The Young Turks - Twelve Russian Agents Indicted, Dems Love Bernie

Episode Date: July 13, 2018

A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from July 13, 2018. For more go to http://www.tytnetwork.com/join. Cenk Uygur, John Iadarola, RJ Eskow & Ben Mankiewicz. Mueller indicts 12 Russian intelligence hackers. Majority of Dems want candidates to be like Bernie Sanders, in new poll. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Drop it. Richard S. Gown's back. Great to have you here, Richard. Great to be back. Yes, Richard's normally in D.C., that's why it's great to have him in town. And John I'd roll up. So Richard's the host of the Zero Hour, which you should check out. John is also the host of the damage report. No, we tell. Okay, on YouTube TV. Every morning. By the way, two other things about John and Richard. B.T.W. I don't know. Yeah. One is that he's up for, if you guys nominate him, that is. I know, right?

This got like a little like Trump is going to get a Nobel Peace Prize. Well, first, no, you're just nominating him. But anyway, for True North, best documentary. So, t-y-t.com slash true north streamies. So if you guys can, and look, we're up in the, we want you guys to nominate us in the news category for Young Turks and some other shows in the network as well. But True North is up if you guys can do it for a documentary and that would be fantastic. It would be great to get it as streaming.

And Richard was the speechwriter for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 campaign, which is A, awesome. B leads me to point out that on Monday Bernie Sanders is going to be doing a live town hall and we're going to carry it right here on the Young Turks. So that's a 7 o'clock Eastern. It's on corporate power, CEOs versus workers. He's weird, he's in favor of corporate power. He's turned.

Yeah, yeah. They got to him. He's gonna do a spirit of defense of public corporation CEOs. Yeah. Or perhaps the other way. So 7 o'clock Eastern, t.yt.com slash live. And Richard, did you write every single word that will come out of his mouth in that town hall? I wrote every single thing he ever said.

He never talked about millionaires and billionaires before I went to work for him. I said, I pitched it to him. That's right. Yeah, you went back in time. Exactly. You have a hot tub time machine and you went back and told him, I think you're going to be out of this something with this millionaires and billionaires stuff, but 40 years later. And you ought to pose this Iraq war until it'll set you apart in about 30, 25 years. Yeah, all right.

Okay, I'm going to mention something too, just super quick. So speaking of the Iraq war, so tonight I don't remember where it is, but you could. Look it up somewhere in the city of Los Angeles. Rob Reiner has a new movie out called Shock and Aw, which is about the two Knight Ritter correspondents and their boss, who were really the only guys to fully start to finish, get that entire story correct, that they didn't say that they're lying. They were like, hey, man, they've created their own little intelligence unit. They're cherry picking that intelligence.

They're walling off the rest of the intelligence committee, and they've made their decision to take advantage of 9-11 and go to war in Iraq. And that's a Q&A with Rob Reiner here in Los Angeles. Oh, you're doing a Q&A tonight? Oh, that's pretty neat. How do we look it up? I don't know. Google it.

Google it. Is the Q&A with Rob Reiner? I'll put it on Twitter. Yes. Q&A is with Rob Reiner. I got that already. He said he was doing it. He's going to A, I'm going to Q.

Right. Good division of labor. All right, Ben Q. Manquitz. All right. John, lots of news. Go forward. There wasn't really any big stories.

I guess we'll talk about solar energy. I don't know. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced a series of new charges against 12 Russian intelligence agencies arising out of the special counsel's investigation of the last election. The new counts, 11 of them, include charges of conspiracy by the Russian intelligence officials against the US, money laundering, specifically with Bitcoin, reinforcing my idea that Bitcoin's inherently bad, and attempts to break into state election boards and other government agencies. So that's sort of the broad strokes, but we want to go to Rod Rosenstein.

from earlier today during that press conference announcing what the situation was. The indictment charges 12 Russian military officers by name for conspiring to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. 11 of the defendants are charged with conspiring to hacking the computers, steal documents, and release those documents with the intent to interfere in the election. One of those defendants on a 12th Russian military officer. are charged with inspiring to infiltrate computers of organizations involved in administering elections, including state boards of election, secretaries of state, and companies that supply

software used to administer elections. So already in there, there's quite a bit to unpack. One part that we should mention is when they talk about the state boards of elections, we had previously known that voter data had been stolen. I believe at the time we thought it was 200,000 voters. data had been stolen. It turns out it's actually half a million voters data had been stolen during that part of the operation. And Rod Rosenstein mentioned that they know they have the particular names of the Russian intelligence officers. Those include both lieutenants, but also

majors as well, showing that this went up to higher levels of the GRU. Look like they had one of them there behind Rod Rosenshire. Yeah, I thought that was the most interesting man alive. Yeah, totally. That's right. Yeah. Yeah, so look guys, there's a lot of talk about Trump and we're gonna do that too and it's very, very relevant. But I want you to focus on the most important thing here. They got into the state boards of elections and they were trying to hack into the software

that administers our elections. So that is super serious. If they were successful in that effort last time or if they are successful in that effort next time, that means they flat out just steal our democracy. That is not a hyperbole, if they are successful, that is hijacking the actual vote. Not a tweet, not some fake news on social media, that's going straight into our votes. So whether you're on the right or the left, the time to talk about how this is hysteria and that there's actually no evidence has passed.

If you made that argument before, I love your brothers and sisters. But you were wrong. So whether it's connected to Trump or not connected to the Trump, that's an interesting discussion and we'll have it. But the Russians definitely interfered in the election and it wasn't just on social media. It was actually trying to get to the vote and that is incredibly serious and a threat to our democracy. And whether it's the Russians or anyone else, we must safeguard those votes under any and all circumstances.

And what I'm really afraid of is that all the different states are needlessly territorial. and parochial, they don't know how to safeguard themselves against Russian or Chinese or Indian or any other hacker, right? And we have to get serious on a national level here to make sure that those votes are real and protected. That to me is by far the biggest news here and is really being overlooked by a lot of the other media. So I totally agree on the stakes. We do have to be clear, and I'm sure you would have if you'd continued, that there are no allegations in these new indictments that the outcome of the election was affected by the particular things that they're talking about here. Also, there's no allegations that any of the people who communicated with those intelligence

officials, which will get into how they were attempting to spread information and all of that, knew that they were interacting with Russian intelligence officials. Now some Republicans have gone a step beyond and said, this proves it didn't happen, which is not what Rod Rosenstein is saying, but they did make clear that they are not alleging those things at this point. But again, to the whole evidence argument, again, this 29, I think a page it was, indictment does not include the raw intelligence gathered or anything like that. But it says that these particular Russian officials, not some building, these particular

people, they have the information on exactly what they did, but also that they were watching them in real time while they were planning it. We don't know for sure that it was US intelligence that was gathering it as the planning was happening or if we are collaborating with some other foreign intelligence agency. But this is based on information both when the acts were actually done and during the planning and communication phases earlier with particular Russian intelligence officials. That really suggests that the deep state dropped the ball. Yeah.

Like, they really knew and then didn't do anything to avoid the outcome they were seeking to avoid. Yeah, if the deep state wanted Trump to lose, well, they got a curious way of showing it. Okay, but look, one last thing before we get to Trump, which is, look, if you're at this point still saying, no, not enough evidence. I think maybe that the entirety of the FBI and the Justice Department might have made this up. And you think you're on the left. I mean, I don't know where you think you are on the political spectrum, but that's a lunatic

conspiracy theory at this point. So I'm sure Alex Jones is saying similar things. And so I'm up to you. You do whatever you want with your life, okay? But if you think that the Russians did not try to do this. 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-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational,

aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, You must 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. Man, okay, then you don't believe anything. Then you're in the camp of the Trump-like people who say everything is fake news, everything's contrived, and everything's a conspiracy.

And that is, that's loony. I've always been a follow-the-evidence kind of guy. And very early on in this conversation, people would say to me, you're a Russia skeptic. And I would always say, I'm an everything skeptic. That's my job, right? So early on, I would say, let's see where the evidence takes us. That's what I've said all along. And I have to say at this point, man, this would have to be a very elaborate conspiracy to deceive the American people and to thinking the Russians were trying to interfere because otherwise, as you said, you've got so many people about Rod Rosenstein and Mueller and all these things.

It would take a lot to convince me that this isn't real at this point. Put it that way. And yeah, well, good. I'm glad to hear that. And I'm, you know, again, there were not meaningful dissents from the beginning. There would have, if these guys were making it up, if this was an orchestrated effort to make it seem like the Russians had engaged in behavior, they didn't, I imagine, like if you go see shock and awe, the number of intelligence officials who went to those Knight Ridder journalists or when they called them were like, this is not how we do things. They're making this up. This evidence does not exist. That didn't happen. That simply didn't happen. All right. So now let's move on to Trump. Really fast, just for context, because we have new numbers here, just to add to the total, because interestingly, this information which we just got today, Donald Trump actually got earlier this week, Rod Rosenstein, briefed to the president on these new charges and the intelligence that was used to generate them. But apparently it either didn't stick or he forgot because Donald Trump, as of this morning,

said, I think that we're being very hurt very badly by the, I would call it the witch hunt, I would call it the rigged witch hunt. I think that really hurts our country and it really hurts our relationship with Russia. So just several days after being told extremely specific information about how this was actually done, he still calls it a witch hunt. It's actually one of my favorite witch hunts. It's an exciting, dynamic one because we're now up to 100 criminal counts against 32 people and three companies among the people previously charged of 14 Russians, three Trump associates

who have already pleaded guilty. There are five guilty pleas, one sentencing is already done. And if you look out there, there's also an awesome photo from inside prison of Paul Manafort. So, exciting times in The Witch Hunt. I think Paul Manafort, actually, because there was a Ben Nelson quality to Paul Manafort before, you know, where he just looked like that guy is fake and lying every. And I think he looks better. In prison, his hair's gone gray, it's grown out.

He looks like more of a regular guy, like you'd meet on a weekend and have a barbecue. So he looks like he doesn't live in the Capitol anymore. That's right. That's right, yeah, yeah, he looks like a guy you could hang out with, yeah. So it's prisoner eye for the guilty guy or something like that. It's like that. It's working. Jail makeover.

That's right, I think people are not in him, but I think he looks better. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about Trump. Obviously the timing of these new indictments is interesting for us, for the media, but also especially for Donald Trump, because he's got a high profile summit coming up very soon with Vladimir Putin. I think it's actually in Helsinki on Monday. He's gonna be having the summit. It's already previously been planned, but it is still expected to go forward. Now, it might seem like perhaps this information was being released and these indictments

were being timed to affect that. Rod Rosenstein said that's not the case. He says the timing of the indictments release is a function of the collection of the facts, the evidence, and the law, and a determination that it was sufficient to present the indictment at this time, which I guess could be true, but it certainly is in the air as this summit is coming up. we have to actually, I don't think it's fairly important, but you have to take that, I would say, at face value, because they've had any number of opportunities to drop balls at more damaging times, particularly the before the election.

And so I just imagine that they just proceed rather to the oblivious extent that they possible. Although now they did also suggest that there'll be no report coming until after the midterms. No, these conspiracy theories, look, I get it. You say, hey, look, the timing sounds suspicious. How's this? If you really wanted to embarrass Donald Trump, you wouldn't tell him any of this. Remember, he got this information a couple of days before the public did, right? And you would let him go and fawn over Putin, which is what he's almost certainly going to do

and would have done without this information. We had a wonderful relationship. We had a tremendous talk. It was a wonderful guy, et cetera. Then you would drop this and he'd look like a total jackass. If you wanted to embarrass Trump and you wanted to do the timing right, you wouldn't do it now. And then have him- On again, Friday afternoon. Right, Friday is when you release news, you don't want people to cover, right?

And then it allows Trump to then come out of the meeting with Putin and go, I was very tough on him. I asked him about it, and he says he didn't do it. Whatever, he's going to say something absurd. But if he was, if he had like two brain cells to rub together, it would be a softball. It would be a layup. I mean, oh, great, oh, I went and yelled at Putin. You wouldn't believe how tough I was on him. You couldn't ask for better timing if you were Trump with this information.

So are you predicting that he is going to say I was really tough on Putin? Yeah, I'm predicting that he'll say that, but he can't help himself so he will follow up by saying, but we had a tremendous meeting. And I think what's being done to Russia is very unfair. I think we'll get that second part. I'm not sure that he's going to do first. No, I think Gogetti, I was tough on him and he respects me. He heard, like, he said he didn't do it, but he's going to look into it.

Yes. And as for your theory, I tend to agree with it. It makes a lot of sense to me. But with the caveat that Trump is immune to embarrassment and shame, he embarrasses himself eight times a week, and it doesn't matter. So what's one more embarrassment or less at the end of the day? I'm serious. You know, I have a five-year-old daughter, and like when she starts crying hysterically,

Mostly it's because she's done something wrong and she got caught. And so I'm encouraged by that because she feels a degree of, oh, I shouldn't have done that. So I actually don't, like I usually, I laugh at her, right? I want it to go on and on and on. But Trump doesn't have that. There is, that doesn't, that little thing doesn't exist. And you see it sometimes in other kids. And I always think, oh, psychopath coming.

You know, right? Well, look, so regardless of what the timing was, I mean, it is coming up right before the summit. And so some politicians on technically on both sides of the aisle have called on him to postpone the meeting until Russia makes some sort of assurance that they're going to do something about what they have already done. And we'll do again. What's that? And we'll almost certainly do again, as Shank was getting at because we, I imagine,

I don't see North Carolina and Wisconsin and Indiana and all these states, we gotta tighten up, we got trouble coming. I think Rhode Island's got it. So Chuck Schumer said President Trump should cancel his meeting with Vladimir Putin until Russia takes demonstrable and transparent steps to prove that they won't interest fear in future elections. Glad-handing with Vladimir Putin on the heels of these indictments would be an insult to our democracy, just the most recent one, I suppose. And there was a tweet with a statement from John McCain saying, if President Trump is not prepared to hold Putin

accountable, the summit in Helsinki should not move forward. Asked about this. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, it's on. That was literally what she said. What does that mean? They're doing the meaning. Oh, I see. Okay. So us reasonable progressives are stuck in the middle here. I don't know that I want him to cancel the summit or spit in Putin's face or launch missiles or whatever, right? Well, I don't want to launch missiles. I just want to be clear about that. Yeah, but you don't want him to do the summit. I don't care. Yeah, that's what I was going to get at. So to us, look, I want him to meet with Kim Jong-un. I want peace in North Korea, etc. But I don't want him to be a sucker and then have him say, oh, he's a great guy and he's

gotten rid of all of his nukes. What, he hasn't? That didn't help, right? I don't want, and so if he goes to Putin and is actually negotiating on our behalf for things that are important in the world and to avoid further conflict, wonderful. But do you, anybody really think that that's what Donald Trump is going to do? He's going to go there and embarrass himself, embarrass us, he's going to kiss Putin's ass, and he's going to give him whatever he wants. He went to NATO and said, well, they speak Russian in Crimea anyway. Why don't they just, you know, are you You crazy, and he is. He just gives Russia everything they want, so he's gonna go to Putin and look, you know what

I think. I think he's in his back pocket, but even if you don't think that, I'll tell you ahead of time like I always do, I guarantee you that he's gonna get nothing for us and whatever Putin wants, he's gonna give it to him. So he might come out and declare that Crimea should be Russia. I don't know, but I know that we're not gonna get anything out of it. So there's no point to it, so I don't want further conflict. Yes, there are some people out there who think, oh, good, let's use this to drum up more

conflict in the world. We're not in that class, but we're also not in the gullible class who thinks that Trump's going to go to talk to Putin and get something good for America. That's just not going to happen. Trump's, I mean, Putin's objective, look, no one wants war. No one, and there isn't going to be war, and that's not an issue, right? So that's a massive red herring. Trump got what he wanted.

There is massive discord inside NATO. There's weakness and indecision and uncertainty on NATO's part about what they can count on from the United States of America. That emboldens aggressive autocrats like Vladimir Putin. That's a win. He has it. And by the way, that makes war more likely. That's right, overall.

Because if Trump goes and kisses his ass one more time, what's going to stop Putin from taking Estonia? And if he does that and says, hey, Trump said they speak Russian and Crimea, they speak Russian in Estonia. A lot of people in Estonia speak Russian. So I, you know, I used the Trump logic to take Estonia. Then war becomes more likely, not less likely. So here's, I, one of the things...

At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVee. 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 expressvn.com slash t-y-t, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. I'll preface my comment by saying one of the things that's bothered me about a lot of the reaction to the Russia's stories is that a lot of Democrats and a lot of pretty liberal people sound like they're trashing diplomacy. And I believe in diplomacy. And I believe we've got to keep talking.

to the Russians. They're the other nuclear superpower. I'm a backer of diplomas. We can't let that stop. But on this one, I got to say I take a fairly tough position. That part of diplomacy is you got to know when to say, no, the meeting's off. Because with this new information that's unacceptable, well, we'll get back to you at a later date, but it is not appropriate for two chiefs of state to meet while this is unresolved. So I would actually, for all of my talk for diplomacy, my first reaction, maybe I'll think about it more over the weekend, but my first reaction is say, no, Trump ought to call it off. Yeah.

As a site, that's diplomacy too, right? Acting tough. We're not canceling meetings. So, RJ, I'm glad you said that, because the diplomacy that we're talking, we're not on the verge of war. When we're on the verge of war, you talk and you keep talking and nobody walks out of the room, right? Because when you walk out of the room, then you're on, then you run the cusp, then you're on the cusp of missiles being launched.

This isn't that, which is a long issue with diplomacy. Of course, we're all in favor of diplomacy, but diplomacy isn't only, oh, I'm going to meet with this guy and have a giant summit of publicity stunt. Of course, I'm glad he talked to Kim theoretically, but the low-level discussions are what's important anyway. And we weren't on the verge of war with North Korea. We're not now, we weren't before. So this is all nonsense. Diplomacy is a long game that we've been playing successfully in the parts regarding NATO and the Soviets since 1945, effectively for 73 years. Okay, and Trump says in following up to his message that the Russians should basically

have Crimea, he said, well, if it was Obama's fault anyway, if I was president, he know he wouldn't have been able to do that. Well, hey, Donald Trump, good news for you, you're president now, and you have a chance to be so tough on Russia that they don't do anything like an aggressive action like that against the West again, because that's your point about Obama, oh, you let him take Crimea, Well, we just found out for sure that the Russians tried to interfere in our elections, not with tweets, but actually get into the ballot box. They tried to steal our elections.

So are you going to let him get away with it? My guess is yes. In fact, in the first statement that he did that the White House put out was, see, this shows that Trump was never involved. Number one, of course, as usual, not true, it doesn't show that at all, they didn't speak to that. They said this is not about that, that's a different matter. This is about did the Russians actually hack into the DNC, Hillary Clinton's emails and steal

those emails. Yes, it was Russian intelligence officials that did that. And more importantly, in all of our minds, they try to get into the ballot boxes, okay? Now that's a thing you should be pissed about if you're the American president. You should be outraged by that. And there should be consequences, not military consequences, but something. So, because if there's no consequences, no sanctions, no anything, why don't you just open up a sign that says China, anyone else, break into our ballot boxes anytime you like,

we'll reward you afterwards. So like Richard pointed out, part of diplomacy is also being tough. Tough doesn't mean war. If you're a neocon, that's all it ever means, right? But we're not neocons, we have the whole range of actions here. And if Trump goes there and he's done nothing so far, he's done that show. 1% interest in actually protecting America. And he's president now.

So is he going to protect America or is he only concerned about himself? And you know what the answer to that is. That's why every single comment so far has been, me, me, me, me, me. It's a witch hunt. Oh, they're coming to get me, but I'm innocent. How about us? You're supposed to be the president of the United States. You're supposed to represent us.

And he does no such thing. So I don't want that embarrassment meeting with anyone. We have one more interesting wrinkle of this, but I think we should take our first break. All right, let's take a quick break, and then come back and you want to talk about curious timing. We'll talk about curious timing. All right, we'll be right now. All right, back on a young turks. Nuneo Martin's writes in, indictments aren't proof of anything.

It's not evidence, you idiot. Okay. Right about the first thing. Yeah, it's not proof of anything. It's not the second thing. It is evidence. Yeah, you still get to have a trial, not guilty. It presupposes the existence of evidence.

I mean, they'd have to be crazy to do this without any evidence at all. I mean, really, Nuno and anybody else out there, you think that the Justice Department got together and they're like, what shall we invent today? Okay, let's just make up a bunch of things, presented to a grand jury, and have them believe it, have them do the indictment. But when we get in the court, we'll be embarrassed because there'll be no evidence. That'll work out really great for us in our careers. Well, they're never, there probably will never be a trial. That's right, you're not going to be a trial. Because they're not, Putin's not going to send them over to face trial.

I hear you. By the way, sometimes it's done an absentia. But even if there's no trial, okay, look, if you're in that camp and you think everyone in the government is everyone, not some people, not some people with a bias, et cetera, but is a liar and just makes up things out a whole cloth, okay, that's the camp you're in. Then I can't help you. I can't even communicate with you. I think we mix up things sometimes. I think that's a broad statement, but I'll try to be more specific. I think sometimes we mix up what people do with the Russian investigation, for example.

I mean, there is a kind of McCarthyite tinge to people who say, well, Bernie's an active agent. You know, you see these tweets from Louise Mention, whomever. That's outrageous and it bothers me, and it's divisive, and it's hateful, and it's all of those things. And nobody gets more pissed off about that stuff than I do. But when it gets to this point that they're indicting 12, 13 people by name, at that point, in my head, the burden of proof shifts. You've now got a tall order to convince me that there is an evidence behind this. That may not be proof of guilt, but there's evidence.

And the Justice Department says we tracked it. We know exactly who did this. On what date? And we can show through the evidence that happens. Now, have they present that in open court yet? No, they haven't. Okay, so go ahead and celebrate. Because now you think, well, since they didn't present it, I still get to pretend that I'm right.

Or now I get to say, nope, nope, it's all made up. They all got in the room. Just because Gulf of Tonkin happened and other things happened in the past doesn't mean that everything the government does. Like the mainstream media drives me crazy by assuming that everything the government does is true. But you can't make the opposite mistake. Everything the government does is a lie, total lie. They just got in a room, made up a bunch of stuff because they hate who. I don't know, liberals, conservatives, Trump.

I don't know. But if you believe that, you're just not right. And they did have to present this to a grand jury. It's not just, they don't just get together and do it. They have to take it to a grand jury. That's regular people. And look, when James Clapper says X, Y, and Z happened, well, James Clapper is a perjurer. I don't believe James Clapper.

When somebody goes in front of a grand jury and presents evidence and indictments are handed down, I say, well, you know, there's, there's, again, it's not proof of guilt, but there's evidence. There's definitely evidence. So Richard makes a great point, because almost everyone else in the establishment media and establishment politics loves James Clapper. Oh, James Clapper. No, James Clapper is a proven liar. So if you want to say that, hey, that's a very top level government official that

would clearly lied on the record, you would be right. He did. There should have been consequences for that, and I don't trust him at all. But because there's evidence that he lied, you could show that. It's clear, right? You have to figure out what's true or not true. It's easy to say everything's a conspiracy, everything is fake, or everything is true. Those are the easy pass.

The hard path is using your judgment to figure out what's true and what's not true. Okay, look, one last tweet, then we really gotta go. Ravone with a really nice tweet, I joined TYT today. Thank you. I appreciate it, brother. Yeah, nice. That's in order to become a member is tyt.com slash join you get all of our shows. By the way, Anna's podcast is killing it.

Hashtag no filter, check that out on tyt.com slash audio. If you get the app, everything's convenient. TYT.com slash app. It's all there for you guys. And on Sunday, I'm going to go on reliable sources on CNN. I already taped it earlier today, and it's a discussion of how progressives are winning everywhere and how progressive media is on top of it. And I gave credit to you guys, the Young Turks audience.

So please check that out. That's at 11 a.m. Eastern on CNN. What do they, do they give you something for selling out? Or do you just go, do you do it on your own? Yeah, I sold out by giving credit to the Young Turks audience. But like what do you get? And the progressives everywhere. Do you get money or do you just?

Yeah, he asked me a question to see if I had to walk out too. So that's interesting. So check out that curveball. All right, next. Okay. By the way, I am, I'm very glad to hear that Anna's podcast is killing it. It would be nice to have a podcast. Okay, I hear you, but it'd be really nice.

Okay. Anyway, no, her show is awesome. Okay, let's talk about one more connection to what we were saying. Within today's indictment, there is a really interesting connection to one of the more noteworthy statements that Donald Trump made back during the last election. In case you have forgotten it, here is what he said back in July of 2016. What do I have to get involved with Putin for? I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn't

respect our president. And if it is Russia, which is probably not. No. knows who it is. But if it is Russia, it's really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country when they would hack into a major party and get everything. But it would be interesting to see, I will tell you this. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be next.

Yes, sir. And he was right. They actually were rewarded mightily. So there, I still remember when that happened. I think we covered it live during the RNC. Very exciting, noteworthy thing. Now, afterward, some of the people around Donald Trump said he was just joking, which is a good defense and a necessary defense because it's not often that a presidential candidate.

Made the same joke again at the debate. Oh, yeah, I'm getting there. That a presidential candidate would encourage a country to hack into his opponent seems He was un-American, fundamentally, anti-democratic, but he did it. And it was just a joke, and he really liked the joke. So that same day, later that day, he tweeted, if Russia or any other country or person as Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI. And so those were two great jokes that he told on July 27th of 2016.

Somewhere else in the world, something was happening on July 27th, 2016, but we didn't find out about it until the indictment came out today. And it could just be a coincidence. But one of the sections of the indictment says, the conspirators, that's the Russian intelligence operation, spearfished individuals affiliated with the Clinton campaign throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27th, 2016, the conspirators attempted after hours to spearfish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third party provider and used by Clinton's personal office.

At or around the same time, they also targeted 76 email addresses at the domain for the Clinton campaign, that could just be a coincidence. Okay, it could. Look, it's, now they had already been doing, they'd been planning for this sort of operation, they'd been doing various things that did not start on July 27th, but one particular part of it just started on July 27th. So it's pretty bad for Trump that the day he begs Russia to hack into Democratic emails, they hack into Democratic emails on that same exact day.

On the other hand, they probably would have done it anyway. It's not like they were waiting for Trump to say it. And they're like, oh, my God, okay, release the condor or whatever way. I'm a contrarian here. I actually do think he was joking. I mean, that doesn't, it's not a material. It's not like hilarious, but, you know, I don't really, I don't really get it, actually. I think, you know, oh, you know, because Hillary's emails were missing.

Hey, yeah, Russia, find the emails. Now, I think, look, I think, I think he was joking. That's all I don't, I mean. I mean, if Trump was intimately involved, I think he probably has some other way of contact. That's my point. That's what I meant to say. But imagine, the fact is, the dates are the same, right? That we know, right?

So, first of all, it makes no difference in the big, we know they did it. That's the kind of thing that can never be proven, nor should anybody particularly waste time trying to prove that. If anything, Lori Kilmartin, I think it is, whatever the comedian she does, she consistently just reverses things on a day. And she says, you know, President Clinton two years after denying, after asking people to investigate Trump's campaign, the indictment now has the same date, right? And she just says, like, okay, what would the right do with this? Oh, yeah, yeah. So, like, instantly all of us, you say you give them credit for joking. I say it doesn't matter.

You guys are like, yeah, coincidence would have, and we're all moving on, right? Because we know, in and of itself, it's stupid, it's pointless. There's no way to know. and we obviously know he would have another manner of communicating. I mean, Sean Hannity would spend his entire show on this. And I don't say this to be like, isn't the world unfair. I suggest that they are better at this kind of politics. Because you know why?

Yeah, I do know why, but go ahead. You take it. Because they have no shame. That's right, that's right. Because if we thought, hey, it probably has nothing to do with it, we'll say that. Instead, like, if we had, which we just did, if we, if we, but they would look at it and go, it probably as I knew it with it, right? Now let's go on air and tell him it.

The same day, the same day. Right. Like, you're telling me it's not a conspiracy. The global, the globalist, I've done it on the same day. It was Rothschild sent the email on the same day as well, right? So I'm going to a little excused there, but Sean Haney says the same things without the lunatic. They put a July 4th, 177. to June 27, 2016 as the death of America, right?

The day our democracy died. You know what else they don't have besides no shame or no scruples or whatever? They have no agenda. They have nothing that the American people want. So this is all the stuff they focus on to channels people's resentments. And then you have the institutional Democrats in the middle who don't have an agenda either. So this becomes the dominant noise of the media because nobody's talking about the millionaires and billionaires, and what's going on with the economy and how people are getting screwed.

So this is what you get. They want to unrun the government, right? That's their agenda. Leave it be. Leave everything be. Let's see what happens. Except the tax code. They want to make some changes there.

Many entitlements. Right, right. No, but that's literally do nothing. Let's stop paying entitlement. Let's just stop doing everything. We'll just see how it works out. They don't want to run government. They don't want to do anything.

And by the way, I mean, we're sort of speculating what would Sean Hannity do if there was this sort of connection. But look, we don't have to speculate. He's done with Pierce Strach and Lisa Page for a year. Every night, over and over, it led to one of the most ridiculous hearings in U.S. history yesterday. They went insane because of a couple of texts. They lost, the entire Republican Party has lost their mind for month after month after month after month because of a couple of texts. That's a great point. Literally, Tray Gowdy yesterday lost it over, Strach saying in one of the texts that he would lose $100 million to zero.

Right? It's an obvious joke. It's an obvious hyperbole joke. If we saw that from the other side, we'd never even take note of it, right? We'd be like, nobody actually thinks that somebody's gonna win an election, 100 million to zero. Gowdy was outraged, he's like, how could you say this, are you saying it's not true? Is it true or not true?

Did you say it or did you not say? Like, what kind of a lunatic takes that seriously, right? But they do, that's what they do, day in, day out. So they would take something like this and have hearings on it. But they have a master narrative, and Democrats don't. And the master narrative is that the deep state is taking everything from us. And the Democrats are the party of the elite, and this just proves it. So America, you know, Republican-based, get outraged.

See, this is just more proof. They're just trying to stick it to your hero, Donald Trump. They have a narrative. What's the Democratic narrative? What do Democrats get people outraged and energized about? I'm not talking about us. I'm talking about the Democratic Party. What do they do to get all the registered voters boiled, you know, blood boiling?

So they'll go out and vote in November, as far as I can tell, not much. Well, we can actually transition to a potential master narrative that they can follow, or at least a particular type of candidate. Yeah, okay. One last thing you want to say? No, no. Okay. Let's do that then.

We are currently in the middle of a multi-year fight over what sort of candidates that the Democratic Party should be running and what sort of presidential candidate could actually win in 2020 against Donald Trump. And now we can add to that fight a little bit of new data coming out of a survey done by UGov. They asked a number of Americans to question, do you want a candidate that is more like Bernie Sanders or less like Bernie Sanders? And here are the numbers.

57% of Democratic respondents said more like Bernie Sanders. Only 16% said less and 27% weren't sure, wait until they get a load of him. And once they see him actually being covered by the media. So those are pretty overwhelming numbers. And I don't think if you had polled most in the media, certainly not in the Democratic leadership, They would have guessed the level of support for candidates more like Bernie. Yeah, there's 16% where it's all superdelegates, by the way. Everyone of people are right on.

Governor, Lee. So, yeah, look, if you see the number of 57%, that's already a great, great number. But I'm afraid that, and this hasn't happened to be fair, I'm afraid that some people reported Justice 57, leading you to think that there's 43 on the other side. There isn't. Only 16% said, no, I don't want Democratic candidates to be like Bernie Sanders. That is a very, very low number. So this is excellent news.

And then on top of that, they continued by saying only, and this is Newsweek, I'm quoting, only 13% of Republicans said they wanted candidates to be more like Bernie Sanders. What do you mean? Only 13% of Republicans. You know how the establishment Democrats always say, no, no, no, we got to be more right-wing, we've got to be more corporate to get Republican voters to vote for us. If we got 13% of Republican voters to vote for us, we'd win every election. What do you think that I asked this in?

the meeting this morning, how many Republican voters do you think would respond affirmatively to we would like more Democratic candidates to be like Hillary Clinton? Negative 10. Yeah. Like, seriously. Unless they interpreted it as, yeah, all of them, because we'll never ever lose. Right, right. And I say seriously, so some wise guys are, you can't actually get negative 10.

Okay. Oh, and just to be clear, the question isn't that do you want the Democratic candidates to be more like Bernie Sanders? Is do you want the person running for Congress to be more like Bernie Sanders? Which means that a lot of Republicans want their candidate to be more like Bernie Sanders. So when the Democratic Party is out there shooting down candidates that are like Bernie Sanders in congressional races in Texas and all around the country, they're shooting themselves in the foot, which is what we suspected for a long time, I think. Now, can I muddy the waters a little bit with the unfortunate part of the data, which of course we can interpret. And I have some theories of my own based on my time in policy. I, independents were split, 27% said more like Sanders, while 35% said less and 38% said

not sure. So that is a lot of not sure, higher than in the other two categories, but that's not the numbers exactly you'd want to see. Yeah, I would have thought that the independent numbers would be stronger, to be honest. My argument, we, we, I was gonna say, I think in the meeting I said we mythologize independent voters, but I don't think. I think that the media and America generally fetishizes independence. and has ideas about it that are not actually borne out in the data.

This idea that a lot of people just, you know what, I go one way on one issue, I go another another, I just think about it, and I just come up with it. I'm not dogmatic or tribal, like other people. Exactly, that is not how value systems work, and that's not how ideologies work. Generally, although not universally, and this is not about party identification necessarily. This is about people who, like, you haven't really got into it. It's a lower level of political information, a lower level of. of political sophistication, so they don't have an attachment to either party necessarily.

And to add to that, there's been research that shows that independent voters are very rarely that genuinely independent person. They tend to lean in one direction or another. Lean Democrat, so they're really not, and then the rest just don't know anything. So they, you know. But at the same time, guys, independents do matter, okay? Of course, it matters, and so now the counter information to this, which actually jives with what John is saying is, Bernie Sanders did far better with independents than Hillary Clinton

did in 2016. That was borne out by all the polling, okay? And I would say scream about it every day on the air. So number one, we should be consistent and we thought independence were important then, they're still important today. Independents who voted in the Democratic front. Yeah, no, no, no, but also in the polls-the-poles-how they would have voted in the general election, okay?

Right. Independents who vote. Right. Now, so what is the difference between those independents back then? a couple of years ago and the polling today. Independents are low information, they don't, they get less information generally than the partisans of Republicans or Democrats, right? Back then, Bernie was in the news more and he was giving the speeches, et cetera.

And you might have seen some of the particulars and thought, oh, I could have health care too, or my kids could go to college too, maybe I kind of like that. And his polling among independents were way better. What has happened in the last two years? You don't see Bernie's speeches anymore, all you see is Republican smears. It's the socialist, socialists, socialists. By the way, aided and abetted by the mainstream, who nonstop talks about his socialism. If you go online anywhere, including at the comment section of this video, you will have

right wing trolls saying, oh, they just want everything for nothing, right? And if a low information voter hears that for the moment being, and he thinks, oh, well, I don't want to give away everything for nothing, right? So, but that's why you have elections and we'll have a primary that'll probably last two years. And then you will have plenty of information. And by the way, if some other candidates doing better with independence and has a better chance of winning, we will report that honestly, as we did last time.

And last time it was Bernie who had a better chance, and we were right. And right now, the Democratic voters love Bernie Sanders. That means he has an excellent chance of winning the primaries. And he would have even peel off Republicans, and we'll see what happens with independence. So, I just mean, like, first of all, well, yes, the Democratic Party has directed, resources and winking, a lot of winking to more establishment candidates than progressives and congressional races throughout the country. That said, at the national level, every significant Democrat who's running for president

has almost fully embraced every word Bernie Sanders says. They may not mean it, and people may not trust them, but they have. So there are two different tax happening at the same time. That's true. So really fast, I just want to say also, there's a little. bit of self-selection going on here, because if you are, you voted for the Democrats before, you voted for the Republicans, I mean, you are necessarily saying that you have paid attention to politics, you've gotten engaged to politics, and independent, it lumps together

multiple types of people. So there are some people who pay attention to politics constantly, but don't support either of the parties. I would consider those more true independence. But the same, but a different sort of person who has never paid attention to politics, doesn't care about politics, but does not thus associate with either the Democratic or the Republican Party, would be classified as an independent. Both of those types of people, and I would say one group is probably much larger than the other, so it's really using one term to apply it to two totally different categories. Yeah, and last thing is, look, when the election season begins, this time around,

we get to make our case. Because now you've got Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that everybody's paying attention to. Yeah, I was just on CNN, it'll appear, it was taped, you'll see it on Sunday, and now CNN is asking us, hey, what are progressives thinking, well, how did they have the success that we missed? That is a change of conversation that is very significant. So one example from yesterday, Alexandria sends out a tweet saying, while the Republicans spent $2 trillion, invented it out of nowhere, to give it to people with yachts within yachts. and she had a picture of a yacht going inside another gigantic yacht, they're saying that you can't treat your mom who has chemo. Now that that message has oxygen, they are screwed.

When we are all over television and all over all the media, saying we're not giving away things for nothing, Medicare for all saves up to, this is a shocking number, $17 trillion. It saves money and it gives everybody insurance. Oh, that's impossible, you want, Chris, it's not impossible. You take out the middleman. You take out the insurance companies that is a giant waste of money where they're trying to maximize profit for themselves, the marketing and everything else that goes into it. How do we know all other developed countries have already done it?

And they already have better results and they spend less. When that message hits the American people, which by the way, it already has Medicare for all already incredibly popular at 60%. It could go to 70, and it could go beyond that. We're going to win. We're going to crush them. This is why when people say to me, for example, oh, you can't go into South Carolina or McComb County, Michigan,

and talk about Medicare for All, and I'm co-authoring a book on Medicare for All now, I'll make that case all day long. Average family of four, according to actuaries, pays more than $11,000 a year for their medical expenses. Medicare for All estimate about $5,000. I'll go any town in this country and say, You want to save $6,000 a year. I'll make that case all day.

And you know what's happening? Right now, Brent Welder, James Thompson, they're both winning in the middle of Kansas, running on Medicare for All. You know why? It turns out people in Kansas want to save money and have health care. Beto O'Rourke in Texas, his number one issue, Medicare for all, in Texas. Why? Because when you tell people, you can actually have insurance, and as a society, we can save

trillions of dollars, they're like, where's the question? And the other side says, yeah, but on the other hand, how about those poor insurers? companies. Okay, good luck with that message, brother. No, of course, but they don't. I got it. That's the truth. But the fact is the message is you can't afford it, you'll bankrupt the country and nobody will have health care. And then we put out tweets of yachts within yachts and go, you afforded $2 trillion for the rich. Hey, guys in Texas, guys in Kansas, did you get a yacht within a yacht? No, you didn't, did you? And the top 1% got on average a $61,000 tax break.

thousand dollars a year. You didn't get that. And they say, no, I can't afford insurance for your kids. I can't afford education for your kids because I spent it all on yachts within yachts. That's good. Come and get it. Come and get it. You can't put a yacht within a yacht without having somebody expand the first yacht so that the other yacht can dock inside. That's job creation. Yeah. Well, good luck. We desperately need to go to our second break. But one good bit of news I saw, and you may already know about this, but Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasso-Cortez are going to be

campaigning together. They're heading to Kansas. Do you know the first person they're doing a rally for? Brett Welder. Brent Welder. T-Y-T-Cansas.com. July 20th. Can you imagine being at that rally? Can I go to that rally? Well, we'll cover that rally, one way or another. I don't know.

So unbelievably hot in Kansas in the middle. I don't care. I'm going to pass. John was starring in True Midwest. All right. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to this podcast. You're only halfway through.

So hold, hold, stay right here. Just want to remind you if you want to get all five segments of the Young Turks commercial free, these are just two of them. Every day we do it. So go to t-y-tnetwork.com slash join, and you'll get the whole five segments, two hours. Add free. Do it now. All right, back on Young Turks.

Q music, Q writes in on YouTube Super Chat. you keep saying to us that you can indict a ham sandwich. That's a quote that's often put out there. That's true. It's not literally true, but and didn't the Podessa email say they did in fact collude to make it all up? That is a confusion you're seeing the inconsistency from TYT reporting. I love you, brother, but it isn't inconsistent at all.

The Democratic Party did collude to help Hillary Clinton win the primaries. That is completely different from the FBI going and making up facts. in an actual federal investigation, two totally different things. The Democratic Party's job is to win. They're terrible at it, right? But it's not a crime to collude to help the candidate who you think is going to win, or you think will support the establishment and get all your friends rich, whatever the dumb reasoning was.

They did think that she was the better candidate to win. I think we've seen over eight years of losing 1,000 seats and state houses and the presidency that maybe they're wrong. Well, I don't think they were that high-minded. I think they saw it as being a good career move for them to help her. And I think what they did was probably not illegal, was definitely unethical, was definitely wrong and stupid. I have no problem with all that information becoming public so that the Democratic Party

can reform itself. But that public or not public, that does not address the issue of whether a crime was committed. There are separate topics. I will demand the last word, because I know we can't go off on this. But yeah, that may have been their self-interest, but losing is not in their self-interest. Losing hurt them. All right, all right, let's keep going. Smooth says, I love when John Iderola brings political science into the discussion.

So there is one person. It adds a needed level of depth and understanding. Okay, very nice. And Wesley Ingram says. I'm really totally needed, but all right, go on. Wesley Ingram says, does that say the swamp strikes back on John's shirt? And yes, that's exactly what it says. Here, let's take a one shot, the swamp strikes back.

It's pretty awesome, actually. Yeah, the white house is in there. It's a great, great shirt. ShopTyT.com to get that shirt, shoptyt.com. All right, what's the last story, John? Oh, the last story. Look at the self-control at a jank there. Not bad, okay.

Today, Donald Trump had a press conference in the UK, but even before that, he gave an advanced interview with the son, or maybe he didn't. He doesn't think that he did, but they posted the all. So it seems like he did. It gets complicated once you get into the weeds there. He talked about a lot of things. But I think the most interesting part of it perhaps is his discussion of European culture. He's a cultural critic.

He doesn't think that what's happening recently is good for Europe. He said a lot, but here's a few parts. Allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame. I think it changed the fabric of Europe. And unless you act very quickly, it's never going to be what it was. And I don't mean that in a positive way. We got that. Yes, exactly. You didn't need to say that, we know. I think you were losing your culture. Look around. You go through certain areas that didn't exist 10 or 15 years ago. I don't think he's gone through those areas. But he goes on to say, I think it has been very bad for Europe. I think what has happened is very tough. It's a very tough situation. You see the same terror attacks that I do. I just think it's changing the culture. I think it is a very negative thing for Europe. I know it is politically not necessarily correct to say that, but I will say it and I will say it loud.

And can I just briefly moment? Don't take that off. So the expression is politically correct. It's not about whether it's correct or not. That's just an expression. So when you say politically not necessarily correct, you're not saying anything. That doesn't mean anything. Well, but you are making it clear that you're a white nationalist, racist, proto-fascist,

who deserves to be hustled out of that White House as quickly as we can get him out of there. That's just, I'm tossing that out. Can I have five of you right now? Not well. I'll take responsibility for that. I'll take responsibility. Yeah, I mean, you know, the Nazi comparisons are generally weak and foolish and undermine an argument. But that is precisely the language that the National Socialists used in Germany in the 1930s about Jews.

And now they're using it about Muslims. Yep. All right. And probably Jews, too. In a pinch. Yeah. Yeah, so the right wing will say, well, are you saying, because they'll overgeneralize and they'll do a straw man argument.

Oh, so we can't criticize anybody's culture. No, nobody's saying that. And if they are, if some small number of people are saying that, we don't agree with them. So if Donald Trump was specific, hey, there's a part of a culture that I think is problematic, and I don't think we should adopt that part of that culture, there would be great agreement. And it's, I've used this example a thousand times in some Central Asian countries, they still do kidnapping of women and then sexual assault, and then they marry them, okay? So that is because of the nomadic culture that arose in Central Asia back in the day. That part of the culture is wrong, and you are allowed to criticize it.

Now, there are other parts of Central Asian culture that are fantastic. Each culture, including Western culture, has wonderful parts and terrible parts. So if you were to have an intelligent conversation around culture, that would be a very important. That would be great, that would be wonderful, that it's a conversation the country should have. It's a challenging one sometimes, and you need a little bit of courage to engage in that conversation. But when you say the immigrant culture is bad, what does that mean? Every immigrant. Every immigrant and every part of their culture, see, that's why it's racist.

Like you think we throw that word around, no, if this isn't white nationalism, what is? When you say everything is wrong about the immigrant culture, how could that possibly be true? No, you're not worried about the culture. Then you're making a comment about who they are, their personhood. You're also saying everything is great about the white European culture. I mean, that's the flip side of it. Our great white European culture, well, you know, we had some pretty barbaric history in the white European culture, too, including today in the United States.

They're so blind to that. One of the things that I was most amused by is when the right wing grabbed something I said made headlines all over the right wing websites. They're like, Chank Yugar outrageously says that the Holocaust was committed by Christians. But that's who, it wasn't the Muslims and it wasn't the Buddhists. But they're so blinded because they think no true Scotsman would do that. No true Christian, because Christians are great. And by definition, they must not have done the Holocaust.

Even though it was Christians who did it. Not necessarily because they were Christians, but then that gets the point we're making. Some Muslims do terrorist attacks, but not necessarily because they're Muslim, or they certainly don't represent all Muslims. So when you say, no, no, no, the Nazis don't represent all Christians, of course not, right? But the terrorists don't represent all Muslims. And the fact that you can't even see that is what's wrong with this level of thinking. Yeah, and onto the barbarism that I love the idea of him going to this country and saying as a white person, you all are barbaric for coming in here.

When you go back a year or two and we're bombing their countries, we're devastating them economically, you know, go back 10 years, go back 20, 50, 100, 200. Throughout that entire span, we come in, we steal their resources, we disrupt their society, we overthrow their governments if they ever get a shred of democracy, and every possible opportunity, we kill them. And then we say now, you all are barbaric for coming to us, largely, to escape the chaos that we were instrumental in causing. We took 3,000 children, took them away from their families and haven't made no effort to reunite it, and we did it to, one, prove a point to discourage other people from coming, and two, to win an election in November, to fire up a vase and get them excited. And that sounds pretty barbaric.

That sounds a little barbaric. It's just they are dressing up, Trump is the modern day 21st century version of a white citizens council. They put on a tie and they take off the mask. Yeah. And so look guys, hood. So it's a wrap around mask. The whole thing. Thank you. Again, they're so blinded. Look, Western culture has wonderful parts. My family moved from Turkey. I mean, that's kind of in the middle of the world. But if you want to call it the east, we move from there to America. Because we love America. There's so many great parts of American culture. By the way, one of which is that it accepts all other cultures, right?

And we have a boiling pot, and we have great contributions from Italians, Irish, Jews. Yes, Muslims, yes, blacks, yes, Latinos. That's part of what was inviting about America and democracy and all those things. But is the West infallible? Does it have terrible parts of this culture? If you can't see that it does, there's something weird about you. We had slavery. That was pretty bad.

The Holocaust happened in the West. It didn't happen in the East. It happened in the West. That doesn't mean everybody in the West is guilty. Doesn't mean all white people are all Christians or bad people. But that is also part of our heritage and our culture. And that is something we should root out. And so we have to be open to all cultures, but that doesn't mean we have to accept every part

of each culture. But when you say, I'm against multiculturalism, that means you're saying, I'm only for one culture. I'm not for your other cultures, good or bad. And what's the one culture you're in favor of? It's obvious, the white culture. That's why when Richard says you're a white nationalist, that's exactly what you are. You know, and then when guys like Bench Bureau speak up and say that is there, you know,

and they would have heard your point and be like, hey man, you know, once again, here's Jank Uger equating all cultures. Is it so wrong to acknowledge that some cultures are better and we're more comfortable with than other cultures, right? I suppose. Sure, everybody's more comfortable with a certain culture. But that would also hold then that, because you don't want to be infected. with other cultures, they don't want to be infected with us, which should make us think about our foreign policy.

Yeah. Look, Trump is just brazen about it. It used to be a dog whistle, and it ain't a dog whistle anymore. We can all hear it when he says they're coming in here with their culture and changing ours and making our culture worse. That's some 1930s talk. And it is not subtle. It's not intellectual. an attempt to tweak and protect the ideals and the traditions of democracy. He doesn't even believe in rule of law. It is an attack on other races. So you have to call it what it is. Yes, those comments are deeply racist.

Okay, all right, we got to take a break here. Everybody check out the Zero Hour with Richard Eskow. Richard, thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate it. Check out the damage report with John and go vote for True North for or nominated to for best documentary for the streamies. t-y-t.com slash true north streamies, okay? And then it's all out, it's all there for you guys. Thank you guys. We've got a whole new power panel coming up. And my God, the story of what happened in Florida to African Americans by the police department there is so outrageous.

All right, we'll have that for you guys when we come back. Thanks for watching what I hope was a lovely edition of the Young Turks. Now, you know that that is of the five segments that we do, because that's free, we want to have you support independent media and come watch the whole show that we do every day. That's five segments overall. No ads at all. That's at t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. Come become a member. Thanks for watching either way. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jank Huger, and I'll see you.

soon.