The Young Turks - Trump's Bad Day

Episode Date: October 14, 2022

An employee of Trump revealed to the FBI that they were moving boxes from Mar-A-Lago on his orders. Democrats are enraged at Nancy Pelosi and accuse her of “not acting in good faith” in regard to a bill that bans congress from trading stock. Even Herschel Walker’s Mom is tired of his lying. She has disputed the claims he has made about his grandmother being 100% Cherokee Native American. With the election weeks away, outside spenders have spent a record-breaking $1 billion. Host: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur 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. Welcome to the interns, Jake Huger, Anna Kusperin with you guys. We're so loaded up with news today. I'm going to stop talking. Casper, go. Oh, damn. I got to fix my hair, though.

Oh, God. Yeah, caught you off guard. I was hoping you were going to do your use. No, I'm not going to. You're usually of over talking. Okay. Go ahead. Let's go ahead. Let's do it. Let's do the news. Let's do it. Go.

This afternoon, I am offering this resolution that the committee direct the chairman to issue a subpoena for relevant documents and testimony under oath from Donald John Trump in connection with the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney called for a vote on a resolution to subpoena of former president Donald Trump in their investigation into the January 6th Capitol riots. As you can probably already tell, this was during today's January 6th hearing, of course conducted by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th riots. The subsequent vote was pretty damn clear. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. Those in favor will say aye. Aye. Those opposed is no.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll. Ms. Cheney? Aye. Ms. Cheney, aye. Ms. Loughgren?

Aye. Ms. Loughgren, aye. Mr. Schiff? Aye. Mr. Schiff? Aye. Mr. Aguilar? Aye. Mr. Aguilar, aye. Mrs. Murphy? Aye. Mrs. Murphy, aye.

Mr. Raskin? Aye. Mr. Raskin, aye. Mrs. Loria? Aye. Mrs. Luria? Aye. Mr. Kinsinger? Aye. Mr. Kinsinger, aye. Mr. Chairman? Aye.

Mr. Chairman, aye. Gentlemen, we got him. Oh, there we go. We got him. He's indicted. Okay, that's not. Subpoenaed, subpoena. Which also is not. Not ever, it's true. Yeah. So, look, so we give you the details, the facts of the story, and then we do the analysis. And the analysis here is he will probably never testify before Congress. Wait, first of all, Mr. Yugar, I. Okay. So look, they do this like with three days left before the elections.

Yeah. And is Trump going to. challenge the subpoena? Of course. Is that going to take a world of time? Of course. Will the new Congress probably Republican be in by then? Of course. So they saved this to the end so they could be like, and it was a dramatic moment. Believe me, I like, I watch West Wing when I was younger. Okay. So when they're like, Kinziger, I, you know, right? Like, all right, cool. Ms. Murphy, I, right? Right? Like, yeah, badass. But at the same time, what does it mean? There is one way that they could actually put him in prison right now. dun dun dun are they gonna do it of course not but let's have fun can i tell you but before you

get to that okay i think it's really important to understand that the timing is incredibly important right the republican party is expected to take control of the house after the midterm elections bringing up the timing of the midterms is incredibly important in the context of the subpoena and the potential or possibility of Donald trump testifying before this house committee and And Donald Trump is a massive bag of delays chips. Like, that's what he does in every investigation. He delays, he delays, he finds ways to appeal things and delay things. That's what he's currently doing with this whole special master situation when it comes

to the other investigation he's facing regarding his handling of classified documents. So I'm obviously speculating, I'm predicting that it is unlikely that he will end up actually testifying before this House committee. Yeah. So first of all, I agree with you that he's Tom Deleigh. And Tom DeLay is an actual person. Casper, I. So now there's two forms of contempt. The normal way is so they subpoenaed the president or anyone. And if they don't respond to the subpoena, you bring that to the DOJ Department of Justice. And then they indict them and then they actually arrest them, which actually happened to Steve Bannon. So it's not unprecedented at all happens a decent amount of time.

the unprecedented part that is the former president of the United States. And the people in power makes such a giant deal out of that. They're like, among the beautiful, wonderful, powerful people. He was the most powerful. Are we going to subpoena and then indict an alpha? Okay, in reality, so what? Yeah, if he breaks the law and he doesn't testify in front of Congress, of course you should indict him. But they're not going to.

It'll take way too long. Now, if the Democrats hold the house, which is interesting, like it's not impossible, right? Well, then they actually kind of have to go through with this whole thing. I think that they think they're going to lose. So they're like, oh, yeah, well, man, we subpoenaed him. Wait, we held on a Congress? God damn it, what do we do now? Right, because they never want to hold a powerful accountable.

You know what? I would usually agree with you on that. In this particular case, I actually disagree. Oh, Casper, nay. I mean, I'm irritated with their timing here. I wish they didn't dilly-dally. I think they've done a really good job with these hearings. Now, one could argue that these hearings aren't really about holding Trump accountable.

It's more about holding hearings that help them politically in the run-up to the midterms. And I think that's a pretty legitimate argument to make. But it does seem like they're gung-ho in holding him accountable, considering all the criminality involved in everything he's been doing, right? Everything he did in office, everything he did outside of office. Well, Anna, it depends on who they are. So to be clear. So would Liz Cheney love to see him be held accountable? Absolutely.

But she's not a Democrat. Right, exactly, but exactly. So did Pelosi encourage a delay so that they would not be, you know, actually hold them accountable? Very likely. That's what she does every time. The thing that Nancy Post despises most, even though it's about January 6th where her life was threatened, Even under that circumstance, holding Republicans accountable, it's like kryptonite her. She hates it.

So now, if they actually wanted to hold them accountable, by the way, they did the vote nine and nothing, right? They could have done it a year ago. They could have yet. Yeah, and they chose not to. I mean, at a best case scenario, this is a fact, at a best case scenario, the Democrats took a year to gather up their courage to do the simple thing of following the law, right? And guys, now a lot of Democratic voters, establishment Democratic voters, are going,

enough. Okay, I got it. We raise the money. We got it. We understand the message. You got the message out. Bring him to court already. Bring him to goddamn court. So there's a little bit of Democrats also getting frustrated and them hearing probably from their donors because now we're into establish from Democrats saying bring them to court. So now, so if they do hold a house, maybe they do. But I got to tell you the last thing, which is if they really want to take action, they could do it today. Okay. So it's called inherent contempt. They don't have to go through Department of Justice because they in the United States Congress by law and Fox News just also confirmed this so even the right wing heard it okay in reality it's a law there's no

there's no arguing it but even Fox News isn't arguing it is my point inherent contempt is Congress goes no we gave you a subpoena you didn't follow it you're under arrest they've done that before so where Congress arrests you so they could arrest Trump today if they use inherent contempt will they of course not Yeah, I don't even know if that's a good idea. No, by the way, I agree. I'm not sure that's a good idea because then we're getting into like things that are out of regular order. Yes, you could do it.

Would I do it? I certainly think about it, right? But it could get, it could become a little bit of a mess. I'd rather go through regular laws. That's why they should have done it a year ago. But anyway, at least it's a marker. They did it. But if you got like lib friends who are like, oh my God, this is it.

They're finally going to get them. No, no, cool them down. Okay, give him a fan. Hey, welcome to the party. It's been a while. The Democrats always do this, and they never actually bring you justice. Yeah, the trick is to keep expectations low. Exactly.

Casper, I. All right, well, let's get to the rest of the hearing because we learned some details about the Secret Service that I think you should all know about. Let's get right to it. Keep your guns hidden, don't round, full kits, 180 rounds minimum for main rifle, another 50 for sidearm per person. What is clear from this record is that the White House had more than enough warning to warrant stopping any plan for an ellipse rally and certainly for stopping any march to the Capitol. During today's January 6th hearing, the public learned that the White House definitely had warning

that violence would break out on January 6th, including days prior to the January 6th riots in the nation's capital. We also learned that members of the Secret Service absolutely knew There was a grave threat toward the nation's capital and toward lawmakers within the building on January 6th. And the only way we found out about that is after the House Select Committee investigating the riots of January 6th had to go around the fact that these Secret Service agents had deleted emails. They had subpoenaed.

So they had to find another way to obtain those emails. Luckily they did. And now we have a better sense of what the Secret Service. This new prior to January 6th and on the day of January 6th. So members of Trump's Secret Service, again, they had deleted these emails after they had been subpoenaed. The committee had to go around the Secret Service in order to obtain them. And once the committee did finally obtain them, get a hold of this information, they found

messages including what you're about to read. So here's a screenshot from what was presented during the hearing. These are Secret Service emails from December 26th of 2020. And as you can read, they write, they think they will have a large enough group to march into D.C. armed and will outnumber the police so they can't be stopped. Again, this is the Secret Service. They are very close to the president. Their whole job is to protect the president. It is clear that the White House knew about these threats and did nothing to stop what actually ended up transpiring on January 6th.

Let's read a few more of those messages. Their plan, meaning the rioters plan, again, these are emails from. from the Secret Service. Their plan is to literally kill people. Please, please take this tip seriously and investigate further. And in another message, they write, The Proud Boys have detailed their plans on multiple websites such as,

and then they use a link to the Donald.W-I-N or win. Now, note the date of those emails. December 26th, 2020, as we all know, the riots took place on January 6th of 2021. And here's a little more about those emails and documents obtained by the January 6th committee. The documents we obtained from the Secret Service make clear that the crowd outside the magnetometers was armed and the agents knew it. Take a look at what they were seeing and hearing on the ground. One report from the rally site at 7.58 a.m. said some members of the crowd are wearing ballistic helmets, body armor,

carrying radio equipment and military grade backpacks. Agents also reported possible armed individuals, one with a Glock, one with a rifle. Over the next hour, agents reported possible man with a gun reported, confirmed pistol on hip located in a tree, and one detained at 14th and I Street Northwest, individual had an assault rifle on his person. So again, clear that the Secret Service knew on December 26th, what was about to transpire on January 6th, on the day that the riots happened prior to the riots breaking out, they knew about the armed individuals, they knew about their plans, and nothing was

done by the White House to stop this from happening. Yeah, so I'm going to give a little tangential point here, but I think it's relevant. So we know a lot about what happened because a lot of it was on video, right? From not the Secret Service part, but the guys preparing for the assault, et cetera. And I believe Tony Face 2007 on YouTube is one of our members. You got to be a member to win. And I'm going to give him $100 here in a blue apron gift card because he made such a great point that I hadn't thought of. And we do that for our members every once in a while.

He wrote in the likes of stone, the oathkeepers, et cetera, expected the insurrection to succeed. So they wanted to be filmed and memorialized. If successful, they would have been proclaimed as the heroes of the revolution. So these knuckleheads taped themselves because they really thought, hey, look, we've got the guns stashed away. Donald Trump's going to make us the militia. And then we can legally go get our guns and then storm the Capitol, presumably kill whoever you need to kill, right? And a lot of it is on tape. So then the Secret Service knows about it.

That's amazing. Oh, by the way, Tony, you got to go rewards at tyt.com. Rewards at tYt.com to get it. And by the way, one of our members every week wins a $100 gift card from Blue Apron. At the end of the week, if you watch a lot of show. All right, but back to the Secret Service guys. So they know about this, but your job is to protect. Not just the president, but the capital, you've got to share that information.

So that's why they're going around deleting everything because they think they're in legal trouble. But as always, unfortunately, almost every story comes back to, there's the real world and there's a Trump world. You can't cross the Trump world, doesn't want to hear any facts. So they'll think, oh, they were the heroes of the revolution, the Secret Service are the only true Americans, et cetera. So then, you know, what are we really going to do? Are we going to go after the Secret Service guys that deleted evidence? You can't do that. That's against the law.

And as always, we ask the question, are the powerful ever going to hold anyone powerful accountable? I mean, the Secret Service deleted emails after being subpoenaed so the members of Congress investigating this could look at those documents and do their investigation. That is illegal. I don't get, are these people still employed? Where are they? No, look. Why is that okay? It's number one, the reason why, is it actually okay, of course not.

Is it in practice, are they going to let him get away with it? Can we do that? No, of course not. If we're dealing with the criminal investigation, can we do that? Can we just delete documents that have been subpoenaed in the process of that criminal investigation? Yeah, guys, and here's a distinction, right? And this is not a left wing and right way. No, I'll tell you the distinction.

Sorry to interrupt you. The distinction is there are people in power who get to do whatever they want because they're above the law, and then there's the rest of them. of us who suffer the consequences if we dare to do even a tiny percentage of what they what they engage in. That's the reality. That's all you need to know. Continue, Jane.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to say. And so why the Secret Service though? Because they're not elected senators or president or anything like that, because they're the protectors of the powerful. So for example, the most flagrant case of destroying evidence was done by the CIA. So they had the torture tapes, they burned the torture tapes brazenly. They had already gotten an order to preserve them. They're like, yeah, what are you going to do about it?

And they just destroyed all the tapes because they were guilty. And you know how many of them were arrested? Zero, none. Accountable, held accountable, zero none. Not only that, the person who authorized it later became the head of the CIA. She was promoted. Okay, so that's how it works. If you're powerful or you protect the powerful, and also cops, by the way, you're above the law, right?

But for the rest of us, it doesn't matter if you're left wing or right wing. If you're a regular person, I mean, look at the guys that did the rioting. They're all going to jail. You guys got no protection. They're going to crush you, okay? But if you're powerful or you're their Praetorian Guard, you're above the law. You don't have to follow the same laws as us. And Congress proves it.

And it doesn't matter which party. The Democrats will still protect the guilty that were cooperating with the Republicans. Why? Because in their mind, Democrat, Republican doesn't really matter. We're all elites. Okay, so the obtained Secret Service emails also indicate that they knew about the possible threats against, not the possible, the threats against Vice President Mike Pence, and the committee provided some evidence of that. I want to go to that graphic. As you can see from the screenshot, Secret Service message from January 6th, so on the day of the morning of. And in one message, a Secret Service agent writes, alert at 1022 regarding the VP being a dead. man walking if he doesn't do the right thing. So again, they were fully aware. And I think what's also telling is the lying that took place under oath by individuals

close to Trump, including Jason Miller. Let's watch. If I had seen some of that nature, we said we had to flag this for secret service or something of that nature. But the Trump administration was aware of this type of violent rhetoric prior to January 6th. In fact, as we have seen the Secret Service and other agencies knew of the prospect of violence well in advance of the President's speech at the ellipse, despite this, certain White House and Secret Service witnesses previously testified that they had received no intelligence about violence that could have potentially threatened any of the protectees on January 6th, including the vice president.

Evidence strongly suggests that this testimony is not credible. Correct, that testimony is not, in fact, credible. He lied under oath. But, you know, perjury is totally fine. Perjury is totally fine. As long as you are a person in a position of power or close to individuals who happen to be powerful. I mean, you hear the right wing talk about the elite all day long, fearmonger about the elite. You guys are the elite.

You guys cover up for criminality on your side all the time. I don't give a damn if the person engaging in criminality is a Democrat. They should be investigated and if they lie under oath, they should suffer the consequences for that. But you know, that's the thing. We live in a country where one side actually wants justice and the other side will provide cover for the criminality on their side regardless of what's going on.

They don't care. To be slightly more right here, there's three sides, right? there's the left wing that wants justice, there's the right wing who just wants to be told pretty little lies that make them feel better. And then there's the elites. They're not related to either one of us, okay? But you schmucks think they are. So in the MAGA world, they said, you're got to make sure that we go after the elites and hold them accountable. That's why you cannot touch the former president. He's an elite. What? What? Logic not required. They're MAGA. All right, so one final thing I'll mention about this, you know, they're doing their best,

and I think they're doing a good job in improving and showing evidence, indicating that there was premeditation involved, that not only did Donald Trump know that this was going to happen, but that he played a role in inciting what happened. So it's worth noting that the plan to march to the Capitol was already being discussed on January 4th. In fact, here's a text message between Kylie Kremmer, who's the founder of Stop the Steel, to Mike Lindell. Again, this is on January 4th, two days prior to the riots taking place.

She writes, POTUS is going to have us march there, the Capitol, but POTUS is going to just call for it unexpectedly. So who communicated to her that the president of the United States was going to, you know, announce that they were going to march to the cap. Like, it's clear that there was something being planned behind the scenes. There was premeditation involved, and that is the point that they're trying to make by providing this evidence that they've gathered through their investigation. You know what something is planned when they say the president is going to say it unexpectedly.

Well, you seem to expect it. So you know they planned it. And as always, it always comes back to yes, but is anybody going to be held accountable? I'll say one last quick note here about the hearings. As you watched the protesters looking to tear Nancy Pelosi apart and kill her as well as Mike Pence. So they were bipartisan in that sense. They wanted to murder the Republican vice president and the Democratic Speaker of the House. Pelosi and I criticize her probably more than anyone in media, including the right wing,

was pretty strong under fire there, right? And she was trying to get a hold of the situation. She was calm. She was in charge. I was pleasantly surprised to see how strong she was on that day. Right. They showed video of her behind the scenes. She was shockingly calm.

Yeah. And in situations like that, to yield the best results, you have to be calm. You just do. And she did a good job with that, I guess. Yeah, I mean, look, we're the fairest show in America. You see us criticizing her all the time. But credit where credit is do way to be cool under fire. Now, later in the show, we will tear her apart.

On policy, of course. So stick around for that. We got to take a quick break though. When we come back, we will talk about the other investigation that Trump is dealing with this time in regard to his handling of classified White House documents. All right, back on T.Y.J. Canana with you. Progressive Canuck, bit of an American hero, gifted five Turks memberships on YouTube, just as we're giving out hundreds of dollars to our members. All right. We appreciate it. Casper. All right. Well, more Trump investigations, because that's usually what happens when you deal with a

criminal in the White House. And so let's give you some updates on the DOJ's investigation into his handling of classified documents. Donald Trump has just been handed a big defeat by the Supreme Court of the United States, which is kind of shocking considering the right wing slant of SCOTUS. But this has to do with Trump wanting the Supreme Court to decide whether or not a special master will have the ability to review highly classified documents in this investigation against him, involving the DOJ looking into his handling of classified documents that he took home with him to Mara Lago. Now, the Supreme Court rejected Trump's request that a special master be allowed to review classified papers.

The justices denied Trump's relatively narrow emergency request in a brief unsigned order, and there were no noted dissents. So the Supreme Court agreed on this. They all agreed, no, we're not going to take this up. And the special master doesn't need to review highly classified documents. Documents that are so classified that you can only review them in a special government facility that is secure enough to review them. Now, the appeals court said that certain documents are deemed classified. Now, the appeals court said that certain documents are deemed classified because they contain information that could harm the national security. And for that reason, people may have access to them only if they need to know that information. In this case, the special master doesn't need to know the information because the whole point of the special master was to determine whether documents were protected under attorney client privilege.

Clearly, highly classified documents are not. And Donald Trump had no right to have those documents in his possession in an unsecure location, Mar-a-Lago. Now, the decision does not affect the Justice Department's access to the same documents as part of a criminal investigation. The more than 100 documents marked as classified are just a small portion of the 11,000 records seized by federal agents in August amid concerns that Trump had unlawfully retained official White House records after leaving office. We've got some more big updates on this story. But, Jank, thoughts on this. Yeah. So I want to walk you through what he gave and when he gave it in this.

second, but first on the main substance here. So Trump's claim was, I need the special master because these all documents are all mine, okay? And they're just trying to take my notes and that were personal, et cetera. Okay, and total nonsense. Even the personal notes of the president are and they should go in the national archives. But it turns out it's not just it's, of course, as you know, it's top secret information, including, by the way, the Washington Post clarified today. The military defenses of a foreign nation, including their nuclear capability. That actually sounds like it might be Israel because they're the one country that

has not admitted that they have nuclear capability. So if he has that document, that's as top secret as it gets on the planet. Why the hell does he have it? Anyway, goes, they're mine, their mind, okay? And basically the Supreme Court today unanimously, including all the judges that justice he appointed were like, no, you schmuck, that if it's classified by definition, It's the property of the United States government. You can't be like, I want that classified document.

I don't care. I'm going to sell it to someone and make money. No, you can't, you idiot. That's the government's. His own justices that he appointed are basically calling him a moron. Nine nothing, denied, not even close. Okay? I don't understand how Trump people don't get exhausted defending this guy.

Why the hell did you steal all these documents? I mean, look, you already had enough trouble with January 6 and a thousand. and other things. And on top of that, now you have to have your schmucks live for you for the rest of time on this too. But that's, guys, this is the most important part. This is why now Democratic voters, even the most establishment Democratic voters are saying, for God's sake, bring him into a court of law already, okay? Because he can yappy yap all day long and his followers will listen to it. But if you bring him to a court of law, even Trump judges go, no, no. You have to present evidence, you idiot. You can't just verbal diarrhea. That's

are dumb-ass followers. It's not in a court of law. In fact, here, look, we do these interviews all the time with Trump fans. What do they say? They always say the same name. Here's one example. Why would he take the documents? What, what did he want them for? Same reason Obama had. Yeah, Obama took him. All the other presidents took him. Look, Obama stored him in a warehouse where everybody could get to him. For his library. Yeah, for his library. And the National Archives said that the National Archives actually ran that warehouse, not Barack Obama. know anything about that. He says you don't have to actually sign anything. You just think about it

as the president and you declassify it. Every other president in history. What are we talking about here? Why is something being made more of a narrative that has to have a negative and he did something wrong? Because at the end of the day, it was nothing but a trap and they fell for it. Ha! Who's they? Yes, the idea. Yeah, this is all over the videos on Rebel Headquarters and also now on the Young Turks YouTube channel as well. They all say the same thing. Oh, what, every president does. But when you go to court and go, every president does it. And then they prove that they don't. Oh, then you're guilty. So for God's sake, bring him to court already. All right. Let's move on to the other portion of this investigation,

other news that we know. So FBI agents have spoken to an employee of Trump's who has now admitted to moving some of these classified documents because Donald Trump told this employee to do so. Now, this is when the documents were already at Mar-a-Lago and at Trump's direction, this employee agreed to moving them to his personal residence in this property. Now, the people familiar with the investigation said agents have gathered witness accounts indicating that after Trump advisors received a subpoena in May for any classified documents that remained at Mar-a-Lago, Trump told people to move boxes to his residence at the property. The description of events was further corroborated by the security camera footage, which

showed people moving the boxes. This particular employee has actually spoken to FBI agents on multiple occasions, and through these conversations, this individual has changed their story. They lied a little bit in the beginning and then later told the truth. So for instance, in the first interview, these people said, the witness denied handling sensitive documents or the boxes that might contain such documents. As they gathered evidence, agents decided to re-interview the witness and the witness changed, the story changed dramatically.

These people said, in the second interview, the witness described moving boxes at Trump's request. And so together that surveillance footage and the witness testimony helped convince the FBI and the Justice Department to seek a court authorized search of Donald Trump's residence, which of course took place on August 8th of this year. So for those wondering, or for those who wanted to know, what was the probable cause? How did they get a judge to sign off on that warrant? this is the evidence that they had that allowed for them to do this raid of his home in order

to obtain those documents. Another thing I want to just quickly mention is the date, right? So May, they send him a subpoena in May, like, just please give us the documents. Please just give us the documents and we'll be done with it. We'll be done with it. We just want the documents back. He wouldn't do it. Instead of giving the feds, the documents that they asked for, the just.

the documents that they had a subpoena for, Trump allegedly directed his own employees to move the documents, the boxes of documents to his own residence. Yeah, so as usual, Trump's story is nothing but fabrications. The reality is as Anna explained. So they asked him to give the documents because they realized, oh, there's just like there's obvious documents that are missing here, right? So Mr. Trump, can you please go, no, I don't know what you're talking about? And they're like, notice, we know you have them, moron, give us the documents.

So he gives them a bunch and there's 184 classified documents in the first batch that he hands over. And they're like, what are you doing? Why did you take 184 classified documents? And then they look and they're all out of order and it becomes obvious he's got more. They're like, okay, then they send another nose. Hey, dumbass, give us all the documents. They're classified. Some of them are top secret.

You must, it's not optional. He's like, oh, yeah, okay, fine, I'll give you a little bit more. In the next match, there's a 38 that are classified. And they still can tell he hasn't given it. And then they did, as Anna explained, they talked to the witness and the witness was like, at the beginning he's like, no, I don't move no stinking box. Then they show him the video. Remember guys, I don't know if you remember this, but I said, you know, Trump tapes all this,

and he taped the FBI going in to his office and actually during the raid. And I'm like, it's like Nixon's tapes. He's so dumb. those tapes are going to be used against them. And of course, they were used against them even earlier. So he's taping everything. They're like, you said you didn't move any boxes, Mr. Employee of Mar-a-Lago. Here's you moving the boxes.

He's like, God damn. Okay, fine, I moved the boxes. Trump told me to do it. Okay, so that they bust them. And then they are positive that there's more documents, including classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, and they're positive that not only is Trump not giving them, he's now beginning to hide them because it's on tape. And they have a witness.

That's why they have to do the raid, even though they definitely do not want to do the raid. They finally are forced to do the raid. And that's what actually happened. And then, so for God's sake, already, let's go, let's go, let's go, let's go. Try him, try him, put him in court, make him go to court and present absolutely no evidence and get slaughtered legally, legally through due process through our actual system of justice. Well, we'll see if it plays out that way. Again, keep expectations low. At least I do. I don't know. Anyway, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, there's plenty of ire toward corporate Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, who has stalled an incredibly important piece of legislation that would have prevented members of Congress from trading individual stocks. That story and more coming right up.

All right, back on TYT, Stephen Moya and Nancy Gomez just joined. You guys are amazing. They had the join button below the video on YouTube and some great week to do it. We're gonna weigh a hundred dollar gift cards left and right to members from Blue Apron. And if you're not on YouTube, t.com slash join. join. Casper has the news. All right, let's talk about some corruption in Congress. Members of Congress should not be selling individual stocks. Put it in a blind trust, trade and mutual funds. But we should know, the American people should know that a member of

Congress is never leaving a classified briefing and calling their stockbroker. The speaker put forth really a bill destined to fail. House Democrat, Abigail Spanberger, went after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for stalling bipartisan legislation that would prevent members of Congress from being able to trade individual stocks. Now, this is incredibly important legislation, and Pelosi had made clear previously and faced a lot of backlash that she wasn't really in favor of banning members of Congress from engaging in this activity because she believes in the free market. And so she decided to stall the legislation by putting out her own horse crap version of it that had a massive loophole that effectively made the newer piece of legislation completely irrelevant. Now, I want to go to the rest of Spanberger's argument here. Unfortunately, it's made on Fox News. I wish MSNBC covered this and gave Spanberger an opportunity to air her issues with Pelosi on this matter.

But unfortunately, Fox News wanted to cover it for their own political purposes. Let's watch what she has to say, and then I'll give you more details. We, Chipproy, Republican from Texas and I, have worked on this legislation since the early days of COVID. We put forth a bill straightforward. Members of Congress should not be selling individual stocks. Put it in a blind trust, trade in mutual funds. But we should know, the American people should know, that a member of Congress is never leaving a classified briefing and calling their stockbroker. The Speaker put forth really a bill destined to fail.

A very good option existed in the bipartisan one that Chip Roy and I have. We have more than 70 co-sponsors from across the country, Democrats and Republicans. And the Speaker has employed stall tactic after stall tactic in order to kind of keep delaying what's potentially a vote on any bill that would ban members of Congress from selling stocks, buying and selling stocks. And she put forth a bill that wasn't a good faith effort. I've been very clear on that. And I'm disappointed.

But the American people are the ones who are mad about it. I hear about this across my district. Now, Brett Baer is interviewing her, and this conversation is taking place on Fox News because make no mistake about it, the right wing has an agenda. They want to use this to campaign against Democrats as if Democrats are the only ones who are investing in individual stocks, as if Democrats are the only ones who are corrupted by this. As we know, there's all sorts of insider trading happening in Congress by both, by parties of both, I'm sorry, by members of both parties. And so I want to make that clear.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. This is a bipartisan issue. It's a corruption issue. And the fact that Nancy Pelosi stood in the way of this legislation, even getting a vote, is absolutely disgusting. And she didn't even give this legislation an opportunity for a floor vote. What she did is promote legislation that had a loophole. Members of Congress were irritated by it.

They were arguing against that. And so she never even brought that version of the legislation up for a vote either. But Jenk, real quick, I just want to give you guys a little more information on what Abigail Spanberger is talking about in regard to the legislation that she sponsored. Spanberger along with Republican Representative Chip Roy sponsored the transparent representation upholding service and trust in Congress Act. in 2020. The bill required members of Congress along with their spouses and children to put investments into blind trusts or keep their money in mutual funds. And Pelosi was just not about that. Yeah, so I want to tell you in a second how the Republicans are using this to batter the Democrats and it's totally working. But first, let's note for the record that there's been

no reaction to Spanberger saying this on Fox News. Now let's imagine for a second that it was a progressive that AOC or Cory Bush or any of them had gone on and criticized Democratic leadership super harshly. Already, they would be, the House would fall in on them. Everybody in media would beg, how dare they, they're destroying the Democratic Party. And MSNBC would talk nonstop about how just Democrats are destroying Democrats by attacking Democratic leadership. It was in the last month of the election. Not only that, they're attacking, she attacked Nancy Pelosi on corruption. I mean, God, that's a third rail in Washington.

Okay, not only that, she did it on Fox News, not only that, they're taking that and using it a Republican ads. If a progressive had done it, they would be tarred and feathered and run out of town. A conservative Democrat does it, not a peep. National media in this country is a total joke, total joke. Okay, now to the substance of it. So the Republicans see that they are actually being corrupt. And by the way, we're always fair.

So 98% of what Republicans say are usually garbage. We can show it to you and we prove to you that it's garbage. In this case, it's totally true. Nancy Pelosi and the others are delaying the vote. That's because they're corrupt and they want to keep making money from that insider trading, right? So that part is totally true. But now here's the part they don't tell you. Abigail Spanberger's bill, she painted on Foxx's a perfectly bipartisan.

Republicans totally agree with me that we should, you know, be really non-corrupt. Is that true? Of course it's not true. It has 72 co-sponsors, only 12 of them are. Republican. Sixty of them are Democrat. If they put up for a vote, the Republicans would vote no. Which by the way, great. Great. Like actually, like a smart tactician, someone who's smart with political strategy, you know, because Nancy Pelosi is painted that way in the corporate press all the time. But how are you smart if you're stalling legislation that is incredibly

popular with the American people? Allowing for the Republicans to use the fact that you've stalled, on this legislation or you've blocked this legislation to campaign against you. Like, how is that smart? A smart thing would be to allow for this legislation to get a vote. Of course Republicans are going to vote against it. Of course you're not going to get the majority of Republicans in the House to support it. They're as corrupt as it gets. So great, great, then you have something to campaign against them on.

Instead, they're using it to campaign against you. Yeah, got you. Okay, she's, look, first of all, the main reason she isn't putting up for a vote, because she's corrupt. She wants to keep doing insider trading. Yeah, in fact, in fact, let me give you some details about what she and her husband are up to. So Nancy Pelosi and her husband, Paul, have been among the most prolific traders and even beat the S&P 500 index in 2021. But that wasn't the only year they've done so. They do it all the time because she has insider information that she can trade individual stocks on. A review of disclosures by Newsweek show that in 2021, Pelosi

and her husband, venture capitalist Paul Pelosi, purchased between almost 10 million and nearly 32 million worth of stocks. I'm sorry, I just, how can anyone expect someone who in one year spends that much money trading stocks, millions of millions of dollars straight? How do you expect that person to connect with her constituency, to understand her constituency and what actually matters to them in their lives. Yeah. And look, it's one thing if you're rich that God bless, but you're fighting for the right policies. You say, I put my money in a blind trust. I'm not giving my money away, but I'm putting it in a blind trust. So I can't use the information I have from Congress to make even more money, right? But she's refusing to do that. She's blocking

legislation that would do that. And instead she's saying, oh, I don't know what you're talking about. And it's all over the internet. She, her husband and her beat the stock market by wide margins, a year. It's by laughable numbers. It's gigantic, right? By the way, national media, Nancy Pelosi corrupt? They'll rip your head off unless you're a conservative Democrat, right? So now we may go back to the Republicans. Since they didn't have a vote on it, they're like, oh my God, they're letting us be corrupt. We would have voted no. This incredibly terrible tactician Nancy Pelosi just handed us a gift. So they put it into all their ads all across country. I'll give you one example. In Iowa, there was a Democrat who was leading by three.

They do run this ad exclusively. She's now losing by eight. 11 points swing. She almost certainly has lost her seat because Pelosi refused to vote on this. She would have won the vote anyway. The Republicans would have helped her with the corruption. But she didn't want to risk it. So she handed him a giant gift. If a progressive had helped Republicans, 1% of that, the national media would have eviscerated them. Pelosi just did it, not a word. Well, let's move on to Herschel Walker, more controversy. But it's interesting how the right wing doesn't seem to care about this,

even though they made a big deal about it when it came to a democratic lawmaker. Let's talk about it. I found something out. I found something out. My mom just told me that my mom, grandmother was full blood Cherokee. So I'm Native American. I was like, oh, hello. So I'm a super mud.

I don't know what I am. But this was so funny, this is what was so funny. I said, Mom, White never said anything. Yeah, she probably never said anything because, you know, it's untrue. And that was a video from one of his rallies. That's Herschel Walker, of course, who's running for a Senate seat in Georgia. One of his rallies last month. But that wasn't the only time he claimed that he had Native American heritage in his background.

At a January campaign event at the University of Georgia, he said he had just found out that his mother is 40% Native American. He repeated his claim at four campaign events in May, as if he had just discovered it. At one, he said he just learned that his mother is a big part Native American, and it means he is part Native American too. At another, he said, again, my mom is part Native American. A big part. And it means I am other as well. Okay. And what difference is I mean?

You're black. It doesn't matter. You're not the other category. Well, no, it just, it gets better. It gets better. At a June 20th campaign event in College Park, Georgia, Walker said he found out, quote, I'm part Native American, end quote,

by doing a 23 and me ancestry test, which was a lie you're about to find out. a moment. He said he wanted to acknowledge all of my family, except for his secret children, of course, referring to Native Americans. Okay. Now, Huffington Post was curious about this. They did a little journalism. They wanted to find out, is there any truth to this whatsoever? Because Herschel Walker specifically said that he had Cherokee heritage. Of course. Of course. Of course. It's a fan fave among those who actually have no Native American heritage whatsoever. They love to say that they're part Cherokee.

Well, Huffington Post reached out to three different Cherokee organizations to see if there's any record of Herschel Walker's family members being Native American, and the two of them did not respond at all, but one of them did. A spokesperson for Cherokee Nation, the largest tribal government in the United States with more than 360,000 citizens, said it has no record of Walker in its database of citizens. There is no one listed in Cherokee Nation's registration database with that name and birth date, said the tribe's spokesperson. So at that point, HuffPost was like, well, why don't we go to the source of this information, which is, of course, Herschel Walker's mother, Christine. They reach out to her and luckily she did agree to speak with them. Christine Walker said she grew up hearing stories about her father's mother.

So Herschel Walker's great grandmother being kin to the tribe. She was kin to Cherokee, she said during a brief phone interview on Wednesday. Back when I was a little child running around, she was kin to the Cherokee. Asked to clarify what she meant by that, she said her grandmother was believed to be related to Cherokee peoples in some way, but she didn't know how. And finally, she said, quote, I don't know how far back. Her apparent Cherokee ancestry went, she said, see, my grandmother, she passed when I was quite young. I don't know too much about how she was connected. Okay, so that's the second family member now saying, you don't trust my son.

Don't trust social war. He's crazy, right? So that's the mom. And earlier, of course, his son, Christian Walker was like, no, my dad is a serial liar, which we all knew already, except unless you're a Republican, and you don't know anything, right? Also, families love to, like, families love to tell tall tales, right? Like, we've all experienced it with, like, our family members, where they say all of these things that probably aren't true,

and you shouldn't repeat them unless you have actual evidence backing it up. Or frame it that way instead of saying it definitively. Like, so, for example, there's a part of my family that I've talked about on there. We don't know. We don't know if they're Kurdish, or they might even be from old school crusaders, right? So I might be part French, but that's how you say, I don't know, right? We haven't done a genetic test. He goes and bothers to actually lie.

He said, I did 23 in me. I am Cherokee. I this is this. But you didn't do any of those things. My mom did say this, but she didn't. We asked her. She said, no, no, my son's a lot, right? Like, and by the way, let's, Herschle Walker's lies are always funny in different ways.

So he says, okay, now my grandmother's full blood Cherokee. Okay, so that's why my mom is 40. percent Cherokee. Like at University of Georgia, did you take a single math class? Okay, anyways, and as Anna pointed out, whenever they lie about being Native American, it's always like, and I'm Native American too, I'm from, they never say anything specific like Lenny Lanopi Indians or the Iroquois tribe. That's a big tribe.

They always like, I'm from Cherokee. I'm Cherokee, that's what I am. Okay, so historically speaking, people who want to pretend as if they have any background or any heritage, you know, that's Native American, they kind of do it, I don't know, I don't really understand it, but there is a history of people doing it because they don't want to be associated with the genocide, like the white genocide of Native Americans in America, right? That's wrong. You shouldn't do that. Don't lie about your background to absolve yourself or whatever, whatever guilt you're feeling. But in this case, I don't, I don't get why he did this. I don't get why he publicized this. I don't know. I don't, the guy is out of his mind. Yeah, of course. And also, I mean, look, Elizabeth Warren got a lot of heat for claiming that she had, you know, Native American blood.

And that was, that was correct. That backlash was correct, in my opinion. But the right wing, quiet, not a big deal. Yeah, one of our own, one of our candidates not only paid for a woman's abortion, not only had all these secret children, not only was an absentee father, not only represents what we are allegedly against culturally, but he also did the thing that we went after Elizabeth Warren for, but he is a republic. candidate, so we're just going to pretend like this isn't happening.

Yeah, I want to fervently agree with you and then disagree with you slightly. What? No, not allowed. So here's the thing that I disagree slightly on, is that, oh, it's not a lot. Okay, I'll move on to the thing I agree. Thank you. Okay, no, seriously, look, I don't really care. I don't care if he claims that he's part Native American and Elizabeth Warren claims she's part Native American.

They heard it from their parents. Who cares? It's like the smallest little, it's not even quite a lie because in Herschel Walker's case, he makes it a lie for no reason by being so specific about it. But if he just said, hey, I heard from my mom that we're part Native American, part church, who cares? How about it, host? Elizabeth Warren says, hey, I heard from my uncles and dad, whatever, that were Native American.

Okay, who cares? No, but I do care. The reason why I care is because they're saying this in the context of political campaigning, meaning they think it's going to be beneficial to them politically for some reason. And if it's a lie, it's a lie, it's an issue. No, but the thing is, that's why I'm giving both Walker and, worn a tiny bit of a pass here because it's not fully aligned. Both of their family members, both their family members did say.

I know, Jake, I know, but like my parents, or they think they might be. Everyone's parents say all sorts of crazy things about their family's history and how triumphant they were and the amazing things they did. And it turns out that most of it isn't even really true, right? Everyone wants to feel good about themselves. Like you don't repeat tall tales, your parents tell you when you're out there campaigning. What are you doing? Of course they do. They're politicians. Okay, but I saw I hear you. But now let me go to the fervent

agreement. The right wing when Elizabeth Warren did, they're like, ah, shot, yeah, blood, right? And then remember what Trump called her, Pocahontas, right? So is he now calling Herschel Walker's sitting bull? Which would be pretty apt. Okay. So nope, nope, not Trump, not any Republican. It's fine, it's fine. You always, hey, you know what? You're supposed to lie about your Native American urge, okay? And you're supposed to have your mom call you a liar and your son call you a liar? That's what you're supposed to do, okay? Uh, ha, ha.

Logic not required. Okay, they're in the right way. Finally, to be fair to Hershey Walker, he said today that he's 78% Filipino. So it's all moot. Well, he's a Republican, so that's okay. Yeah. He can claim whatever he damn well pleases. He also said he was 47% Korean.

Did he really say that? No, but it's not, by the way, like I have to clarify that I, I'm joking with a concert with Ersia Walker, you never know. You never know. You never know. Anyway, let's take a break. When we come back, we'll discuss other news. We're going to lighten things up.

But first, Jake's probably going to spend a good 30 minutes going after Paul Begala. Yes. So I will quietly sit here and allow him to do that. And you guys will probably enjoy it. We'll be right back. You will. Rage coming next. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks.

Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.