The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - December 17th, 2019

Episode Date: December 18, 2019

Giuliani has just admitted he wanted Maria Yovanovitch "out of the way". Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. All right, welcome the Young Turks. Jake Hugh Granite, with you guys.

wild day, as usual. So Trump's impeachment is imminent, and we will go over to the Senate for a trial. What's going to happen in that trial is as important as it gets, because that's what's going to determine whether Trump is going to be run out of office. And I know what the correct strategy is for the Republicans. Not sure if I should reveal it to them. I'm pretty sure Mitch McConnell is not going to take my advice, but I will share it with you guys. So there's a lot to get to here on a wild day as usual. So Casper, let's do it, what do we got? All right, well we have impeachment news to start off with, and Rudy Giuliani is an idiot,

so let's do that. Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, was told by the Trump administration to avoid doing interviews, but he can't help himself, and he had a sit down interview with the New Yorker. And during that interview, he actually confessed to working with corrupt prosecutors in Ukraine in an effort to oust Marie Yovanovitch, who was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine at the time. Now, Marie Yovanovitch is also one of the now former, one of the former ambassadors who has testified against Trump during the impeachment investigation.

And here's what we know so far. Now, the New Yorker did an extensive profile on this prosecutor in Ukraine. His name is Yuri Lutsenko, you've probably heard of him already. And he is referred to as a now disgraced prosecutor general of Ukraine because apparently investigations found that he was corrupt himself, and as a result, he was ousted and he was salty about that. Now, former Ukrainian prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko railed against American diplomats, including Yovanovitch when he spoke to the New Yorker and eventually described his partnership with

Giuliani by saying both of them believed they offered each other a win-win situation for their political interests. When Lutsenko met with Giuliani at his office, the ex-prosecutor general provided financial documents he claimed was proof that Burisma hired Hunter Biden for the purpose of lobbying his father, the former vice president. So that's the reason why Lutsenko and Giuliani met in the first place. And they met with the help of Giuliani's business associates, Lev Parnas, and Igor Fruman. Now, before I continue, you want to jump in, Jay?

Yeah, both sides are thrown around corruption, but there has been evidence on one side and not the other. So you see that in some of the internal proceedings, that they recognize that Yovanovitch, our ambassador, is actually fighting against corruption. And so Lutsenko, who came in pretending to fight against corruption, kind of like Donald Trump, they, Lutsenko says to Juliana, we have a win-win here. We're both pretending to fight against corruption while actually being in favor of corruption. Now, of course, he doesn't frame it that way. We read you the quote there. But that is what's happening.

They're like, but we got to get rid of Yovanovitch, okay, because she actually would expose us and she doesn't want us to do nonsense investigations of the Bidens because she knows factually, and this has been shown over and over and over again, that it's not true. So we got to get her out of the way so that we can play our political games here. And so that's why they have their so-called win-win. But look, it's one thing for a corrupt guy in a different country to say, hey, America, can you get rid of your diplomat? Because she's getting in the way of my corruption.

It's another thing for America to agree. But it's a third thing for American State Department not to agree. but the president's personal lawyer to go in there and go, well, I'm going to fire a diplomat from the state department, even though I'm not in the government. I'm going to work with the president to fire this person because it helps this corrupt guy in Ukraine, which now Giuliani and some of his associates, the government is looking into whether they got paid to do that, right? Plus, I'm going to do it for the president's political ambitions.

None of this is in any way legitimate. So just to continue on, although I do want to go back to the accusations regarding Hunter Biden serving on that board. So Lutsenko wanted to meet with Attorney General Jeff Sessions to defend his reputation back in 2018, but he became irritated when he heard that Yovanovitch and others were trying to block that meeting. This eventually led to Lutsenko's first meeting with Giuliani after Parnas, that's Lev Parnas, offered to connect the two.

Okay, so I'm setting the stage for what happened. This is the context. And then the reporter from the New Yorker hits up Giuliani, gets an interview with him, and during that interview, Giuliani just confirms everything. So let me give you his statements. Now, according to Mediite, Giuliani largely confirmed Lutsenko's account of their relationship. He too saw Yovanovitch as an obstacle hindering his attempt to dig up dirt against his client's rival in advance of the 2020 election.

Here are direct quotes from Giuliani himself, I believed that I needed Yovanovich out of the way. She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody. It's amazing. Why would you admit that? Why would you admit that? You're saying I'm a person not in the government. I'm the president's personal attorney slash fixer. I'm trying to help him win the election.

And I needed the American ambassador out of the way so that we could do a corrupt, he doesn't say the corrupt part, but we could do an investigation of the president's rival, right? And his son, okay, look, even if that was your intent, why are you so stupid as he admitted to a reporter? They're unbelievable. So is he stupid or is there something that we don't know, right? Is there something that isn't being reported accurately in the mainstream media? And I say that because, I don't know, recent things that have transpired in my life have

made me question everything. And so, look, I mean, it does make sense if Hunter Biden is. serving on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, wouldn't corrupt, you know, actors have like a direct connection to Joe Biden, who then has a direct connection to Obama, the president of the United States at the time? Yeah, I hear you, but look, so let me tell you my take on this based on what we know. Look, everybody on planet Earth knows that Hunter Biden was on the board of that Ukrainian gas company, because his last name is Biden.

And he's almost pretty much admitted that, okay? He had no knowledge of Ukrainian gas and of course would not be on the board of that company, getting $50,000 a month otherwise. That's not the question. So, and if you're a conservative saying Hunter Biden was basically doing corruption to get on that board, yes, totally, okay? But the question is, was Joe Biden affecting American government policy to help his son get on the board? If there was evidence of that, I got no love for Joe Biden, I'd love to have evidence of that.

And then I would use it and tell you guys about it, because then that would be corruption and I would hate it. But there is no evidence of that. Or if there's any evidence showing that Biden is pulling strings for people in Ukraine because his son is serving on that board. Yes. So if there's evidence of that, then it's a big problem. Yeah, if there was evidence of Joe Biden in any way shaping American policy based on his son

getting paid, we would be a million percent against it. And look, I mean, I don't want him to be president. I want Bernie Sanders to be president. I don't want him to be a general election candidate because I think he might lose to Donald Trump. I think he's a really bad candidate. But there is no evidence of Joe Biden in any way affecting Ukrainian policy. In fact, it appears based on the evidence that we have, Joe Biden did the opposite.

They were trying to fight corruption, and they wanted to get rid of prosecutors who would not fight corruption at places like Burisma. So Hunter Biden guilty of using his father's name in a way that's odious, if you ask me, but I don't think Joe Biden's guilty. I'd love to tell you if he were, but I don't think he is. And the final part of this is how Giuliani confessed to working with a conservative columnist at the Hill in order to push information about this investigation. out there to the public.

In fact, he reached out to John Solomon at the Hill and said, John, let's make this as prominent as possible, I'll go on TV, you go on TV, you do columns, okay. So look, the only reason why I think that's relevant is because if this was really American foreign policy, you don't need to go on TV, you don't need to get another conservative writer to try to influence policy in this direction. The only reason why they're going through these weird paths to get an American ambassador fired is because what they're doing is illegitimate. If they had any real information about an American ambassador doing anything inappropriate, they

would just simply take it to the State Department. His client is the president of the United States. If you let the president know, hey, your ambassador is doing something wrong, he could then ask the Secretary of State, which is a lackey of Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, and they'd be like, whoa, let's find out. The reason they're doing this whole effort is because Ivanovich wasn't doing anything wrong. In fact, she was trying to fight corruption. That's why they had to do a workaround to try to get her fired, both for Ukrainian business

interests and for Donald Trump so that he can investigate his political rival. They had to do a workaround. That's what they had to do. Work around. Okay. Yeah. No, it makes sense, it makes sense. It's just, you know, you gotta be skeptical of things you read these days, but that does

make sense, and we haven't seen any evidence of Biden's wrongdoing. All right, well, let's move on to another aspect of this impeachment investigation. Mitch McConnell is finding himself disagreeing with a number of Republicans, even Donald Trump when it comes to the best way to proceed with the impeachment trial in the Senate. Now Mitch McConnell wants to get through the process as quickly as possible because he thinks that the possibility of calling witnesses is too much of a wild card. There might be information that isn't known yet that could be revealed through that trial, that could be damaging to Republicans in some of these swing districts.

However, people like Donald Trump want this trial to take its time because they think that it could actually help them. And there is some evidence to that point. So let me give you all the details according to this report by the Wall Street Journal. On the verge this week of becoming just the third US president to be impeached by the House, Trump doesn't want to be acquitted in the Senate, or doesn't just want to be acquitted in the Senate trial that would follow, these people say, he hopes to be vindicated. And he thinks, you know, taking your time and making it seem like nothing more than a witch

hunt will make him vindicated, right? So I wouldn't mind a long process, Trump said, suggesting that a Senate trial expected to begin in January would be used to unmask the whistleblower, settle scores with House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, and undermine others who view his dealings with Ukraine as highly improper. In fact, he talked about it in front of White House reporters. Let's take a quick look at that. President, do you prefer a short process in the Senate or a more extended process? Well, I've heard Lindsey Graham, who's terrific, and I heard his statement, and I like that. And I could also, I can do, I'll do whatever I want. Look, there is, we did nothing wrong.

So I'll do long or short. I've heard Mitch. I've heard Lindsay. I think they are very much an agreement on some concept. I'll do whatever they want to do. It doesn't matter. I wouldn't mind a long process because I'd like to see the whistleblower who's a fraud. The whistleblower wrote a false report. The whistleblower doesn't matter. The whistleblower doesn't matter. You have over a dozen people who are either currently, formally in Trump's administration or currently in Trump's administration, testifying against him, providing evidence against

him in this impeachment process. The whistleblower doesn't matter. He's so obsessed with the whistleblower. As we've said a hundred times, the whistleblower is like the guy who's the guy who's who called 911. And then, but you already have, it's actually 17 witnesses who saw the crime in that analogy. Okay, so who cares who called 911? We have the witnesses.

Anyway, here's the most important part. Now, if I thought Mitch McConnell might listen to me, I wouldn't say this, okay? But I'm pretty sure he's not going to care what we think. So let me tell you the reality, McConnell's right, Trump is wrong. If the Republicans were smart, they'd get this trial over in two hours. hours, let alone two weeks. They'd all come in, be like no witnesses, okay, terrible, inappropriate, not guilty, move on, okay?

Trump is an idiot, he wants to bring more witnesses like Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff and people that are like totally irrelevant, why? Because he's not smart, he's not smart. You open the door to more witnesses, maybe if you take long enough and you open enough doors to witnesses, maybe John Bolton comes and testifies. So the longer it drags out, the worse it is for Trump, and he keeps, he's going to dig himself into a hole because he can't help himself. Please, please let it be a longer trial.

So I partly disagree, right, because, and this is depressing, but apparently since the impeachment process started, Trump has actually increased his support in some of these battleground states. Yeah, I'm not buying it. No, I hear you, I saw the polls, and so there's two different sets of polls. First of all, every poll shows about 51% of the country, sometimes it's 49, sometimes it's 50, but oftentimes it's 51% that say Trump should be impeached and removed from office. There's the nonstop spin about how Trump is winning when 51% of the country thinks the president should be removed from office. Okay, so that is not remotely winning.

Now, he has improved a little bit in some of the polls in the battleground states, not enough to win. Then, okay, and why? I'm now more firm in my conclusion about how the Democrats should have proceeded. We talked about the articles of impeachment and were there enough, there was two. Nah, they bungled? They bungled it again. I'm positive they should have gotten with five. They should have, and it shouldn't have been just broadly abuse of his office, because

it's vague. It should have been crimes. And now, having read all the deliberations here, I think that the Democrats were afraid of putting specific crimes, because then they're like, well, this is a political thing and it's not a crime, and what if we can't prove the crime, blah, blah, no, he did it, he did it, guys, campaign finance violation on Ukraine, on the mistresses, obstruction of justice, 10 counts on Mueller, et cetera. They should have hit him with everything they got, show all the criminality.

Now they're trying to, like, but the Democrats have internalized, as always, Oh my God, anything we do is gonna help the Republicans. Let's not do it, let's not do it, let's do it as little as possible, let's just run away, right? So what that has created in the battleground states a little bit of a feeling of like, wait, what, I thought there was gonna be more to this, right? I thought they were gonna charge him with crimes. But all they charged him was obstruction, which is a crime, but an abuse of office, I don't know what abuse of office is. So that's why I think the Democrats are bungling this, and maybe it helps Trump a little bit in that sense.

For God's sake, fight. If you fight, it doesn't help him, obviously it hurts him. The minute they started impeachment, his numbers went down. Remember, his numbers went down when they started impeachment. But when they were soft on impeachment is when the numbers that you're talking about showed up, but still it's not good enough. Still more than half the country wants them remove from office. You're right, they did start off fighting.

But keep in mind from the very beginning, and also during the Russia investigation, they ran away from the financial crimes as if it was going to give them a disease. Like they didn't want to investigate it, they didn't want to look into it, there was more than enough evidence or at least probable cause to do an appropriate investigation into that, including his own personal lawyer testifying under oath that Trump committed fraud in both filing his taxes and obtaining loans. None of that stuff matters to Democrats. Yeah, yeah.

And look, this is obviously now speculation because you can't know for sure, but I think they don't want anyone to look into their own financial crime. Anna, a hundred percent right. Like, come on. No, no, now, like, it's so frustrating and I keep looking at it, like, and what broke the Campbell's back today, if you will, is like, why not do the campaign finance violations? It is the clearest violation of the law I've ever seen. First of all, the mistresses and the hush money, his co-conspirators in jail right now.

He went to prison. He went to prison for that same crime, not a similar crime. The same crime, he committed with Donald Trump. They robbed a bank together in that analogy, okay? They committed, and one guy's in prison and the other isn't. And then on Ukraine, if you watch any of the Young Turks coverage of this, you know we've been saying from day one, even asking for assistance from a foreign country into your campaign without quit per roll was already a crime. It's clearly a crime, campaign finance violation.

So then I realized today, oh my God, the Democrats, they're worried about if they, have campaign finance violations. That's why they're not bringing it up. That has to be it, because I don't understand, they hate Trump. Maybe not as much as they hate progressives, but they hate Trump, right? And so I don't understand why they would limit themselves, limit the scope of the impeachment investigation, why they would needlessly go out of their way to focus on charges that are so vague and also so complex for the American people to understand, right? And so I'm not saying that to insult the intelligence of the American people, I'm saying

that because you're right, Jake, when you hear abuse of power, well, what does that mean? It's too vague, be specific, what is he done exactly that's an abuse of power? And look, one thing that Americans understand is money, right? And so if there is a criminal exchange of money, if there are bribes, people understand that, people are furious about that. The fact that Democrats have shied away from honing in on that and really, emphasizing it is, I don't know, it's a curious decision. No, no, no, absolutely, man.

We talked about how Richard Neal didn't go after his, that's the head of the House Ways and Means Committee, part of Democratic leadership. He didn't go after Donald Trump's taxes. And then we found out, it turns out he has not released his own taxes, oh my God. And so then they don't want to go into his business dealings. Why? Because they don't want to go into Democrats' business dealings. They don't want to charge him with campaign finance violations because Trump keeps saying,

oh yeah, I'll look into you. And that threat has been the most effective. threat that he's ever used. Because when Trump says, you look after my money, I'll go after your money. Democrats go, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Abuse of power, kind of obstruction. Let's get out of here, let's not talk about the money. God, they're the worst.

So now what we're in is, as usual, with Trump and Democratic leadership is we're in a bungal off. Yes. Okay, who's going to bungle this more? Democrats so far, like in the beginning, Trump took the lead, the Democrats at least did the impeachment. In the beginning, actually, I should clarify, they didn't impeach for years when they had enough information on the hush money payments, et cetera. So Democrats were winning the bungal off, but then Trump bungled the Ukraine call and the Ukraine thing so badly the Democrats

had to impeach him. He takes the lead. Now, then the Democrats go, oh, yeah, we won't charge you with the worst crimes. The Democrats take the lead again in the bungal off. But I think, based on this story that we're giving you here, Trump at the end might be like, no, hold my beard, no one's gonna outbungle me. I could have gotten out of this in two weeks and been done with it and get to say I'm acquitted, but no, I want it to be longer and call up nonsense witnesses and drag it out until I get myself in so much trouble, I accidentally get myself convicted. So important facts as we move forward with this Senate impeachment trial, when it comes

to removing Donald Trump, you need a two-thirds majority. However, when it comes to the actual process within the Senate, all you need is a simple majority in order to make decisions about whether or not you call witnesses and how you proceed forward. So I mention that because it could be possible that it doesn't even matter what Mitch McConnell wants. Because if Mitch McConnell does in fact want a short trial, all it takes is a few Republicans to defect and vote otherwise. And so we'll see how this all plays out.

Susan Collins has already said that she's not really loving how Mitch McConnell is dealing with this. She doesn't like the fact that he's constantly working with Donald Trump on making decisions on how to move forward in the Senate. And she says, you know, I have a mind of my own and I really want to do this in a fair way. We'll see how it plays out. But it is fascinating. Of course, I don't believe her that she wants to do it in a fair way. But she's trying to win her reelection. And in order to do that, she has to fake being a moderate, okay? So, but It is monumentally important because the way that she's going to fake being a moderate is vote against McConnell once or twice on procedural issues and maybe which witnesses to call. Well, that could open a door that's really important.

But according to the Constitution, senators must swear an oath before this trial begins to, quote, do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. That's according to the Constitution and the laws. Okay, so now when Mitch McConnell says, I'm not going to be impartial, I'm going to do whatever the White House tells me to do and what Donald Trump's lawyers tell me to do. And he said that. He said that on Fox News. Then it puts people like Susan Collins in a situation where they have to disavow that and say, no, I'm going to be impartial.

I don't agree with McConnell who says he's not going to be impartial. Because it's, again, another violation, right? Non-stop violations, okay, so if they lose her, well, then they only have 53 Republican senators, right? And so then you've got a bunch of other guys like Cory Gardner who are in a lot of trouble in the state of Colorado, likely to lose his reelection, he's got to prove that he's moderate. There's McSally in Arizona, there's many others, but the one guy who could prove to be the McCain in this scenario is Mitt Romney.

That guy has some grudges, as we say. Nothing to lose, he just got elected in the Senate. He doesn't have to worry about reelection, just do the right thing for once, please. So Romney has like another five years left before re-election, and you don't know this because he looks great, but he's in his 70s, okay? That money, man. That money, I know. That money, I know.

Anyways, so really there ain't much to lose at all, and he lows Donald Trump. So if there ever comes a time and they're on the precipice of 51 votes, I'm sorry, Romney can come out there with a, okay, and guys, the most critical witness, hear me now, quote me later, is John Bolton. And so he's the former national security advisor. He is so right wing, no one on planet Earth could call him a progressive. I mean, everybody's heads would explode. You could try it, but it would be absurd.

And he also has grudges. And he has grudges, okay? And so, and he can't wait to testify. He can't wait. He's pretending that he's reluctant, like, oh, no, I mean, I care about executive privilege and you gotta go through the courts, but he's like, oh, put me in, coach, put me in. So I can see a situation where McConnell lose a couple, by the way, McConnell's not very confident.

He keeps saying, well, I don't know, and McConnell doesn't normally say that, he's like, no way, right? In this case, he's like, well, there's senators that could vote in different ways. I'm like, oh, he's there, oh, that's really interesting, okay? So could they get to a point where Romney is a deciding vote to let Bolton testify when they drag out the proceedings too long? And then Bolton comes in off the top rope, Bolton likes war, you want to go to war, right? So if Bolton comes in and we have a real battle of the bastards, okay, Bolton versus Trump,

Bolton keeps saying, I have really damaging information, and he has not yet released it. So please stretch this trial out. Please make that mistake. And look, guys, the way that you could help with that is keep saying on social media to your representatives, to your senators, to everyone, okay? What is Trump afraid of? I mean, I hear he made a perfect call. Who wouldn't want to testify about a perfect call? Well, who wouldn't, and this is really important, guys, two out of three, not Democrats,

Republicans, two out of three Republican voters say that they should, that the Trump's aides and advisors should testify. Because Trump has got him really believing that he's innocent. So that's why two out of three Republicans are like, yeah, of course, Trump's advisors should testify, that's going to be fantastic, we're looking forward to it. Take him up on it. Say, hey, look, Democrats agree, independents agree, Republicans agree, let him testify What are you afraid of Donald Trump?

What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? Get under his skin. Let's get all those guys in there to testify and see what happens. And if he's really innocent, I'm sure they'll prove his innocence. When we come back from the break, we're going to discuss the voter rolls in two states, Wisconsin and Georgia. Republicans are at it again, and unfortunately, they've been successful at it. They've been purging the polls, and we're going to give you the details. We'll be right back.

We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows.

But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the history. historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation

you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. All right, back on a young Turks. Meg writes in, Rudy's going to take them all down, unintentional hero. This is the members that are weighing in here, t.wit.com slash join and become a member. The left fist writes, total side note, am I the only one that finds it funny that one of the henchmen is named Igor?

Okay, no, no, nothing's allowed to be funny anymore. Not funny. No joking. How dare you? No, no sarcasm. Never. Okay. All right.

We do a serious show here. Okay. Stop that party attitude. That's right. Witchy witch says Giuliana admits anything illegal because he believes he can get away with it. Proof he's not in jail. Well, that is unfortunately fair.

Donald Trump's Whig writes in, also that's funny, not allowed, must change it to a somber handle. I wasn't laughing, I was sobbing? Yes. Mike Julia, anyway, Donald Trump's wig asked, might Giulia? be the whistleblower? No, because he's not in the government. That's why it's so weird that he's running around trying to make deals with foreign governments because he's not in the government. Obviously the whistleblower was. Last two, Mandy Blizzard, born on Twitter,

says, whenever I hear the criminal in chief say I can do whatever I want, it makes me want to vomit because apparently it's absolutely true. Well, almost, but let's see what happens here, okay? We've got maybe a couple of months to find out. God, as I say it, it makes me sick. YouTube super chat, Peter Wilkes says, does the House have to send articles of impeachment to the Senate? Can they delay? Well, delay is an interesting idea, but I'm against it. I always want to go full speed ahead, unless they're going to put in more articles of impeachment. But I got to tell you guys something really scary.

Maybe we'll save it for the post game. Yeah, you know what? Let's do that. Let's save it for the post game because there's now a new democratic idea, which could be unbelievably disastrous. T.y.t.com slash join us last half hour for the show. All right, what's next? All right, just a few announcements. First off, if you're trading stock, you should be doing it, commission free.

And luckily, one of our partners, Doe will allow you to do just that. So go to Doe.com slash TYT and you can do unlimited commission free stock trades. It's a mouthful, but it's important, so keep that in mind. Also, we're excited to let you guys all know about additional exclusive members-only content, Hostmates, as I've said before on the show, we did our second annual shoot of hostmates, and it's a lot of fun. OGs versus newbies with Brett Erlick hosting the game show. It was a lot of fun. So that'll be available for everybody, well, not everybody, for our members specifically

on Friday, December 27th at 8 p.m. Eastern Time, 5 p.m. Pacific. Make sure you check that out. It'll be a lot of fun. All right, let's move on to the rest of the news. And unfortunately, this next story is pretty disastrous, and we need to fight back against this because this game's the system against democracy. So hundreds of thousands of voters have been purged from the polls in two states, Georgia and Wisconsin. And this is disastrous. Now, as we know, Georgia had already played games with their voter roles in the gubernatorial race

between Brian Kemp and Stacey Abrams and, of course, the Republican in that race won. And anytime you hear a story about voters being purged from the polls, It's usually because of demands by the right wing. And unfortunately, more often than not, they get what they want. Recently during a rally, Bernie Sanders spoke out against this. Let's hear what he had to say. The state of Wisconsin purged 200,000 people from their voting lists. And tonight, although it's not yet definitive, a judge can yet overrule it.

The state of Georgia just purged. 300,000 people from their voting list. Needless to say, these are two battleground states. And I got to say to those Republican governors and officials who are too cowardly to debate the real issues facing this country

too cowardly to engage in a free, fair, and open debate, too cowardly to think that the only way they can win an election is by denying people the right to vote, I say to those cowards, get out of politics and get another job. I don't really know where he gets his energy from because I'm exhausted right now. And I'm, I mean, it's incredible that he's out there and he's fighting. And look, he's drawing attention to a really important issue. So let me just give you a few of the numbers and statistics here.

to give you a sense of how severe this is. So a federal judge actually allowed Georgia to move ahead with a purge of over 300,000 voters deemed inactive by Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger. Now, look, this is a game that they play, right? So if you happen to be a registered voter who maybe wasn't inspired enough to go to the polls and vote in elections, they will decide to purge you from the polls because they'll argue, Oh, well, this person is inactive, maybe they change their address, maybe they don't live here anymore, so let's just go ahead and purge the polls.

And more often than not, what happens is they might get a letter indicating, hey, you might be purged from the polls unless you respond to this, but most people might think that it's nothing more than spam, nothing more than advertisements, just junk to throw out. And so something very similar happened in Wisconsin, but let me just tell you how bad this is in Georgia. The Georgia voter rolls are expected to shrink from 7.4 million to 7.1 million. According to Fair Fight Action, 120,561 Georgia voters are being removed from the polls solely because they have decided not to participate in recent elections.

So look, this, again, Bernie's right. I mean, they can't debate the issues. They know that they have ideas that aren't really popular with the American people. And so rather than debate the issues, why not game the system? against the Democratic candidates. And that's what they've been doing systematically over and over again. So I love the Bernie clip. The more aggressive the better.

Calling out Republicans is great. By the way, I remember when the media counted him out. I remember Chris Seleza asking who is going to take his place among the different candidates. Now that in his mind he had been eliminated. Oops. The latest poll has Bernie Sanders in a statistical tie for first nationwide with Joe Biden. Now, I say statistical ties down by two. Collection of polls, Biden's still leading.

By the way, I'm very concerned about Biden's lead, but that's a different story. Okay, but Bernie's surging in almost all the polls and almost all the states. So in terms of the voter rolls here, look, why are they doing it? Are they doing it in, and how can you tell if it's biased or not? So if, for example, they were doing it in all these different states, and they are, and in some of the states they targeted a little bit more Democrats, but in some of the states they targeted a little bit more Republicans, because they're doing it randomly. They're doing it legitimately because they'd have to clean out the voter rolls every once

from all. Statistically, it would be spread out and it would affect Republicans and Democrats equally, except it doesn't. It's they're doing it in all of the Republican areas in the Republican states, and in every instance, It hurts Democrats more. Gee, I wonder if it's wrong. Long-bendy Twizzlers candy keeps the fun going. Okay.

Random and legitimate or if it has a political purpose. So let's go to Wisconsin. Milwaukee and Madison, the state's Democrat. strongholds account for 14% of Wisconsiners registered voters, but received 23% of the letters that are going to take them off the rolls. So hey, look at that. More heavily minority areas that are more Democratic voters, and they are disproportionately targeted in this purge.

What a shocking coincidence. Overall in the state of Wisconsin, 55% of the letters basically saying, you're going to You got to respond now, otherwise we're going to take you off the voter rolls, were sent to municipalities that were where Democratic Hillary Clinton outpulled Trump in 2016. And other wild coincidence that it again favors Republicans by at least 10 points. So there is a way to fight back against this, right? So in the case of both Georgia and Wisconsin, you have judges ruling in favor of what the Republican lawmakers want to do.

But the best way to fight back against that is to let people in your community know that they need to register to vote. Check in, see if you're still registered, if you're not registered to vote before it's too late. Not everyone watches progressive media, not everyone watches media that actually gives you the truth about what's happening in the country. So don't assume everyone's up to date about the news and what's happening to the voter rolls. Let people in your community know, make sure that they're registered to vote.

Look, the Democrats don't fight back. So it's only the Republicans doing voter purchase. They fight back, they just fight back against progressives. Right, but not against Republicans. So now here's an idea that Democrats will never do. You wanna do voter purchase? How about in blue states? Or most importantly, in swing states we control, yeah, let's do voter purchase.

Oh, what an unlucky break. We purged 60% Republicans, and golly gee, I mean, We could all stop together. If you stop voter purges in Georgia and Wisconsin, we could stop it in Pennsylvania, California. But I, you know, I guess if you wanna keep it going, we, oh, New York, now we did it in New York. Another unlucky break, just like the Republicans. They happen to be purging mainly Democrats. We just randomly wound up purging mainly Republicans.

But the Democrats would never do that. I don't think they should, to be fair, I think it's a bad strategy. Like, I don't like using voters. No, no, Anna, look, I'm making a rhetorical point, do I actually want voter purges? No, I don't want a single voter purge. I think that this is undemocratic. But Democrats just like complaining about it isn't getting anything done. You have to find a creative different way of fighting back, fighting back.

The governor of Wisconsin is now a Democrat. Look, I don't know Wisconsin politics well enough to tell them exactly. which tactic to use to fight back, but I know that I'd give it everything I got. And if they're doing voter purges, you're the governor, figure it out. But nine out of ten times, if not ten out of ten times Democrat goes, I can't believe they're doing that. Oh well. No, it's not an O well situation. It requires all hands on deck to protect our democracy. By the way, protecting the voting rights of minorities in this country. Jesus Christ, let's go. Let's go. Let's go. And they point out, look, in Wisconsin, the governor won by 30,000.

Now they're taking a couple hundred thousand people off to voter rolls, mainly Democrats. Well, then they're going to lose the next election. It's these are how the Republicans steal election after election. They steal these elections. They stole it from Stacey Abrams in Georgia. They stole it from her. And where are you guys? Let's go ahead.

Stacey Abrams is doing a great job of fighting back. And so is Gillum in Florida. They're looking to register more people, make sure everybody gets the chance to vote. Now that's active, that's positive, that's constructive. Rest of the Democrats, up and at him, fight back for God's sake. We gotta take a break, but when we come back, we have Tucker Carlson claiming that the Potomac is dirty because of immigrants. We'll give you his argument and more when we-

At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us, and story and selling our data, but that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and 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.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EX, P-R-E-S-S-V-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. Return. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from The Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media become a member at t yt.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free segment.

All right, back on TYT, I bathe in a very stable geniuses, tears writes in. Bernie is the energizer bunny of politics. He just keeps campaigning and campaigning and campaigning. Yeah, I don't know how he, it's, yes, there's the energy component of it, which is tough for a lot of people, regardless of age, but how does he not, how does he keep the hope going? Because you have to have a certain level of hope to keep campaigning like that, right? Yeah. And it's a dirty, dirty world out there.

No, he's awesome. Eddie O'Donnell on Twitter says, hearing Bernie Sanders speak gives me both hope for the future and life. Back to our members, t.y.com slash join to become a member. Melania's XYZ, I can't read the rest, says, I was purged a few years ago. by Kobach's cross-check, I hate having a GOP governor in Massachusetts. Guys, what are you doing? In blue states, like, oh, let's be fair, an elected Republican governor. So that way we can't fight back in blue states either.

Okay, genius move. Anyway, silent approval says, if you're a living person, the most important thing for you in the next year is to make sure you register and then vote. Literally, nothing is more important. Right. I mean, here we are. Everything's on the line. So in the primaries, the presidential level, you got to go, you got to go, let alone Cisneros versus Quayar and Marie Newman versus Dan Lipinski, et cetera.

Go to JustDemocrats.com, see all their candidates. Get involved, get involved. You got to make sure you register and vote. All right, Anna, what's next? In a recent interview with the Atlantic, Tucker Carlson talked about how he's not a fan of litter, which I think most people could agree with, and feels that the Potomac River is dirty because of immigrants. And so here's what he said exactly, and then of course we're going to debunk his nonsense. He said, I hate litter. For 35 years now, he said, he has fished in the Potomac River and it has gotten dirtier and

dirtier and dirtier and dirtier. I go down there and that litter is left almost exclusively by immigrants, who I'm sure are good people, but nobody in our country, wait, I said, that's the reporter cutting him off. How do you know there? And then he interrupts and says, because I'm there, he said, I watch it. Okay, hold on, hold on, let's talk this through. Did you ask them for their papers? My guess is, no, you didn't.

So how did you know that they're immigrants? Oh, based on race. How else would you know? Is Tucker Carlson looking at white people throwing litter in the Potomacan going, ah, these dirty immigrants? No, he's assuming it. I don't know if he, what kind of folks he's seeing, but it's almost certainly minorities that he is assuming are immigrants, right?

The guy is racist to his bones, to his bones. So when he sees someone that does not look like him, he thinks immigrant, not one of us dirty. And by the way, he's wrong on all the facts, as you'll see. Yeah, he's wrong on all the facts. In fact, the river has gotten much cleaner in recent years. In fact, here's a statement from the Potomac Conservancy president. We at this nonprofit land trust and leading clean water advocate in the region feel compelled to respond to this groundless accusation, not just because it's factually.

incorrect, but because it's racist, plain and simple, to make the egregious assertion that one group over another is at sole fault for the river's woes widely, is widely inappropriate and doesn't reflect the true nature of local pollution sources. They say that they collect more than 200,000 pounds of litter annually from local, I'm sorry, 20,000 pounds of litter annually from local shorelines. In the last 15 years of hosting shoreline cleanups, we can say with confidence, litter comes from all forms, litter in all forms. No.

What the hell, litter comes in all forms from all communities and neighborhoods in our region. Anyway, it's gotten cleaner. So the rating for the river has gone from a D to a B. And so he lied about the cleanliness of the river, and then he lied about who litter is there in the first place. He's just a clown. Like what's, what is there to interview him about so he can just, and look, I'm not of these people who thinks like, no, no, you don't interview people, don't give these people

a platform. No, if you have facts to debunk in real time what a person is saying during an interview, I think that it could be a really fascinating discussion. But in this case, I mean, he's spouted these falsities over and over again on his own show. We have the examples that we've shown you before in the past. But like, what is he going to say that's interesting or different or hasn't been debunked already? No, I don't know that I agree with that. She did challenge him on it, so it's good that she challenged them on it. So but look back to the facts here, they actually check the water quality every year. So it's not in dispute.

So it has definitely improved in water quality, gotten cleaner in the last 10 years. But Tucker Carlson sees a bunch of brown people around and goes, it must be dirtier because look at all these brown people. And so I just, I can't figure out how it could be any more racist. There's no way in the world he checked documents. Could you imagine Tucker Carl's fishing in the Potomac River? Okay, I wanna see it, where did you come from? Where's your documents?

Oh my God, it's-immigrants. Yeah, there's no way he goes fishing at the Potomac River. That's no other thing. I don't even know that. But listen, and then they turn around and go, what, what, what, what? I just called all immigrants dirty, even though I have no basis for that at all, and I did it based on race, because I saw them. See, it's by definition. I saw them.

You don't know that they're immigrants. How do you know that, let's say it's a Latino family, how do you know they haven't been here for seven generations? You don't know that. And guys, this is the oldest form of bigotry. When you call immigrants to your country dirty, and I mean, they've done it to everybody to purge people, including Jews in Germany, and then he'll get all upset. Like, why, why?

Just because I'm using the same propaganda as the Germans before they killed everybody. No, now I'm gonna get blamed for calling people dirty? Yes, yes you are, Tucker, yes you are. So he can go cry himself a whole new Potomac River that's with his so-called clean tears. But the reality is he proves day in, day out that he thinks people that don't look like him are dirty. And that is classic fascist propaganda to target people. And his focus, by the way, on economic, inequality. in America is very much tied to his views on immigration, because what he does is, first

of all, inequality is real, but what he does is he blames that inequality on the influx of immigrants coming into the country, right? And so it's part of his propaganda. Don't give him credit for acknowledging inequality, because it's just half of his argument to ban people from coming into the United States, right? Like, it's just part of his propaganda. He's not a dumb guy. He's It's actually a smart, strategic person. And that's something to be worried about because he's also, unfortunately, an incredibly hateful person who doesn't want immigrants coming into the country. He in 2018, so this was not a long time ago, he said that immigrants make America, quote,

poorer and dirtier. And constantly also talking about the increase in crime rates, first of all, crime rates are not going up. Second of all, Native-born Americans commit crime at twice the rate of undocumented Immigrants, they commit crime at four times the rate of documented immigrants. So if there is a criminal element in this country, it is Native-born Americans. It's just a fact. So it's statistics.

Now are immigrants like me going around blaming Native-born Americans, these goddamn criminals? No, of course not, because you can't make generalities like that. But on the other hand, they do it, and they're factually incorrect, wildly, terribly incorrect. also pay more in taxes than they get out of the system. That's another lie that they have. It's lie on top of lie to demonize immigrants because they're racist. Oh my God, I can't believe he called me racist when I think brown people are poor and dirty and criminals.

Well, okay, sad day for you because that means if you believe those things that are factually incorrect and you do it based on the color of their skin or where they came from, that is a textbook definition of being a racist. All right, well, let's move on to Democrats and the election, because there is a change, a pivot in Elizabeth Warren's strategy that's worth talking about. Elizabeth Warren is, of course, on the campaign trail, and she's kind of pivoted when it comes to her messaging on Medicare for All. In fact, she's been emphasizing the importance of choice during her campaigning, but there's

some nuance there. So Warren has been using new notable language at her town halls to do. describe the transition into Medicare for all, saying under her plan, it would be a voter's choice to opt in. So important context here, she rolled out her transition plan for Medicare for all. And based on what she's proposing, it would happen in two different periods. First she would push for a public option so people can get a taste of government-run healthcare. And then she says in her third year of her first term, she would pressure Congress to pass full

Medicare for All. Now, I don't agree with that plan. I think that that's actually a huge sign that she's moving away from Medicare for all overall. There's some disagreement about it, but I'm gonna stand firm in how I feel. And according to the New York time, I'm sorry, CNN, for the last two weeks, Warren has described the transition into her Medicare for all plan as choice for Americans to try it. Okay, so I'm gonna give you a specific example of her using this messaging, and it was in response to a concern by a voter.

During a stop in Iowa, 54-year-old Camille Anderson told Warren, she was a fan of her Medicare for all plan, quote, but I keep hearing from people who are afraid, A, of the cost, and B, that they're not going to be able to get the care they need or see the doctor they want with your plan. Is there something you can say to alleviate their concerns and their fears? And so Warren responded with this quote, let's let people try it, find out what it feels like to be making health care decisions just between you and your medical professional and get the prescription drugs you need without having to worry about how big the co-pay is going

to be and whether or not you're going to be able to get the prescription filled and still have money, enough money left over to buy groceries this week. So that was her messaging. Jank, do you want to jump in? Yeah, I do. It's, you know how much I like Elizabeth Warren, but this is really disappointing because it just doesn't make any sense. I don't know what her advisors are telling her.

So my guess is that telling her the polling, because the entirety of the Republican Party, millions of dollars in insurance company ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and across the country, and 90% of the Democratic Party has been battering Medicare for all. It's now getting close to 50-50. It was wildly popular. It was 70%. When it first came out, it's still very popular among Democratic voters. Now it's getting battered by all the propaganda from the corporate Democrats on top of everyone

else. So they must have seen those numbers and be like, oh no, we gotta start talking about choice because people love the idea of choice, right? But wait a minute, you either have Medicare for all or you don't. What do I mean by that? Medicare for all doesn't have co-pays, deductibles and premiums. If you have a public option or you can opt in, you still have to pay. Yes.

If you have to pay, you haven't changed the system at all. And there is no choice you can't choose to not pay. So saying it's a choice, it's just factually incorrect. Here, I'll quote part of the CNN article here, and trying to explain what the hell is going on here, they say the option would be open to many Americans who want to use it, but they would have to pay for it. But that's not an option of having Medicare for All, that's just not what it is. Medicare for all is everybody's in the same system, there are no payments.

And for God's sake, be clear about this, and this has been a giant, massive lie, not just by the insurance companies, on all those corporate corrupt Democrats and Republicans, but by the mainstream media, they keep saying they're going to take your insurance away, your private insurance away, but they never finished the second half the sentence, they're going to replace it with better insurance, with expanded coverage. Where you actually have more choice. And this is my problem with how Warren answered the question from the voter, aside from the fact that I don't think that she's actually fighting for Medicare for all, is that let's say

If we gave her the benefit of the doubt and claim that she is fighting for Medicare for all, the messaging there is disastrous because you don't have more choice under a privatized healthcare system. I mean, we've talked about this over and over again. And Wendell Potter, who's been doing these excellent threads on Twitter, he used to be a healthcare industry executive. He was an executive with Cigna, he talks about the myth of choice. And I think that he summarizes this perfectly, and this is what Warren could have done, right?

When I worked for the insurance industry, we were instructed to talk about choice based on focus groups and people like Frank Luntz, who wrote the book on how the GOP should communicate with Americans. I used it all the time as an industry flack, but there was a problem. As a health insurance PR guy, we knew one of the huge vulnerabilities of the current system was lack of choice. In the current system, you can't pick your own doctor, specialist, or hospital without huge, of network bills.

So we set out to muddy the issue of choice. And that's exactly what's happening right now, not just by Republicans who oppose Medicare for all, but by corporate Democrats who also oppose Medicare for all because their corporate donors don't want Medicare for all. That's what's going on here. So rather than fight back aggressively, which Bernie Sanders has done a great job in, you see people like Warren Cave and there's really no need to cave. And so CNN is arguing that her support.

The court of Medicare for all is what's causing her to slip in the polls. But I disagree. She started slipping in the polls as soon as she started moving away from progressive policy proposals. 100%. There's obviously an internal battle within the Warren campaign. I'm just saying from the outside of the moderates versus the progressives. And the progressives in the campaign are losing.

The moderates must be telling her, oh, no, no. When you said you were for Medicare for all and proposed that plan, it was too progressive. That's why you're slipping. It's not remotely true. she's losing all of her progressive support. That's why, because she's backing away from Medicare for all. You can't back away this late. Even if you wanted to, even if you policy-wise didn't believe it in, and that would be terrible.

I think that policy is more important. But as a matter of politics, it is way too late in the game to back away from something that you have been saying from day one in this campaign. What do you think you're going to out Buttigieg, Buttigieg? Exactly. It's a terrible political strategy. Do not listen to the moderates in your campaign. They're ruining your campaign.

Look, I endorse Bernie Sanders, so I want him to win. But I just, it's like sad to see this unfolding in the Warren campaign. I want to go back to Wendell Potter because the guy's an American hero. He's like, look, I know how we lied to you. I'm the guy who did it, okay? I saw the focus groups. The number one problem in private insurance is that we take all your choice away. We say, no, you've got to be an in-network provider.

You can't go to an out-network provider, you can't do this, you can't do that, you can't do this. Why? Because we want to maximize profit. And we wanna make sure you don't get care, because that takes away our money, right? So since that was our number one problem, we did a full frontal assault in the opposite direction and said, oh my God, don't let the government take away your choice, the wonderful your choice you have with private insurance, even though we knew you didn't have any choice.

And so they would do these front groups, the industry would, called my care, my care, my choice. Another one was choice and competition coalition. You see, they're paying to lie to you. So they can maximize profit. I mean, come on, we already, what I don't get is how these types of PR campaigns against Medicare for all or a government run healthcare system, how it actually works, how it's successful. Because we all know what it's like to live under a privatized health care system where we

don't have choice. I mean, look, let's say you have the means to buy really good insurance outside of your employer. But even in that case, if you go out of network, you're screwed. And if you're getting insured through your employer, you don't have choice there. Your choice is basically dwindle down to whatever your employer is offering you. There's a new poll out that shows that Americans think that if you do Medicare for all and you take away private insurance, that it's going to take away their, it's going to take away their ability to choose, not whether they go to Aetna, big blue, you know, Blue Cross Blue Shield,

sorry, but that it's going to take their choice away to go to the doctor they want or the provider or the hospital they want. The exact opposite is true. The reality is if you have Medicare for all, there is no in-network or out-of-network. You can go to any doctor, any hospital. I know it seems unbelievable for an American, but every other developed country has this system where you can do that. They're lying to you. Look, guys. We gotta do a coordinated campaign because I honestly, I don't think even Bernie Sanders is doing a good job of explaining this well enough. So the media is complicit here.

They are lying over and over again. If you remember when I went on Cuomo show, we were talking about Medicare for All, and I said, you know, you would have better insurance under Medicare for All. He seemed genuinely surprised like, right? They never talk about it, you have better insurance, stop lying, stop the lies, stop the lies. All the mainstream media makes it seem like you won't have any insurance. It's an unbelievable lie meant to protect the insurance companies, which coincidentally, wild

coincidence, happen to spend billions of dollars in advertising on all of the major media outlets. Also the drug companies, also a huge beneficiary of the private insurance system and this corrupt system happen to spend billions on major media organizations. And then what a wild coincidence. Every major media organization pretends that you wouldn't have insurance if you had Medicare for all instead of giving. And by the way, this is not disputable. I asked one of the top opponents of Medicare for all.

Senator Michael Bennett, and I said if you, and it's on tape, anybody can see it and you could ask any expert, if you take away private insurance, you would still have insurance under Medicare for all. And he said yes, in fact, it would be quote, awesome. His complaint is he thinks you can't pay for it, that's wrong. But he admitted, it would be awesome insurance, and it would be, quote, the Cadillac plan. Stop the lies. Tell people what Medicare for All actually is.

It's almost as if their negative coverage on Medicare for All is intentional and malicious. Hmm. I don't know. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, Bernie Sanders talks about deficits. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work. listen ad free access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcasts at

apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon