The Young Turks - Trump Throws Public Tantrum And Fox News Host DESTROYS Jason Chaffetz

Episode Date: December 12, 2018

Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi had to deal with a full blown Trump meltdown over the border wall. Former congressman Jason Chaffetz was schooled on live TV after trying to peddle conspiracy theories on Fox News. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Jake Ugra Anna Consparen. We haven't said that in a while. How you doing, Casper? I'm good, I'm good.

Pretty hectic day with news constantly breaking, so it's not fun. Trump's job is to break the news. Our job is to fix it. So we'll explain a couple of things here. But I actually, two stories that I love in this rundown don't have to do with Trump. They have to do with the Democrats. And so what are the Democrats going to do Medicare for all on that issue? Oh, it's such a good story, Doris, that story that war is going to be amazing.

Okay. Furthermore, my main pet peeve, to say the least, the media calling things even, oh, we've got a spectacular case of it in today's show. So Army, I need you to buckle up mainstream media, I need you to brace for impact. Okay, now, Anna and I have not been on the show together for a little while. So have you seen these latest numbers? I have. Okay.

And I don't know what to do. Just give up. Normally, you're the pessimistic one and I'm the optimistic one. But I cannot close this gap. Jesus, I'm Lord Mercy. I just feel like it's a bad idea to deny the will of the people. Yeah, wrong. I will only fight harder.

I shall fight on the internet. I shall fight on, I don't know what else there is related to the internet. UBS portals, that doesn't make any sense, right? What? UBS drives, that still doesn't make any sense. Anyway, so. USB, you mean. Oh my God, I'm the oldest person alive.

It's okay, Trump. I'm the oldest person alive. Okay, look, you got a smocking gun on that one. I know, you need to just stop right now. Let's get to the stories. Anyway, so, t.t.com slash jank. If you're gonna sign up for membership, that's obviously the right way to do it. Anna still has a 69 person lead on me, which is unfathomable.

Yes. Okay. Okay, tyt.com slash jank, you get dozens of progressive shows. Recently we did an ad on why you should sign up through the different hosts. I kind of started the network. It's something. Anyways, I'm not bitter. All right, but I also want to tell you about tyot.com slash Amplify because there's some exciting new folks that you could buy membership for.

One of you guys requested the Colin McEnroe show on NPR. This is a very specific request. put it up, t.yt.com slash amplify. Apparently, this gentleman needs a progressive message amplify to him, so bless his heart. I don't know much about him. I don't know that he needs it because he doesn't know it, or that he does and he's an ally, et cetera. I don't know.

But Face the Nation on CBS. Last week tonight, come on, let's get John Oliver TYT membership and his entire staff. That would be amazing political, politico, somebody called Politico, or at least by the membership. although we do have a good story from them today, but usual assumptions that they have, which are mainstream. Anyway, The Intercept, Washington Post, these are all available. Let's get the message to both allies, foes, and folks in the middle who don't know what progressives actually stand for.

C-SPAN. So all of this is on t-y-t.com slash amplify. We would love it if you participated. It gives them Young Turks membership, amplifies our voice, and helps homo progressives here. So thank you for participating. I'll read the names throughout the show as we go. Anna, what's the first story? All right.

The government needs to decide how to fund its operations and Congress needs to decide how to do so by December 21st. Now that has led to a giant disagreement between Donald Trump and members of Congress, specifically Democratic members of Congress, who refused to give him the $5 billion he demands for the border wall. Now, anytime Trump is in political trouble or legal trouble, he immediately pivots to the issue of immigration, and that is what he is doing today. Now, this all started over the weekend when Lindsey Graham had an interview and basically

gave Trump advice that he appears to be listening to. Take a look. Why can't the Senate get on board with the president's border wall funding, sir? Listen to this. The incoming Speaker of the House has said, building a wall along our southern border. is immoral, immoral. What are you looking at, Nancy Pelosi? Look at the caravan.

Look at the charge against the border. Look at the caravans that are to come. Look at the holes in our border security. So here's the problem. You got the Democratic leader to be in the House calling border security a wall component immoral. If I'm President Trump Tuesday, I would tell Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer

that we're going to build a wall where it makes sense. If I were the president, I would dig in and not give in on additional wall funding. I'd want the whole $5 billion because the caravan is a game changer. Now look at that, don't tax and spend Republican, because Trump's tax cuts will cost the country $2 trillion over the next 10 years, but Lindsey Graham believes that it is a moral thing to spend $5 billion on a border wall that will do absolutely nothing in terms of immigration. And go ahead. Yeah, before we had to Trump and how much Lindsey Graham influenced them on Fox News, because

It's the only way that anybody influences Donald Trump by going on Fox News. U.S. Congressman Matt Gates said that recently. Oh, I wanted to make a case of the president, so I went on Fox. Or normal presidents could take meetings with legislators. That could be an interesting idea. Anyway, Lindsay Graham is a buffy in search of a biffy. So he needs BFF in politics. That's just who he is.

For a long time, it was John McCain, and it was Joe Lieberman. And then it was Kelly Ayat from New Hampshire. But he needs that person to cling on to. And so he's like, who's gonna be my best friend forever? Oh, yes, I found him in Donald Trump. So this guy who has always been a warmonger. To be fair to Lindsey Graham, he's been horrific on issues of war and doesn't mind killing people all across the world.

That's in fact his M.O. He's one of the guys who said about North Korea standoff. Well, if they, you know, if they have a war there, it'd be the South Koreans who are killed. Who cares? It's not us. So that's not an exact quote, but that is exactly the point of that quote. You can see it online and it is startling, okay? So, but now on other issues that he claimed to be a moderate on and television would constantly

give him credit for being bipartisan on some issues, Lindsey Graham. Now he's like, oh, the border, well, the caravan is a game changer. What do you, Caravan? Caravan is a game changer. for insane people who believe that they were gonna sneak into the country and that it's that they were not seeking legal asylum. Well, they're sitting there seeking legal asylum. You were 100% wrong on every part of that conspiracy theory.

But Lindsey Graham's like, Donald Trump, you are so right that caravan has been in the vapors or whatever they do in down in South Carolina, okay? And so now he's like, Biffy, please don't give in to Nancy Pelosi. All right, Lindsay, I see you. Well, it appears that Lindsey Graham has had some influence over Trump because today Trump had a meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. The meeting was meant to be a closed door meeting, but Trump decided that he wanted to be transparent.

And I believe fortunately we were able to see everything go down. It was very salty, so we're gonna give you a few clips and then discuss what happened next. Take a look. If we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether it's through you, through through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government. Okay, fair enough. And I am proud, and I'll tell you what, I am proud to shut down the government for border

security, Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting down. So look, I gotta say, everybody's criticizing Donald Trump for this, but and making it seem

like Schumer and Pelosi won the day. I don't necessarily agree with that. So they're calling it a temper tantrum, I get it, right? And did Trump seem like a cool-headed, rational president? Are we really having that conversation? Okay, but Chuck, look him in the eyes and go right back at him. No, you're not gonna have that wall. How do you like me now?

Okay, but no, he doesn't, he looks away and he's awkward and can't wait to get out of the room. And in terms of shutting down the government, the Democrats are so afraid, don't shut it, don't shut it down, don't shut it down. You don't want to be playing for it. It's BS, it's a total excuse for giving the corporate donors what they want, right, and they hide behind it. Now here's a problem. Trump took that away, said, I'm going to be responsible for shutting it down. Now that's the go-to excuse for Democrats have, so I'm super curious how they're going to react now, so now that they're They don't have an excuse anymore for selling out.

Because Trump took responsibility for it, we're done with it, right? Right. I'm curious how it breaks out. But remember that, look, I don't know, and we can only speculate how much it would hurt Trump if they do shut down the government over this border wall. I'm inclined to agree with you because what Trump is doing there is playing into his base. And his base, and we're going to show you some numbers, overwhelmingly support the funding for the border wall, even though, you know, a huge portion of our undocumented immigrants

came here through visas and overstaying their visas. But anyway, the wall wouldn't do anything to help that situation. Now, Trump did flip-flop in the matter of minutes. So before he had made that statement, minutes before, at the beginning of the meeting, the president said the opposite, quote, I'd like not to see a government closing a shutdown, we will see what happens. So he flip-flops, he will say whatever's convenient for him at any given moment. But I also agree with you that Chuck Schumer's body language there did not, you know, it just

didn't reveal a fighter. If anything, if you're watching that video, you know, he's like kind of cowering and looking down. It's strange. Now with that said, that was only a little bit of the meeting. There was more, so let's take a look at that. This was entirely predictable. In talking to AIDS really involved in these negotiations directly over the course of

the last 12 to 15 hours, they expected something like this, they just expected it to happen behind the scenes. I did talk to a Democratic senator last night, who the open question. Okay, sorry about that. So let's go to video three. This is the second portion of the scuffle with Schumer. In the house, a majority of votes for a wall, no matter where you're sorry. If I needed the votes for the wall in the house, I would have them in one session would be done.

It doesn't help because we need 10 Democrats in the Senate. It doesn't help for me to take a vote in the House where I'm going to. I will win easily with the Republicans. It doesn't help to take that vote because I'm not going to get the vote of the Senate. I need 10 senators. That's the problem. You just say, my way or will shut down the government. We have a proposal that Democrats and Republicans will support to do a CR that will not shut down the government.

We urge you to take it. And if it's not good border security, I won't take it. It is very good border security. And if it's not good border security, I won't take it. It's what the board. Because when you look at these numbers of the effectiveness, of our border security. And when you look at the job that we're doing about military, you just said it is effective.

Can I be, can I tell you something? Yeah, you just said it's effective. Without a wall, these are only areas where you have the walls. We want to do this. Where you have walls, Chuck, it's effective. We, we don't have walls, it is not effective. Okay, look, let me just give Nancy Pelosi a little bit of credit. She was a little bit more forthright with the president.

And, you know, saying, look, you're not going to win the vote in the House anyway. house anyway. Now, Trump didn't let her finish the point, and I wish all the Democrats would speak up. So her point is, you're not going to even have enough Republicans voting with you on this border wall. And there's a very good reason for that. It's the numbers that Anna's going to give you. But here, I'll give you one right now. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say building the wall should not be an immediate priority. Sixty-nine percent. So Chuck, turn around, look them in the eye and say seven out of ten Americans don't believe you have the correct priorities and we're not going to let you do it to appease

a tiny portion of this country who is your base that you've jinned up into this fear and hatred of immigrants. I know for a Democrat, that's shocking to actually call out the president face-to-face on national television. You have every camera in the world right in front of you, Chuck. Speak up, speak up, that is a perfect time to make your case. So he actually did speak up, but I feel like he didn't do it in the right context. He could have done it right there in front of Trump.

Instead, you know, the weird, awkward body language, you know, he seemed a little timid compared to what we saw from Trump. I mean, Trump's hitting him back aggressively and Schumer didn't in that moment. Later on though, Schumer did have a press conference and he did address Trump's temper tantrum, and here's what he had to say. This Trump shutdown, this temper tantrum that he seems to throw. will not get him his wall, and it'll hurt a lot of people because he will cause a shutdown. If he sticks to his position for a $5 billion wall, he will get no wall, and he will get a shutdown.

The bottom line is very, very simple. And that is, we want border security. We offered him border security. But Americans know that the wall not paid for by Mexico. anymore is not the way to border security. So why didn't he mention the fact that Mexico will not be paying for the wall while he was there in the room with Trump, while the cameras are there, while everyone's watching? That is when you can embarrass the president and point out the fact that he lied to the American

people, that he consistently lies to his base, that this will cost $5 billion in taxpayer money. After we just cut taxes to the point where we're gonna lose $2 trillion over the next 10 years. It is not a fiscally responsible thing to do, and it does not solve the immigration issue. Look, Democrats seem to be celebrating today. They felt that that was a big win in that interaction because Trump looked irrational. So look, it's so easy to win against Donald Trump. Seven out of ten Americans are against them. But no, that's not a win.

Look, they just don't have the strength and the courage to fight back. And that was on ample display there. He waits to the press conference to make his points. Well, a lot less people covered the press conference. We're at least doing our jobs and we gave you that. But everyone covered that conflict in the overlaw, in the White House. That's where you need to speak up. And I mean, look, here's what I, you know, it's easy to say here's what I would have done,

but you know me if you watch the youngsters, you're goddamn right I would have done it. You turn to Donald Trump and you go, you said Mexico. was gonna pay for it. Where's the money, Donald? Where's the money? You said Mexico was gonna pay for it. Where is it? And he can't answer that question, okay?

But Chuck, this is temper tantrum. Somebody's yelling at me. And they think that's a big win. I don't think that's a big win. I think the body language is terrible. And I think that, yes, his base will be ecstatic, Trump's base. Yes, most people already don't like Trump. But if you're a person who's not sure about politics and you're not following any of the

issues, you look at that and you go, you know, that seems a little uncivil. On the other hand, one guy seems to be fighting for folks and the other one doesn't. So I'm not sure it's as big a win as Democrats think it is. Right, and if it is a win, it really, it's only based on whether or not the American people care a lot about funding the government. Now, I think people who are responsible do care about it. They understand the ramifications of not passing a spending bill in time, but is that enough for Trump to be punished.

Like, are there enough people in his base that care enough about it to punish him if he's, you know, taking this pledge of not funding the government over the border wall? No, they don't, they think it's a game, they've never seen the real consequences. And so when Democrats say, oh, no, people will be panic if the government's shut down. No, they won't. I mean, look, the defense contractors or whatever, I mean, like giant people who make a ton of amount, giant companies that make a ton of money off the government, they'll be in a panic. And that's why the corporate Democrats are in a panic.

So you know what I would do? I'd say, okay, Trump said it was his shutdown. Not only after I yell at him in the White House, I do a press conference say, hey, listen, when the government shuts down, I got news for the red states. You're not going to get any Medicaid checks, you're not going to get any food stamp checks, and then we'll find out who actually gets food stamps in Medicaid. I already know, it's largely red state white people that vote for Republicans. So I'm gonna make them cry until they go, oh my God, I'm so, so.

I'm sorry, government, I'm so sorry, I really, really need you. Let me hear you say it, okay? You think Democrats are going to do that? No. Oh, no, no, don't offend the red states, don't defend Republicans. Don't look at Donald Trump, don't look at him in the eye. So yeah, Trump, it's a loss for him because he's a clown and people don't agree with him. But it's a really low bar.

I don't think that was a win for the Democrats at all, at least Democratic leadership. So since we promised you some of the numbers regarding public opinion on this very issue, I want to go to a recent poll that was done by NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Marist. And here's what they found, a graphic 8. By a 21 point margin, 57% to 36%, Americans think the president should compromise on the wall to avoid a government shutdown rather than stand firm. Now that's the overall population, okay? But if you look at Republicans specifically, two-thirds of them agree with Trump.

They do not want him to compromise. They believe that the president should be focused on maintaining his base. So I want to give one more set of numbers. I told you that more than 2 thirds, 69% do not believe building a wall should even be an immediate priority for Congress. Half do not even believe it should ever be a priority. So we clearly have a majority to overwhelming majority on our side. Even if they wanted to build a wall, they're like, don't do it now, we got a lot of bigger

priorities, which is 100% true, only 28% believe said that it should be an immediate priority, but among Republicans that number was 63%. So you understand the dynamic at play. The Republican Party wants Trump to do whatever he needs to do, shut down the government, et cetera, and be a tough guy to fund the border wall. The rest of the country, including independents, do not want it. Only 28% of the country wants that, right? So at the end of the day, Trump is stinging up for his base, and the Democrats, I mean, if they're standing up at all, they're barely standing up and they represent 70% of the country. They should be roaring, they should be in Trump's grill, yelling at him.

He should come out and do a press conference going, oh my God, they were too tough on me. They kept yelling at me. It was a temper tantrum, right? So if you represent 70% of the country, you should act like it. By the way, those are the religious leaders being arrested at the border. Right? Yep. And so religious leaders, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, et cetera, went down to help.

The migrant caravan. The migrant caravan because it's a humanitarian crisis. By the way, Donald Trump at one point in his tweet said the southern border is now secure because of me. Then why do you need the wall? I mean, that's what Schumer did point out in the middle of that argument, because first he starts talking about how terrible border security is, we're in a lot of trouble, and And then he pivots to how great border security is.

He's doing a great job with immigration. So again, Trump, even within the same meeting, same press conference, same appearance will go back and forth based on what's convenient for him and what's best for him and the argument he's trying to make at that given moment. It's crazy. Bottom line is, everyone else in the media will tell you that that was a home run for the Democrats as good as it gets. The second part is true.

Unfortunately, with Democratic leadership, this is as good as it gets. But overall, if Trump did any damage, it was him doing damage to himself. I don't think the Democrats effectively fought back at all. Just send in a fighter. Send in Accio Cortez and maybe she could do the job right for you guys. You know what she would have said, where's the money from Mexico, Donald? And if the- because Schumer says, well, you said that it was secure. No, no, no, no, no, no.

Answer the question, Donald. Answer the question. You just said it was secure, so why do you need to waste $5 million? Is it secure or is it not secure? It's not secure enough? Well, I guess you didn't do your job, right, Donald? Answer the question, but Democrats. So I guess we'll take, they cleared the lowest bar in history.

Congratulations, Schumer and Pelosi. We gotta take a break. When we come back, Fox News tries to spread conspiracies about immigration, and someone on their Their panel actually held them accountable. Yeah, that was weird. Wait till you get a load of this upside down in Fox News. And I'll tell you the Fox News personality and host that I'm most disappointed by. Anyway, we'll get to it when we come back.

All right, back on a young Turks. Let me read some Amplify name for you guys. These guys all gave 150 bucks. That means that's three journalism students across the country per donnie, if you will. will, or donor, I should say, that will get Young Turks membership. They're going to accuse us of giving information to students. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-E-NF-E-NFTR. 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 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 my word for it, the New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational,

aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. Cross country, and that is going to be a correct charge. So t.wit.com slash Amplified to participate.

Zarin Faroz, Matthew Nell, Eric Tedders, Christina Ferris, Justin Fiorelli, Jeremy Selenti, Just Dietz all given $150 and you all get an amplified t-shirt that is exclusive to this campaign as well. People who give 500 bucks go on the t-yt.com slash, no, sorry, just t-y-t.com. On a roll, people who give a thousand or more, not only give it to the media figures and other people in the news, but they also get on the Young Turks donor wall. We're gonna have a literal donor wall in the studio with your names on it. By the way, apparently one of our members, Jim asked for that specific NPR Amplify program.

So get it before him so that he'll, you go, ha ha. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. What's wrong with you? I'm just messing with you, Jim. Thank you. Thank you for caring enough to ask for that. I only have time for a couple of comments here from the member section.

Chris Duran says, is Donald Trump, whose only actual government experience is with the Kremlin prior to being elected, telling Chuck Schumer what makes for good American border security? Okay, Jess, hashtag IMTYT, I like that handle, says there is no caravan anymore, most have settled in other places and those that did make it to the U.S. got attacked with tear gas. And then lastly, Gabby Marita says, maybe we shouldn't let someone who's gone bankrupt twice as many times as he's been married, I'm sure both high figures, handle figuring out how to fund the government. That's right.

Here's a rule, if you've gone bankrupt six times, perhaps you don't know how to handle a budget. So, okay, lots to get to Anna, what's next? During a recent segment on Fox News, Jason Chaffitz said some things about the immigration debate between Donald Trump and congressional Democrats. And there was actually someone on the panel who not only disagreed but held him accountable for his lies. Take a look. You can't also simultaneously claim that you want to maximize transparency and say, get

out of the room, we don't want to talk anymore. I don't buy that. And I don't buy the Democrats on wanting to secure the border. They wanted to shut down ice. They were encouraging on the caravan. That's not true. It is absolutely 100% true. It is 100% true.

The Democratic caucus, can you let me respond? You were the one that interrupted me. You interrupted a former congressman and he's calling you on it. When he says things that aren't accurate on TV, I'm going to interrupt you. The Democratic caucus does not support it, does not support shutting down ice. Individual members talk about it. The caucus does not. You didn't hear any Republicans talking about that.

The Democratic Party is not supporting the case. That is a conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked online. Do not repeat it for our viewers. I wholeheartedly believe. Well, there's no evidence. There is evidence. You might feel that. There's no evidence.

No evidence. No evidence. None. It's just not true. We disagree on that one. None. We disagree on that one. There are facts, so.

There's no, there's no disagreement about feelings here. There are facts and you don't, you just don't believe in the facts, it's not convenient for you. So who was that? The woman who actually stood up to Jason Chaffetz, Marie Harf is her name. She was actually a senior advisor of strategic communications to the U.S. State Department under the Obama administration. So nice job sneaking out to the Fox News set. So I know that they usually have one out of five who is a progressive or at least a Democrat.

So most of the time they don't say anything or they're generally with, you're all of course completely correct. But can I just say a really weak point so that the audience at home could feel like there was balance? Not in this case, a wonderful job in calling out Jason Chaffetz. I actually think the person who was most guilty in that interaction was not even Chaffitz. Republicans repeating lies is like grass being green. It's the most normal thing in the world.

He's a former Republican congressman. He's a Fox News. Of course he's going to lie. And he got stone cold busted. It's like somebody says, you know, I think a dollar is worth a hundred cents. He goes, agree to disagree. And it's like a Ron Burgundy move, right? But the person who's most guilty, in my opinion, is Harris Faulkner.

Who? She was the host that jumped in there. There was a host? Yes. She said to her fellow host, Marie Harf, Faulkner said, and you saw it on the tape there. You interrupted a former congressman and he's calling you on it. Wow. Oh, God, that's so sad.

First of all, I don't give a damn that he's a former congressman overall. But secondly, he's now a Fox News on-air contributor. He should try to man up and answer a question and not fall back. Hey, I'm going to hire behind Harris. Harris, can you tell them that I'm a former congressman? I'm a former Republican congressman. They shouldn't say anything to me on Fox News. Okay, that's pathetic.

So great job by Marie Harf on actually stating facts on Fox News. I assume they've shut down now. Because, I mean, for the first time they stated a fact on Fox News. So immediate implosion, I assume. You know, sometimes the facts sneak in there, right? Like Judge Napolitano, all of a sudden, actually remaining principled on issues involving Trump and the special counsel's investigation. I mean, every once in a while, a little sneaky sneak, sneak situation happens.

Yeah, and Shep, Smith does a good job, et cetera. So they're amazing, though. The exception proves the rule. So the one time that a Republican was actually called out on Fox News, people were like, whoa, what happened? So great job by Marie Harf. Yes. All right, moving on to some other news, this time about Democrats.

Democrats in Congress are fighting to get Medicare for All passed, and they're very aggressive about it. Now there have been members of Congress who have been there for a while, Representative Jayapal is one example, who are fighting for Medicare for all. But the establishment behind the scenes is working with private interests and lobbyists to defeat them. And Politico did a great job in outlining these people and this story. So according to the report, the private sector interests backed in some cases by key Obama

administration and Hillary Clinton campaign alumni are now focused on beating back plans that would allow people under 65 to buy into Medicare. Now, more than a dozen groups intend to press their point through the partnership for America's healthcare future, a vehicle to combat an expanded government role in healthcare. So this partnership includes the who's who of the private industry. I'm gonna give you the details on what they're gonna do and the Democratic members of Congress who are in favor of them. I'm also to give you some numbers in terms of how much these Democratic members of Congress

are getting funded by private interests. But, Jank, I want you to jump in, I know you love this story. Yeah, I do. So let me read you my favorite quote from the story, but there's a whole bunch. So, a lot of the companies in the healthcare insurance industry say this is outrageous to actually give everybody health care in America. How dare they? How dare they, as Ojeda would say.

So we're gonna fight back and we want incremental change. So then Politico Adam cancerin writing says, that's echoed in democratic circles by strategists fearful of squandering the party's advantage on how. health care and losing the support of industry groups that have proved helpful in recent health care fights. Now, let's break that down. So why would you squander the party's advantage on health care if you support Medicare for all that polls at 70%.

I know they're bad at politics, but for corporate Democrats, 70% is higher than 30%, substantially higher. That's like a really great issue for you guys. So that makes no sense at all. They just, they're corrupt, they want the money, they want the money, that's all they care about. Okay, then secondly, they are, they literally said they're worried about losing the support of industry groups.

Okay, thank you for the admission, I appreciate it. And later in the article, they say, and in the meantime, progressives say they're more concerned about courting voters than winning over big business. Damn right, damn right. But it's stated, and it's, look, it's a good article. and it gives you all the perspectives and stuff. But it's stated as if like that's a new and revolutionary idea. But it is.

Right now, in the current political system that we have and the record corruption that we're seeing in Congress, it's a crazy idea, right? Because members of Congress have ignored the American people. They've ignored their base, their voters, and they've only focused on private interest groups. So yeah, this is like a crazy revolutionary idea for the times we're living in. I totally agree with you. And for Washington, they're like, what, this crazy progressives looking to represent the voters. Now, think about it.

The corporate Democrats and Republicans pretended that they were in favor of the big donors because that would get them the money to appeal to the voters. Because at the end, we're supposed to live in a democracy, right? But now when you say, how about we just go get the voters? They're like, that's crazy. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Wait, but if you already have the voters, what do you need the donors for? Oh, right to get rich.

Yes. So that's why these consultants and lobbyists are like, well, who would pay for my kids' private education? I would have to slum it in public education with your kids. No way. No way, do not attack my lobbyists and donor friends. So I love naming names and we're gonna name some names in a second, but the private industry has realized that the American people overwhelmingly do support a health care plan like

Medicare for all. They do want a single payer system. And so instead of threatening people with money because they know it's not going to work with some of these Democrats, some of these progressives, they're going to start funding disinformation campaigns. So I want to give you guys all the information on that so you can keep a lookout for it. The partnership is planning to launch a campaign featuring ads, polling, and white papers playing up the private sector's role in warning against future disruptions to the health system.

Avalier, a consulting firm Democrats often leaned on to highlight the dangers of GOP repeal bills is producing research for the coalition. So it gives you an idea that they're working with a group that they had been working with in the past to basically spread all sorts of misinformation about programs like Medicare for all. America's health insurance plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association helped found the coalition alongside the Federation of American Hospitals, the big drug lobby pharma, and the American American Medical Association.

Now with that said, who are the bad guys in Congress right now who want to work with this coalition to defeat Medicare for all? Well, one of those people is Representative Richard Neal from Massachusetts, a Democrat, and I want to give you his quote. Let's go to Graphics 16. He says, we want to continue promoting the idea of accessibility and improving the Affordable Care Act. That should be the primary goal we have.

So look, anytime you see a member of Congress, specifically a Democratic member of Congress who wants to fight back against something like Medicare for All, follow the money. And that's what I did. I wanted to see how much Representative Neal receives from the private health insurance industry and from pharmaceutical companies. If you just look at 2017 to 2018, his top contributors came from the private health insurance industry. Of course.

companies. So I want to give you the exact numbers. There you go, private insurance companies. In one year gave him $364,900 in campaign donations. When it came to pharmaceutical companies and health products companies, he received $252,750. Okay, that is called corruption. And so now I will tell you something that you'll never ever hear on television on cable news.

Richard Neal is corrupt. He takes that private money to win his elections, and then he serves those private interests. And by the way, the Democratic leadership is also corrupt because they made Richard Neal the incoming chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. That controls the budget. That is the single most important committee, arguably as important as Speaker of the House. And Nancy Pelosi, she says she's working with progressives. I hear from all the people in Washington that she's a wonderful liberal, put in a deeply corrupt

person to control the budget. Why? Because that's, they live in corruption, they bathe in corruption. So to them, they're like, what do you mean? Of course I took a giant amount of money from the insurance companies. Then I protected the insurance companies. What else would I do? How about you try not being corrupt?

And you say, well, that's not possible. You have to take corporate pack money. Is that true? Not anymore, it isn't. We got seven Justice Democrats who took no corporate pack money, and now they're kicking ass in Congress. In fact, they're kicking your ass, and that's why you don't like it. So the person leading the Medicare for All Caucus is Congresswoman Jayapal, a Justice

Democrat, doesn't take corporate pack money, she doesn't need your money, and all of a sudden she represents the voters. She has for a long time, that's why she was happy to join the group, and you're shocked to chagrined, but I don't understand. You won't take the bribes. How are we supposed to do business? Okay, and now look, someone else that is now not taking corporate PAC money is Elizabeth Warren.

Here's what she said, and I love this quote. Senator from Massachusetts, she says, so the importance of persuading every one of the insiders that is going to be, that this is going to be a great deal for them, has diminished. Right? So in the past, Obama would go around going, are you happy lobbyists? Are you happy consultant? Are you happy corrupt senator, right? And now Elizabeth Warren is saying, why do we have to please the insiders?

Why don't we actually just please the voters? It's amazing what happens when you don't take corporate pack money. Exactly. And I do want to just give you one last quote, and that's from Representative Jayapal because she has been a fighter on this. And I love what she had to say, especially when she found out about how much money is pouring in in these efforts to defeat Medicare for all. She said, quote, we know the insurance companies and the pharma companies are all putting

tens of millions of dollars into trying to defeat us, which I take as a badge of honor, that they're so concerned about a good policy that they're going to put so much money into trying to defeat it. Those are the words of a fighter, and I love it. And my last point is calling out more bad guys, almost all exclusively from Clinton and Obama campaigns and administrations. So Lauren Crawford Shaver was a veteran of the Obama administration's Health and Human Services Department, and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, so you know she's got principles.

She's now, you're gonna be shocked, I hope you're sitting. She's with a lobbying firm called Forbes Tate Partners, and they are looking to make sure you do not get healthcare coverage for every American in a system like Medicare that has 77% popularity. Why? Because it works. Why, she's getting paid by those same corporations to sell them, to sell out the American people. That's what she did inside the Obama administration. That's what she looked forward to doing inside the Hillary Clinton administration.

Now she just like basically took off the mask and she's like, yeah, let's go farmer. Where's the money? Where's the money? I want the money, right? So I'm going to grab the money and then I'm going to do what with it. One, she's going to get paid a lot of money. And other Obama officials like Eric Smith and Obama campaign aid, he's working as a And they're gonna spend a ton of money to try to brainwash you.

They're gonna send their bought politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, and they're gonna do a ton of ads saying, oh, it's gonna cost so much money. And as you know, we pointed out, this article at least has a progressive position in it. But don't get me wrong, the assumptions are almost all from the establishment perspective. It says at some point, hey, look, to be fair, that Medicare for all seems to be a lot rising in popularity. is not rising in popularity. It's stunningly popular, and you should actually put that number in there because it is popular.

But that's a small thing. The larger thing is, it says, well, they haven't dealt yet with the staggering cost of Medicare for all. No, when are you going to stop lying? That's a lie. You aid and abet the corruption of these lobbying firms when you say that. In reality, even according to the Koch funded study, if you do Medicare for all numbers, It saves $2 trillion, but all of the media goes, well, I don't accept that.

I don't, I mean, we can't do Medicare numbers. We can't give hospitals and doctors and companies, our beloved corporations, we can't just give the Medicare rates. So even though the Koch brothers study said yes, it would save $2 trillion, we're going to say it costs $32 trillion. Lye, it's a total lie. And they ate and about that every time. So they will try to repeat that lie a thousand times.

And they will get their boys on mainstream media to repeat that lie. They were already repeating that lie. And that's how they do propaganda. And they will try to take that 70% down, the popularity of Medicare for all. I got bad news for them. We got a 20 point margin. So have that it, Haas, and guess what? We're gonna be on the other side.

And we fight back. And when we do, we are going to defeat you. So I know you're incredibly arrogant, because you have a lot of you have. all the money, and money has made all the difference until now. But we have people inside the house, we have them inside the house, and they're fighters. I'll take seven Justice Democrats over 700 other sellout Democrats, and now they're inside our house, and they're gonna fight for us, and we're gonna get Medicare for all. But look, super last thing, I don't blame these companies for flipping out.

If you're a health insurance and all you've done is been a bureaucratic middleman that robs the American people to the tune of billions, overall, probably trillions of dollars over all these years, and now that gravy train's going to stop and they're going to end the robbery, of course you don't want the cops. The cops look pretty dangerous to you. So you're going to spend as much money as you possibly can to make sure the robbery continues, but we're going to put an end to it. We gotta take a break.

When we come back, women in the GOP are surprised that men don't respect them. We'll give you the details on that and more. That's a real story. By the way, we also have a new podcast that came out today. I want to tell you about it real quick. It's pitchfork economics. I'm only telling you now because it's related to that story. By Nick Hanauer, who is a wonderful progressive.

He sold his company into Microsoft. He could just be one of the bad guys and asked for tax cuts, et cetera. Instead, he fights for all of us. And he even makes a great point to the rest of the rich. He says, look, guys, what are we going to do, build giant moats and castles? No, in fact, the economy does better when we pay higher wages, not lower wages, when there's higher taxes, not lower taxes. It even helps the rich to have a better economy.

So you're gonna love the arguments in Pitchfork Economics. It's in the TYT Network now as a podcast, so definitely check that out. TYT network.com slash podcast to get all of our podcasts, including Anna's, no filter, is growing in popularity, wonderful podcast in our network, and so many others. So Pitchfork Economics launched today, definitely check it out, I think you'll love it. We'll be right back. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent

media, become a member at t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. All right, back on a young turks. Shoutouts for Amplify Program, Ravenfold Olmacher from St. Louis. You're awesome, 150 bucks. You're going to get a T-shirt and a bunch of... At T-YT, we frequently talk about all the ways of... 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 cyber criminals.

And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your device. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by C-N-Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash T-Y-T, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's EX-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. The journalism student service, TYTYT membership. Michelle Rollison from Miami.

Thank you, Michelle. Matt Hippie Welsh from Massachusetts. Love it. 150 bucks. 1-0 from Toronto, 150. And you guys are all going to get the T-shirt as well. I love that Amplified T-shirt that's out there now. And of course, there's some good folks on that program that you can get for $1,000

bucks to get them in the media membership. In fact, Sean King on YouTube super chat has an idea about that. He writes in, this is, by the way, another Sean King. Three quick items, he says you guys should totally put Bill Maher and his crew on Amplify. That's a funny thought, maybe we should, for the first time they could hear us. Number two, you guys should have David Pacman on as a guest host. He used to be part of the network, good guy, you should check him out. Number three, what have the progressives who think there is no collusion been saying recently?

It's a good question. I don't know, but I'm not in that camp. So now, some member comments real quick. So many good ones. Ethan says, I wish they would just say pull the money from your $800 billion military budget or from your tax cuts and you have your wall. That's a good point. The tax cuts cost $1.9 trillion.

Why don't you just take $5 billion out of the $1,900 billion that you gave to the rich and fund your goddamn wall? But of course, Chuck Schumer's not going to say that. Megan says, I get kind of, I kind of get tired of giving Fox credit for not being lie, credit for not being liars 100% of the time. Right? No, no. But we're not, just be, we're not giving Fox credit.

We're giving Marie Harv credit and we're highlighting that story specifically because of how rare it is for anyone to speak the truth on that network. Yes. Shihara says, I can't wait for the day, we take legal bribery out of our government. Here, here, sister. So wolf-dash pack.com slash join, okay? That's how you're going to get it out. By the way, I've been talking to the Wolfpack guys a lot recently.

And all of a sudden, we're surging in a number of states, both blue and red states. So join now. You'll be part of that movement when it wins on several states this year. I think it's going to be a super exciting year. We've beat back the Democratic establishment in a lot of those states. So how we did that is a good postgame discussion. TY.t.com slash jank to become a member. We'll tell you all about it.

But anyway, make sure you're supporting Wolfpack. And of course, again, thank you for participating in tyt.com slash Amplify to get our message out. All right, Anna, what's next? All right. The GOP appears to have a problem with women, or as my dad would say, womans. And it's clear when you look to the number of women represented in Congress. So after the midterms, a lot of women actually lost their bids for re-election. In fact, a GOP, female GOP lawmakers shrank from 23 to only 13.

And so now the remaining women are trying to urge the GOP to pay attention to the fact that they have a problem with women, to do something. and more importantly, to encourage women to run as Republicans, and more importantly, encourage female leadership within the GOP. But that doesn't appear to be happening. So I'll give you some examples. Now, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, I'm sorry, yes, the current House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy didn't want Representative Ann Wagner leading the National Republican

Congressional Committee. The California Republican called Wagner to express his preference for a far less prominent male lawmaker, Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota. Now, Representative Wagner apparently has been a fighter within the GOP. She's raised a lot of money. And, you know, for people who believe in that type of corruption, that is a big deal. And so when you look at her qualifications, there's no reason why she wouldn't or shouldn't get that role.

But Kevin McCarthy's like, nah, I'm thinking about someone who's less qualified. Now, Wagner is about to relaunch a suburban caucus in the House aimed at winning back suburban women by promoting issues like paid family leave and child care tax credits, which sound like progressive policy proposals, maybe she should reconsider her political affiliation, but nonetheless, Jenk jumping. Yeah, so Ann Wagner went around the country and has been doing this for several election cycles, trying to help Republican women win their elections. And not this cycle where they got killed, but in the cycle earlier, she was fairly successful,

got five new women elected into Congress and as Republicans, obviously. So if you're the Republican Party and you care about winning, you would think that that's wonderful, and here's a person who raised money for those folks, increased our majority last time around as all this experience, and the Republican Party, of course, loves corruption. And so they're like, oh, you're raising a lot of money, oh, that's obviously a huge win for them. So why shun her? Well, you just saw those policy positions.

They don't want those things. They don't want paid family leave. They don't want child tax credits. They don't want any of that stuff. They're like, it's annoying to have this woman running around, disagreeing with us. How dare she? In other words, and so it's not complicated. They don't agree with your policy positions.

They could agree on other things. They could be like, oh, man, maybe she hates immigrants too. And maybe she loves selling out to the rich, I'd be shocked. if she didn't, right? And so she probably agrees with them on 90% of stuff, but they're like, you actually want to be decent, the families? No, that's a hard no, thank you, but no thanks. Tom, whoever that guy is, Emma, whatever, you step in.

We can't have that woman with those positions. Go, go. Well, I think it also goes beyond positions. When someone tells you who they are, you should believe them. And the Republican Party in general, through their actions, through their statements, through their policy proposals have shown time and time again that they do not feel that men are equals to women. They don't, they don't, they don't, or equal to women, they don't see it that way.

And so when Republican leadership or Republican men in general tell you over and over again that they see you as a second class citizen, why are you shocked when they treat you as a second class citizen? I mean, you see it all the time and when I bring it up, Republicans get so upset, but just open your eyes and see the way that they treat women. You're supposed to be the submissive woman who stays at home to raise the kids. How many times do we need to hear them say that for you to believe it? But nonetheless, there's another example of how Republican members of Congress have been,

female members of Congress, have been shut down by Republican men. So there's Representative Elise Stefanik, who has been also trying to get women to run in the Republican Party. And she talks about that a little bit in the next video, let's take a look. I am proud, I won by 15 points in my district in a swing district, but I think we need to do some lessons learned and significant assessments of what went wrong, which is why I'm very focused on rebuilding my leadership pack to help women in primaries, help them early on to to help shape the field and shape the types of candidates we have heading into election

day. But it was pretty stark, Rachel, going into the conference meeting after the election and taking a look around and realizing, wow, this is not reflective of the American public. Now Representative Tom Emmer did not agree with her efforts to encourage women to run as Republicans. Emmer told a reporter that Stefanik's idea to help female candidates in primaries was, quote, A mistake. Oops. I mean, how clear do they have to make it for you, right?

And so she then said, I wasn't asking for permission. Yeah. Which is a nice quote from her, but welcome to the Republican Party. And you have to go, and to be fair to Stefanik and some of the other women who are rebelling against the Republican leadership, look, the Democratic leadership has its own corruption problems. And progressives don't get funded either. In fact, they get tremendous funding dumped against them in primaries. But they're the divide is between progressives and corporate Democrats who take corporate money.

In the Republican Party, the divide is a little clearer. Like, no, I don't want you to help other women run for offices as a Republican. So it's a mistake. And yeah, you should ask me for my permission. What do you mean? We're Republicans. And that's why there's almost no Republican women in Congress. Everybody pretends to be shocked and chagrined.

Do you know that about 90% of the women in Congress are Democrats? 90% are Democrats. That is pretty insane. Do we think that that's a coincidence? Like, oh, just hey, they flipped a bunch of coins and look at that, randomly it was 90%. No, because the Democratic Party has positions that are in favor of women. The Republican Party has positions that are definitely against women. I know on TV you can't say that, I would have fed Republican voters.

But the reality is you are against paid family leave, and you lobbied against it in several states this year, that's a fact. You're against taking care of kids and when they're sick, I could go on and on and on. Certainly against women controlling their own bodies, that's a fact. You can say Jesus told me, and that's not true either, but Yahweh, he says, I need to control your uterus, that's fine, but you can't then claim you're pro women because that's saying, Shut up, you don't know what to do with your body. I'm going to tell you what to do with your body.

And then you're surprised that you don't have a lot of women in your party. Wow, shocking. And it's Republicans who have consistently voted against the Violence Against Women Act, and that was simply legislation that would provide extra resources to women who have been victimized by domestic abuse or domestic violence. But, I mean, again, how many more examples do you need? I'll give you one more. So, Republican Representative Diane Black, in the same political.

piece said the following. This is a direct quote. Businessmen sometimes are a little bit cautious about giving women these big checks. She's specifically talking about donors here. If they're married, they say they have to talk to their wife. Black added that she decided to start meeting with couples, which often yield bigger checks. So invite the wife to dinner as you're trying to solicit campaign donations because the Republican male donors don't really respect us, don't want to.

write us the check. Anyway. And there's another element of sexism there that's unacceptable, but welcome to the Republican Party. They have to check with their wives. Why do they have to check with their wives? Because their wives might assume that if they give a female congressman money, that they might be sleeping with them.

That's so sad. That's so, so sad. And that is how Republicans view women. And then they can't figure out why there's almost no women. in their party. We got to take a break. When we come back, Chuck Todd equivocates

in the worst possible way. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members, only bonus content,

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