The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - December 4th, 2019

Episode Date: December 5, 2019

Professor Pamela Karlan just took Rep. Doug Collins to school. 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 to the Young Turks. Jay Hugar and I'm Kisparan with you guys.

Lots of interesting stories. So impeachment heats up, we've got all that. But one of my favorite stories, there's so many great ones, as always, every day, is Rudy versus Trump. Yes, as the White House turns. It has begun, it has begun. So don't miss that story, that story is awesome. All right, let's get right to it, Anna, what do you got?

All right, it's a big day today when it comes to the impeachment investigation, so let me give you those details. The House Intelligence Committee has officially completed its report on the impeachment investigation. It has now gone to the House Judiciary Committee, which will decide whether there is enough evidence to draft articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. Now, today's first hearing occurred on the House Judiciary Committee. And what they did was they invited constitutional experts on to discuss and testify as to whether

or not there's enough evidence. We will get to that part of this story later. But for the purposes of this story, I want to talk about the report that was conducted by the Intelligence Committee. Now in this report, of course, there was information that we've already discussed, public information that was presented during the public hearings. But we also have some new information from this 300 page report. So let me give you those details.

Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff released the call records of Representative Deppieff Devin Nunes, Schiff said during a press conference that it's deeply concerning if members of Congress may have also been complicit in digging up dirt on the president's political rival. Now, there were apparently call logs shared in this report. The call logs do not specify the content of what they discussed, but the people implicated here is really the heart of the story. So the call records obtained under subpoena from AT&T also included the time and duration, but again,

not the content of the calls placed between Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, Lev Parnas, a Soviet-born business associate of Giuliani's, and John Solomon, a conservative columnist formally with the Hill, he's no longer with them, who published a series of articles pushing debunked theories about U.S.-Ukraine relations. So I'm gonna get into more details on Solomon in just a minute, but that is pretty damning. So there was a conservative columnist at the Hill who was part of all this, who was having these phone conversations with people like Lev Parnas, who was assisting and attempting to push Marie Yovanovitch out as a diplomat to Ukraine.

So Trump's role in this and Giuliani's calls to him are going to be very relevant. That's coming up in a little bit. But first, I want to split apart in two different parts of the story. So first of all, you've got Parnas, Giuliani, and some other characters, including a wife and husband couple that Trump wanted to hire as his personal counsel, all working together, it appears to some degree. And they appear to be working at the behest of some Ukrainian folks. Right, and so I say folks because people, companies is not perfectly clear yet.

So Tonzing, who is one of those lawyers that I was referring to, Victoria Townsing, she gets a retainer from one of them, so she's getting paid. That is part of the reason that her and her husband withdrew from Trump's case because they had a conflict of interest. Giuliani tries to make a deal with them, and that was an earlier story that we shared with you guys, and he starts working up paperwork on getting money from Ukraine. secret Ukrainians that are not clear yet, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who are part of this, get arrested, as you know, right? They get arrested, and one of the charges is that they were

working for a foreign actor, okay? So they've got this little scam going to further corruption in Ukraine. And the way that they're going to further that corruption is by getting our ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, fired. And what they did was they, what it appears, from what we know so far in this report, they worked with or colluded with members of the media in this particular case, John Solomon over at the Hill, to push these debunked conspiracy theories about Ukraine and specifically Marie Yovanovitch. So let me continue on that path then. So Sean Hannity also gets implicated in these calls.

Giuliani's calling him, and then Trump goes on the program right afterwards. And so there's calls to Trump. We're gonna bring that in in a second. But I want you to be super clear, on John Solomon and Sean Hannity, the media figures here, if they were all conspiring on a policy issue, hey, you know what, you want tax cuts for the rich? Hey, so do I. Taxis for the rich. And they were all doing that just because they agree on policy. There'd be nothing wrong with it at all, in my opinion.

So the president's personal lawyer is talking to a news guy. They all have an agenda. If the agenda is policy driven, who cares? Okay. Especially since they're opinion people, right? A columnist shares opinion, Sean Hannity, as we all know, does nothing but opinion, very light on facts. Go ahead.

Yeah, but in this case, so why is it a concern? Because even if you just look at the part without the public officials, the part we've been talking about right now, it's a different situation altogether of Giuliani, Tonsing, who also keeps appearing on Fox News, and others involved are taking money from a foreign actor, because that would make, especially if they don't record it, that is a very serious crime. They're foreign agents, and they're not reporting that they're foreign. agents. That's a technical term. It doesn't mean that they're, you know, done, done,

done, done, done, done, done. Okay. So, but, so that's a very serious crime and why Parnas and Furman have been arrested already. Okay. So that puts John Solomon in a lot of trouble if he knew about the payments, or maybe he was just being a patsy and he was being used by those guys and didn't know about the payments. We don't know. Same goes for Sean Hannity. Now, the second part is even more troubling. That is when public officials get involved. The two public officials here are Devin Nunes and Donald Trump. Devin Nunes is all over the calls talking to Parnas, talking to Giuliani, his office talking

to him repeatedly, and Trump is all over the calls. Now in the beginning, we weren't sure that it was Trump because Giuliani keeps calling the White House, okay? And then there are these numbers that are called, is it one or minus one? It's a weird thing. It's a minus one number and that usually indicates that it's a phone call from within the White House. But I want to, I have the specifics and look, there's a lot of detail, so unfortunately

we're gonna have to go to a lot of graphics. But I want to make sure that you guys have all the details, you have all the facts, and then we'll discuss, okay? Yeah, so just last thing before I hand gives you those details. So if public officials are involved, well, then we've got public corruption. And that is a much bigger deal. So Trump's already obviously being impeached for that. We're in the middle of the impeachment hearings.

This is part of what he's being impeached for. But Devin Nunes is the main Republican representing the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee, pretending to be a neutral actor here saying, oh, I've got no conflict of interest, I got no issues here. It turns out, no, he's neck deep in this potential crime. So at a bare minimum, he should have recused himself. And after Anna gives you the details, I'll show you how Rudy Giuliani accidentally admitted it was Trump who was involved. All right, awesome.

So let's continue focusing a little more on the role of media actors in what was going on. So according to Talking Points memo, Parnas was in contact with Solomon, that's the conservative columnist at the Hill, who's no longer with the Hill, six times over the phone in the 48 hours before Solomon published a piece about Ukraine. The piece went after Yovanovitch, Marie Yovanovitch, that was the ambassador to Ukraine, while claiming Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election. Now, we already know that that claim that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election is debunked. It is a conspiracy theory that has been pushed by Donald Trump and conservatives

who want to defend him. There is absolutely no indication that Ukraine meddled in our election. Russia meddled in our election. Let me give you more. So on March 20th, 2019, the day the Hill opinion piece was published, Mr. Parnas again spoke with Mr. Solomon for 11 minutes. Shortly after that phone call, President Trump promoted Mr. Solomon's article in a tweet. So they're working together. Solomon's publishing these articles that push these debunked conspiracy theories and then

members of Trump's administration, not members of Trump's administration, but But President Trump himself actually promoted that article. Okay? So it's interesting, before Giuliani accidentally confirmed that it was Trump. You could tell that it was Trump already because Giuliana makes a quick call to the White House. And then next thing you know, Trump is tweeting about Solomon's article and Solomon is the writer who is collaborating with all these people. Again, we don't know if Solomon was taking payments. If he was, he should be arrested.

But he might have just been like, oh yeah, who do you need fired? I'm a conservative knucklehead, I'll write whatever you want. Oh my God, I'm in the inner circle, so that's also possible. So his best defense is I was an idiot and I didn't know they were getting paid. Exactly, yes. And look, that kind of stuff does happen in the media all the time where journalists who aren't even supposed to be doing any opinion stuff will get a scoop on something, right? And the scoop is really just a government official who's leaking something and they usually

have an agenda behind that leak. Let me give you more. On April 1st, Solomon published a piece claiming that Joe Biden got a Ukrainian prosecutor ousted while the prosecutor was investigating a company linked to Biden's son Hunter. On April 7th, Solomon published a story connecting Yovanovitch to the Biden allegations. So again, for the billionth time, the prosecutor who was ousted, the prosecutor that Biden wanted ousted was actually not investigating corruption in Ukraine. The investigation had become stagnant, and Joe Biden, along with other world leaders,

wanted him gone so a proper investigation could continue. On April 25th, shortly after Solomon published another piece, alleging an Obama-Ukraine 2016 election interference plot, Giuliani received a call from an unknown minus one number that lasted four minutes and 40 seconds. Minutes later, Mr. Giuliani held a brief 30-second call with Sean Hannity, the report said, adding that Hannity hosted Trump on his show, on his show that evening and asked Trump about the Solomon story. So again, they're all working together. You have Hannity and Solomon, both members of the media, working with Giuliani and Donald Trump

in pushing these debunk conspiracy theories out there. And as we all know, eventually the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was fired. So, Jake, you want to chime in before I give you more? Yeah, so I can't wait to give you the Rudy stuff, so I'm going to. So Rudy Giuliani in a tweet talked about this issue. Now Rudy keeps calling the White House and keeps getting his call's return from block numbers, so you can't tell who it is. But he keeps calling this minus one number, okay?

So but no one ever said what the number was. So it looks like based on the timing of when Giuliani makes a call and then Trump takes action, And it looks like it's Donald Trump, but we didn't know for sure until Rudy tweeted out this. They're already taking away Donald Trump's right to call witnesses, cross-examine, confront his accusers, or be represented by counsel at hearings. Now he can't talk to his counsel on the telephone. Oops. You just admitted that you were talking to Trump.

God, he's so dumb. He's so, so dumb. You know, there's a story out today about how the Trump administration has banned Rudy Giuliani from making appearances in the media, particularly. particularly Fox News, and that might be the smartest thing Trump has ever done in his entire life. Yeah, and so we're going to get to that drama a little bit later. If you miss any part of the show, t.y.t.com slash join to become a member and yet the whole show any time you want. But back to Hannity, I just can't help. This is such a fun quote.

So Trump, here's all this, sees the report. Did he read the hundreds of pages of the report? Of course not. It didn't have any cartoon characters in it. No illustrations. That's right. But to be fair, I did mention his name a lot. Okay. So, and it's damning.

I mean, you got the new calls that show that they're all connected. But the overwhelming evidence is from 17 different diplomats and people inside his administration saying, yes, there was a quid pro quo, yes, we held up the aid. Yes, it was for personal and political gain of the president. So he watches all that and then he says this. I watched Hannity, Seanity, I watched Laura Ingram, I watched Tucker Carlson. I watched a lot of other legal scholars. Oh my God.

Okay, they're not. Oh my God. Those are not legal scholars. But he, like he's, remember his main thing was, hey guys, I'm too busy to deal with this nonsense impeachment. I'm going to talk to NATO. I'm going to do important foreign deals, et cetera. Meanwhile, he comes in, it's like, all I do, I watched everybody on the Fox News lineup, and all those legal scholars agree, I didn't do anything wrong, no quid pro quo.

Oh, my God. If ever you needed just a single piece of evidence to indicate that mediocracy doesn't actually exist in America, that would be it. Yeah, and so he went on to say a little bit later, he said, I watched a very terrific former special prosecutor. You know Ken. Maritocracy. And Ken is a talented man and a smart man. He's referring to Ken Starr who appears on Fox News. Ken Starr is the person who did a thing closest to an actual witch hunt.

He went after Bill Clinton on a real estate deal. I was like, oh, I don't have him on that. And then he investigated seven other things. And he's like, I couldn't get anything on him. He's totally innocent on these things. Oh, I know. I'll investigate his sex life. And so apparently that's a talented prosecutor who should be trusted on these issues

that went after impeachment on a totally tangential sexual affair as a person. to the real estate deal, but on him, they have him debt to rights on every single legal problem and violation that he's got. But Ken Starr comes down and goes, I can't believe they're doing impeachment of a president on flimsy charges. I mean, it is a comedy. It's an absolute comedy. If you put it in a movie, nobody would believe it.

They'd say this is the most over-the-top thing you've ever seen in your life. By the way, Fox News does actually have a legal scholar. His name is Andrew Napolitano. And today, he said, if I was in the house, I would vote to impeach. This is very clear illegality. Yes, yes. It's just, it's frustrating. I mean, look, there are higher standards when it comes to the behavior of jurors in a criminal case, right?

Like, you're not supposed to have a bias that clouds your judgment on a particular defendant. In this case, you know, there's nothing but bias. There's nothing but partisan politics, and it's disgusting. Because look, what's really at stake? This is beyond Donald Trump. Donald Trump is one person, this is one administration. But the outcome of this impeachment process is going to determine a lot about what future presidents can do. And so, look, it's very likely that he's going to be acquitted in the Senate, not because he should be, but because of partisan politics.

And what does that mean for the future of the country? What does that mean when it comes to executive power? This sets a precedent that indicates, hey, if you solicit the help of a foreign government in digging up dirt on your political opponent to help you in your reelection campaign, it's okay, there's precedent for it. 100%. And that's a question Democrats should really pound away at. So are the Republicans saying that we can ask any foreign country for any amount of assistance

in our campaigns? Because that's an important thing to know, because if that's what you're saying, all right, Is it okay for the Democratic Party to go ask China for billions of dollars in assistance and investigating all the Republicans in Congress? Because that's the standard you're saying is totally okay. Because Trump definitely did that. Even the Republicans can't argue that he didn't ask Ukraine to investigate Biden. It's in the transcript or the semi-transcript.

He himself has admitted it over and over and over again. And I know this because I talked to other legal scholars like Kyle Kalinsky and John Iderola and Emma Viglin. Damn, way to throw them under the bus like that, Jane. Well, they're not. I was trying to make sure that I didn't name any lawyers. I, on the other hand, am a lawyer and a bit of a legal scholar myself. Okay, so we're quickly entering tricep territory, so I'd like to move on. Okay.

Okay, yes. So let's move on to Devin Nunes' response to all of this. So, the House Intelligence Committee has released its impeachment. report and in it, there are call logs between Devin Nunes and Lev Parnas, who is Rudy Giuliani's business associate. Now, this is pretty incriminating to say the least, and Devin Nunes has responded to it in a Trump-like fashion. Take a look. What about the reports tonight that are just breaking that reveal multiple calls between you, this guy, Parnas, and Rudy Giuliani? My sources are telling me that three of the four so-called

calls were apparently to just Giuliani and maybe on Parnas' phone and under a minute. Is that true? Well, it's even better than that. First of all, you have to remember the House Intelligence Committee. We are the Oversight Committee. We have Americans and foreigners contact us every single day with information. Did you ever talk to this guy, Les Parnas or whoever his name is? You know, it's possible, but I haven't gone through all my phone records. I don't really recall that name. I remember they name now because he's been in But why would CNN rely on somebody like this? You know, and I'll go back and check all my records, but it seems very unlikely that I would

be taking calls from random people. Okay, so want to know what CNN's relying on? CNN's relying on the official House Intelligence Committee report, which includes call logs. And in those call logs, can we please take a look at this graphic, this photo? It shows the four instances in which Devin Nunes was in touch with. Lev Parnas. Or as Hannity says, this guy, less Parnas or whoever he is. Hannity is also in the call logs.

So Giuliani will call Hannity and then that night Trump will go on Hannity's program and talk about how Biden is doing corruption in Ukraine. All this connected back to Lev Parnas, Hannity is perfectly aware of it. And this great comedy duo coming out here and be like, well, I mean, we're partis. I don't know who he is, because I don't know who he is. I mean, we're in the call logs, but I mean, I don't know who they are, right? It's pathetic. And they're, again, this is all based on evidence, this isn't based on any hearsay.

These are actual call logs that have been subpoenaed by congressional investigators at AT&T, right? So let me give you a quick refresher on why this is so relevant, okay? Because this all really centers on the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who was ousted by the Trump administration because she was actually trying to root out corruption in Ukraine. So Trump also, so Hannity was ousted, I'm sorry, Hannity also was outed for having coordinated with President Donald Trump, Giuliani, and Donald Trump Jr. to take down former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch in the House Intelligence Committee report, right?

You have Devin Nunes involved, you have Hannity involved. And then when it comes to Donald Trump himself, he tries to use the exact same, you know, strategy that you just saw Devin Nunes use. So Trump also claimed that he didn't know Parnas or his associate, Igor Fruman, but the men were photographed with Trump and his GOP allies, literally dozens guys, dozens of times, and seen in multiple videos. You could tell because when Trump was first asked about him, he's like, I don't know, there might be some pictures of me with him,

but that doesn't mean I know him. That means, oh, my God, he knew him so well. Like when he says there might be some pictures, that means he had a lot of different kinds of... Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking?

By matching with the TD Small Business Account Manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs. Ready to press play? get up to $2,700 when you open select small business banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. Visit TD.com slash small business match to learn more. Conditions apply.

Contact with him and he's positive that he's been pictured with him. And it turns out dozens of times and on video. So look, they're all involved, but they're involved in different ways. Like, I doubt Hannity had anything in do with taking money from Ukrainian interests. because he's already incredibly rich from being a Fox News talk show host. So he wouldn't care about any of that. But if Trump told him to throw our own ambassador to Ukraine under the bus, because Trump wanted to smear his political opponent,

Hannity would be all in for that. He'd be like, oh, yes, okay, you want to take out an honest American diplomat to help you win an election. I'm glad you called. I'm your guy. So that part is not at all surprising. So finally, I want to go to one other incredibly lame defense that people are using. And this is Greg Jarrett, floating the possibility that maybe it wasn't Devin Nunes on the phone call with Lev Parnas.

The only thing new that I picked out of yesterday's was this communication between Devin Nunes, Rudy Giuliani and the White House. In what way, if any, is that problematic? I just don't know because we don't know the details. In fact, it's a call log. Does that mean that Devin Nunes was actually on the call or somebody else? Hmm. No, it was Devin Nunes' neighbor.

Oh, no, I got it. He confiscated Devin Nunes' phone and decided to randomly call Lev Parnas. No, no, to be fair, there is some chance it was Devin Nunes' cow. Oh, good point. Right. Yeah. Okay, because he's suing his own cow, maybe this is how they had the falling out. So, yeah, that happens often.

Hey, there's this conspiracy with guys who are taking money from foreign actors and our foreign agents who then later get arrested. And, oh, I meant to call Devin Nunes's wife, right? Golly, gee, it's Devin Nunes on the phone four different times. How did that happen? Yeah, no. Well, good try, Greg Jarrett, okay, but not buying it. Yeah, this is why the hashtag Nunes got caught went viral on social media.

Yeah. Because he got caught. He had these phone calls. There's no way around it. Now the question is what was discussed in those phone calls? I don't know if we're gonna find out, but I hope we do. Look, there are a bunch of serial bunglers. But we're having debates with clowns here as usual.

So Devin Nunes is, and obviously at a bare minimum has a conflict of interest and should have never been involved in these years. Instead, he was the leader of the Republicans in the hearings in the Intelligence Committee. Intelligence Committee, because the Republicans, they don't care about ethics at all. The law is totally optional, working with these crooks to further your own political and personal interests is just par for the course. So one political party in this country is totally off the rails, and they don't seem to care about the rule of law, the Constitution, or even reality at all anymore. We gotta take a quick break.

When we come back, we're going to show you some of the incredibly important highlights from the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on the impeachment today. We'll be right back. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-Inging the Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-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. Back on a young Turks. Let's start with YouTube super chat today for comments. Izzy Sanchez Jr. has a comment that I wasn't sure that I could read, but I've decided I'm going to. For Trump and all the GOP reps involved, tick, tick and motherflowering tick. Like, okay, I think you read that. Geekspeak 10 says, is it time to convene the convention yet to update and revise the Constitution?

It basically a dead document at this point. No, look, agree and disagree. So we do need a convention to propose an amendment to get all private financing out of politics, get all the money out of politics. Look, I'm not on the board anymore, but obviously I still 100% believe in the mission, wolf dashback.com. Okay, so wolf dashback.com to make that happen. But the document is not at all dead. But we have to make sure that that we abide by it. If we don't abide by it, and that's what this whole impeachment proceedings about, well, then it is dead.

Then impeachment doesn't matter. None of the clauses matter because basically one party has said, I'm just not going to follow it. So we can't let him get away with that. One more from YouTube super chat, and we thank you every time you use it. Corey Brown says Trump company used Cheney's New York Times play to oust an ambassador. They fed a story to a media outlet to use that outlet's credibility to elevate the lie. Cheney did it with the Times to justify an invasion. Trump did it for personal crimes.

Corey, that is 100% right. So excellent analogy, that's exactly what they did. In fact, Valerie Plame, who they partly did it about, and they did it in a couple of different ways, but Valerie Plain was one of the people that you're talking about, is on the show today. So Anna's gonna interview Valerie Plame in the third hour of the Young Turks. I'm gonna interview James Thompson, who was a great Justice Democrat. And so Valerie's running for office. James is not running for office, but James got cancer.

And the story of what happened with him is heartbreaking. He's going to come on the show and talk about it, give you a sense of how private insurance in this country really works. So make sure you don't miss a third hour of this show. And of course, the last half hours just for members. So that's tyt.com slash join to become a member. Now, look, guys, I got a lot more tweets. I'll do it as quickly as I can.

This is just a fun one. Seth Jones says, new hashtag Ti-T-YT-Live T-shirt incoming, warning, you're entering tricep territory. Oh my God, okay. Shop t-yt.com. Okay, Riley Grady says Devin Nunes looks like a shook dog. No, he looks shook dog, sorry. I like that he looks like a shook dog too.

That's both, that's also true. Basshead 3030 says Trump and Giuliani are the quid pro bros. Although they might not be bros anymore, as you'll see a little bit late in the program. I Animal writes in in Mexico City for work and loving listening to the impeachment and watching TYT live from here. Hashtag by Trump Felicia, okay, as in Felicia. Trump Lecia? Okay, last one. David says, Jenk, this is unrelated but breaking news.

Danny Heck announces retirement today. Joshua Collins is now running unopposed in Washington 10 for the moment. And Joshua has a much greater chance to win now. So we had Joshua Collins on the show, a progressive candidate in Washington 10. You should go find him and support him. Now incoming, guaranteed the establishment Democrats. So you're gonna be like, no, let's send in someone incredibly rich instead. But remember, you know, the real progressive in that race.

So thank you for that breaking news. All right. One other announcement, this Friday, I'm invited to speak on a panel about immigration immigration. This is a panel that's put together by the California Immigrant Policy Center, and it starts at 2 p.m. in Los Angeles, and this is going to be a great, powerful panel. It's titled Our Stories, Our Power. And if you're interested in attending, you can reserve a spot. All you have to do is send an email, and that email addresses at the bottom of this graphic, R-D-A-Z, that's R-D-I-A-Z at C-A-I-I-R-I-R-Magrant.org, okay?

It's, again, December 6 this Friday at 2 p.m. All right, great, let's keep talking about what's happening today with the impeachment investigation. Let's do it. All right. The House Judiciary Committee is conducting its public hearing on the impeachment investigation, and it's up to them to decide whether or not. There is enough evidence to draft articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.

Now, in order to help them make this decision, they have called witnesses, and these witnesses are all constitutional experts. The Democrats have called on three individuals to share their expertise. Republicans have called on one person, and that one person is Jonathan Turley. Now, let me give you more details on who these people are, and then I'll tell you what Jonathan Turley has to say, because he is the only constitutional expert who has disagreed. with the other constitutional experts. The witnesses include Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, Stanford Law Professor Pamela Carlin,

University of North Carolina Law Professor Michael Gearhart, and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. The first three witnesses were asked to testify by the committee's Democrats, and Turley was asked or called on by the panel's Republican members. Now, every single one of them, with the exception of Jonathan Turley, said that there is enough evidence to impeach Donald Trump, okay? Now, Jonathan Turley disagrees. Turley said his impeachment process or this impeachment process would harm every future president.

He said impeachment was not wrong because Trump acted properly or because Congress had no legitimate reason to investigate, but rather because it was being rushed. Okay, it's a preposterous claim. So John and Turley is a really interesting intellectual and it is very hard to pin him down on his ideology and he is, he vociferously opposed the Bush administration, but often had critique and oftentimes legitimate critique of the Obama administration. So in the Trump years, he's been all over the board, but that makes sense because he's not being a political actor, I hope not at least, he's giving his legal opinions and

might fall on different sides depending on what the issue is. So he's a guy that I generally respect, I've had him on the show many times actually back in the day when I was on MSNBC and I believe on the Young Turks, but he has taken a curious stance here. Yes. And so he acknowledges that impeachment is a completely political process and has had a whole range and a whole history. So for example, Andrew Johnson was impeached without even any articles.

of impeachment. They went straight to a vote. So you can do that. It was perfectly legitimate, and he was in fact impeached. He was not convicted in the Senate, but he was impeached in the House. So he, but he says the gold standard is Watergate where they took two years to do it. Well, first of all, there is no constitutional requirement that it take two years, and I'm positive that Professor Sterly knows that. Second of all, he can't be unaware that that would go past Trump's term. So then I wonder if he is being political, because what kind of an absurd? argument is, you should do a process that would take so long it would be past the election and maybe a whole other year.

Right. Well, that's disingenuous. Basically, you're saying don't impeach him. Yeah, he was quoted as saying fast is not good for impeachment. So that's really the basis of his entire argument. He doesn't get into the details of whether or not he finds the evidence against Donald Trump legitimate or illegitimate. He didn't exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing.

His main argument is things are moving too quickly. this is not good. And he kind of fearmongers about what this could mean for the future of executive power, when in reality he should be more concerned about what this means if Donald Trump is, you know, asking political, or I should say foreign governments to dig up dirt on his political rivals and he gets acquitted in the Senate. What does that mean for executive power in the future? What does that mean for the type of precedent it sets for the future? He doesn't get into any of that, he just says this is moving too quickly. Yeah, it's a very poor argument in my opinion.

And in the opinions of, by the way, almost every other law professor in the country. I mean, the Republicans had this stretch and stretch, remember, if they had a law professor that was gonna come out and say, no, they don't have them at all, this is outrageous, and this is not a crime, and this is not impeachable, they would have gone with that professor. The best they could find was a guy going, well, that's a little too fast. That's, yeah, you're 100% right, and again, Democrats, have three constitutional experts, all of whom agree that there's enough evidence to impeach Donald Trump, Republicans only called one person, Jonathan Turley, and his strongest argument

is that this is moving too quickly. I do want to go to some sound of Turley from today. Let's take a quick look. I get it. You're mad. The president's mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad.

My wife is mad. my kids are mad even my dog seems mad and Luna's a golden doodle and they don't get mad so we're all mad where has that taken us

will a slipshot impeachment make us less mad will it only invite an invitation for the madness to follow every future administration that is why this is wrong yeah Wow, real strong argument there.

Yeah, I got news for you, that's not a legal argument. So look, I don't mind him being lighthearted and talking about his dog. But these are not remotely convincing legal arguments. This is the best that the Republicans have to offer. And look, I'll tell you when someone's legitimate and illegitimate. John internally is a fascinating, legitimate, interesting professor. But here he's being claims that are unsubstantiated and look, Look to me from the outside, and I'm happy to have him on the show and we'll ask him to come on this show,

but appear to be disingenuous. I'll give you, to be fair to him, more of what he said in terms of why he's concerned about it. He said the record is neither complete nor compelling on proof of an impeachable offense. Really? We took, they talked to 17 diplomats and Trump administration officials. They very clearly said that there was quid pro quo. They very clearly said that he asked for help from a foreign government, which you know Professor

Shirley is illegal, and the transcript that he himself released indicates that he did ask for assistance against a political opponent. I mean, they've got him eight ways to Sunday. What do you need it for it to be complete? Right. Eighteen witnesses, 19 witnesses, instead of having these impeachment hearings last this period of time, you need to go two years or three years. This is really one of the weakest defenses I have ever seen from a really smart attorney.

And what's really interesting is he did take part in the impeachment process when it came to Bill Clinton. And we have video showing that he had a very different approach back in 1998. Let's take a look. Executive power exhibits the same physical properties as a gas in a confined space. When you expand the space, the gas will fill the space. You should not be misled. decision will define executive power and authority. If you decide to certain acts do not rise to

impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct. And we will have to live with that expansion. No matter how you feel about President Clinton, and I don't dislike President Clinton, I voted for President Clinton. But no matter how you feel about President Clinton, no matter how he feel about the independent counsel, by his own conduct, he has deprived himself of the perceived legitimacy to govern. You need both political and legal legitimacy to govern this nation, because the president must be able to demand an absolute sacrifice from the public at a moment's notice. And when there's a question of legitimacy, it has to be resolved in a way that it doesn't divide, what Franklin referred to as irregular actions.

I just, sorry, I just, I just find it fascinating how the burden was much heavier for Bill Clinton as opposed to Donald Trump. I mean, he's talking about political legitimacy in that clip. Yeah. So, no, no, that is very curious. So I know that he had that stance in the Clinton impeachment hearings, but hearing it again in saying that you should be concerned about expanding executive power. When today he's testifying, hey, you should be worried about limiting executive power. And before he was saying, look, it's, look, by almost any admission, it's a small violation that Bill Clinton did, lying about a sexual affair, okay, on a case that began as not at all

related to that affair in any way, shape, or form. And so most people get caught in affairs, lie about it. They don't just voluntarily come on and go, oh, yeah, you got it, brother. Oh, you're asking me generally about my sex life. Let me tell you all the things I did wrong. That is not usually how politicians or anyone else behaves. So okay, whatever you think of Bill Clinton's quote unquote crimes, any legal expert would have to agree that Donald Trump's crimes are at least as bad, if not significantly,

significantly worse. I mean, that is obvious. So for him to say Clinton's so-called crime was so egregious that you can't expand executive power, and then to turn around to say Donald Trump's crime, are, well, I mean, look, I don't know that you've investigated for two years yet, and I maybe call a couple more witnesses, and I'm worried about limiting executive authority. That is very inconsistent and bizarre. Because, look, when John internally represents Republicans or Democrats,

he's being a lawyer, and he's supposed to represent those people. But this is different. He's being called as an expert. He's not an advocate for any side here. And in both cases, he appears to be making political arguments. time against the Democrat, now in favor of a Republican. And he's doing it very, fairly aggressively on fact patterns that look to be, you know, contradictory to his own claims.

So that is weird and troubling. But most importantly for your purposes, if you don't care about Jonathan Turley, I don't blame you. This contradictory, very weak defense of Trump is the best that the Republicans for could find out of any law professor in the entire country. Yep, that's right. That goes to show you the incredible weakness of their case. We got to take a break.

When we come back, we're going to hear from one of the constitutional experts who's in favor of impeaching Donald Trump and says that there is an abundance of evidence. Her name is Pamela Carlin, and then we will also talk about Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani's ever-widening feud. We'll be right back. 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 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. also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired Magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today.

We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free segment. All right, back on a young Turks. What's up, Anna? What's next? Okay, all right, let's get right to the news. All right, so during the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Donald Trump's impeachment, a number of constitutional experts shared their perspective, and one of them was Pamela Carlin. Now, Pamela Carlin was one of the three constitutional experts who believes that the impeachment

process did yield evidence that supports impeachment. She believes that this process has shown that Donald Trump did in fact commit the things that he's been accused of, including trying to dig up dirt on his political rival and soliciting the help of a foreign leader in an effort to do that. Now, an interesting exchange did occur between Carland and Doug Collins. Now, Doug Collins is a Republican representative who was salty from the very beginning of this hearing. He complained about his chair being uncomfortable. And then he said this.

America will see why most people don't go to law school. No offense to our professors. But please. Really, we're bringing you in here today to testify on stuff that most of you've already written about, all four, for the opinions that we already know, out of the classrooms that maybe you're getting ready for finals in, to discuss things that you probably haven't even had a chance to say, Unless you're really good on TV of watching the hearings for the last couple of weeks,

you couldn't have possibly actually digested the Adam Schiff report from yesterday or the Republican response in any real way. Now, we can be theoretical all we want, but the American people is really going to look at this and say, huh? So Carlin didn't take kindly to that statement and hit him back with this. But everything I know about our Constitution and its values and my review of the evidentiary record, And here, Mr. Collins, I would like to say to you, sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. So I'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor, I don't care about those facts. But everything I read on those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited, indeed demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes

this a republic to which we pledge allegiance. To which Collins responded. Huh? I'm kidding. He didn't respond that way. But wow, that was incredible. Yeah, that's a Stanford law professor. And this Doug Collins guy coming in like, oh yeah, now I don't want to hide on what I'm doing here.

You law professors, what do you know? They know the law and they're really good at it. And you don't get to be a Stanford law professor without working your ass off. Yes. And being really, really accomplished, unlike a random local, yokel Republican congressman who got there by taking corrupt campaign contributions. No, but Jake, but think about it. This is another case of projection, right? Because in Collins's mind, like there's no way that they have like the brain power to read

the House Intelligence Committee's report before coming to testify during the House Judiciary Committee's hearing. But maybe that's, you know, the limitations of Collins' brain power. But these are constitutional experts, these are law professors, and she made it very clear that She did her homework before showing up to testify. Yeah, no, I love that strength. So now Republicans wanted to strike back. So they found something that Carlin said in testimony and are all pretending to be outraged

by it. So Carlin said, I'll give you one example that shows the difference between him and a king, referring to Donald Trump, which is the Constitution says there will be no titles of nobility. So while the president can name his son Baron, he can't make him a baron. Okay, so you see what part of that is offensive? Oh, you don't see it either? No, no rational person sees what's wrong with that statement because she's not talking about Baron Trump.

She didn't make any comment about Baron Trump. She made a comment about Donald Trump saying that he can't, he's not nobility and he can't pass that nobility down to his son. She did not in any way insult or talk about Baron Trump or any characteristic that he has. But the Republicans are like, yes, she mentioned his kid, and you know, it's the kids are totally out of bounds because, you know, it's not like he'd put his kids into the White house and put them in charge of almost all policy. Anyway, but Baron is a minor.

And if Professor Carlin actually talked about like her issues with Baron Trump, that would be super weird and inappropriate. But she didn't, I just read you the quote, okay? So what do they do? They're all, oh my God, I've got the vapors. I can't believe she's talking about the children. What about the children? So Melania gets in on the act and she tweets out.

A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Carlin, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering and using a child to do it. She didn't say anything about Baron Trump. She just said you can't be a baron. It was a wordplay having nothing to do with the kid. But the fall outrage, why bucket of squirrels? So they're like, he's absolutely guilty, Donald Trump is.

And we've got no legal grounds to stand on. The one professor in the country who can find John Turley made a wildly contradictory and terrible argument about, well, ideally I'd like to, for these proceedings to take two years. So Carlin and the other professors hammered them on the actual law. So they're like, squirrel, they didn't sell to the kid. Well, did they? No, but it doesn't matter. Get a bucket of squirrels.

Oh, Bertram. What has happened? No, if she actually went after the kid for no reason at all, we would criticize her. And we have done that in the past when progressives have done it, okay? Not progressives, people on the left. So to be fair, yes, it was people on the left, but not necessarily progressives. But we were happy to criticize them for that because you should keep them out of any kind of politics, you should keep the kids out of politics, we all agree.

But it was not about Barron. It was a wordplay on nobility, and every honest person knows that. By the way, here we go again, and Professor Carlin has already apologized for it. Yeah, she shouldn't apologize, but we also shouldn't get distracted by the bucket of squirrels, and we won't, because Carlin's testimony and her expertise is incredibly important to this case. And I want to share just one more piece of that with you, so let's take a look. What happened in 2016 was bad enough. There is widespread agreement that Russian operatives intervened to manipulate our political process.

But that distortion is magnified if a sitting president abuses the powers of his office actually to invite foreign intervention. To see why, imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that's prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that Congress has provided for? What would you think if that president said, I would like to do you, I would like you to do us a favor. I'll meet with you and I'll send the disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal.

Wouldn't you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office, that he betrayed the national interest and that he was trying to corrupt the electoral process? So this is why they're trying to defame her as some sort of like terrible person who's going after. kids, right? It's because her testimony here was incredibly powerful, she was strong, she didn't back down. And in the case of Baron Trump, she also shouldn't have backed down, but it's okay, it is what it is. Yeah, look, guys, don't get distracted by nonsense peripheral issues. The core of the issue is a legal one.

That is why we have legal scholars today in the Judiciary Committee. And what three out of four of them said, and again, the Republican one was incredibly weak, and the overwhelming number of constitution, and even the three to one is misleading, because the overwhelming majority of constitutional law professors believe that this is clearly an impeachable offense. But the Republicans get to pick witnesses, so they were like, all right, we'll pick one. That guy doesn't really agree with us, but says we're doing it too quick. We'll go with him, right?

So don't get misled by that. The law is overwhelming here, and it is very clear. Of course you can't ask a foreign government for help in your political election. That's the core of the issue, and that's why Donald Trump will definitely be impeached and should be convicted if there was any ethics at all, and obviously in the Senate there isn't. All right, well, let's move on to, I'm just going to say it's my favorite story of the day. Yeah, 100%. So Donald Trump and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, are feuding so hard.

that we absolutely need to do another episode of as the White House turns. Made some very big mistakes. I asked for his resignation. I'm disappointed in the Attorney General. Giuliani has been accused of a number of missteps that have made Donald Trump very upset. And these missteps, of course, have been in the public. during media appearances. So as a result, a new report by Vanity Fair says that as Giuliani's legal woes mount, Trump

is coming around to his advisor's view that Giuliani is a liability. The relationship has grown so strained that Trump has even directed Giuliani not to appear on Fox News. This is according to a Republican briefed on the conversations. Now, a Fox news source was contacted by Gabriel Sherman over at Vanity Fair, and they confirmed that Giuliani has refused to appear on Fox in recent days. Now, Rudy is cut off from Fox News. We had to do something.

We don't want Rudy out there. Every time he talks, it's bad for Trump. And that's according to a Republican source who spoke to Vanity Fair. And the turning point, the moment where Donald Trump really started to sour on Rudy Giuliani was when he went on Fox News and said this. All of these comments, which are totally insulting, I mean, I've seen things written like he's gonna throw me under the bus. When they say that, I say he isn't, but I have insurance.

So the Republican source who spoke to the Vanity Fair, spoke to Vanity Fair said Trump was Pissed. That's a quote. Yeah. So in case you haven't been following this, that's Rudy saying if he's going to throw me under the bus, I have an insurance policy, meaning I have obviously incriminating evidence against Donald Trump, so we better be careful. So I get why Trump is pissed.

On the other hand, hey man, there's no honor among thieves. You pick this guy because in the great words of breaking bad, because you didn't need a criminal lawyer, you need a criminal lawyer. And so when you pick a criminal lawyer like that, well, sometimes the crimes come back against you. So later Rudy Giuliani said that he was being sarcastic. Did it sound sarcastic? You saw it for yourself.

Why would you even say that? What does that mean that it's sarcastic? Let me give you his tweet because he walked back his insurance statement. on Twitter and wrote, truth alert, the statement I've made several times, several times of having an insurance policy if thrown under the bus is sarcastic and relates to the files in my safe about the Biden family's four decades of monetizing his office. If I disappear, it will appear immediately along with my RICO chart. Okay, first of all, I love that someone has to do a truth alert on a tweet.

He's like, all the other ones, not really true. Keep it am honest. Right, but this one, truth alert, okay, second of all, remember he was talking, and you saw the clip, you could rewind, okay? He was talking about if Donald Trump throws him under a bus, he has insurance. He was talking about the Bidens, so then he does a truth alert saying, no, no, no, no, no, I meant the insurance is sarcastic, plus I was talking about the Bidens, wait, was it sarcastic or were you talking about the Bidens? You definitely weren't talking about the Bidens, we just saw it with our own eyes, and we also saw it with our own eyes, you weren't being sarcastic at all. Okay, and he's right because Giuliani, he might have done a separate crooked deal with Ukrainians and his associates, partners from Frueman have already been arrested potentially

over that same deal. So Giuliani is saying, hey, don't throw me under a bus on that crooked deal because I have insurance against you, I can incriminate you way worse, Donald Trump, on either that or other things, right? And Giuliani in the past has also bragged about how he recorded this. things. And apparently Parnas also recorded Giuliani and Trump. Yes. So as the White House turns. Yes. Okay. So let me actually get to more details on that. Because apparently, like we've heard the Giuliani side of things. And again, just to be detailed, let me give you, you know,

what happened with those recordings. So the next day the news broke, the Giuliani associate Lev Parnas had turned over tape recordings of Trump and Giuliani to Congress. Okay, the congressional investigators here. Then on November 27th, the New York Times reported that Giuliani tried to land business deals in Ukraine at the same time Trump assigned him to conduct a shadow foreign policy campaign to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. So Trump sends him to Ukraine, and Giuliani allegedly was like, maybe I can make a little money on the side.

And Trump caught wind of that, didn't like it, according to a second former West Wing official who spoke to Vanity Fair, Trump sources said, Trump sources said was furious. Trump hates when people make money off working for him. And don't share it. That's the point that he left out. Look, to be fair to Trump here, there's a perfectly good chance that Trump did not know about Rudy's side deal. So Trump want to get rid of Ivanovich because she was fighting corruption in Ukraine.

and he wanted corruption in Ukraine. So he wanted dirt on the Bidens, he wanted to do corruption in Ukraine, but it might be totally unconnected to the money that Rudy, Parnas, or Fruman might have been getting from Ukrainian sources. So those are potentially two different issues here. Now, it doesn't make Trump's illegality any better, it's just a separate issue. So there is some chance that Trump didn't know about Rudy's side deal at all, so when he finds out about it, he is super pissed and going, what the hell you do it?

And like any rational person would be mad because you trusted him to send him on a mission. And it turns out he was trying to personally benefit himself on a separate deal that wind up having the same goal as your mission. Now by the way, remember, both missions are crooked. One is potentially for Rudy and Parnas and Frumannes' personal financial benefit. others for Trump to get dirt on a political opponent, but both of them need the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine fired for their missions. So Trump says, look, I want you to do a crooked deal for me.

And it turns out you might be doing a crooked deal for yourself on top of the crooked deal that I asked you to do. So that's what he's mad about. But now everybody's scrambling. Vanity Fair then goes to sources close to Rudy Giuliani, which sometimes I assume is Rudy Giuliani. Okay. But whoever these sources are, they say, quote, Trump's not mad at him.

No way. It's good argument, yeah. Yeah, it's not remotely true. Nailed it. In fact, Rudy apparently called Trump to apologize about the insurance comment, because now he's panicked. And then this source also said, everything Rudy has is a benefit to the president. Then why did he say he has an insurance policy on him?

Exactly. In the context of the possibility of Trump throwing Giuliani under a budget. a bus, right? So look, I don't ever say this in regard to Trump because he is possibly the stupidest person I've ever had to talk about on this show. Certainly the dumbest president we've had, but this was the smartest decision Trump has made. Telling Giuliani that he is not to appear in the media or Fox News ever again was a good decision. And I just want to give you some evidence of why I feel this way. Here's a fun mashup of Rudy Giuliani and his countless missteps on the news.

I did not do this on my own. I did it at the request of the State Department. I went to meet Mr. Zelensky's aid at the request of the State Department. Fifteen memos make that clear. Did the Secretary of State Pompeo know you were doing these things? Did he ask you to do these things? He did not. Mr. Volker did and then Mr. Sunland did.

But when I talked to the Secretary last week, he said he was aware of it. He told me that he was aware of it. What's what you Giuliani doing in Ukraine on your behalf? Well, you have to ask that to Rudy. I never talked to a Ukrainian official until the State Department called me and asked me to do it. And then I reported every conversation back to them. And Laura, I'm a pretty good lawyer, just a country lawyer, but it's all here, right here. You know, Rudy has other clients other than me.

I'm one person. So you didn't direct him to go there on your behalf, you didn't? No, the administration's got to get it together. They're all on different pages. And Rudy Giuliani says yesterday, I'm going back to the Ukraine to continue the investigation. Okay. Can someone bring him in? Or, I mean, are we still letting Rudy Giuliani run through the Ukraine?

Not no more. And remember, Trump saw all those Rudy clips and didn't pull him until he said he had dirt on Trump. So when he was going wild, say, oh my God, the Bidens and the service in Ukraine and making up total nonsense and saying, oh yeah, you know, it's, I don't mind going to Ukraine and I've gone to Ukraine and I'll go to Ukraine and I'll do it on behalf of the president, not on behalf of the American government, that's deeply problematic. Trump didn't mind any of that.

It's only when he diss Trump that he got into trouble and got pulled from Fox News. Trump cares about one person and one person only, Trump, that's it. 100%. Yeah. I'm just gonna add a cherry on top of this story that isn't necessarily related, but Vanity Fair also wrote about this. Apparently Jared and Ivanka Trump were trying to, Jared Kushner and Amanda Trump, we're trying to get Pence removed as vice president for the next election cycle and put in Nikki Haley to win over suburban moms. Good luck. Anyway. So, but it turns out

that also was foiled because Nikki Haley was like, oh no, I don't want any piece of it. Yeah. She said, I'm going to go make money and I'll see you guys in 2024. She's like, no, I, no thank you. I would not like to be vice president for Donald Trump. Wow. Pretty amazing. Mm-hmm. And also smart. Oh, definitely.

Yeah. See, Nikki Haley, when she did her book tour recently, kissed Donald Trump's ass over and over again. Oh my God, what a wonderful president. She said, in every instance that I dealt with him, he was truthful, he listened, and he was great to work with. Do you want to be his vice president? Oh, hell no, I don't want any piece of that, that's toxic.

So standard, classic politician, says one thing on television, then turns around, and when she could have tremendous power as vice president, turns it down because she knows they're radioactive, they're all a bunch of criminals, and she doesn't want to get caught along with them. Yes. When we come back, we're gonna discuss the terrible thing that Donald Trump has just done when it comes to food stamps, and Emma Vigland will join us. Come right back.

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