The Young Turks - Trump Strikes Back At John Brennan; Elizabeth Warren Proposes Bill To Reign In Corporate Power

Episode Date: August 15, 2018

A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from August 15, 2018. For more go to http://www.tytnetwork.com/join. Jayar Jackson, Ana Kasparian & Mark Thompson. Trump revokes former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance. DHS is teaching high school kids first aid techniques for school shootings. Elizabeth Warren’s bill to keep corporations and capitalism in check. Trump attacks Russia provisions in signed defense bill. McConnell’s plan to reshape the U.S.’ circuit courts. Twitter suspends Alex Jones. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome, thank you. You're about to watch what we call an extended clip of the Young Turks, and the realities is somewhere in the middle. It's a little longer than our YouTube clips, but it's actually shorter than the whole two-hour show, which you can get if you're a member. You can get an ad-free, and make sure you catch every new story we do that day. You're going to love it as a full show. That's at t-y-T-network.com slash join.

Hi, everybody. Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm Anna Casparian. Jank is not here, but he will be here later for Rebel headquarters and the post game. In the meantime, we have incredible people on this panel. J.R. Jackson, Mark Thompson. What up? What up, kids?

This is great. J.R.'s got his Captain America mug. I'm here to protect and to save America. Oh, wow. America needs some savings. One drink of water at time. Yeah, you came to the right place. All right, in the second hour, Brett Erlick will be joining in, and he will be leading the show,

which I'm looking forward to. And we have a breaking news story, which we will get to in the second segment of this hour. Elizabeth Warren has proposed some legislation that I absolutely love. I have a feeling that you'll love it as well, and we'll give you the details on that when we come back from our first break. But with that said, I do want to give you some other announcements. First off, let's keep it real. We have an Android app.

We started off with an iOS app, and then you good people responded with what's up with an Android app. And so we delivered on that, and I'm really happy we did because, look, I don't like tooting the TYT horn, okay? In fact, I've been pretty critical of TYT when Jenk is on the air, announcing things and bragging about things. I love the TYT app. I actually use the TYT app all the time.

I listen to the damage report. I watch no filter just to make sure, you know, quality control, make sure it's looking good. It's right here. Yeah. It's so good. Mr. Samsung, which I am, it's awesome. It's a beautiful thing. I was actually really jealous when everyone had it at first on their iPhones, which probably

needed 15 to 20 updates every five minutes. So from those folks, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Now I get to have mine. At least my phone won't break after six months or need a new one. You're the worst, although you're actually right about the nonstop software updates for Apple products. I have the app, just one last thing, Anna, before you began. I also have the soundboard, the TYT soundboard. Do you?

I don't know if that's an official thing or not, but I love it. So I have both the TYT app and the soundboard. Yeah, you guys should totally check it out. And then if you are interested in checking it out, go to TYT.com slash app, APP, and you'll get more information on that. that. Also, if you have access to iTunes, please download my show, no filter. We put a lot of work behind it, and I want the show to perform well to reflect the hard work. So please, if you do have access to iTunes, check it out. It is for free. The audio version is for free, and the name of the show is hashtag no filter with Anna Kasper. I just would add, I have a podcast

that I put almost no work into, but I'd still like people to check it out. Is it? Are you on network or are you independent? Not yet. Jack mentioned he wanted to carry it, but so I'm still waiting. So until then, it's edge dash show.com. They're all shaking their heads. It'll never happen. I'll never be on the network.

All right, well, whatever. It's called The Edge with Mark Thompson. You can just Google search it. And last plug, I don't have one. You don't have anything? Enough with the plugs. Let's get to the news of the day. The Trump administration has officially revoked the security clearance of John Brennan.

Brennan, he is the former CIA director. And this appears to be a retaliatory move by the Trump administration. Sarah Huckabee Sanders explained why during a press conference. Let's hear from her. I'd like to begin by reading a statement from the president. As the head of the executive branch and commander in chief, I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation's classified information, including by controlling access to it.

Today, in fulfilling that responsibility, I've decided to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. As part of this review, I'm evaluating action with respect to the following individuals. James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Struck, Lisa Page, and Bruce Orr. So Sarah Huckabee Sanders also mentioned, as you can see from that statement, a number of people who the Trump administration will consider revoking security clearance for.

Now, some might wonder, well, why do these people need security clearance if they're no longer serving the roles that they were previously in? For instance, CIA director, John Brennan, clearly isn't the CIA director anymore. Well, sometimes what happens is there might be some sort of investigation, some sort of issue that the CIA would want a former director's expertise on. So that's one example of why that person would maintain security clearance. Another example would be doing work as a consultant because you have extensive knowledge as a former director of the CIA, for instance.

So there are uses for having security clearance, even if they're not serving in the CIA or some other intelligence organization. But look, the heart of this matter is not national security. We all know that. What this is all about is retaliating against people that. that Donald Trump does not like. And Trump mentioned Brennan's erratic behavior. Really?

Brennan's the one with erratic behavior? Like, that's a little ridiculous. There's no authority in erratic behavior like Donald Trump. I mean, come on. And so Brennan has been on the record, very critical of Trump. Trump does not like that. Trump also doesn't like the Russia investigation or what anyone, any official person would have to say about supporting the Russia investigation.

So it is retaliation and it's pretty pathetic. It's obvious that it's retaliation and things, that's what people already know. But you have to deny it somehow, but so there's a way that they always play at both sides. So along with their statements, there was also a point where she said, when someone asked her, she goes, including John Burnin, these people were choosing not because they were critics of the president. But also in the statement, she went on to say that his clearance was revoked because he's among a group of former officials who have, quote, transitioned into highly partisan people.

Which one is it? Is it that they weren't chosen because they were critics at the president? Or it's because they've become highly partisan people? Oh, maybe they're too partisan because they're too deferential to the president? Maybe they're too Republican and conservative? Because you know how Donald Trump works, he does not like ass kissers. So when somebody is on his side constantly, he's like, you know what, I need to revoke your clearance.

Because you've become way too partisan. No, it's a great point that those two things are at odds with each other, because obviously he's not getting rid of these people because they're too partisan on behalf of the president. too partisan in criticism of many of the president's policies. So, of course, you know, this is the evolution of this executive branch. We saw it under Richard Nixon when the enemy's list of Richard Nixon was discovered. In this case, there's an enemy's list in plain sight.

I mean, this president goes after these people. It's security clearances on one day. It's headlines and tweets on another day. For example, Jeff Bezos, who he became angry with because of Washington Post investigations and Washington Post stories that he felt were highly critical toward his administration, he goes after Jeff Bezos, by name and Amazon, talking about them getting a break. So this is all consistent with what is a politicization of the White House. I mean, it's obviously a political post, but the executive branch going after, for political

purposes, U.S. citizens, is an extraordinary thing. Right, and you have to consider this in the context of what's been going on with the executive branch throughout Trump's stint as president. He has solidified executive power. He has done things unilaterally. He has pushed for ways to do additional things unilaterally. One of the stories that we reported on last week was how the Trump administration is attempting to pass more policy unilaterally that would give additional tax cuts to big banks. And so they don't want to do that through Congress. And that completely circumvents the checks and balances that we have written in our Constitution. It is part and parcel of what this country is supposed to be about,

checks and balances. So look, I'm not, maybe it's wrong to say this, but John Brennan losing his security clearance. Like, I care, but it's not the end of the world. He's going to be all right. But I do think this is a big deal in the grand scheme of things when you take this action into the context of power in the executive branch. It's a warning shot. It's like you better not cross me or else I will punish you. Part of the punishment is, as you mentioned, there was reasons that 1.3 million people, by the way, have these security clearances.

So these five or 60s considered along with the three or four that he's already rejected. I'm not sure exactly how much of a dent that is on people who have these security clearances. But it's obvious that this is just a punishable thing. One of the reasons that they have, again, that you mentioned, was to have other jobs. So now it's going to be harder for you to get a job in your field because you don't the access to the information that you need to have to give the appropriate amount of advice or consultation, whatever it is you need to do.

So it's punishing you professionally for having a point of view or at least voicing it to the American people. I mean, it's just that First Amendment thing that's talking about. Yeah, no, it's such a great point. I mean, Brennan is on the record criticizing Trump multiple occasions. He criticized Trump yesterday after Trump had tweeted about Amarosa being a dog, right? We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-Fitting the Republic. or UNFTR.

As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity,

the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must have learned what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training

or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. And we have that tweet for you. Let's go to Graphic 15. It's astounding how often you fail to live up to a minimum standard of decency and civility. So he goes on.

Seems like you never understand what it means to be president, nor what it takes to be a good, decent, and honest person. So he, this is retaliation for criticizing the president. This is what big government is. Right. This is someone who's outspoken, outspoken against the executive. But this is an executive abuse of power. And Anna's right to point to the global nature, that is the greater nature of this. Leave aside the Brennan thing.

This executive is designating certain institutions, the press, for example, and certain members of the corporate community. I gave you the example of Jeff Bezos, but it goes way beyond that, for retaliation. And he is angered enough to actually try to create certain systems within the executive branch for him to retaliate. That's what's so troubling about this, because he does have a lot of power, and he is able to create these additional institutions within the executive branch. And last point, Anna talks about the increased tax cuts, which might come through the executive branch without Congress. Think about this. This Congress pretty much rubber-stance what this guy wants. I mean, they've become sort of this cultish group that supports almost whatever he asks for, I guess, short of the wall funding so far.

But having said that, you can't even agree to let them have the last vote on whatever additional tax cuts you want. I mean, it must really be a tough task if you can't even trust it to this Congress. So I think it's also a part of that trying to increase executive power under his presidency. Absolutely. And conservatives claim that they were concerned about that under the Obama administration. But, of course, that was all, you know, fake concern. because as soon as they have someone like Trump, solidifying executive power, increasing executive power, you know, more, way more than Obama ever did.

They don't say anything about it. And I want to give credit to Rich Lowry, who's an editor at National Review. He's a conservative. We disagree on a lot of things. But he is one of the few principled conservatives that I've seen out there who actually does voice his concern about executive power and what the Trump administration is doing. That is not an easy thing to do in today's climate. Because in today's climate, if you have the audacity to speak out against Trump as a conservative, they come after you.

And he's managed to- Well, look what they did at Brennan. I mean, yeah, you find a way. Exactly. There's a sort of executive branch trolling that's going on that's just insane. I mean, it is a different environment, as you say, Anna. I mean, it really takes guts to step out at all, especially if you're on the GOP side. Exactly. All right.

Let's move on to some other news. Actually, some excellent reporting by TYT Investigates. Following a number of mass school shootings in the United States, lawmakers failed to pass any gun legislation, including reasonable background checks and things that most gun owners actually want. But the Department of Homeland Security is now spending taxpayer money in training programs for children on campuses. They're known as mass casualty events, and they're doing drills for these events, and

TYT investigates poured through documents to give us the details on this. So according to Ken Klippenstein's reporting here, he writes that the DHS has issued a $1.8 million grant in order to create a program providing, quote, life-saving trauma training to high school age students for mass casualty events. So what would they learn during these trainings? Well, the training program called school age trauma training seeks to provide the knowledge necessary to stabilize the injured and control severe bleeding until first responders arrive on scene. So someone gets shot, student gets shot, teacher gets shot. The students would be trained on what to do in order to care for that person until first responders arrive. So if there's a mass, if there's an active

shooter on campus, there's chaos and people understandably want to run. from this threat, it's, what do they expect the students to do if there's an active shooter, to stop and help someone who's just been shot and try to prevent them from bleeding out? Still living in a cartoon world. We're living in a movie where Jean-Claude Van Damme, sorry, I couldn't think of anyone else. That is a weird, a weird. That's really, that is concerning her waiting for John-Cla-Ban-Ban-Ban. Who was that one?

No, no, that was a good one. Not hard to kill, but there was the other guy that doesn't know all of them. Okay. No, the one who's not Russian. He used to break people's legs backwards and all his movies. Anyway, so you're waiting for a hero to show up that's going to stand in when bullets are flying by his head because every bad guy misses and it shoots right by his head. And then some 16-year-old kid in his chemistry class is going to take a tourniquet because

he's learned all these techniques with this $1.8 million grant, which then will run out and they'll ask for more money from someone else to privately handle this. And he's going to stick his hand in an open wound, maybe in some sort of. someone's face, neck, torso, leg, I don't know, maybe blood is shooting everywhere. Their friend is dying. Probably their teacher, maybe someone else who's around in the area, maybe themselves. Because, you know, we stay calm when trauma is happening because children have been taught to do this. You know, EMTs are trained to do stuff like this.

And their professionals, they're adults. And that's what they chose to do. And they're getting paid to do. But now kids, right in the middle of learning about the periodic table, then move on to this training when someone comes in and bust in. because that's the mindset we have in this country now, because we think that's normal. I know. Well, I think there are a lot of clear-headed Americans who don't think this is normal. I think there are a lot of Americans who see that rather than passing just common-sense gun legislation,

no one's talking about banning guns. Maybe some people are, but overall, you know, the arguments that I'm hearing from pro-gun control advocates is, hey, why don't we do something to lessen the damage, right? People should have access to guns, but do they need access to high-capacity magazines? Do they need access to certain types of weapons? Shouldn't we do certain types of background checks, mental health care checks, things like that to ensure that the people who have the guns or who are purchasing the guns should have the ability to do so?

But anyway, instead of doing that, all of the onus seems to be on potential victims, right? All of the checks, all of the security, all of the inconveniences falls on to potential victims. So, oh, maybe we need to have metal detectors in schools. Maybe we need to have people take their shoes off before they enter the schools. Arming teachers. Arming teachers. So, again, all of the onus tends to fall on the victims, potential victims, I should say. And so I don't understand why it needs to be this way.

Why can't we have lawmakers who pass common-sense gun legislation? You understand why? No, I do, I do. I know. Well, also, and look, this is something that was backed. I'm talking about background checks and even some checks on assault weapons, I'll call them. I know the purest and the real gun, people are going to go, well, there are a lot of assault weapons. They're all kind of, okay, you know what I'm talking, the ones that go, da-da-da-da-da-da-da.

I'm talking about those. The limits on those and background checks were supported by a constitutional. that was the NRA, that was the gun owners. In other words, this is not such an outrageous idea. But gradually, they become more dug in on positions that are even against that. So this is a very tough spot. And, of course, as J.R. says, this is a waste of time. I mean, fire drills and showing people how to exit in an emergency, these kids can handle that,

and they can also, and they should learn that. But the idea somehow that they're supposed to triage, a bunch of fifth graders, some of whom have been shot. First of all, you can do a lot of damage if you do the wrong thing. And secondly, it's a waste of time and money. And then, to Anna's point, it does nothing to address the overall problem. Exactly. Amazing. So, okay, so other part of it, the $1.8 million is just going to go on and run out and they're going to need more. This is the stalling phase. What happened with the arm in the teachers? Maybe I haven't been keeping track of it very closely. But this widespread call to arm teachers and provide them with guns when they

don't have supplies, to allow them to be able to shoot whichever students or former students they once taught in the face when they come in with a rifle shooting at them through doors and through walls. First off, they have to have that. So I'm not sure if that policy or that thought process has run out yet, or if we've been delayed long enough to say, oh, yeah, I feel better now. It's been several months since those kids got murdered at that last one that I heard about, not about the one happened last week, by the way.

But the last one that I heard about, I feel better now. Oh, and I heard we're arming teachers. Okay, moving on. Now the $1.8 million is somehow supposed to pacify us long enough to go. Oh, well, the kids are learning how to put turnigants on and put pressure. Health education and driver's education are part of the things that this policy said is going to compare it to. So my kid's going to turn 16. He's looking forward to drive.

Maybe I'll get you a new little Honda. Oh, and at the same time, do your driver education. Hey, Johnny, did you learn how to stop severe bleeding yet in a traumatic? situation today, we've got to get on that because this is the country we live in. Well, you know, the teachers having rifles or any kind of defensive weaponry has been rejected by most school districts, I think, in most states, or certainly many. So people, when you really get down to it, understand that more guns in this situation isn't really the solution.

Hey, look at Vice President Pence's a pep rally that he had a few months ago, where there were no weapons allowed. Here are you speaking to gun owners. Right. These are supposed to be the safest. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them.

It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine.

So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fair. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. People to have guns on Earth. And he didn't want a gun in the place. That's such a great point. Not one gun.

I mean, but isn't it true of every major political issue? Politicians will build their moats around their person, right? Because they want to insulate themselves from the damage that they're doing to everyone else because they want to be completely protected while Americans, you know, deal with the bloodshed, deal with everything that's been going on. And again, look, if you love your guns, if you'd like to shoot for your hobby, if you go hunting, like, I get it, I get it, okay? I personally don't enjoy shooting guns, but that doesn't matter. If you are a law abiding citizen, law abiding citizen, you should have access to guns. The question is, what are we going to do to rein in what's been going

on, this like complete lack of regulation. We need to do something about it. By the way, I want to give you a few more details about what these DHS documents say, because some of this is insane. So let's go to Graphic 4. The training will also include information on how to use one's hands to apply pressure to a wound when nothing else is immediately available. But here's the part that really stood out to me. One passage notes, trainees are expected to, quote, act quickly and decisively in the face of disasters, thereby preventing death and injuries, minimizing loss of property. Now, in the article, TYT investigates added emphasis to that, and allowing for more rapid and

efficient recovery. Okay, so the property part. I mean, wow. Okay, nice to see what your priorities are. So, I don't know the degree to which people directly and personally have to deal with this stuff, but after this happened, this is the letter I got. from my kids' school and district that talked about, I'm sure a couple aspects of it,

please have an age-appropriate conversation at home with your child or children about appropriate reactions to an active shooter situation. My child is six years old. So, let's have a conversation about the appropriate actions to have someone bust into your class. How's that going to go down? And then what you should do in those moments.

I had to have a conversation with my kid about what happens at the PTA things or the events that happen around school when visitors come on campus. and decide to tell them, hey, we're going to have this thing, or there's like a pie in the face event, and he was worried about it because he didn't like pies in the face. That's the conversation you have with kids at 6-year-old, because you're like, hey, there's no clowns going to be there, man, I promise. That's the normal conversation you have with kids, but instead you have a conversation about if someone walks in with a gun

and what you might have to do in that situation. Also, I'm always at the assembly because we're in California, a lot of these schools, you have the assembly outside because we're able to do it year-round. and there's perimeters to the school and the principal said in a masked way does anybody if there's any

parents that are here regularly that are here early enough to watch entrances and exits to the school grounds let me know come to the office and volunteer and it was masked but everyone knew what she was saying

and we're like oh I'll volunteer to be the first line before my children get killed if someone decides to break in the school before or after or before school during the assembly because that's when everybody is together. This is the stuff that every school,

no matter what they've been through or have to prepare to be through, have to consider. So my first thought is, yeah, I'd like to watch because I watch people everywhere I go anyway. I was like, I'll be the first line. So I'm volunteering to be this first line of basically a soldier battle to save my child and maybe others.

So, like, we're ready to give up our lives because we're unwilling to do anything. thing about the actual problem we have in the country. Yeah, because the government refuses to do the one thing that the government is supposed to do, and it's to protect its citizens. So when the kids start seeing adults standing at the edges of the school with the arms crossed, they go, what's going on? Yeah.

Yeah, and this is an elementary school. That's what, I mean, you know, I love that you started with the story about your son worrying about the party where you might get a pie in the face, and you end up with this very real, gritty situation. This is an elementary school. we shouldn't be dealing with this kind of thing. We've got to take a break. But when we come back, the story I promised, Elizabeth Warren's bold proposal to rein in some of the corrupt behaviors of corporations in the U.S.

Stick around. We will be right back. Welcome back to TYT. All right, I have a lot to get to, so I'm going to get right to it. A few TYT lives for you. The letter hack says, I'm watching the live show while. literally passing kidney stones. That might be TMI, but this is proof that I never missed the young Turks.

You're amazing. But that pain is now going to be associated with this show in some subconscious level. It may work against this. All right. Ecclactic writes, someone who definitely deserves their security clearance revoked is Donald Trump. How sad is that? Well, there's some truth to that. It's true and so sad.

There's even talking in the administration that there's certain things that they keep from Trump for just that reason because he is not, look, in his first week in office, he's I think he let something fly about an Israeli contact, remember, to the Russians. So there's some truth to that. Absolutely. The rest of the tweet says, but I'm not sure it would make any difference. It's not like he ever reads anything anyway unless it's on Twitter or is one page long filled with lots of pretty pictures.

Again, hashtag truth. Yes. All right. And then I want to thank our members. Member shoutouts for the day are Juan Oscar Hernandez and Crystal Hesser. you so much for being members. Thank you for supporting our show and keeping us honest. I love it. And by the way, Jank will be here for the post game. And he specifically called me to tell you guys that he wants to write his wrongs on the post game. Wow. Yeah, he has some confessions

to make. That must be a long post game. He's got a lot of wrongs. I was like, oh, what did you do? He's like, you'll see. I'm like, okay, I'll let them know. And then finally, it's back school, all the cool kids want cool threads. And in order to wear cool threads, you need to buy cool threads. You can do that at ShopTYT. In fact, we have a back-to-school sale 20% off select items. Just go to ShopTYT.com and you can get all those cool, funky shirts. I like the long-sleeve tea up there, upper right. That is a cool tea. Yeah, somebody wants to get me one off of the ShopTYT.com for my birthday coming up. Ooh, with your birthday. All right, it's not coming up for a while, but still the point is

It is coming up. It's coming up. Pass along your Amazon wish list. We'll be on. Okay. All right. Now to the story that I promised, a breaking news story on Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren has proposed a new legislation to prove that she wants to go after some of the corporate greed that we're experiencing here in the United States.

Now, this legislation is specific. It's very bold. And based on how things are going in Congress and with the executive. executive branch, it's unlikely to pass in any way, shape, or form. However, if the midterm elections go the way that we're hoping they go, there is a possibility. So let me give you the details of her legislation. It's the Accountability Capitalism Act that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class without costing a dime. So this is not a tax increase proposal, although I'm sure that's something that she's

going to push for as well. It's a little different. So Warren's plan. Starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood, right? Corporations are people, my friend, according to Mitt Romney. So if they are people, then they have certain responsibilities and obligations. That's what Elizabeth Warren is arguing. She writes that traditionally corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognize their obligations to employees, customers, and the community.

In recent decades, they stopped in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders, and that's what Warren wants to change. So how does she propose to change it? She wants to curb corporations' political activities, and for the biggest corporations, she's proposing a dramatic step that would ensure workers and not just shareholders get a voice on big strategic decisions. So Warren wants to create something known as the Office of United States Corporations, and this would exist inside the Department of Commerce, and it would require any corporation

with revenue over $1 billion to obtain a federal charter of corporate citizenship, right? You're a person, you've got to have that corporate citizenship. The charter tells companies, company directors to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders and shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates when making decisions. So in order to achieve that, obviously you've got to like bake in those communities into the business model, right? And so how do you bake that all in?

More concretely, the United States corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40% of the membership of their board of directors. So in this case, the workers would have much more of a say. They would have more power in the decision making of these corporations. But also limit corporate executives' ability to sell shares of stock. Okay, this is my favorite part. It's my favorite part, guys. So let's go back to that graphic, it's important.

So ability to share shares of stock that they receive as pay, requiring that such shares be held for at least five years after they were received and at least three years after a share buyback. Okay, do you understand what's happening here? They're gonna try to prevent the run-up and the cash in. What's happening right now because of the Trump-era tax cuts is these questions. Corporations are not reinvesting in their companies. They're not increasing employee pay.

A couple of these corporations gave a one-time bonus, right, just to, like, hide the fact that they're not really planning on sharing their wealth with their workers. What they really did is they went ahead and bought their stock, right? Stock buybacks. And that artificially inflated the price of these shares. That's what happened with Apple. They repatriated all that money that's coming back from overseas, $285 billion. And they just put it all into stock buybacks.

And that's when you get the headlines, Apple, record value. Exactly. And so what do they do after the stock value goes up? They cash out, right? So people who think it's a good thing because 401K's increase in value or whatever, no, no, no, no, it's very temporary because as soon as the value goes up, the executives cash out. Finally, the other proposal is to require corporate political activity to be authorized specifically by both 75% of shareholders and 75% of board members, many of whom would be worker representatives

under the full bill. Yeah, so they're trying to then limit this political activity because it's really, in addition to stock buybacks, there are politician buybacks, and they use a lot of this money to continue to buy off those politicians. It's a corrupt system, we know it, and I love the fact that Elizabeth Warren is working on the Supreme Court decision to consider corporations' people. Right. And as a result, there's corporate citizenry that is responsible as a person in other ways

besides just being able to wash out our political system with money. So it's a terrific twist. As you say, Anna, it may go, it will go nowhere, given the current configuration of the Congress. But it's out there, and I like that it's on the board. And as you also have mentioned, as Congress perhaps changes in character politically, maybe something happens on it. They have to answer to this now. So there's always these things that we allow our corporations to do based off of our worship

and culture of them. So they're rich. Man, what do you want to do? Everyone deserves the right to be rich. Why are you hating on the rich? Don't you want to be rich too? That pacifies or actually shuts down everyone else that thinks, hey, why am I getting everything stolen for me to give to you?

The reverse is always the thought process. hey, how dare these corporations have to give something to you that you earned, by the way? And the government to give to you what you earned. It's not a giveaway. We all pay into it, number one. And the other parts are given away. So the narrative has to change, and maybe this is the beginning of it. But general politicians have dug in so deep with supporting corporations to this point.

The genius part of this, she's using some of those terms, like you said, the citizenry being if you're a personhood, if you're part of the personhood of the country, you have to act like it then. Right. So that's something they went with already. So now you have to use that against them. And also, how are we going to pay for all this? Oh, how are we going to pay? Oh, it doesn't cost us anything. Yes.

It's disarming both of those empty threats all the time in the first place anyway. So what else can you do? And as you said, it's not going to go through necessarily, Mark. But at least we can make people who aren't going to be for it answer to it and be on record. Right. That's a great, great point that let's start to hold the GOP those. And by the way, we say the GOP. Also the Democrats, Democrats are very much in the pocket of corporate America.

We were no fans of the Obama administration on Wall Street and all the rest. So we're just not flag waivers for the left as personified by the Democrats. I mean, they're not even so left on so many issues. But having said that, I do think that this could make people account for where they stand on these corporate issues. Make them stand up and vote on it. Absolutely. And what I love about Warren is that she has been so consistent.

consistent on economic policies and really holding corporate America's feet to the fire. One of my favorite videos features her questioning Mick Mulvaney and his views on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We gave you a little taste of that video on yesterday's show. But if you have time, please take a look at the full context of that conversation, that back and forth, because she's a fighter when it comes to corporate America. And that is a balzy thing to do considering how powerful corporations are in this whole political discourse.

Right. She risks a lot. And she's a fighter who knows her stuff. She knows the exes and owes of the economy so well that she can go toe to toe to defend the Consumer Protection Bureau. And as a consumer advocate, she really knows that territory. So I think she comes at it, you know, armed with not only a sense of the fight, but a sense of the facts.

That's the last part of that has to be transitioned is. the layman's terms of these things, because they already have the, you know, the elitist and they're talking about their financial institutions and how they're going to do this. But so when she puts in all these terms, most folks can't understand how it works. So then they'll look and go, oh, well, it's too often you understand. I'll go with the dumb version that they're telling me what's happening, rather than me knowing what's happening. This is pretty straightforward. Yep.

You know, most people can understand how this works. And I think, I don't know. She's speaking all those financial terms. I don't have any money. I don't mean equity or anything. What does all this mean? I'll move on. just listen to what they tell me is happening with my money and with my life.

And to get a populist wave, to get a popular support for anything, you do need to explain it in ways that people can understand. I mean, I think J.R. makes a very important point here, which is, you know, they sell as, hey, it's a middle class tax cut. It's a middle class tax cut. You hear that over and over and over again, and then people just blindly repeat and parrot what they hear. It's a middle class cut when it's actually a corporate tax cut for the Uber rich in America.

This could get popular support because it's a corporate responsibility bill. It's corporate personhood, just like their people in this one way. We've already seen the Supreme Court decision on this. They now are people in another way with corporate responsibility. I think it's very easy to understand and to develop popular support behind. Exactly. All right, let's move on to some other news. Earlier this week, Donald Trump had a huge signing event to show his support for the National

Defense Reauthorization Act. And in that act, as we all know, he increased the budget for the military to $717 billion in fiscal year 2019. And there were a few good things in that bill. One of the good things was the fact that he would increase pay for the military. That was pretty much the only good thing. But there was also something that caught my attention, and I was curious to see how Trump would react to it in coming days.

So part of this reauthorization act included specific provisions pertaining to Russia. Provisions that I felt Trump wouldn't be in favor of, but he hadn't said anything about it when we reported the story. He said some stuff about it today, not today, but recently. And I wanted to share that aspect with you guys. So in the signing event, Trump objected to four of the eight provisions related to Russia. Included in the four is provision 1241, which states that none of the defense bill's funds, quote, may be obligated or expended to implement any activity that recognizes the sovereignty

of the Russian Federation over Crimea. Now, in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, which was Ukrainian territory. And the U.S. imposed sanctions on Russia as a result of that. Russia is not in favor of those sanctions, clearly not in favor of them. And so the whole point here is, hey, we're not going to use any of the defense budget on protecting Russia and its actions. And Trump does not like that. So Trump argued that the bill would unjustly limit his presidential

authority by restricting military to military cooperation with Russia and mandating he report to Congress if Russia violates the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty or if he discusses a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russian President Vladimir Putin. So he's already, you know, spoken out against this, he's on the record. It's unsurprising to me. What was surprising was when he initially signed it and we hadn't heard anything about him being against these Russian provisions. This stuff, this bill, this defense bill has other stuff in it.

It has stuff like American troops in South Korea, for example, and the number of troops associated with the Middle Eastern involvement. In other words, there are a number of things laid out here. So it is weird. I mean, yet again, another weird Russian thing that's carved out by Trump. And it's, again, carved out so obviously. It was kind of like his clunky remarks in front of Putin at that press conference. It's just like, I can't believe this.

Like, if you're really in Russia's pocket, why wouldn't you at least try to put on a little bit of a charade? Well, in this case, where probably a little less of a charade is possible, I mean, you are going to have to go on the record with actual legislation, actual spending. He's had to come out of the woods even further and say, I'm not good with this, Russia part. I think one of the parts that stuck out, I think I mentioned this a few times today. There was aspects of it that these would violate some of Trump's presidential powers. Because one of which being, they were requiring him to report on North Korea's nuclear activities. So I looked at the signing statement that was brought up. And again, in more of the terms, says, my administration will treat these provisions consistent

with the president's constitutional authority to withhold information, the disclosure of which could impair national security. So in speaking to the Congress, it's going to impair your national security to continue your buddy-buddy relationship with your new friend who's amazingly smart and is tough in the way that you wish you could be at such a young age. So it's going to impair national security for people to have an update on what you promised would happen because of your summit that was self-aggrandizing? Yeah, so let me give you the exact wording.

So here are bullet points of all the things that Trump objects to. So as we haven't even talked about this yet, provisions limiting U.S. support for the Saudi military campaign in Yemen. So U.S. taxpayer money is going toward fighting Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, okay? That's what's happening. And there is a humanitarian crisis there. There is children are dying as a result of our actions. We're selling arms to Saudi Arabia like crazy.

But no one reports on it, no one talks about it. It drives me nuts. Okay, so Trump is against that. He doesn't want any limitations when it comes to helping Saudi Arabia. you know, go after you many citizens the way that they have, civilians, the way that they have. Transfers of Guantanamo Bay detainees and the number of troops in South Korea. And then finally, this is what you were alluding to, JR, provision mandating the president report on North Korea's nuclear activities.

You know why Trump doesn't want to report on what's going on with North Korea's nuclear activities? Because they're still developing nuclear weapons. after he tweeted that we have nothing to worry about. Show's over. Right. Yeah. There's been complete nuclear disarmament.

No, there hasn't. No, there hasn't. You're not a good negotiator. You didn't make a deal. You didn't make a deal. You didn't do anything. And he's trying to make it seem as though he accomplished something. Right.

I mean, he's a headline stealer, but he doesn't really do anything. And then you see who he's in bed with. You see that he's in bed with the Saudis. That's because of military sales to Saudi Arabia. It's all about money. And Russia, that part's about money also, as you know. It's either about money laundering or it's about money loans, about money loaned. It's about his Trump properties.

It's about any number of things that are associated with money in the main. This is, he doesn't want any limit on his executive power. And as we said earlier, he's trying to expand his executive power. And this clearly places limits on his executive power and forces him to own up to certain things that are going on. administration. And he hates it. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, Alex Jones is at it again. So I'm going to enjoy that conversation. Stick around. Thanks for listening to this podcast. You're only halfway through. So hold, hold, stay right here. Just want to remind you if you want to get all five segments of the Young Turks commercial free,

these are just two of them. Every day we do it. So go to t-y-tnetwork.com slash join and you'll get the whole five Segments, two hours, ad free. Do it now. Hey, everyone. All right, I'm going to read some TYT lives for you. I don't, oh, that's where Super Chats are. I haven't been purposely ignoring Super Chats. I just couldn't find them earlier because I didn't scroll down.

Okay, but I'm going to read TYT Lives first. Tannen Casal says, how about capital punishment for corporations and states where they still execute people for high crimes. Wow, that's a great take. Yeah. I.M. Sox says, can I get a step further? Can we deport noncompliant corporations and keep all of their stuff just like we do to illegal immigrants?

Also, why should civil asset forfeiture not apply to corporate citizens? That is such a good point. Absolutely. Now let's go to the super chat. All right. Dakota, thank you for your donation. If Democrats can't be bothered to introduce a bill to combat gun violence, then there will be no blue wave, in action creates apathy.

Totally agree with you. Rudy Acosta says, as an Arizona resident, U.S. Marine, I find it funny that it's harder to vote in Arizona, voter ID laws, vice buying a rifle and ammo. Yeah, it's a very good point. God, we have a smart audience. Column Robbins, Grenerich, sorry if I mispronounce your name, which I'm sure I did. Anna said Elizabeth Warren, and I was hoping to hear, has declared she's running for president. Can't wait till we hear that headline from TYT.

I have a lot of love for Elizabeth Warren. She's a hero or heroin, whatever. Yeah. Well, look, for me, one of the biggest issues is what's happening to our economy and what these corporations are doing to our workers. And she is the most vocal. Bernie Sanders, of course, is vocal as well. We know this. But there's something about the way she presents herself and the way she fights aggressively.

Like, the way she was going after that Washington, was it not Washington Mutual. Wow, Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo, man, Washington Mutual, that's old school. Yeah, when she was going after the Wells Fargo executive, you know, during that Senate hearing, oh, it's one of my, another one of my favorite videos. Anna just goes home at night, has a martini and watches Elizabeth Warren videos. That's really. Sure, a martini.

That's it. Or martini equivalent. I've got thoughts about Elizabeth Warren running for president that a lot of liberals don't agree with. But okay, it's fine. We'll talk about that when it may be happening. Yeah, maybe on a post game or something. Okay, let's get to some more news, shall we? Oftentimes, when we hear about Donald Trump nominating judges, it's the Supreme Court,

Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, but what about federal judges? Well, a new report looks into how Trump has succeeded in nominating and confirming federal judges who actually end up being the final, you know, say in controversial issues and legislation. So first, let me give you some context about what happened under the Obama administration and what's happening now. So under the Obama administration, Mitch McConnell fought tooth and nail not only to prevent the confirmation of Merrick Garland, who was a Supreme Court nominee pick by Obama. He also fought pretty aggressively to prevent federal judges from being nominated and confirmed. So during the final two years of the Obama

administration in which Republicans controlled the Senate, the confirmation of judicial nominees slowed to a crawl, giving McConnell and Trump plenty of vacancies to fill starting in 2017. And guess what? McConnell certainly succeeded. The Senate has already installed 24 appellate judges since Trump was sworn in. That's the highest number for a president's first two years in office. So he's setting a record there, and it's not a record that we should be excited about, because these are all judges who are, you know, federalist society favorites. They're super conservative.

And remember, a lot of decisions don't even make it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will reject certain cases. And these are the judges who are the people who have the final say. Now, I'm going to show you a video from 2015. This is Mitch McConnell talking about how he's going to prevent Obama's judges from being confirmed. Take a look. And my last question goes to judicial nominations. I am one of those people who wouldn't

confirm another judge, given the antics they pulled last year. But what is the situation vis-a-vis federal judicial nominations in the process in the Senate right now? Well, so far, the only judges we've confirmed have been federal district judges that have been signed off on by Republican senators. And do you expect that that will continue to be the case for the balance of this session? I think that's highly likely, yeah. Okay, so he's clear about what he did.

Now, the next video will infuriate you because it's Donald Trump totally spinning this and making it seem like it was a failure on Obama's part. Take a look. You know, when I got in, we had over a hundred federal judges that weren't appointed. Now, I don't know why Obama left that. It was like a big, beautiful president to all of us. Why the hell did he leave him? Maybe he got complacent.

That's world changing, country changing, U.S.A. changing, and we're going all out. But we were left the present. I never said this before. It was like the gift from heaven. We were left judges. They're the ones that judge on your disputes. They judge on what's fair on the environment and what's not fair, where they're going to Take your farms and factories away, and where they're not.

Amazing. It was the gift. Thank you very much, President Obama. We all appreciate it. Thank you. What happened? How did he do that? I'm sure they didn't explain to Trump the whole thing.

I mean, I'm sure they just... I don't think he'd understand. I'm sure they just explained, hey, look, we've got all these court appointments that we can make, and it's going to change the face of America, and you can be the guy to change it. This is really great news, and Trump, was on the golf course anyway at the time. So he said, great, do it. Sounds good.

And then he's just, in essence, you know, creating and parroting something that he's heard before. The obstruction by Republicans in Congress, specifically, you know, Republican senators during the Obama administration was just disgusting. And also, like, the weakness from Democrats in office was also disgusting. Like, fight, fight. There was very little fighting. There was very little, you know, bravery from Democrats at that time. time, and now we're paying the consequences for that. So there are 179 authorize judge ships

for the U.S. Court of Appeals with 24 confirmations and 13 vacancies to fill. Trump and the Republicans have the power to install more than 20% of the judges on the nation's second highest courts. By the way, these confirmations are not based on votes on partisan lines. Like, you have Democrats confirming them as well. So that, you know, goes to you. to show you that Democrats, they're incredibly weak when it comes to this stuff. Like Republicans fight. Yeah, the thought was maybe to get them from the Democratic side, to get maybe these guys that are controlling things when you have the presidents there, trying to get some kind

of appointees that they'll accept. Oh, if we do someone that's more middle ground, maybe they'll accept it. When over and over again, as we saw a Hugh Hewitt show when McConnell was there, the plan is to do nothing. You talk about this proudest moment was to make sure that this president didn't get an nominee. And it's outside of the Supreme Court nominee. Every other kind of nominee. Remember when pundits and conservative talkers were saying, hey, you know what, there's three vacancies on this particular appellate court? Well, we can work with that many. We really don't need that many

judges, do we? For some reason, they suddenly need all these judges. Suddenly the judges are in place. And Trump and his cluelessness there in that clip, he said these judges will, the judge your disputes, your environment policies, your farms. In other words, he sees their judge. as a way to confirm his policies about environmental policies, what he's doing with farms, what he's doing with corporations. He sees everyone as backing him up or against him, not judging on a case-by-case fair basis as a judge should do with his judgment, but because, hey, I pointed you, you do what I say. This dictatorship works that way. Well, he's absolutely right. They are going to affect environmental policy, the poisons that go into the air, the land,

the water, all established by those courts, and the cultural footprint of this country is going to change with all of these appointments. Absolutely. It's depressing. So just remember that this is not an issue that only impacts us, impacts us while Trump is in office. This is an issue that will have an impact on our politics, on our country for decades. Even Trump understood that. Yeah.

He's straight up saying, it's world changing. It's America changing. Yeah, I mean, this is a cultural toxin. And it may be one of the worst things that this administration does. Yeah, because it has a lasting effect. All right. Now let's move on to Alex Jones. Twitter has decided to suspend Alex Jones for seven days, one week, following the discovery of a video that he had tweeted where he was inciting violence.

Now, he has been banned from various social media platforms, and the reason why he was banned, in my opinion, has to do with the fact that he is inciting violence. That's something that no one should be allowed to do. I don't care, you know, whether or not you're a free speech activist or not. Free speech does not protect inciting violence. And even in this case, we're not talking about the federal government. Of course, we're talking about private companies. But even in a federal government situation, the government does not protect this kind of

The Constitution does not protect this kind of speech. But anyway, people don't understand that drives me crazy. So with that, you can tell I'm bitter about this, right? Because the arguments are so incredibly ignorant drives me nuts. So finally, Twitter decides, okay, here's a video of him inciting violence, we got to do something about it, so let's go ahead and suspend him for seven days. We'll have a discussion about whether or not that makes sense, but I want you guys to judge for yourselves by watching the video that Alex Jones had tweeted.

Take a look. It now stands with you and the U.S. military, who I know already understand who the CHICOM operatives and the traders are to understand who's trying to take the First Amendment. We're under attack and you know that. You've pointed out mainstream media is the enemy, but now it's time to act on the enemy. Before they do a false flag, I know the Justice Department's crippled a bunch of followers and cowards, but there's groups, there's grand juries. You call for it. It's time politically and economically and judiciously. and legally and criminally to move against these people, it's got to be done now.

And let's go, let's do it, because they're coming. America needs to know that they've got their little pathetic commie red teams ready. And they've got their targets picked out, the sheriffs, the judges, the police chiefs, the patriots, the veterans, the talk show host, everybody. And everybody's going to be amazed when they come. When those cowards come, and it's going to hit in the middle of the night, and they're coming, and they're coming, and they're coming. They think they can really take down America. This is it.

So people need to have their battle rifles and everything ready at their bedside's, and you got to be ready. Okay, so here are the problematic parts of that insane rant. Now is the time to act on the mainstream media, and he says get the battle rifles ready. Okay. That incites violence. If you want to have a discussion or a monologue where you're critical of the mainstream media, have at it. Of course, you're able to do that, and I would support it, even if I disagree with what you're saying.

You are not allowed to incite violence against anyone. including the mainstream press. You're just not. That is not protected speech based on what our Constitution says. And when it comes to private companies, if they're concerned about that kind of speech, they have the ability to do whatever they want, whether it's suspend you or block you. He hasn't, I mean, the thing is, he hasn't learned anything. And the thing that Facebook did wrong was their lame excuse or their lame reasoning

for blocking him. No, don't block people for hate speech, right? I mean, people disagree with me on that. Some people think you should be blocked for hate speech. I don't think that's the case. I don't agree with that. But I certainly do not agree with inciting violence and having direct targets and encouraging your listeners and your viewers to go after those targets.

That's insane. But people think like, oh, no, but I like to talk about conspiracy theories on my show too, so are they going to block me? I mean, people are worried about themselves. How about don't incite violence and you have nothing to worry about? It's just so pathetic, man. Because here's the thing, we're not interested in protecting Americans. We're not worried about people's safety.

We're not worried about, you know, parents who lost their six-year-old in the Sandy Hook shooting getting harassed and targeted and doxed by numerous people who watch Alex Jones and believe his conspiracy theories. We're not worried about protecting them, right? A woman went to prison for five months because of what she was doing to that family, right? We don't care about them. We care about Alex Jones. But here's the thing, we don't even care about Alex Jones.

Everyone's worried about their own ass. Like, oh my God, what if I get censored? Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, I will fight as aggressively as I need to to make sure you don't get banned. But someone like Alex Jones, he deserves to be banned because he incites violence. That is not protected speech, and I wish Facebook and all the other platforms were clear about that, because saying that you're getting rid of someone for hate speech is not the right way to go about it.

But they're concerned with being misunderstood and crazy fans going, I can't believe you stopped my Messiah's free speech to say insane things and try to get people murdered. But I guarantee you, if the parents of one of those kids that was killed in Sandy Hook threatened this guy, they would be suspended, they'd probably be arrested, and probably doing time for the same things that he's inciting others to do. So he sends his minions out to do things, I mean, Comet Pizza, wasn't it? That guy goes to jail, but who's still on the air talking? This guy.

This is how it works. You can send off your soldiers to do your work and go to jail and then continue on and even use those instances of them going to jail and be like, you see, the groups are coming and get you. How many times did you grow up and get you? They're coming and they're coming. Like it sounds like a cartoon, but people who read into that, their fear is rising. And then when people get afraid, especially in this country, with the number of guns and weapons that we're told we have to use because it's a birthright to go shoot someone in the face, they go, well, isn't just the turn of our countries? Freedom? We're supposed to go kill. He did a video accusing Robert Mueller of having sex with children and running a sex ring.

How is that okay? How is it okay to do that? That would fall under the free speech. It's insanity. Hold on, but it does not fall under free speech. If you state that as a fact, if you say, I think Robert Mueller is doing X, Y, and Z, that is protected because you're saying it's your opinion. He reports it as if it's a. fact, right? And so, look, Robert Mueller's got all the protection in the world. He's going to be

fine. But when you go after private citizens who are now, unfortunately, in the public eye, because they lost their kids in a mass shooting, they don't have those resources. They can't protect themselves. That's where the issue is. The heinousness of Alex Jones really is all in the Sandy Hook thing. You don't really need to go much beyond it. You can go beyond it, and we have and we detail, and I'm sure we'll detail more, but the idea that Sandy Hook, the horror of Sandy Hook, which should have provoked legislation on guns, which certainly brought us all to great sympathies to those families involved, the fact that that could be exploited for some crap about how there were crisis actors, and it was all phony. I mean,

it's just, it's heinous. It's the only word that comes to mind. It's obscene. And I personally believe that we sanitize these stories with all these shootings, these mass shootings, and that's a great one that I can use as an example. You see the yellow tape, but you don't see the horror of those elementary school kids with their brains and bodies splayed out by bullets. So Alex Jones then can come on and say, hey, it wasn't even real. These are all crisis actors. And then to the point that individuals who subscribe to Alex Jones and follow him like

some messianic creature, they can then do his bidding and go after these grieving families. And that's what's been happening. It's disgusting. It is disgusting. So Jack Dorsey, who is the CEO of Twitter, had a conversation with Lester Holt, and the topic of suspension versus ban came up. And here was the reasoning behind Twitter suspending Alex Jones rather than banning him. You have taken action against him in this instance. What is it? Can you tell us what it is? I believe we put him in a timeout, removing his ability to tweet for a time period. A timeout seems minor compared to the implications of someone suggesting a call to arms against a particular group, in this case, the media. How do you respond to that?

Well, I feel, you know, any suspension, whether it be a permanent one or a temporary one, make someone think about their actions and their behaviors. And you think Alex Jones is going to change his behavior based on a timeout? I don't know. We have found that it does have the potential to change impact and change behavior. So whether it works within this case to change some of those behaviors and change some of those actions, I don't know. It worked on the 12-year-old kid that was tweeting, bullying things about her friend in middle school. It worked on her. We've found from other instances, it works.

When we put teenagers on timeout, they really hurts them for those seven days. So they come back and they changed it to them. They're out of here. Yeah. So look, whatever, it's a private company. They can do what they want to do. So if they want to suspend him rather than ban him, that's their decision. But for the platforms who have made the decision to ban him, come out and explain clearly why he deserves to be banned.

Because when you say you're against hate speech, that, you know, that leads to a fear among all sorts of people who think they're the next to be targeted. And no one should be targeted for sharing their opinion on whatever it is. I mean, people are making hate speech videos about me right now. And it's fine. Do you, boo? Right? I'm not, I will fight for your right to put those videos up. But you cannot incite violence against innocent people.

It is a dangerous thing to do, especially in a country like the United States where we're swimming in guns. mental health issues. For the record, I will fight against Anna for you to make hate speech videos about her. Yeah, he's against it. We have a disagreement there. I'm still on the bench. That's fine. Yeah.

Perfectly fun. No, I, look, the idea, first of all, the idea that people are making hate videos about you, I do find bothersome, but the, I mean, in the extreme. But there's a lot, I think there's a lot to think about with Alex Jones. He's just one of a number of sort of new media figures who are exploiting the medium for potentially, and as we've seen, demonstrably, violin ends. Absolutely. All right, guys, that does it for the first half of the show. This was fun.

Yes. Wow, I feel so good after all this. Do you really? Oh, my God. This is a cleansing. I remind everybody who's a new episode of my podcast. Yes. The Edge with Mark Thompson.

We don't talk politics in this episode. So, uh, oh, I'm definitely listening. You can get your politics here and get other stuff there. Am I come way feeling a lot worse than I do right now? Because I feel great after these conversations. By the way, Jank mentions on old school incessantly that I keep like urging him to not talk about politics so I can enjoy it. Like, I listen to old school every episode.

Um, but I wish he would stop saying that because people listen to it for politics. And, but anyway, like, come on, guys. I'm tired. I just want something fun. Yeah. And it's fun when, like, he and Jank, he and Ben, or you, like, you guys just talk about nonsense. It's just a good way of- You guys talk about nonsense. It's great.

It's true. It's definitely nonsense, old school. When I'm on old school, we talk about real things, and we have fun. These guys are nonsense. All right, thank you. J.R. Jackson and Mark Thompson. Make sure you check out The Edge and TYT Sports, where J.R. is a frequent host. And I don't talk nonsense.

All right, guys. We'll be right back with Brett Erlich. Thanks for watching what I hope was a love. edition of the Young Turks. Now, you know that that is two of the five segments that we do because that's free. We want to have you support independent media and come watch the whole show that we do every day. That's five segments overall. No ads at all. That's at t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. Come become a member. Thanks for watching either way. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus

content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at Apple. slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon