The Young Turks - Trump's Awkward Halloween FAIL

Episode Date: October 31, 2019

What was Trump trying to do here? Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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 podcast 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.

Welcome to the young Turks, later on the program we'll be talking about Republicans saying this and Democrats saying that. There are great injustices, but we will not care. And mainly we will ask, how are you going to pay for that? As you can tell, my outfit is mainstream media anchor. Welcome to Halloween. Yay, happy Halloween. Happy Halloween.

I didn't try it all. Okay. I do mainstream media anchor every year. All right, that's a lot of fun. Okay, we do have Halloween stories for you guys tonight. We're gonna start off with a Halloween story. That did not last as long as I expected it to last. So just a production note, we will do one of the impeachment stories in this segment.

Yeah, and so look, Anna never, so whenever I say something's gonna be quick, Anna never believes me. I thought that was gonna be like at least seven minutes long. No, I told you it was gonna be like 10 to 20 seconds. Anyway, all right, listen guys, later on the program in all seriousness, bad numbers for Donald Trump, which of course I celebrate. Not good. Not good.

Democratic Senator says he might not vote for Bernie Sanders in a presidential election. Definitely not good. And irritating. Yes. So we will have fun, we will have rage, and so in fact it is the young Turks. Okay, Anna. So since it's Halloween, I figured we can start off with a fun Halloween story. And this one, believe it or not, does include the Trump.

So Donald and Melania Trump handed out Halloween candy earlier this week in order to celebrate Halloween, take part in the festivities. And the video you're about to watch explains how Donald Trump not only fails at governing, he fails at Halloweening. Take a look. And we don't know why Melania thought that was a good idea as well. But why? And then Trump laughs, like, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, but they have, they have bags.

Of course they do. You don't put it on top of the kid's head. Has he never handed out Halloween candy before? I mean, I. Was that his way of being playful? Maybe we're being too tough on him. Maybe he wins at Halloween. Okay, so look, he's a widow, okay?

He's a total weirdo, like, if he did, look, guys, this is not a serious story. There's literally, there's literally a billion things he does worse. But while we're having fun, like if he just bounced it on the kid's head a little bit, nothing wrong with that. And then he puts it in the bag, he's having fun. Maybe Melania does the same thing, boring, boring, boing, puts it in the bag, fun. But then they put, I want to watch it again, because then they place it there, like, as if it belongs there. And then when it falls, Trump kind of smirks like, that'll show the kid.

Look at him looking for a hand down. Trigger a treat. I'm Donald Trump. Trick. Right. He takes that pretty literally. Probably has his whole love. Let's take a look at it one last time because it's fun.

Yeah. So it's nothing wrong with being playful in the beginning, right? All right. And the guy is dressed as a minion from Dispicable Me. And by the way, I just realized Spider-Man didn't even get anything. Oh, poor kid. And then Trump's laughing like, that's on the ground. Gotcha.

You, trick. How cute are little kids? They're adorbs. They're just so innocent and they don't know any better. They don't know that he's a monster. Well, they probably thought he just dresses one for Halloween. They're like, mommy, mommy, look at the man dresses an orange buffoon. And she's like, no, no, no, no, he's dressed as a monster.

A little bit different. You know, Trump is really undergoing a witch hunt. He can't do anything right. We're constantly going after him over everything. See, no, no, no, like that would have been clever and I would have given him all the credit in the world. If Melania dresses a witch and kept chasing him around so that it was a witch hunt, okay? If he had the ability to laugh at himself or if he had a sense of humor, yeah, that would

be awesome, except he has none of that. Of course! Later the program, we'll talk about how Melania might not be that big a fan of Donald Trump. And in the post game, speaking of fans, we're gonna talk about how the Washington National fans after they won, do an awesome job of embarrassing Donald Trump. So good, so good. So post game is for the members. TYT.com slash join to become member and check out the last half hour of the Young Turks

every day. That's just for members. So we have one more video to show you. This one features a little girl who seems to be clever. She's scheming for more candy. There, no, no, oh, she caught it. She caught it. Oh, I didn't notice that.

Yeah, she comes back for me. And then she comes back. Oh, she's such a sneaky squirrel. Oh, I love it. Oh my God, that's my new favorite person on earth. She's the only one, like Trump usually scams other people, right? And she's like, oh, you want to scam people? Oh yeah, whoop and oh hey, how you doing?

So good. Okay, she should start a university and a charity. Okay, okay, let's get to the actual news because some big things. things did happen today and there are some updates to the impeachment investigation. So the House officially held a vote to formalize the impeachment process. Now there are some really important aspects to this, even though I think it was a terrible idea for Nancy Pelosi to cave into what Republicans had been demanding. Now Republicans, as we all know, were complaining that all of the testimony was done behind

closed doors, even though that was perfectly legal, even though that was something that John Boehner fought for and accomplished back in 2015 during the Benghazi investigations. Now, they're complaining about process and Nancy Pelosi says, fine, we're gonna hold a formal impeachment vote. This is not the actual impeachment vote, it's just a vote to formalize the process. And the vote did pass 232 to 196 to approve a resolution that sets out rules for an impeachment process. Now, this was split between party lines with two Democrats.

defecting and voting against the impeachment process. Now, practically speaking, the resolution outlines the rights and procedures that will guide the process from here on out, including the public presentation of evidence and how Trump and his legal team will be able to eventually mount a defense. But hold on, here's what really matters, and this is something that I think gets lost in a lot of the reporting. Democrats signaled that despite Republican opposition, they now have enough confidence in the severity of the underlying facts about Trump's dealings with Ukraine to start making their case

for impeachment in public. So these hearings will now be held in public. The Trump administration will have an opportunity to defend itself. But I think the fact that Democrats now see this as severe enough to move forward to the next stage of the impeachment process is incredibly important. So I think the Democrats actually gave the president too much here. But let me clarify a couple things. First of all, Republicans crying all day, all night long about, oh, we don't have a due process.

Like, yeah, I know, you guys were looking to give due process to people in the criminal justice system of all these decades, right? Hilarious. But anyway, most importantly here, let's go over the legal rules and what applies in this particular case. This is not a criminal trial. So it is political in its nature, it is, hey, is the president fit for political office or is he not? on whether either committed crimes or it doesn't even have to be crimes. It could be things that were outrageous and high crimes and misdemeanors originally did not mean

crimes. It meant things that basically deemed him unfit for office because he was taking advantage of his office and using it for personal gain. But in this case, we actually have legal crimes, but this is not a criminal case, it is a political case. So they don't have to follow the legal rules of a criminal case. So due process in that context is totally different, okay. Second of all, there is a trial, again, it's a political trial, but it's not in the House. It's in the Senate.

So the House goes to impeach, then the Senate has a trial. So if Donald Trump is going to get any new process, it should be in the Senate. And he, so I don't think that he's necessarily quoted any quote unquote due process as you would know it in a criminal case in the House impeachment hearings. So it's apples and oranges and doesn't necessarily apply. And then the Trump administration says, oh my God, we have to have our lawyers in every single thing and we've got to cross-examine witnesses, et cetera. And the Democrats give it to them.

And I don't think they should have. Why? Because are Republicans removed from the process? And my God, this is going to be so unfair, because it's just Democrats? No. The Republicans have been involved in the process from day one. in the testimony that was in private, not only did Republicans participate in it, but they had equal time.

And they're gonna continue to have equal time based on their representation in the rest of the proceedings. So when you hear them like cry as if they're not part of the process, that's totally not true. They have been part of the process from day one. So Donald Trump has 197 advocates foaming at the mouth advocates in the house that'll try to shred every witness. So it's not like, oh, poor Donald Trump, will no one defend him? So all these arguments are total and utter horse crap.

Well, here's the thing. These are arguments that were made prior to the House passing this formal impeachment vote. However, the Republicans haven't changed their tune at all. Of course they haven't. I mean, their whole plan is to continue fighting this impeachment investigation tooth and nail, they continue to avoid talking about the substance of this investigation, including the damning testimony that's been given by members of Trump's own administration. But they are, again, focusing on the process.

It's an unfair process, even though, again, for the billionth time, this process is going the way that it is supposed to go. The relevant committees, which consist of both Democrats and Republicans, are doing this the right way. They aren't doing anything unlawful. But nonetheless, even after the vote, you have House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy making ridiculous statements like this. We just had a vote on the floor.

In March of this year, Speaker Pelosi said this about impeachment. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that. path because it divides the country. Today the country just witnessed. The only bipartisan vote on that floor was against. Quite honestly, the vote should have been bipartisan because again, you have damning testimony from now numerous members of Trump's own administration saying that he did engage in a quid pro quo. He did withhold military funding for Ukraine. That was money that was appropriated by Congress, and what he wanted in return was an investigation

into his political rival, Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. But they're the ones that are making this a partisan issue. Republicans will stop at nothing to defend Donald Trump because Republican voters will stop at nothing to support Donald Trump and defend him. So look, Nancy Pelosi is a terrible tactician. Yes, she is. And we don't say that as Monday morning quarterbacks. We told you at the time.

When she made that quote, we said, why would you say that? Why would you say it has to be overwhelming and set this incredibly high bar for no reason when there's already been clear criminality, he's in the other party, why are you weirdly trying to defend him? But the worst part of it is when she said it has to be bipartisan, on what planet would the Republicans in good faith care about the facts and work with you to achieve truth and justice? Exactly.

No, I mean, you'd have to be really the dumbest person on earth that knows nothing about politics. To think that the Republicans were like, oh, Nis, you're right, you guys got him. Man, that is really a quid pro quo. And he really did ask a foreign government. So I, okay, yes, let's make it bipartisan. Do you really believe that? And for all of you kiss asses in the media that always go along with her master legislator

nonsense, did you think that was a master legislator move to say, oh my God, I'm only going to do impeachment if it's bipartisan. And now, of course, she does impeachment because she has to, she got forced into it, because Because he committed his fourth felony, right? And of course the Republicans don't vote for it. So look, this has been going on for the last two decades at least. So when Obama said, oh, no, no, if I win reelection, the fever will break and the Republicans will work with me.

Oh, come on. I mean, it was preposterous. You know what the Republicans suckered Obama into doing? They're like, oh, we want to do a grand bargain. So if you promise to cut Social Security, then maybe we'll, you know, raise taxes on the rich. and, you know, but you have to cut social security in Medicare. So Obama, like a sucker, went out publicly and said, yeah, I might go social security. And the Republican's like, idiot, we're not going to do any of that.

We're never going to raise taxes on the rich. They then use that in political ads against Obama. They said, see, we told you the Democrats want to take away your social security. So, but the Democrats cannot be this stupid. They cannot constantly fall into the same track. It's like Charlie Brown. Oh my gosh, you took the ball away. I couldn't see that coming.

only after a million times. So I ask you guys this too, if you've been watching the Young Turks and you watch national television and you see the Democrats, how come nobody on the Democratic side ever makes the argument that we make, which is there are two crimes here. Soliciting help from a foreign country for your campaign, even without a quid pro quo, is clearly a crime. And then the quid pro quo is a second crime. You never hear them say that.

And then you wonder, they can't make their own case. They oftentimes help the Republicans, full well knowing the Republicans will use it against them. What is wrong with them? My thesis is they are paid to lose, okay? Their donors are the same as the Republican donors, and the donors fund strong Republicans and weak Democrats, so they play good, bad cop on us, so the rich get everything they want. And by the way, what has happened in the Trump administration? What is the only thing that has passed?

Massive, trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich. So I get you there. I don't know if I agree though, that the corruption is what's leading to Democrats being so weak in regard to impeachment. I really think that it has everything to do with how scared they are, that it'll lead to political backlash, even though the polls indicate that the majority of Americans not only support the impeachment investigation, they actually support the removal of Donald Trump.

Democrats have been scarred by, you know, what happened during the Newt Gingrich era. They're just by nature afraid. And I think that's what's pushing them to handle this the way that they are. Yes, but with a huge asterisk. So Ryan Grimm also makes that case, not just the new gingershire, but the Ronald Reagan era. It's in this book, we've got people. It's on our, you can buy it as shop t.com. It's a wonderful, really interesting book that lays out the history of the Democratic Party.

But the asterisks is, yes, they're weak, they're ineffectual, all those things, but why? is not about impeachment, originally the donor money flows to incredibly weak and ineffectual Democrats. And in fact, the weaker you are, the more money they give you. That's why Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, because she has raised half a billion dollars from donors. Donors see her, and they go, wow, and it's not conscious guys, and it's not a conspiracy, it is subconscious, they see her and they go, now this is a person who believes in gay rights,

African American rights, et cetera, I'm a good person, I believe in those things, and my God, On the economic front, she will collapse and give the Republicans everything they want. I know it's, again, it's not a smoke-filled room, guys. It's a group think. The group think that happens all the time. So when they see a weak Democrat like Pelosi or Schumer, they're like, yes, their instincts kick in like, I've got to give that person a ton of money. And then they see killers on the other side, and they're like, yes, I like this guy.

Sometimes they're a different donor, sometimes they're the same donor. But that is what in the long run leads to incredibly ineffectual Democrats who never ever learn their lesson. So here we go in to impeachment with our hands tied behind our back. But overall, Trump is so bad and so stupid and his crime's so public and obvious that I think they're probably not going to be able to help themselves and accidentally win. Well, okay, so the one thing I will say is Republicans never give Democrats an inch, right? They never concede anything, they never make any type of public statement that would even

come close to agreeing with Democrats. And it's because every time Democrats do that, you're right, Republicans will use their statements against them later, right? So in the Kevin McCarthy clip that we showed you earlier, he was referring to statements that Pelosi had made earlier in the year in March before this Ukraine issue even came up. So yeah, some compelling evidence regarding a completely different matter came up in which the president potentially broke the law by asking a foreign country to do an investigation into his political rival for his own political benefit, not for the benefit of the country.

Now I want to go to Devin Nunes, who apparently doesn't have any idea about the glass house he lives in. Take a look. After spending three years trying to manufacture a crime, they can attribute to President Trump. They've come up empty. And now they've decided they don't like the way he talks to foreign leaders. But they have no evidence and no argument to support impeachment. All they have is the unconditional cooperation of the media. What we're seeing among Democrats on the Intelligence Committee down in the skiff right now is like a cult. These are a group of people loyally following their leader as he bounces from one outlandish conspiracy theory to another.

And the media are the cult followers, permanently stationed outside the committee spaces. committee spaces, pretending to take everything seriously because they too support the goal of removing the president. Did he just refer to Democrats as a cult loyally following their leader? From one outlandish conspiracy theory to another. No, no, it's, George Orwell was the most brilliant man that ever lived. I mean, he nailed it. This is, I mean, no one's ever been more right than George Orwell in 1984, the book

1984. He said they would turn the truth on its head, they would turn, they would take things that are real and flip it 100% and then get you to try to believe it. And it works. And it works for 30% of the country, they're like, oh yeah, yeah, Democrats believe in conspiracy theories, man, I can't that pizza parlor filled with child molesters like Tom Hanks, okay, but the Democrats believe in conspiracy theories. And I love Donald Trump, no matter what he does.

Can you believe they follow their dear leader like that? Like, they really believe it. So USC had this panel on tribalism that I was part of. And one of the experts on that panel who's actually studied tribalism and the psychology behind it said something that I think is really important because you could see it being applied by Republicans all the time. If you repeat a lie enough, if you just constantly repeat the same lie over and over again, a certain percentage of people will just start to believe it.

And so in one of the statements that Kevin McCarthy gave right after the vote, he said that there has been no compelling evidence from these hearings that have been taking place. Now, anyone paying attention knows that there has been compelling evidence. Again, there have been a number of Donald Trump's administration members coming out and saying, yes, there was quid pro quo. But even without that, yes, he was asking a foreign country to do an investment. into his political opponent for political gain, that by itself without the quid pro quo, again is a crime, it's against the law.

And so we know what's really going on, but if the Republicans just repeat the same lie over and over again, a certain portion of Americans are just gonna believe it. Yeah, now let's say on a fun note, did you notice Jim Jordan in the background? He's not the only one that does it, but I've never believed in this old school thing of carrying a handkerchief around, blowing your nose into it, especially, on national television and then putting it back in your pocket. I didn't notice that. I wish you hadn't told me that.

But you know what Jim Jordan said? No, it was Nancy Pelosi who did that. Took a good look at that nasty napkin. When he came up to speak, he's like, I cannot believe the Democrats carry around handkerchiefs, blow their nose into it on national TV, and then put it back in their pockets. But first, they get a good look at that snob. All right.

Well, that's an interesting way to end this story, but that's where it's gonna end because we gotta take a break. When we come back, we have some more news, including additional testimony that took place today in the impeachment investigation. It just gets more detailed and more damning for Trump. I gotta say one more thing. You do not wanna miss the Melania Trump, Donald Trump story later, okay? It's, oh my God, when I read it, I was like, no, really?

Come on, I thought, yeah, obviously. Really? No, all right, anyway, that's later the program. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-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 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. All right, back on the Young Turks, let's go to members first, theater goddess to have a convincing mainstream media costume, you need a bad tie. I know, and in previous years I have actually bothered to put on the tie, but this year I was

like, look, it's the eighth time I'm doing the gag, let's just move on with our lives. You should just ask John for one. I'm just kidding, John actually dresses really nice. Johnny Ty, shots fired. But he's the only one who actually wears a tie at work. Yeah, well, bless his heart. Anyway. He's a classic guy.

Yeah, agree to disagree. Okay. Wait, I'm sorry. I guess other people do. There was a moaning sound coming from the control room. All right. Anyways, Roberto was singing along the same lines as we were. Points for the kid that caught the candy that fell right into her bag.

Agreed. Jess wrote it. For what Jenkis shared with us about his daughter, the little girl catching the candy and getting more from Melania, seems like something Joy would do it. Bingo, totally, exactly what I was thinking. I was like, when that little sneaky score went back for the extra candy after she caught the first one, I was like, that's got Joe Yuga written all of it. No, but like, I think what people don't understand is that little girl represents all females, right?

Because we're always underestimated, but we're scheming. I don't know that I would say that about all females. We're scheming. Okay. Anyway, thinking maybe, always thinking. Sure, I mean, potato, potato. Well, that girl was the joy I needed this year but didn't know. I don't know, I'm ruined those memes.

Anyway, let's move on. Jay Hufford with a great point that I'd forgotten, reminds me the time Trump signed a kid's hat and then threw it into the crowd instead of giving it back. He did that, it's true, he did that. He's like, okay, yeah, no problem. He's like, what just happened, okay? And then last one, Nolmkin says, didn't Spider-Man, the one who didn't get any candy at all in that video, didn't Spider-Man there have brown skin? That's true, he did.

So there we are. Anyway, last one. Can you end on a good note? Yeah, I know, that one was a little. Okay, I Am Stock says, you've been hit by, you've been struck by the dumbest criminal. Yes, yes, that was good, that was good. We got it. All right.

Okay, well, we have some more updates on impeachment, so let's get to that. Another Trump official has testified before impeachment investigators. This time, it's an individual who advised Trump specifically on policy pertaining to the European Union and Russia. Now, his name is Tim Morrison, and he actually recently stepped down from his position. Morrison, the top Russia and Europe advisor of President Trump's national security council offered House impeachment investigators the most detailed account to date for how Trump tried to use his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.

Now, one of the important parts of his testimony was he corroborated the testimony of previous officials who spoke before impeachment investigators. He said that he alerted Taylor, meaning Bill Taylor, to a push by Trump and his deputies to withhold both security aid and a White House visit for the Ukrainian president. until Ukraine agreed to investigate the Bidens and interference in the 2016 presidential election. So there it is again the quid pro quo. It keeps coming up again, you keep seeing more and more Trump officials corroborating and

confirming that quid pro quo did in fact take place. Morrison corroborated that he spoke with Taylor at least twice in early September. The first conversation was to alert him that Gordon Sunland, the US ambassador to the European Union, had told the Ukrainians that no US aid would be forthcoming until they announced an investigation into Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that had hired Biden's son Hunter. So I know this all keeps sounding like we're repeating ourselves. There's a lot of repetition in this impeachment investigation. And that's actually a good thing because again, you have one official after the next, after

the next, people who currently work in Trump's administration coming out and talking about the clear quid pro quo that they saw while Trump was trying to carry out this nonsense. Yes, and it's about 28 in a row that have now said, yeah, all the same thing, yep, he did it in the call, they did it in the meetings, they clearly pressured it, it was about Burispa, it was about Biden. Now, if Trump heard that, he'd be like, outrageous, disjanked Ugar guy saying 28, it wasn't 28, only about four people have confirmed that I committed a crime. It's pretty serious.

Okay, in fact, almost everyone that heard it thought it was a crime, but it wasn't 28. Okay, yes. That's true. So look, he's in a world of hurt. Everybody who are coming in to testify is saying the same exact thing, because that's what happened. And then now there's a Republican talking point and they're all desperate. These are, normally the Republicans have a tongue point good enough to trick people, right?

So they'll take the estate tax and they'll go, oh, it's a death tax. I can't believe they're taxing people as they're dying, right? And so now that's- I mean, you could tax me as much as you want after I die. I know, right? Yeah. They're like, they're taxing him twice. No, they're actually not taxing Conrad Hilton, they're taxing Paris Hilton, who's getting the money for the first time.

Anyway, but at least there's some sort of thing you could hang your hat on. These are terrible talking points, they're like, oh, well, it was just one call. No, it was a number of meetings they were all testifying about. So the ambassadors met with the Ukrainian officials, Pence met with the Ukrainian officials, and in almost all the meetings, they all said the same thing, you gotta give us Biden, you gotta give us Biden, otherwise we're not gonna give you the money. Even Judge Napolitano went on Fox News today and he's like, it wasn't just the call. I don't know what the hell they're talking about.

It was a series of meetings and then the call, and all saying the same exact thing, help me in my political campaign, otherwise, I'm not going to give you the money that U.S. Congress has said you should have for our national security purposes. Exactly. So I'm going to read you two other relevant portions of this story. And then I want you to pay close attention to how much they contradict themselves. Because these are statements by Morrison. Both are statements by Morrison, but it's just, I don't follow his logic here.

So Morrison told lawmakers that he spoke with Taylor. Again, this is Bill Taylor. Again, on September 7th, to share a, quote, sinking feeling about a worrisome conversation between Trump and Gordon Sondland, the person said. Morrison said that during that conversation, during that conversation, Trump said he wasn't seeking a quid pro quo, but went on to insist that Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky had to publicly announce that he was opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference.

So apparently during this conversation, Trump was said to have said that there was no quid pro quo taking place, even though the actions were clear quid pro quo. So we'll come back to that in just a second, but here's the part that I don't get. Obviously, Tim Morrison sees the quid pro quo, obviously this is a problem, it is against the law, right? But according to the Washington Post, Morrison said he did not necessarily view the president's demands as improper or illegal, but rather problematic. for U.S. policy and supporting an ally in the region.

No, but it's against the law. Yeah, no, so that's very important there. Morrison's recounting of the facts of the case are very important because he was there. So he confirms what happened. It's the same thing that everybody says they ask for an investigation of Trump's political opponent, otherwise they won't give him the money. Then he adds something that is totally irrelevant. He says, my legal opinion, when no one asked for it is, yeah, let's see.

It looks like a crime, but I don't want to call it a crime. Okay, duly noted, but that doesn't mean anything. We just need to know what actually happened. You told us what happened. Everyone else can tell that that's a crime because it's in the legal books as a crime. So I have a question. It's more of a statement actually now that I think about it. How is it possible, it's a rhetorical question, how is it possible for anyone to serve in the executive branch?

these incredibly important positions in government and not know what is and is not illegal? No, I'm not that surprised by it. Remember, he's already fired anyone that was within a mile of competence. So he's- That's a good point. Right, so he's getting down to people who, like some of these folks, to be fair of them, are decorated veterans that have been working in national security for a while, because that's their career path. Some of them are ambassadors and they've been diplomats for a long time.

But a lot of them, especially at the higher levels, are like his uncle and his cousin and the niece and the dog, because he's just desperately trying to find loyal people. So, and remember, some of the appointments that he made were so comical, they never even went up for a vote. They're like, dude, they're like, that's, but that's your gardener. And he has like a criminal history. I pick the best people. Okay.

Okay, no more of these never Trumpers. And by the way, what I love is that he keeps referring to people. who testify against him as never Trumpers. They're people who like serve in his administration. Who actively said yes, I will serve under Trump. That's a curious person to be a never Trumper. Anyway, last thing on that is that as these guys make the care, damn it, I forgot what I was gonna say. Best people, you have the best memory you'll remember.

I invented memory. All right, I'll do it another story. You get the point, they're full of crap. Yeah, all right, well, we got to move on, and this is a fun story. I like the mix of fun and serious today, and this is a story that's grabbing a lot of attention because of how insane it is. So Donald Trump Jr. just broke the record for the most ironic statement of all time, and he did it while speaking to Sean Hannity.

Let's take a look. Imagine if that was, your name was Hunter Biden, except Hunter. I wish my name was Hunter Biden. I could go abroad, make millions off of my father's presidency. I'd be a really rich guy. It would be incredible. But because my name is Trump, if I took $1.5 from China, not $1.5 billion like Hunter, but $1.5, their heads would explode.

If I took a no-show job for $83,000 a month for a business I knew nothing about, in a language I didn't speak, in a corrupt country like the Ukraine, where my dad says, we're going to withhold billions of taxpayer dollars if you don't get rid of the prosecutor investigating me, the media would end themselves, Sean. They'd have an aneurysm, we'd end the fake news media problem. That's the double standard that we're living under right now. It is very, you know, unfair to the Trump children for not, you know, enjoying the wealth and the fame that Hunter Biden did under his. his vice president father. You know, now Donald Trump Jr.'s roughly 150 to 200 million net worth is from his own father's

company. There's that. Then you have Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump literally serving in the White House as senior advisors, even though they have absolutely no experience in government or in knowledge or logic. But nonetheless, they're there. But there's a lot more I can get to in just a second. I can't, you know, he's taking advantage of his name. That's why I work at Trump Organization.

Hey Don, what's your name? Donald Trump, Jr. Where did you get all of your money from working for my dad? So now Anna's going to give you details on how he actually literally went abroad to get money just like he's claiming from Hunter Biden. But I also have to point out that two fun things in that clip. is if I took $1.5, who says $1.5? What is that? It's not a thing. And then did you notice they were playing him out? They started like, oh yeah, yeah. They're like, get off and get off and

get off it. This is too dumb even for us. Get off and get off and get off. He's like, can you imagine if I took advantage of my name like it was like my dad's name? His name is literally his dad's name. Like play him out, play him out. He's on. Get the cue the orchestra. Why does he think he's on television? Like, does he think he's on television because of like the riveting conversations that he engages in? Is he on television because he's good looking? Is he on television because he's entertaining? Well, sometimes.

I mean, it's sometimes very fun to watch a train wreck. But nonetheless, like, does he think for a second anyone would give him a moment of airtime if he were Joe Schmo? No, he's Donald Trump Jr. That's literally his name. And he has profited off of that quite a bit. Trump Jr. and his younger brother, Eric Trump, both run the Trump organization. They hold the titles Executive Vice President of Development and Acquisitions and frequently

travel abroad to set up branding deals so hotel, resort, and condominium buildings can use the Trump name for marketing purposes. So they literally profit off the Trump name. That's the whole point of the business. Also, additionally, the Trump organization builds its own properties over. overseas. Oh, that's interesting, including a $1 billion deal in 2018 for an expansion of Trump luxury apartment complexes in India.

So like the Trump family is raking it in, raking it in while Trump is president. And they don't care, they live in that glass house and they're like, stone, stones everywhere. We're gonna throw them, we're gonna throw those damn stones. It's incredible to me. Okay, I like the note for the record that nobody throws a stone like this. I don't know, I don't go around throwing stones, I know about my glass house. Okay, I'd also like to note that one billion dollars that they made in India or the deal that was worth a billion dollars is slightly more than $1.5.

And guys, if you're wondering why we keep emphasizing they're making money off the name of Trump is because Trump is maniacally bad at business, so no one ever loans of money to actually build anything anymore, he's gone bankrupt six times. And so, but what they do do is they think it's good for marketing. So they pay him for the name Trump on a building that they built, right? And that they manage and maintain. So they're, I mean, there's literally never been anything more ironic than Donald Trump Jr. saying, can you imagine profiting off your name or off your dad's name?

It's exactly what he does for a living, exactly. But we're not even done yet. I mean, as you guys all know, JR puts together the best compilation. videos. The best. The best. And we have an example of that right now. The Chinese government has given a preliminary green light to Ivanka Trump's company for five more trademarks. Online records show the Chinese government awarded Ivanka Trump's brand seven new trademarks. Trump struggles selling her wares in the U.S. overseas China has approved 13

trademarks for the first daughter. The news comes just days after President Trump told Congress The administration had reached a deal with China to revive telecom giant ZTE. Critics say the timing of the move and the trademarks raise questions about potential ethical violations. Seven days prior to President Trump coming out and saying that he was going to allow telecommunications companies ZTE do business in the U.S. The Chinese government awarded Ivanka Trump seven new trademarks to cash in on her name, Ivanka Trump. Meanwhile, Trump is locked in negotiations with China. over saving cell phone maker ZTE from financial ruin. The applications for all of them were filed in 2016 and 2017.

Foreign governments believe that if they, you do favors for the president's children that serve the president's business interests outside of the government, that it'll do, it'll serve their foreign interests. And this is a pattern that we've seen time and time again. So Donald Trump over and over again has used the office of the president to enrich himself, to enrich his family, to make foreign policy decisions based on their own self-interest. And that alone would have been enough for an impeachment investigation. But they never touch him, and I'm talking about Democrats, they never touch him when it comes

to those types of financial crimes. You know, it is interesting that the thing that really did persuade Pelosi to act was when Trump went after someone, went after his political rival, an establishment Democrat Joe Biden. 100%. It's amazing. Yeah, and Donald Trump assumes corruption in regards to Biden and his son, because he's doing projection.

He's like, well, I would and do do corruption on behalf of my kids all the time. So I assume Biden did it as well, and that's partly what led to this. But let's end on further fun, because of course, Twitter went nuts over Don Jr. You're saying that stuff. And he said that he, oh man, I'd like to be Hunter Biden, so a lot of people filled in the blank of why. One person said, because your dad actually would care about you then, right? And then another one said, because then you'd have a chin. I know, I saw that. I was going to share that with the audience, but I was like, I don't know, is that too lowbrow? When they go low, we kneecap

them. But you know, the one thing I will say about his appearance is if you pay close attention to the way he speaks, like the movements of his mouth, for lack of a better way of phrasing it, he does speak just like Donald Trump. Really? He's got like the underbite going on. He does move his lips way more than they need to be moved while speaking. I think he looks nothing like Donald Trump. You see too much tongue while he speaks.

So I thought it was a bit on the nose for his wife to name him after him when he looks nothing like him, which made me pause, but he is just as dumb as his dad. So that proves they really, the apple has not fallen far from the tree. Yep. Genetics, it's powerful. All right, so we're going to take a break. When we come back, we'll switch gears and talk a little bit about how Twitter is taking a different approach compared to Facebook when it comes to political ads. And then later on, we will share our disdain for Joe Manchin.

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 our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install.

A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EXPRE S-SvPN.com slash TYT.

T.Y.T. 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 TYT.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free segment. Hey guys, welcome back to TYT. Bring it in. Bring it in. And I have some announcements for you before Jake does some live reads, not live reads, TYT lives. So, Friday. power panels are a little different these days. If you are not a member, you can watch on various platforms including Pluto TV, Zumo, the Roku channel, and YouTube TV. For our members, if you watch live, you can also watch on those various platforms. You can also check out the

show later in the members' pod. I'm sorry, the members' archives. And if you want to become a member, just go to t.t.com slash join. But for TYT members, you can also watch at tyt.com slash For everyone else, again, there's Pluto TV, Zumo, the Roku channel, and YouTube TV. ShopTYT is having a sale, which is awesome because it's Halloween. So if you go to TYT, if you go to shoptyt.com today, you get 15% off long sleeves and hoodies for a limited time. All you need to do is use the promo code Spooky 15 at checkout. And then happy half hour is going to air a new episode tomorrow. Our very own J.R. Jackson is going to be on Brett's show. Happy half hour, and you can check it out tomorrow at 7 p.m. Pacific time. Don't miss it. For our members, of course, you can check it out whenever you want. And then finally, the TYT Revolution Rally is coming to Atlanta, Georgia. So the debates are going to happen in Atlanta, Georgia as well. But on November 20th, the TYT rally will take place. Just go to tYT.com slash rally for more information.

And Mayor Ted Terry is going to join us, and he's running for Georgia's Senate seat, and he's really strong progressive. So check that out as well. All right, so I'll go in reverse order here. Joy on Twitter, Joya Jenaluski writes in, Jake, is there a way to sign up for a TYT family plan where it can pay a little extra to have people use my login to watch all the content? If not, will it be something they can be done in the future? That does not exist yet, but I love that you're suggesting it. I'll talk to the product guys about it and see what we can do. So, meanwhile, obviously, t.com slash join for any new account.

Tim Joyce says, did anyone else notice that Don Jr. just admitted he's not a really rich guy. Six bankruptcies might not leave much. That's right. I mean, what happened? I thought you guys had $10 billion. Now you're like, oh, I wish I was Hunter Biden making $83,000 a year. What? Yeah, I'd be curious to see what they're worth is after Trump's gone, because they've been raking it in while Trump's president.

Yeah, I'd be curious to see all their finances. Anyway, Seth says, Trump Jr. is part of the DIRP state. Come on, that's funny, Seth. Nice job, Seth. How did we not think of that before? I know, maybe we should make some shirts. All right, speaking of shirts, get Seth's shirt. I forget how to do it.

I just hesitate every time. But good tweets, good comments, every once in all I'll get you the most random shirt. Go on shop t.com, Seth, and find the one you like and somehow we'll get it. To you. Anyways, all right, let's keep going. And okay, congressional baseball fans says the Trump administration has been a wild ride folks. We've gone from very cool, very legal to very quid pro, very quo pro.

Okay, and the reason I read that to you, because it reminded what I was going to say, Trump thinks if you don't actually use the words crit pro crow, it's not a crime. Right. Like he's so unbelievable. Like, okay, now, I don't want you to do an armed robbery. I want you to go into a bank with a gun, put it to their head, take all the money out that isn't yours, and walk out. But it is not an armed robbery. Perfect call. Okay, he really, God, okay.

And along those lines, Katie Nicole 87 says, sometimes you think Trump is the dumbest person on earth. And then junior comes and says, hold my beer. Yeah, totally, totally. Casparian-friendly ghost says, oh my God, and I slayed the impression. So that's nice. For you, and then last one, Viscuus Cree says, Howard Donald Trump Jr. and Megan McCain not married to each other. Nobody complains about the privileged they themselves enjoy more than the conservative trust fund snobs.

It's so true. It's so true. Great point, Viscuous. Yeah. All right. We got more stories. Let's do it. Switching gears, let's talk a little bit about social media and political advertising.

So Twitter is banning all political advertising in a move that really does differ from Facebook's approach on the very same topic. In fact, this was an announcement that Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, made just yesterday via Twitter. We've made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized. and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money. Now, what I particularly enjoyed about Dorsey's statement was the not so subtle jab

toward Facebook's decision to allow for disinformation in political ads. They will not be censoring or taking down political ads that straight up lie about opponents. So here's what Dorsey says about that. It's not credible for us to say we're working hard to stop. people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, but if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad, well, they can say whatever they want. So I wanna make a couple of distinctions here and I'm gonna respectfully dissent from, well,

what a lot of progressives are thinking honestly. So first of all, I think Twitter should do political ads. So that is different than allowing lies in political acts, two different things, okay? So why should Twitter allow political ads? Because a lot of the upstart candidates, including a lot of progressive candidates, they don't have money for TV ads, and nor are TV ads that effective. That is the tool that the corporate Democrats use because they have a ton of money from their corporate friends and their big donors.

So the clean candidates have less money and they need social media to run those ads. So I think Facebook and Twitter should have political ads, but I get obviously that you could do some degree of fact checking on those. No, so okay, let me make a distinction because I was curious about how this was gonna work. So this is all about ad buys, right? So on Twitter you can do ad buys, you can do ad buys on Facebook. Now, in this case, if you have put together a political ad and you just share it on the platform, you don't do an ad buy, you're still able to do that.

There's nothing stopping you from doing that. I know, but advertising is how you get it to more people. Sure, that's true. And it's much more cost effective online than it is on television or radio or traditional media. I mean, if you do it in a newspaper, you might as well burn your money. So I don't like this unilateral discernment that's happening in that sense. And so a lot of the establishment is putting the pressure on here. I think, look, there's progressive voices that are chiming in like AOC as well.

I just don't happen to agree. And so if there's a tiny amount of political ads on Twitter, it's only a million dollars. And I'm actually shocked that that's all there is. I mean, there should be a lot more political ads if you ask me on Twitter. But they're apparently wasn't, so they're not giving up that much money. Right, they're not giving up that much money. And I'm glad you brought that up because Facebook stands to lose a lot more money if they were to ban political ads.

So I really don't question that the financial component of this is what pushes for the decisions that these two CEOs have made. But nonetheless, look, I hear you. I would much rather have political ads on these platforms if they were done correctly, if they were monitored correctly. But here's the thing, I just don't trust them to do the job correctly. I just don't. I mean, they have failed over and over again when it comes to fake news, the spread of disinformation.

You know, various bad actors exploiting these social, social, digital platforms, I should say, digital platforms for their own nefarious reasons, they've done a terrible job in policing that. And I don't think that they're going to do a great job in monitoring political ads, which is why I think Facebook is like, whatever, we're just not going to deal with it at all. But even if you ban the political ads, it's not going to get rid of disinformation. They're going to, and it's not just Russians, it's much more so domestic, forces that do these disinformation tactics on Facebook and social media. By the way, it's not just Republicans either.

Democratic super PACs do it in primaries against progressives. So I get it, I understand all those things. But I would ask them to spend a lot more time and energy instead of just banning things wholesale to try to figure out the disinformation campaigns. So in the political ads, I'm also going to be more understanding than the average bear, I guess, on that too. So for example, everybody's using the example of Trump's ads saying that Biden's held a billion dollars in aid in order to make sure that Hunter Biden's company was not investigated

in Ukraine. It's just a flat out lie. It is, on the other hand, Hunter Biden did make a lot of money from that company, and Joe Biden did control a billion dollars in funding. He did not hold it up. That is absolutely critical. It's a lie, Jank. Yeah.

It's a lie. But it does get tough as to where you tell the other folks to draw the line. Can they mention the billion dollars? Can they mention the $50,000 that Hunter Biden got per month, et cetera? So this is not an easy task for social media. It's not an easy task. So we have two pretty terrible options. It's either the Facebook model, which I think is terrible, and it spreads disinformation and

it smears people unfairly, right? And also keep in mind, look, we're dealing with two completely different, different, you political parties, and I'm not just talking about policies or ideology, I'm just talking about character, right? So on the right, you have people who will stop at nothing to smear the other side, to lie about the other side, to put out pure propaganda, false information about that opponent, just so they can get the upper hand and they can win. Whereas Democrats, you know, they're known for playing paddy cakes, as Jank would say.

So they don't play as dirty, sure, are there some establishment Democrats that are vicious toward progressives, yes, but in the grand scheme of things, if you compare the two parties, Republicans take advantage of disinformation campaigns way more than Democrats do, and they're far more effective at it. So I hate the Facebook model, I don't love the Twitter model of banning it outright, but if I had to choose between the two, I would go with the Twitter model. Because otherwise, I mean, look, Democrats don't stand a chance. Look, and it's not just about character, it's also about the money, right?

We know Republicans have money that Democrats don't. And if you're really concerned about progressive candidates, they have even less money. So how are they going to fight the kind of smears that you see from Republicans? Yeah, so look, let me do the standard conflict of interest thing that I do every time in a service of transparency, Facebook and YouTube are our partners, so you should know that. But I don't want to go back to the bad old days of gatekeepers. So the gatekeepers, the CNNs, the New York Times, et cetera, those are not good days for the American people.

We had 40 years of stagnant wages as politicians robbed us blind and all the mainstream media called them beloved and honorable ladies and gentlemen who are worthy of our respect and not to be ever challenged. I don't want to go back to those days. So social media gives upstarts, progressives, honestly. revolutions a much better chance, political revolutions, right? And so there's an effort by the Hillary Clinton's of the world to go, I hate that. I just want to be lazy and control the MSNBC.

It's so easy to control. Just yell at them every once in a while, right? And I want to go back to the good old days where I raise a ton of money for my corporate friends and then I buy old ads on television in the New York Times, and I yell at people and I get my way. And these rascally progressives and conservatives too, they annoy me, right? So there's a lot of attempt here by the establishment to regain control. But it is a balancing act, because there is terrible disinformation.

I'm not in any camp, right? So there's a camp that says disinformation is so bad, you should shut everything down. And there's a camp that says, no, let it be Wild Wild West, right? No, we've got to find a balancing act here. And I know that the balancing act is hard, but they do have a lot of money. So they could use some of that in an effort to try to get that balancing act done correct. Well, this is why I think it is important to break up these big tech companies, right? Because it's hard to regulate them if you don't know what category they fall under.

And the fact of the matter is, these companies are a combination or a combination, yeah, a combination of various businesses under one umbrella, right? So is it a media company? Is it an advertising company? Like, what is it exactly? And it's hard for the government to properly regulate it unless you know what it is. So if you want political ads with absolutely no regulation, of course you're going to have issues and that's what we're running into right now. Yeah, I don't want to get into another long debate about that, but I'm not sure I believe that either. I mean, obviously, again, conflict of interest here.

The young Turks is so large, they'd probably want to break us up because we dominate the internet so much. Yeah, yeah, real large, Jank. We're really doing well. Anyway, we got to take a break. when we come back Joe Manchin and his thoughts on Bernie Sanders 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, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.