The Young Turks - Trump Ukraine 'Transcript' Is DAMNING

Episode Date: September 26, 2019

The White House has released the 'transcript' of Trump's call to Ukraine and it's BAD. 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. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five star rating. Thank you.

All right, well, of the Young Turks, Jake, you're at Gusparian. Amazing day, amazing. Okay, the transcript has been released into the world. As I have released Bliss into the world, they have released the transcript. So I want to be clear about something. It is not a transcript. It is a memo of the conversation that took place. It is not verbatim.

Everyone keeps saying transcript and it's driving me crazy. It is not the transcript. Okay. Just, I don't want to feed into that false narrative. Okay. Okay. The memo has been released into the world. I know, but transcript sounds better.

Anyways. I know, and it's also easier to remember it that way, but it's not the actual transcript. All right, we'll get to that explanation in a second. Yeah. But it is damning, ladies and gentlemen, we got a hold. As you'll see in one of the first stories, Democrats have found a way that they could actually snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. How? How? On a day that the president, on a day that the president admitted a crime to the whole world, he clearly, he's got it on paper. This is the crime I have committed. And Pelosi's like, hold my beer. I can still outbungle that.

Listen, even though the individuals who love to criticize us would claim that we haven't focused on this, you and I have focused on Trump's possible financial crimes since the beginning of the Russia investigation. Who would say that? Who would be maniacal enough to say, I don't care about Trump's financial crimes? I'm obsessed with them. No, well, anyway, I don't want to get into that. But what I do want to say is, look, they should totally look into that. We were hoping, I don't know why, like, I'm not, I'm not naive. I knew that there was a giant possibility.

They wouldn't look into all that stuff. But yeah, today kind of confirms it, but we'll get to that story and more later. Okay, so tons to get to, tell your friends, tell your neighbors, tell Randy Gazzal, share the stream right now, tell everybody to tune in, because we're gonna show you the actual, the reality of what happened today. So we'll show you the memo of the conversation that Trump had. We'll break down the potential crimes and the clear crimes. And then we'll talk into, get into the Democratic impeachment strategy, and then Rudy Giuliani

loses his mind on national TV. There's so many amazing parts of this story. Chuck Schumer thinks that that memo, by the way, might have been doctored. So fascinating, unbelievable Twitter. Quist and church, so let's do it right now. All right, the White House has released the notes taken by official White House note takers of the phone call that he had with the Ukrainian president on July 25th. Now, I want to remind you all that that is not the only time Donald Trump allegedly

pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, the Washington Post, and I should note the Wall Street Journal specifically reported that there were as many as eight other occasions where Donald Trump spoke to the Ukrainian president and pressured him to look into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Now with that said, I'm gonna go through the relevant parts of this memo. And before I do so, I wanna be abundantly clear that this is not a verbatim transcript of the conversation that took place. In fact, the memo that was released by the White House today indicates that it is a memorandum

of a telephone conversation and also warns that it is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of situation room duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and or interpretation. I think it's important for everyone to be completely aware of that. Now I'm gonna go through what this memo says and it's damning.

So Chuck Schumer thinks that there's a possibility that there are parts that are edited out. Even so, even if there were parts edited out, what we see today is pretty damning. So I'm gonna start off with what Donald Trump said. I'm sorry, yes, let me start with what Donald Trump said. I will say, this is him speaking to Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time, much more than the European countries are doing, and they should be helping you more than they are.

The United States has been very, very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily, because things are happening that are not good, but the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine. So he's reminding Zelensky, we've been looking out for you, and we have, you know, there's There's military aid. So then Zelensky responds with, let me just give you his response real quick. I'm setting it up. This isn't even the terrible part yet.

I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we're almost ready to buy more javelins from the United States for defense purposes. Okay, so Jank, go. So important context, just a couple days before the call, Trump holds up over 390,000 million dollars in aid to Ukraine. So when he says, now remember, we spent a lot of time and effort on Ukraine. We have been very, very good to Ukraine.

He knows, as Zelensky knows, he didn't get the money as Congress appropriated. And so Zelensky's got to be wondering, where's the money? We were supposed to get it a week ago or a couple days ago, et cetera. So Trump starts the conversation with, remember how good we've been to you. Okay, so now you could say, hey, listen, if the rest of the conversation didn't happen about Biden and the investigations, et cetera, you can say, hey, maybe it's a normal phone call where the president goes, hey, remember, we're good to you, and then hence, you should be good to us diplomatically or through trade agreements, etc., that would be a legitimate conversation. But as you're about to see, what they get into is not military assistance and trade agreements, et cetera. We just go right into corruption with, hey, make sure you go get my political opponent for you. Hence, the setup of remember how good we've been to you is important.

Exactly. So now this is where it starts to get problematic. And the wording here is incredibly important. Trump says to Zelensky, I would like you to do a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I'm gonna read that sentence again because that is a damning sentence. I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine.

They say crowd strike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server, they say Ukraine has it. So let's get into that. First of all, earlier this morning before the memo was released, Chris Christie, a sport of Donald Trump, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, was on Good Morning America, saying, look, it's probably overhyped, I don't think it's going to be that big a deal. You know, if there's a conversation about different things in America and Ukraine cares about, it's okay.

But I mean, if he were to say something like, do us a favor, that would be a different story. And then the memo comes out, and there it is, exactly where Chris Christie would have said, well, that would be a problem, right? And he used that exact language, do us a favor, okay? We've had trouble with this crowd strike and some of the things that we're worried about in America. Now, CrowdStrike is a reference to the people who analyzed who hacked into the DNC emails and the Clinton emails.

Yeah, so let me fill in the blanks on that in just a second, but let me give you the second part of what Trump had to say about CrowdStrike. This is the second part of that statement. There are a lot of things that went on, this whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the attorney general, meaning William Barr, call you or your people, and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. So what is CrowdStrike?

What is this server that Trump is talking about? What is this favor that he's asking for from the Ukrainian president? This has everything to do with the Russia investigation, the Mueller investigation. So CrowdStrike is a security firm that looked into the hacking of the DNC servers. And here's what we found through a little bit of digging. So CrowdStrike is a U.S.-based internet security company that was hired to investigate the hack of the Democratic National Committee servers in 2016. The company determined at the time that two groups affiliated with the Russian government

were responsible for the attack. Now here's where it gets super interesting. CrowdStrike's findings were later corroborated by several other independent cybersecurity firms, Yet Trump has repeatedly sought to cast doubt on the conclusions of these firms, pushing an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that the DNC had hid one of its servers from the FBI, a server that reportedly has information on who was actually responsible for the hack. So when he asked for that favor, understand he's asking for a personal favor related to the Mueller investigation. He has this conspiracy theory in his head in regard to crowd strike. And so he's asking the president of Ukraine to look into this for him. So that's one of the favors he asked for.

A lot of these news reports have to do with the favor he's asking for when it comes to Biden. And that's of course incredibly relevant. But this crowd strike portion of this memo is important because it really does demonstrate that Trump is not looking out for the best interests of America or Americans. These favors are for him. And they relate possibly to his campaign. So there's two different issues here as I've been telling you over the last couple of days.

One is quid pro quo, hey, I'm holding up your military aid unless you do these personal and political favors for me. And the other is asking a foreign country to help you with your campaign. That doesn't require quid pro pro pro and is 100% illegal. You've quit pro quo, you see through the, we've been very good to you and we got more of that coming up. But the second part is just help me on my campaign and you're a foreign country. Already illegal and clearly here we're about to get to Biden. On CrowdStrike, that gets to some of the quid pro quo stuff because he says, now I got

your military aid, it'd be a shame if something happened to it is the implication. And he says, now I need a personal favor because that thing about CrowdStrike and investigating, again, his political opponents, in this case Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, et cetera, It doesn't have anything to do with America's interest. It's not like, hey, that's going to help farmers in Iowa because of the, you know, a deal we have with, but regarding soybeans, it doesn't have anything to do with actual American foreign policy. It is all about Donald Trump and his personal and political interests. Yes.

That is why it is arguably bribery, extortion, and all the things that are literally mentioned in the Constitution that would lead to clear impeachment. So how does Zelensky respond to this request? He says, I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani, that's of course Trump's personal lawyer, just recently, and we're hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine, and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. He also says, I also plan to surround myself with great people, and in addition to that

investigation, I guarantee as president of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly that I can assure you. Trump responds with, I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that. The way they shut your very good prosecutor down, Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man And I would like him to call you, I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. So right there, Trump is specifically talking about the prosecutor who was investigating the oil company, I'm sorry, the gas company that Hunter Biden was working for. Now, there was an international coalition that demanded that that prosecutor get fired, right?

Because there was corruption tied to that prosecutor. So it wasn't Biden alone who asked for that prosecutor to step down or to get fired. There was an international coalition because there were concerns about corruption tied to that prosecutor. So look, Biden and Hunter Biden to me is a separate issue and an interesting issue. But and talking about Trump and his crimes doesn't mean you don't have, you shouldn't talk about Biden. But that is a separate issue, okay? So when we're talking, look at the irony of what Donald Trump is saying here. He's saying, I can't believe Biden interviewed with your earlier prosecutor.

And remember what he just said a couple of sentences ago. He said, now you got people around you and I don't like. So I hear you got the same problem. And then Zelensky assures him, no, no, no, no, no, no, we will have people around me that you will like. In other words, can you believe Biden influenced a previous Ukrainian administration to fire people? And by the way, I want you to fire the people I don't like. And you know who they are. And Zelensky's like, no problem.

No problem. By the way, this doesn't look good for Zelensky. Part of the reason that I think Trump thought that this was a perfect call is because Zelensky is kissing ass 100% of the time. Look, I mean- And I know he's a tough spot. Yeah, and I'm not making excuses for him, but he is in a tough spot. I mean, you need the military aid because you're worried about Russia coming in and annexing other portions of your country, right?

And you're dealing with a child. Exactly, exactly. So Ukraine is in a very vulnerable situation right now, because they're worried. about Russia. In this call, by the way, it began with Donald Trump going after European countries, and he argued that European countries aren't doing enough. And in an effort to be agreeable, Zelensky just said, oh, yeah, yeah, you're absolutely right. They should be doing more.

So he's making, you know, he unwittingly made enemies with European allies as a result of this call, because he doesn't know that this is going to be out in the public soon because Trump is a criminal, let's keep it real. So, all right, let me give you more. So then he continues to say, Trump continues to say, the other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the persecution, prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.

And then Zelensky responds, since we have won the absolute majority in our parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September, he or she will look into the situation specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. So he's referring to crowd strike there. And then Trump says, I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly, he doesn't let that go. Sorry, there's also a possibility that he might be referring to the company that Hunter Biden was on the board of.

So either way, he's saying, don't worry, I'm gonna look into your personal interest, Donald Trump. And then he's, Trump responds by saying, I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly, and He was a very fair prosecutor, so good luck with everything. And then he says this, and this is also relevant. Your economy is going to get better and better, I predict. You have a lot of assets, it's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends.

And then Zelensky says, as to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries. And one of the issues is that it is very important for Ukraine. That is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful on cooperating on energy independence with the United States. We are buying American oil. So here, when you're looking at the quid pro quo issue, when he says, I believe your economy is going to do better now, I predict.

Certainly an implication could arise that, hey, I told you to look into Biden, I told you to look at the crowd strike, you just told me you're going to. I told you to put people in charge that would do my bidding. You just told me you're going to. So now in the beginning I told you, we have been good to you, remember, now at the end, I'm telling you, okay, good, now I predict that good things will happen for your economy. Now, prosecutors have already weighed in all over television and print saying that they have prosecuted people on far more vague, coded language.

So even mob bosses don't go, hey, I would like you to commit a homicide on that gentleman, right? They say, let's make our problem go away, things like that, right? So no jury ever get, almost never do you get, okay, there is Bob, you know, Kerkowski. I want you to go murder him and then make sure you chop up his body. No, it's almost always we need you to take care of that problem. The mob used to say, I have a stone in my shoe, right? Listen, let's just, let's keep it real. I'm going to say this once, and then I never want to address the naysayers again, because it's a waste of time.

They're dishonest actors. If this transcript, this memo of the conversation specifically had Donald Trump say, I'm worried about losing the election to Joe Biden, so I would like you to investigate X, Y, and Z so I can dig up political dirt on my political opponent. otherwise I'm going to withhold this military aid, the naysayers would keep, they'd move the goalposts. That wouldn't be good enough. So I'm not, if you're one of the naysayers, you're not interested in any type of evidence, you don't care about any of this, then don't watch, and I don't want to hear from you, okay? Because you're gonna move the goalposts again, and it's exhausting, it's exhausting to constantly try to reason with people who are unreasonable, period.

Now, now, even if you say, no, I don't care, no way, I don't, there's no such thing his coded language and he's just having a pleasant conversation telling him to investigate his political rival, but he didn't threaten to take away his military aid, he didn't use that exact sentence. Okay, it still doesn't matter, guys. Saying investigate my political opponent is already illegal. That is an in-kind campaign contribution that he's asking for from a foreign government. Completely 100% illegal.

It doesn't have to be quid pro quo. COVID pro quo creates a second crime. The crime of extortion, I'm holding your money, which Congress has already appropriated to you, and I'm not doing it on behalf of the American people, I'm doing it so that I get a political favor or a personal favor. That's a second crime. The first crime here clearly admitted to, on the record, is I want you to look into my political rival Joe Biden, and that's a foreign government, period, it's over, illegal.

If you did that, you would definitely go to prison. If you were running for a local dog catcher and you ask Mexico or Iran or China or Russia for helping your election, you would definitely be prosecuted. And if a prosecutor had this, a memo of the actual conversation you had with them, he'd like, how did I get this lucky? This is an open and shut case. The only question that remains is if they're gonna be able to, you know, impeach them convict him and we get into political theater there is no legal question, he is 100% guilty.

Right, so there's the legal question, which is abundantly clear, and then there's the political question. And much like our justice system, if you have crooked prosecutors or crooked politicians in the case of our, you know, Congress, then you're not going to necessarily get justice. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue justice, right? So I think that that it makes all the sense in the world to pursue this. All the members of the media who think, oh no, we shouldn't be focused on this, we should be focused on Saudi Arabia, we're not idiots. People are able to focus on multiple things simultaneously and cover multiple things simultaneously.

If you message to the President of the United States that he is above the law and he can literally do anything and face no consequences for it, then we do not live in any kind of democracy. We don't have any type of justice, and that's it, then there's really nothing to believe in in America, because the president can do whatever he wants, and everyone else needs to sit back and take it. If Barack Obama had called a foreign leader and asked for dirt on Mitt Romney in 2012, if he would have been impeached within, I don't want to exaggerate, a month maximum two, I mean, the Republicans would have called for impeachment the next day, they would have gotten the vote

to start the impeachment proceedings, immediately the investigations, et cetera. Everyone in the media were in a wild effort to prove that they are not liberally by saying, and by the way, in that case it would be true, would say, yeah, he's obviously guilty, there's no dispute. Every Democrat would run from Obama and would immediately say, no, he's, we're not going to defend that, and it'd be over, it'd be over, I think probably within a month. With Trump, we have a fake debate because Republicans go, nope, nope, I don't see it. Yeah, well, I mean, is it illegal to ask a foreign government?

Yeah, yeah, but he didn't do that. But he did do that. It's right there. Words don't mean what they mean. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Like Anna said, move the goalpost, move the gold post. There's no quid pro quo.

Well, you don't need quote pro quo. Well, so what? I think you need it. So we have, and then the mainstream media is like, he said, she said, no, the headlines should be president, clearly breaks the law, then give the statute, then give his quote, it's over. So there is no legal question, guys, none. He committed that crime. Now the question is, do we live in a country where the president is above the law or not, period?

We got to take a quick break. When we come back, we are going to continue the conversation about how Democrats could bungle this. and we have our first bit of evidence that they are thinking about it. We'll be right back. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-Inging the Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom.

In each episode of Un-F-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational. aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it,

You must not learn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. All right, back on a young Turks, lots to get to. We'll read comments a little bit later in the program. Let's get to two other really important parts of the impeachment story. During a closed door meeting, Nancy Pelosi told members of the Democrats, let me start that again, sorry.

In a closed door meeting, Nancy Pelosi allegedly told Democrats that they should narrow the scope of the impeachment investigation to only focus on Donald Trump's relationship with the Ukrainian president and the alleged promises that were made as a result of their communication. So according to the Washington Post, Pelosi told colleagues that keeping the inquiry narrowly focused on Ukraine or the Ukrainian allegations could help keep the investigation out of the courts, where a slew of investigative matters have been bogged down for months, though she did not rule out ultimately including other episodes in a potential impeachment package. Now, the meeting included multiple members of the House Judiciary Committee,

except for one really important person, the chairman of that committee, Jerry Nadler, which I think is fascinating. Even though no firm decision was made after that meeting, there seemed to be consensus that the best way to go about it would be to narrow the scope of that investigation for political messaging purposes, you know, just to keep things simple and to get the public on their side when it comes to this impeachment. Yeah, so let's talk about what a disastrous choice that would be. And by the way, as that story came out in the press, now others are suggesting that, no,

it'll remain broad and it'll remain in the six to seven committees investigating all the different aspects of Donald Trump. So now without them public, the Democrats publicly saying we're going to narrow it or keep it broad, all we have to go on is these reporting from good sources, five different sources inside that meeting, okay? Now which way should they go, narrow or abroad? Not close, okay? Why would you right out of the gate eliminate all of your other options?

by and implicitly say that they are illegitimate. If you come out and say, we're only going to investigate Donald Trump on Ukraine, he's going to say, God, I'm the luckiest guy in the world. He is. He is the luckiest guy in the world. So why would you preemptively eliminate all other investigations, including on issues that you know he has broken the law, his co-conspirators there, is in prison right now. Michael Cohen is for campaign finance violations for the hush money.

Why would you say even though your co-conspirate is in jail for doing the crime with you, I will not investigate it? You do that when you lead from fear, right? Because they're so concerned about what the political ramifications could be, right? So in their minds, oh, well, we really need to sell this to the public, right? So let's keep it simple and really emphasize that what he did in these conversations with the Ukrainian president is illegal. And look, I get that strategy, but they're making this assumption that that is what would sway

the American public. Because look, yes, it is against the law. It is against the law for the president to ask for these types of favors from a foreign leader. However, is that something that Americans are gonna get riled up about? I don't know. Would they get riled up about financial crimes? Would they get riled up about some campaign finance crime? I mean, I don't know why they're limiting the scope.

But what I do know is that they're already trying to predict what the reaction of the American public is gonna be, and that's how they're basically structuring this entire impeachment. It's a terrible idea, stop leading from fear. If the Republicans were in charge, do you think that they would limit or narrow the scope of any investigation to a Democrat? Preemptively. Come on. For no reason.

Be like, oh, no, I don't know, could you imagine a Republican saying this? I don't know how Democratic voters will react. And I'm scared of it. So let's just try to keep it really simple so Democratic voters don't get mad at us. A Republican would never say that. But by the way, they're right, because that would be a preposterous thing to think or to say. But constantly with Democratic leaders, but what will Trump voters think? What will Republican voters think?

Who gives a damn? Excite your own base, get independence. You're never going to convince Trump voters. You already have overwhelming evidence, and it's, they're incompetence knows no bounds. But guys, this is so bad, I'm worried that it's more than incompetence. Because I mean, this crossed a threshold. If you have, if you're going into a fight and you have 20 different weapons at your disposal, and I don't mean literally, obviously, figuratively, right?

Why would you, and the other guy also has plenty of weapons? Why would you say, you know what, I don't want 27 of them? I'm just gonna take like a spoon and go in there with a spoon. Now look, in the case of the Ukraine, it's not a spoon, they got him, he clearly committed the crime. But okay, think about this, what if your only option is one option, what if something unexpected goes wrong? Oops, you just eliminated all other options, and then Trump will turn around and say, even

Nancy Pelosi said I didn't do the other things, that's why she said I shouldn't be impeached for those things. She said the only thing I should, they should ever consider is Ukraine. By definition, that means she thinks I'm innocent. And then all the Democrats think I'm innocent on everything else. My God, for God's sake, his business ties, how stupid are you? His business ties. His sons have said over and over again, the Russians gave us all of our money.

He said, oh, that's because they really like golf. And they like golf courses. For Deutsche Bank, he almost certainly needed a co-signer on his loan. No financial institution would give him loan after six bankruptcies. All you gotta do is dig a little bit, where the hell is Alan Weisselberg, the chief financial overseer of the Trump organization. He has, he's gotta have all the documents. Call him as a witness, what is wrong with you people?

So look, at the end of the day, I'm hoping, as things stand now, the fight between progressives and Democratic leadership, it looks like we're winning. I don't know, I really don't know. But I don't know either, to be fair enough. Yeah, look, there's a faction of progressives. I don't even know how progressive they really are, because they, constantly. In one case after the next, defend Trump when it comes to impeachment.

They don't even want impeachment. They don't want to pursue it, they don't want to talk about it, they think it's a waste of time, they think that it's okay to allow this guy to act as though he's above the law over and over again. So it's not even as though the progressives are united on this issue. They're not, Jake. They're not. I know, but those folks aren't in Congress, they don't have access to people.

That's a sliver of a sliver on Twitter, okay? So, no, that's insanity to say, well, it's much more important to do Medicare for all, so that's why we shouldn't investigate Trump's lawbreaking. Really? Are we on the precipice of doing Medicare for all? If those were my two options, then I'd be like, wow, that is a really, really hard question. Even Pelosi won't allow vote on Medicare for all, let alone Trump and the Republicans in the Senate. What are you talking about?

It's like what? We're about to do policy? We're not doing any policy. So look, I don't even want to address people that are on a different planet, okay? I don't care if they call themselves on the left. It's not remotely within the scope of understanding here. So in Congress, there's two different factions. One is the progressive faction saying, investigate them with everything we have.

It makes no sense not to. And then there's the corporate Democrats who are like, I don't know, what will Trump voters think? But guys, look, this one is so over the top, like it really got me to question like, do they They not wanna dig because folks are gonna find out things about Democrats? Yes, I think that's part of it. I mean, obviously that's speculation. But the fact that they have shied away from possible financial crimes as aggressively as they

have really makes you wonder, why do they wanna limit the scope of this investigation? I mean, this argument that they wanna keep it simple is a little ridiculous to me. Because I think that there are way more issues out there that Trump is involved in, that the public deserves to know about and he should be held accountable for. The fact that they're avoiding those incredibly important questions makes me worry. And it also makes me worry that Jerry Nadler, who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was not included in this closed door meeting with Nancy Pelosi. Now remember, Nadler is the one who had some tension with Pelosi when it came to the question

of impeachment. He wanted impeachment, he was pressuring her on impeachment, and she was resisting. She resisted that more than she's ever resisted Donald Trump, let's keep it real. And the fact that he wasn't included in this meeting makes me worry. So why doesn't Richard Neal, the head of the House, where he's committee want Donald Trump's taxes? He would not ask for his New York state taxes. What a weird thing, I mean, there's just, it makes no sense at all.

In this case, Pelosi says, well, if we get into other issues, we'll be bogged down on the courts. What are you talking about? You're already investigating those things, and it's already in the courts. There's, like, how would the tax returns issue bring the Ukrainian issue into the courts? It makes no sense at all. She's just saying things that are not only not true, but not logically coherent. So that's what makes me wonder, like, what is going on here? What are you guys trying to hide?

Why do you not want to look into Trump's businesses under any and all circumstances, under the most obvious circumstances? And I don't pretend to know why. I just know that the idea of limiting this impeachment is one, totally insane, two, the only way you could possibly lose to Donald Trump, I can't believe they're considering it. And three, it's so obviously wrong that it makes me question their intentions. I mean, it is just bizarre that you would say, no, that's a guy who we think has broken a lot of laws is from the other party has a weak say all the time has brought us to the edge of

fascism, but yet I am going to unilaterally disarm on every other issue. It's weird, yeah. It's inexplicable. If you're gonna do it, you need to go full force. You can't limit yourself preemptively, you can't go about it, you know, pussyfooting around various issues that I think are super relevant to an impeachment inquiry. All right, well, with that said, let's go to statements from Donald Trump. Earlier, Donald Trump had a press conference alongside the president of Ukraine, Vladimir

Zelensky. Now, there was an interesting exchange that took place. A reporter asked Zelensky a question, and take a look at his answer. Mr. Zelensky, have you felt any pressure from President Trump to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden? I think you read everything. So I think you read text. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be involved

to democratic, open elections, elections of USA. No, you heard that we had, I think, good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things, and I, so I think, and you are ready that nobody pushed me. Yes. In other words, no pressure. Mr. President, Trump, because you know what, there was no pressure. And you know there was, and by the way, you know there was no pressure.

All you have to do is see it what went on on the call. But you know that. But you could ask the question, and I appreciate the answer. So look, we're about to go to something that I think is relevant to what Zelensky actually feels. But keep in mind that he's sitting next to the president of the United States. There's a giant imbalance of power there because you have the leader of this country who gets to make decisions about whether or not you get your military aid or you get your foreign aid or you get any help when it comes to fending off Russia, which clearly wants to annex other portions of your own country. Right? Yeah.

So there's that imbalance of power. He very clearly doesn't want to answer the question, he's fumbling and bumbling, and then you have Donald Trump like staring at him as he's, you know, trying to get his weasel his way out of answering it. Even so, I thought it was very clear. They're like, did he pressure you? And he didn't say no. He said, well, I don't want to get involved in US elections and it was a good call.

He didn't say he didn't pressure me. I'm sorry Trump comes in and goes, in other words, no pressure. No, those are completely other words, not the words he said. And so look guys, this whole thing that Trump is hanging his hat on, that hey, I didn't pressure him, I didn't mention the money that I was holding back. He was holding back the money. He used coded language, but none of that matters. And Trump is not bright enough to understand just asking him to investigate Biden already

violates the law. I'm gonna show you the law that I'm talking about, okay, this is 52 U.S. Code 30121. It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit. This is not two. You see, number one is for foreign countries to give us money for our campaigns. But if you go down to number two, it shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph A or B or paragraph 1 from a foreign national. And A and B explains a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation in connection with a federal, state, or local election.

So very clearly there, in 2A, it is unlawful to solicit, to ask for a foreign country to help you in your election. Period. You know what unlawful means? It means illegal. So this whole conversation of, yeah, but did I threaten to keep the money or not is important for a second crime. But for the first crime of simply asking them to investigate your political opponents already illegal.

So in other words, there was no pressure, it doesn't matter. You solicited help from a foreign government in your election. You belong in prison. Now, over the weekend, Chris Murphy had an interview that was super relevant. We talked about it a little bit yesterday, but I want to remind you of what he had to say following his conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. Take a look. I went to Kiev in part because I had heard these concerns from my friends there that

the government in Zelensky personally was really worried about these overtures he was getting, in particular from Rudy Giuliani. And he didn't understand whether this was an official government position, these requests to investigate the former vice president. So I went there to make it clear to him that the worst thing that he could do for the U.S.-Ukraine relationship was to get involved in an election here in the United States. I will say what was interesting to me was that he dispensed with the diplomatic protocols of that meeting. As soon as we sat down at the table in the presidential palace, he asked us what was going on with the aid. Why was it being withheld? He seemed very concerned and I think out of sorts about it.

And then later in the meeting, I raised with him these overtures from the Trump campaign. He gave me a very strong answer. He said they had no intention to get involved in an American election, that they knew what damage it would do to them. And I left that meeting fairly confident that he understood. So we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the aid was withheld. Donald Trump spoke to his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and told him to withhold that funding. And when there were questions about why that funding was being withheld, there were no straight

answers given. So that why, why were, why was that funding withheld? It's very questionable. It was appropriated by Congress, there was no reason to withhold it. And then in response to what Murphy had said today during Donald Trump's solo press conference, he just put out a completely baseless claim about Murphy. Take a look. They got almost no attention.

But in May, CNN reported that Senators Robert Menendez, Richard Durbin, and Patrick Leahy, wrote a letter to Ukraine's prosecutor general expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. And that if they didn't do the right thing, they wouldn't get any assistance. See, doesn't that sound familiar? Doesn't that sound familiar? And Chris Murphy, who I've been dealing with on guns, you know, so nice.

He's always, oh, no, we want to work it out. We want to work it out. But they're too busy wasting their time on the witch hunt. So Senator Chris Murphy literally threatened the president of Ukraine that if he doesn't do things right, they won't have Democrat support. So he's alleging that Chris Murphy threatened the president of Ukraine. No, what he explained to him after being asked is you should not be involved in U.S. elections. If he said, if you know what's good for you, you support the Democrats, okay, you give me dirt

on Trump, that would be threatening them. Oh, right, kind of like Trump did with the Ukrainians. It is not the same thing to say get involved in our elections and don't get involved in our elections. Everyone except the child that is Donald Trump and all of his followers understand that. So, and this goes to the point of like people saying, oh, see, Trump wants to work on policy, but it's because Chris Murphy's being mean to him that he doesn't. Really?

Donald Trump wants to work on gun control with Chris Murphy? Well, he said he was gonna do federal background checks and then he talked to the NRA and he said, oh, they don't want it and they're big supporters of mine. In other words, he just blurt it out, yeah, they take money from them, so I'm not gonna do it. He's not working on any policy. The only thing he's obsessed with, he's out of call with Ukraine. If I was president, I'd be like, I would have so many questions for the Ukrainian president, what are we gonna do about the Russians, what's going on in Crimea, what's going on in

Eastern Ukraine, and get into this conversation about, and then there's trade issues, et cetera. We read, we now we've all read the five-page memo on what happened in the call. Almost none of that, there was one small reference to European allies not giving as much money as we give. But it was all in the context of we've been good to you, now help me out with Biden and crowd strike, okay, do me a favor, right? And then I predict your economy will be good.

That is interfering in our elections, that is asking for it. Zelensky is in a horrible spot. I mean, damned if you do, damned if you don't. And that's why he asked Murphy, according to Murphy, why are they holding up the aid? We were already supposed to get it. And normal course, if you don't know this, is when Congress appropriates the money, they They say, State Department gives this, Pentagon gives that, and if there are other departments, they tell them which departments are giving the aid.

And State Department and Pentagon, we're ready to give the aid over when Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff for Trump, calls them and says, don't give it to Ukraine. And Trump then has a call a couple of days later with Zelensky and says, your economy could be good if you know you were to help me with Biden. And again, even if you don't think it's a threat, it doesn't matter. He is soliciting an in-kind donation from a foreign country. And so by the way, a lot of people are trying to figure out the mystery of why did he release the memo of the call where we can tell what he said, because that admits a crime.

And so that everybody thought since he's going to release it. And he might redacted or- Even if he didn't redacted, they thought, well, maybe what he said wasn't as bad as Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, et cetera, reporting. And they look at it. It's worse. So why did he do it? I'll solve the mystery for you. Because he's not smart.

And by the way, the arrogance also, because his advisors likely told him, Mr. President, don't release that. And he's like, what? I didn't say that I would break his kneecaps, it's fine. Yes, but there's the other crime. No, no, no, I didn't say break kneecaps, I didn't say I don't withhold the $400 million. I'm releasing it. Yes, I swear to you, I swear to you, the main reason is he's not smart.

So he looks, we look at that transcript and go, oh my God, you admitted a crime. He looks at him and goes, what, what? No, I don't see it, no way. You know what, in fact, not to throw a curveball at the control room, but I want to go to A1, this video really highlights what you're talking about, Jank. This is Trump talking about his view of the call with the Ukrainian president. It's the single greatest witch hunt in American history, probably in history, but in American history, it's a disgraceful thing.

The letter was a great letter, meaning the letter revealing the call. The way you had that built up that call, it was going to be the call from hell. It turned out to be a nothing call other than a lot of people said, I never knew you could be so nice. So, no, look, guys, he doesn't get it. He doesn't know what the law is. He doesn't care what the law is, and he won't listen to anyone else. He won't listen to any advisors.

And advisors are so scared of him that he's going to arbitrarily fire him that they don't even tell him, hey, Mr. President, you're admitting to breaking the law. They're all walking on eggshells. You know, one of the reasons why he liked the call and released it? Because throughout the call, Zelensky is being really nice to him. Oh, Mr. President, I am following your lead. You showed me how to fight corruption and drain the swamp. Oh, Mr. President, he's like, well, this is a beautiful call.

This is a perfect call. I can't wait for people to realize how much this guy likes me. Today, he was complaining about, I used to get only good press when I wasn't president. Now I'm getting bad press. Focus, focus, you idiot. This isn't about ratings anymore. This isn't about whether you're getting good press clippings or not. You committed a crime while president.

But he can't see straight. And look, last thing, guys, the rest of the reporters, can't understand them. They keep looking for the secret strategy because they can't comprehend that the president of the United States of America would be that unintelligent. I'm telling you, it's the simplest answer. He's a child and an arrogant, buffoonish child. So it's like getting his hand caught in the cookie jar and go, no, mommy, no, that's my

fingers, not my hand. I got you, right? He really believes it. He really, you think he read the law that I just read you? You think he understands or comprehends that? The whole time when they were saying, hey, you can't work with the Russians for them to give your information. He literally said to one of the reporters very late in the process, he was like, well, what?

Remember when Stephanopoulos was in the White House? He was like, why wouldn't I listen to incriminating information if it was given to by a foreign government? Because it's illegal? Even as he's being investigated, the Mueller investigation is over and they're about to go and testify. He's like, why wouldn't I accept it? Why wouldn't I punch you in the face?

Why wouldn't I commit a robbery? If I committed the robbery, I'd have more money. He's that stupid. We gotta take a break. When we come back, we have a giant mistake made by the White House in addition to all the mistakes that led up to this day. They have accidentally emailed talking points that were meant for Republic. to Democrats.

All right. And one more thing, guys. There's also the story now that the Washington Post reported, Director of National Intelligence, they say threatened to quit. He says not necessarily, but there's a massive disagreement in the White House about whether he should testify about the whistleblower issue. So a lot of developments coming up here, so stay right here. 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 us. 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 devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Y. magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EX, P-R-E-S-S-V-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. 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 yt.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free segment. All right, back on the Young Turks. Let me tell you about a couple of comments here. Read some member comments. First, as always, tyt.com slash join to become a member and participate in the show, basically, and also get all of our content anytime you want.

If you miss any part of this show where we showed in detail how Donald Trump did break the law, if you're a member, you can go back and watch. So t.y.t.com slash join. Okay, Jordan Ruck writes in, I just rolled my eyes at Pelosi so hard, I gave myself a migraine. She's so inept at this, narrow the scope, are you high? And he says, obviously not. Eclectic, Ms. Jelania says, let's see, the Mueller investigation had a really narrow scope. The Kavanaugh investigation had a really narrow scope.

Since those went so incredibly well, let's narrow the scope of the impeachment inquiry. Exactly right. I mean, the Democrats make the same quote-unquote mistake again and again and again. It's almost like they're paid to lose. And I'm the Derpy Dragon says on Twitter and hashtag TYT live to talk to us during the show on Twitter, come on Democrats, let me be happy for one day before royally screw up the impeachment process, narrowly focused investigation, can they suck anymore? And then last one is Jason Almanus, says,

Jake, I feel like I may be the only person in America that understands the level of stupidity you ascribe to Trump, and I agree. People still don't realize how incredibly thoughtless and dumb he truly is. And that's why they keep looking for strategies that don't exist. I want to read one other tweet by Maritime NB. I don't think dismissing people who don't agree with impeachment is the right move. I mean, I get you're upset by extremists, but to call out the pocket of progressives and question how progressive they are because they disagree is also extreme.

So look, my issue is that people just don't have any principles anymore, right? This isn't about, oh, I hate Trump and I want to do anything to get him out, it's about the rule of law and making sure that we don't message to the world and to the president that he's above the law, right? Stop defending Trump, stop defending you. That's the issue, for me, that is the issue, right? That's not a progressive position to defend Trump, it just isn't. Oh, we should be doing policy, what policy?

I've been, we're dying to get the Democrats to actually do progressive policies, let alone the Republicans. But what policy are you talking about? Are we on the precipice of passing any policies? So when you weirdly come in and go, hey, hey, hey, hey, don't impeach Donald Trump. It makes me go, what are you on? Like what's going on with you? What a weird thing to just jump up and say while saying you're a progressive.

It makes no sense at all. I'm not gonna entertain complete irrationality. So let's move forward. Look guys, there's good things coming up. Crystal Ball, by the way, speaking of progressives, is gonna be on the conversation tomorrow. Check that out, okay? That's the third hour of the Young Turks. Third hour is broken up into interviews, as I'll do with Crystal yesterday.

I did with Edward Snowden yesterday, and again, if you're a member, check that out. TYT.com slash join, you can get those any time. And then the last half hour of the Young Turks is, of course, for just members. So check that out as well. This Friday, the power panel is going to be on Zumo, Pluto, Roku, and YouTube TV. It's, of course, also always for our members at t.com slash join. But it will not be live on YouTube as usual. It will be on those platforms.

But look, guys, if you have any of those things, we have 24-hour channels there with all of our shows. So it's a great way of watching us, and the Friday Power Panel will be live only on that. And last thing I want to tell you is ShopT-YT is doing a fall kickoff. It's 20% off of all hoodies on shopty-t.com. As long as you put in the promo code, fall 20, fall 20, and you're going to get 20% off of long sleeves and hoodies for your fall kickoff. All right, a lot more on Trump. The White House accidentally emailed talking points to defend Donald Trump against claims regarding his phone conversations with the Ukrainian president to Democrats.

They meant to send this only to Republican lawmakers, but they accidentally included Democratic lawmakers along with their staffers in this email. Now the message titled, What You Need to Know, President Trump's call with President Zelensky quickly recalled, but not before Democrats took to Twitter to ridicule the White House over the error. One of those Democrats was Representative Brendan Boyle, who said, I would like to thank White House or the White House for sending me their talking points on how best to spin the disastrous Trump Zelensky call in Trump's favor.

However, I will not be using their spin and will instead stick with the truth. But thanks though. And then Bill Pascrell also tweeted about this. He also included screenshots of the email in his tweet. And he said, the Trump White House just accidentally sent our office their talking points for deflecting Trump's treachery. Their complete Orwellian lies and toxic trash. But maybe you'd like to read them to appreciate their corruption.

Hasmat suit possibly required. I like the use of an emoji there. Now I want to give you some of these talking points that were included in this memo. The following the talking points distributed by the White House is the claim that there was no quid pro quo and that what the president actually talked about was entirely proper. That is not true. First of all, the memo of the phone conversation that was released by the White House today did not include quid pro quo, but it was one of eight conversations that Trump had with Zelensky. So whether or not there was any quid pro quo remains to be seen. However, that conversation was not appropriate.

A law was broken in that conversation. Jank, do you want to jump in on that? Yeah, so actually, a number of things there. Remember that the whistleblower said the president made a promise that was inappropriate. So we didn't see that in this memo at all. So it is very possible that that promise is in a different phone call, whether it's with the Ukrainian president or some other world leader. That's why it's so important for the whistleblower to be able to testify or for us to understand

what he's concerned about, which is what the Trump administration is blocking right now. Number two, most prosecutors, certainly the ones that have come and talk to the press over the last 24 hours, say, no, there was a quid pro quo. When you say, hey, we've been very good to you, now you do me a favor, and then at the end, you say, yeah, you know what, I predict your economy will now be good. That's a quid pro quo. But the most important part of this, guys, is the reason they're doing the talking point on quid pro quo is because they want to distract you.

The crime that is indisputable in the phone call is when he solicits the help of a foreign government in his political campaign. That is an independent crime that does not need quid pro quo. That is why the Republican talking point is, hey, distract everybody into talking about the thing that is also true but harder to prove. As opposed to the crime that is, as in law you would say prima facie, it means on its face. As soon as you read it, it's clear that it's a crime. Oh, okay, Columbia Law School.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying. Okay, Mr. Fancy Pants over here. All right, well, let me give you some more talking points from this email. The White House argues that Trump, quote, did not mention Rudy Giuliani or Vice President Biden until after President Zelensky had raised Giuliani first. But the email glosses over the fact that Trump did mention Biden off his own accord. In fact, he's the only one who said the name Biden, Trump is. Trump is.

Yeah, no, I love that talking point because they're like, now remember, he didn't, Trump didn't mention Giuliani or Biden until Zelensky mentioned Giuliani. But wait a minute, Zelensky didn't mention Biden at all. And Trump jumped in with, now remember, we want the dirt on Biden. And why would Zelensky randomly out of nowhere mention Giuliani, unless there were conversations about him working with Giuliani? And besides which, Trump hadn't said the word Giuliani. But he had brought up the issue of, now we're not happy with some of the people around

you, and I want you to start investigating some of the things that we're unhappy about. And then Zelensky says, oh, right, Giuliani came by and started yelling and ranting in rabies, he didn't say that. But he mentions Giuliani at that point, because Trump had already made a reference to him without mentioning his name. So these talking points, see, that's the whole point of talking points, is to distract people from the reality. Yes, exactly.

So this is a how to guide on how to do evasion and alternative reality. And I'm sharing this with you guys because it's important for you to, you know, when you hear all these right wingers on cable news or in the media, use these talking points, you should be able to pinpoint where they're coming from. They're coming directly from the White House. One of the other talking points is immediately deflect and talk about how wrong it is that people within the administration are leaking to the press. I mean, this is a common talking point that we've heard from Republicans throughout various

investigations that Donald Trump has been facing. Oh, it's all about the leaks, these leaks are terrible, I can't believe leaks are happening. No, that's not the issue here, okay? First of all, if there are leaks from within the White House, why can't Trump get his White House under control what's going on? But secondly, don't let anyone focus on the what aboutism or the deflections. The heart of the issue here is that Donald Trump asked a foreign, a leader of a foreign, a leader of foreign country for favors, and that is against the law. Favors in regard to his political

opponent. Now, with that said, let's go to some right-wingers and hear what their ridiculous talking points are, starting with Senator Lindsey Graham. The question that got me going was, did the president of the United States suggest to the Ukraine, I will withhold money unless you go after my political rival? The answer is absolutely not. That's why I wanted the phone call to be released. Before I knew what was in the phone call, I said, it's a privilege matter clearly, but the aura around the phone call was disturbing. Did the president of the United States take money that was going to the Ukraine and threatened to withhold it if he did not get help in his re-election? The answer is no.

So boom, there's one of the talking points right there. It's amazing. You see the talking point, and you see Lindsay Graham apply it. There was no quid pro quo. I mean, I'd be concerned if there was, but well, how about the fact that he solicited an aid in his political campaign? No, there was no quid per quo, that's what the talking point from the White House said. But one of my favorite parts of the story is after they accidentally sent through the

Democrats, the White House says, no, no, you can't use that. We retract it. Oh, you did, did you? Oh, how preposterous. God, Lindsay Graham is such a puppet for anyone in a position of power, right? I mean, it's just, that's what Lindsey Graham is, he's that puppet. It's incredible to me. Like, I mean, talking points, Lindsey Graham, it's right there.

By the way, we, you know, we've been showing you this for, you know, now 17 years. We'll show you, and J.R. Jackson, our producer, does a great job of usually doing compilations where you'll see the same point said time and time and time again on TV by different Republicans. And we'll tell you that there was a talking point that told them to do that. And a lot of times it doesn't come from the White House. It comes from think tanks, or it comes from Alec, it comes from different court chamber of commerce. Basically the donors saying, shut up and say this. And then you'll see them go on TV and all repeat it at the same time.

In this case, they haven't accidentally emailed the actual talking points of the Democrats. So we know beyond a shadow of a doubt. And then you see them with your own eyes doing this buffoonishly. One last thing, when they talk about, oh, the real scandal is the leaks. No, no, the whistleblower didn't leak. He followed the exact right procedure. And he, according to the law, he went to the inspector general, as he's supposed to. The inspector general said, you are right.

It is a matter of urgent concern, and it must be turned over to Congress in seven days. The people who didn't follow the law were the justice department who blocked it and said, no, no, no, no, no, don't follow the law because we don't want that stuff getting out. Yeah, you're right. So you're absolutely right about the whistleblower, but following the whistleblower, of course, there were all these questions about what that complaint was about. And at that point, there were members of Trump's own administration coming forward and anonymously speaking to the press about what was going on with Ukraine.

So, I mean, that sounds like a personal problem, Trump. Sounds like something you can't keep under control. So- Oh, is that mismanagement? Anyway, we gotta take a break, but we'll be right back with more stories. Yeah, when we come back, guys, the story that I promised to you, acting director of national intelligence, Washington Post reporting that Trump told him to not testify about the whistleblower, he objected, and Washington Post says he threatened to resign. So is that true?

What does that imply? What parts of it are confirmed? What parts aren't? That is enormously important, because whatever the whistleblower, said, it seems like it is not what we found out in the conversation with the Ukrainian president. And that conversation is already radioactive, but the whistleblower thing is worse. Jesus, what is it? So let's try to discern that when we come back.

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 yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon