keep his severance. It's so ridiculous, but here's the clause in the severance package, a clause in the $2 million severance package. Weisselberg received from the Trump organization seeks to prohibit him from cooperating with law enforcement unless he is legally required to do so. However, like Eli Honig said at the beginning, that provision is so likely unenforceable because it undermines pretty much every policy analysis you could do of contract law. But it's possible Judge Arthur and Gorin, who's the judge presiding over the case, who Trump has had frequent

fights with throughout the trial and after, could also withhold the ruling in the matter given that Weisselberg may have lied on the stand. Gorin already issued a summary judgment in September, finding the Trump organization and its officers liable for fraud. He is currently mulling whether to find the company, the $370 million that New York Attorney General Letitia James is seeking. So Weisselberg's ruling wouldn't really matter. But, Jenk, it is so funny, so funny that they would include that,

And I'm sure he's not the only person who's received a severance package from a shady organization or big business entity that says something to this extent. But I couldn't agree more that it's not going to be enforced. It wouldn't be enforced. You can't you can't require someone to not cooperate with law enforcement officers in a contract. Look, you're actually being way too generous. There's no chance that's enforceable. That's the most illegal thing to write in a contract ever. I run a company, if somebody said to me, hey, can we put it in a contract and we're going to give somebody a severance payment, but as long as they don't talk to the cops?

Like, our lawyers would be like, are you insane? No, of course you can't put that in a contract. And guys, think about it. Look, Maga, you're hopeless, but independence, right? Like, why would you have to put into a contract? Hey, I'll give you two million bucks if you don't talk to the cops. If you were innocent, do you think you'd put that into a contract? Come on. Trump said like so many times in the past, you know, if you take the Fifth Amendment,

that means you're guilty. And then he in earlier depositions took the Fifth Amendment. Hundreds of times. Like hundreds of times. That's right. Hundreds of times. And so why would you even need this provision? So look, it's super obvious. He's basically saying snitches get stitches. But if he don't snitch on me, I'll give you two million bucks. But okay, pretend he's innocent. you like. Jackson. Yeah, I mean, he is just, he's the most ridiculous man ever. He really is. It's like, the more I look at him, the more it's like, you know, because we have to look at him more than pretty much everyone else who isn't just like a politics nerd or something. And it's like, how is this man a real human being? I mean, whether it's the clause in there, whereas you

pointed out, you know, unless you're just a total crook, there's no point in putting a clause in there. And why would you even think it would work? I mean, this dude's whole defense, isn't that he's innocent, it's that he should just be let off from everything that he did. You know, I mean, that's his whole thing with these 91 indictments that, that, you know, well, well, at first, if saying I'm innocent doesn't work, then say, you know, a president has to have total immunity for everything they do, even if it crosses boundaries, because, you know, unless that happens, a president will find themselves in the same situation I'm in now, as if we haven't had hundreds of years in this country of presidential elections. If there weren't as if it wasn't 40-something

presidents before him, you know, I mean, but again, as you pointed out, it'll never get through the MAGA. And the interesting thing lastly about that, no matter what happens in this election, but Republicans are never, the right wing in this country is never going to shut up about Donald Trump, at least not in our lifetimes. We're going to be hearing about this do forever and how things were so unfairly taken from the movement. So, you know, we just got to keep on getting ready for that. Yeah, yeah. I just love that they tagged on that little line at the end of the clause that says, you know,

he can't, he's prohibited from cooperating with law enforcement unless he is legally required to do so. As if that was going to, because, you know, for anyone who doesn't know, a contract can't require you, it can't prohibit you from doing something that you're legally obligated to do. to do it. It also can't require you to do something that is illegal. I mean, it can, but it won't be enforceable. So it's like they just tag this little line on the end, like, okay, well then, then it'll be good, then it's fine. Then surely this will be enforced. We'll speak it past the judge. Right, but to both of your points, hey dumbass, if you're gonna say unless he legally has to, then why'd you put it in there in the first place? You're just putting like a sign, big neon sign says,

Look here and we're definitely breaking the law and we're putting it into a contract for no reason because we're dumb, okay? That's Donald Trump. Cartoon characters. As you said before, what do you call him the dumbest man in America? Yeah, he really is, man, he's incredible. Since it's not enforceable and the last sentence, last part of the sentence, you know, gets rid of the meaning of the first part of the sentence, why'd you put it in?

Well, like, because I'll guarantee you, they were not going to put it in and Trump insisted on, but he's got to know, he's got to know. If he wants a two million, he can't talk to the cops, okay? That's how it's got to be. Put it in there. Put it in there. I want it in there. Okay, dumbass. Okay. I don't know what I'm going to be. I'm going to be. I'm going to be. All right. All right. Speaking of stupidity, let's talk about my girl, Kirsten Cinema. Now, there has,

There's been a lot of speculation as to whether or not Senator Kirsten Cinema is going to run for reelection. Although she has yet to make an official decision, she doesn't have to make one until the beginning of April. We did get a clue indicating she's not intending to run again, which is her very weird spending habits. Daily Beast reported that on Monday, Daily Abuse reported on cinema's unusual spending of $210,000 in taxpayer funds on private chartered air travel since 2020. A practice that she herself had tried to ban just six years earlier. She entry co-authored a bill that would have prevented it would have prevented Congress people and senators from taking first class or private flights with taxpayer dollars. But now, of course, once she gets a taste of that money, she's got to switch it up.

But that is only the beginning of the bizarre things that she's been spending your and my money on. Her latest campaign finance filing reveal her comfort with spending donor money on just about any perk under the sun. Stays at five star European hotels, luxury vehicles too that she's bought in the past year, First class airfare and splurges at plush, West Coast vineyards. On top of all of that, Cinema's personal security expenses carry a staggering burn rate of more than $100,000 a month, most of it to one person, Tulsi Gabbard's sister. I also just want to remind everybody of how in 2020 Kirsten Cinema did a little, she did an internship at a vineyard. That's how she was spending her time then.

And she didn't get paid for it. She took a paid internship in a vineyard. And she has sent some of her donor money to that vineyard that she did an internship at. And thousands of dollars to other wineries and vineyards throughout California and Oregon, two states that she does not represent in the Senate, just as a reminder to anyone who may have forgotten. But her personal political action committee, which is so ironically named the getting stuff done pack, also paid $4,000 in first class airfare in August, specifically to the big tobacco conglomerate Ultria.

Beyond the private airfare, the PAC also underwrote the Arizona Senator stays in July in October, 2023 at the five star La Roach Hotel in Spa in Paris for a total of $7,600 and paid the tab for her $2,500 stay in July at the addition hotel in Madrid, build as a luxury lifestyle urban five star resort. So as I mentioned, she's also been paying a mind boggling amount of money and security fees, $100,000 a month, including thousands of dollars for concert tickets so that her security

guards could accompany her to concerts that she was attending. And also hundreds of dollars on bicycle apparel, which I, Assume means that she was buying fancy ritzie bike shorts for her security detail. That is the most liberal thing ever. Bicycle accessories. It just, it is so insane. But she just so everyone knows, she labeled that as security detail equipment. It was very essential that they have these $100 bike shorts. But as I mentioned, it's an indicator that she's not going to run for reelection. So quickly I'll just tell you all why her ridiculous spending sort of hints to that. In April, Cinema and her

advisors laid out a schedule for her decision that set a deadline of September 30th for an initial round of public opinion polling and research into challengers, include Representative Ruben Gallego, a Democrat and Kerry Lake, a Republican television anchor turned politician who narrowly lost the governor's race in 2022, one of Trump's biggest suckups. By the end of December, excuse me, cinema would have a campaign staff in place. And none of those things have happened and she hasn't been putting any money towards it. There's also an indicator that she hasn't gotten any of the thousands of signatures that are required for her to show up on the ballot. But with all of that, I mean, there's so much to impact here. But all I can think of while doing the story is that she was selling her crap on Facebook marketplace. It was a story we covered like a year ago. But she's got all of this, She spent $6 million last year election related and official Senate things. I mean, this woman is drowning in cash. She didn't need to be selling her old bicycle equipment on Facebook marketplace.

Well, no, actually, Ray, there is a distinction though. So she actually has almost no money in her retirement account. She went in as a progressive who was working class person, et cetera. So she's actually not rich. And I think that that's one of the reasons why she's spending, like a drunk sailor before she gets kicked out of the Senate by her voters. So like that explains a lot of this. So if you were trying to win reelection, you theoretically collect all this money, so you spend it on that. But she's not doing that

at all. Her second biggest expense theoretically was, or like the biggest expense that had anything to do with campaigning was digital advertising. She spent $141,000 on that. Well, that seems like a decent amount of money. No, that was a drop in the bucket compared to what she spent on security. To Tulsi Gabbard's sister alone, she sent $1.2 million. How much security do you need? And so she buys the two cars, $177,000,

another one $171,000 within the span of about a year. She gets to keep both of those for security, right? And then for Tulsi Gabbard's sister, I don't know what kind of deal they have, but she never worked in security before. All of a sudden, she gets all that money. And where does that go? God knows.

Why do you have to stay a posture? Pash hotels like La Roche Hotel and Spa in Paris. What does that have to do with anything? And then they explain in this piece that she'll go and technically if you do a meeting with a donor, you get to book the whole trip for the, and say it's expenses for fundraising, right? So whenever she's going to do any vacation, she'll meet with one donor and do it. Sometimes she'll meet with a donor so that she can pretend to meet with other donors so she can stay at other five star hotels all across Europe.

Our politicians are crooks, that's what they are. Jackson. Even before this story came out, it was just something about, I was like, man, this woman does not care if she gets another job in the Senate. She should be plenty good as a lobbyist or something like that. But I was like, man, she don't care. So this isn't surprising at all. It is quite funny. But yeah, I think that was a good point about why she's spending all the money. she may not have an opportunity to just blow it like this again.

But yeah, she she's always seemed like somebody who's just like, well, being senators on my resume, which I guess is a pretty powerful thing to have on your resume. So yeah, last two things here as we're running out of time. She spent $6,000 on wineries in California and Oregon. What is $6,000 in wine have to do with being a senator from Arizona? This is so, like they're not even trying to hide what kind of crooks they are. And finally, you know, she takes the trips with in the plane for Altria and FedEx because she's all about donors. So two of their top donors were private equity firms KKR and the Carlisle Group.

So I have a fun prediction for you guys. Once she's out of the Senate, which will be very soon, she will work for either KKR or Carlisle Group. And for the billions that she got them in tax cuts, she protected the main tax cut that applies to private equity firms. They will hire her at millions of dollars a year to pay her back, because this is all to bribe Kristen Cinema so they can get billions in tax cuts. That's how the crooks in Washington work. All right, we're going to do a bonus episode for our members next. t yt.com slash join to become a member and in that bonus episode we've got amazing stories for you guys on how the right wing is now convinced that all of Hollywood every movie is a CIA plot

well of course it is okay we'll talk about it in members only section we'll see you there I don't know. Thank you.