The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - February 20th, 2020

Episode Date: February 21, 2020

Roger Stone is going to prison. Ana Kasparian and John Iadarola, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT Network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five star rating. Thank you.

What's up everyone, welcome to The Young Turks. I'm Anna Casparian, John Iderola is here with us today as he is on most other days. What's going on, John? Stuck the landing. So that's how it's going to be on today's show. And John is in attendance as per his job description. Okay, people are already very sensitive to the way that I talk to you obviously based on like some of the The comp, no.

Oh, it was one thing. I know it was one comment. And at this point, I'm just joking around about it. But like, no, you guys are hardcore fans for sure. I'm gonna try to get this war raging, okay? It's gonna be Lord of the Rings up in here soon. Please don't. I don't want any more wars.

Okay. No more wars. I'm excited to be here. Anna, who is my, am co-host. Okay, okay. I wanted to just draw attention to this beautiful mug. It is awesome. Some of you might be thinking like, oh, here's an

Another ShopTYT advertisement, which you should check out shopty.com. Probably. Awesome merch there. No, but this was actually sent in by one of our viewers, and this is one of the coolest mugs. Yeah, it's awesome. So Steve Creekmore is the person who made this and sent it over. He sent about six of them.

And I, look, I want to discourage everyone from sending us gifts, okay? I don't want this to come across as send us gifts, we're gonna thank you live on air. But I do wanna thank him because this is such a. sweet and thoughtful gift to send us, and it really does go with our set, so it's awesome. Yeah, if you send us mugs or electronics, we'll thank you live on air. But I do want to say, by the way, I'm having the damnedest time finding out who it was, but a fan sent me to board games, I think, for my birthday, and I want to say thank you. I'm trying to figure out who it was, because some of the information around it seems to have

lost in the trip to my desk, but thank you. I do appreciate that. Al Belzo, on time every year. Sends us gift cards to Starbucks. You guys are so sweet- He does. Look, you supporting the show is everything that we need, everything that we want, so thank you, please don't feel like you need to give us any types of material gifts, like just support the show.

That goes a long way and we appreciate your support. All right, with that said, let's start off with some Trump-related news later on in the show. We will give you updates on the fallout for Bloomberg following the Nevada debate. And we'll also talk a little bit. In the post game, I actually want to discuss how Elizabeth Warren, after performing really well last night during the debate, has decided to continue these dishonest smears against Sanders. And it sucks because I want to give her credit like I did last night.

And then she turns around and she does things that are just devastating and disappointing to say the least. Anyway, we'll get to that in the post game. So become a member, go to t.yt.com slash join. All right, so one of Donald Trump's buddies. Roger Stone has been sentenced. Now keep in mind that prosecutors in the case originally called for seven to nine years behind bars for the seven charges that he was found guilty of. However, he was sentenced to 40 months in prison and two years of probation. Prosecutors had initially

asked Stone to be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison, resting that recommendation on the severity of his crimes and behavior. Trump called that ask very unfair in a late night tweet. At that point, Attorney General William Barr overrode the recommendation the next day, saying seven years in prison would be too harsh a sentence. Now, none of the prosecutors who won the case at trial signed the revised sentencing memo and two new DC U.S. Attorney's Office supervisors were assigned, exposing how politically charged the case has become inside the Justice Department. Now, this has led to calls for William Barr to resign. Federal judges have gotten together and they had some sort of secret meeting to discuss what's happening.

It's very unclear what the outcome of that meeting will be. But for now, this is what we're dealing with. We're dealing with a much lower sentence, 40 months, for serious crimes that were committed. So let me give you those details. Stone was convicted last fall of lying to Congress, perjury, and threatening a witness regarding his efforts for Trump's 2016 campaign. He threatened that witness by asking him if he wants to die. Yeah, it was a bit vague, but it could be interpreted as a threat.

If any other person, any average American did that, if they tampered in some sort of investigation or threatened a witness in the middle of an investigation, they would not have any leniency in response to that. Yeah, so, yeah, I guess, I mean, we're sort of waiting for him to just part him out right, right? If he doesn't, if he gets 40 months, like I don't like that there was any influence over it. But if the prosecutors had come out and said 40 months, I would have been probably fine with that. If he ends up serving 40 months or 30 for good behavior, which he won't get because he has literally never exhibited good behavior in any way, I think that that would be acceptable. He needs to spend time in prison for what he did. I agree.

Look, I guess I'm fine. You're right. If we had not known about what the initial recommendation was, the sentencing guidelines from the prosecutors, had we not known the type of influence that Trump has and how he meddled in the outcome of this case, had we not known that William Barr intervened the way that he did, I think that we probably would be fine with 40. months behind bars. But the fact of the matter is, you now have the executive branch manipulating our justice

system to a way that is politically beneficial to themselves and to their friends. Yeah. Yeah, and I mean, I know we've gone over now a couple of times this story has developed, I mean, way back, but even just lately. And so like you start to get into like the details and everything, but just like top level view, this guy's a Trump ally who tried to interfere in the investigation of him, got caught is being sentenced and is going to face much less time, possibly no time, because Trump is going to stop him from facing time after he tried to help him during the, that's insane.

That is the most obvious corrupt, swampy behavior that I can imagine. And it has taken the 24 hour a day, you know, attentions of Fox News to convince people that Roger Stone and Donald Trump are actually the victims in all this. So the judge, Amy Berman Jackson, made a very similar point. CNN reports that as, that Stone's actions, according to Judge Berman, led to an inaccurate, incorrect, and incomplete report from the House on Russia, WikiLeaks, and the Trump campaign, Jackson told the court. She also said she believed Stone's threats to witness Randy Credico deserved a stronger sentence.

Now, I want to give you a few more statements from the judge, and then we'll have a little bit of a discussion about what the final outcome of this will be, what we think it will be. It's only a prediction. Now, as the judge read from the bench, some of the obscenity-laced emails to Credico that supported his conviction for witness tampering, Stone turned briefly with a half smirk on his face and looked in the direction of his two rows of supporters in the room. Otherwise, Stone sat quietly and took notes as the judge spoke. So, you know, that that type of incredibly smug behavior as the president of the United States

is meddling in the outcome of this case. And, you know, the judge also said, at his core, Mr. Stone is an insecure person who craves and recklessly pursues attention. That is the nicest thing anyone's ever said about him. You're probably right. But she's also right. I mean, he does strike me as just this incredibly insecure, sad man. He's the saddest sort of person.

Yes, exactly. So let's talk a little bit about what's likely to happen. There are all sorts of rumors, there's some speculation about how Stone might not even spend a single night in jail or prison, I should say. So let's talk about that. So Tucker Carlson has been signaling something to Trump in the Roger Stone case. And nothing made that clear than the segment that you're about to watch. Take a look.

President Trump could end this travesty in an instant with a pardon and there are indications tonight that he will do that. In the last 24 hours, he's done the same for former police commissioner and Bernie Carrick and for financier Michael Milken. Democrats will become unhinged if Trump pardons Roger Stone, but they're unhinged anyway. What has happened to Roger Stone should never happen to anyone in this country of any political party to Democrats as well, ever. It's completely immoral, it's wrong.

Fixing it is the right thing to do, and in the end, that is the only thing that matters. He's so concerned, but poor, like it's just concerned about the morality of it all. Threatening a witness in the middle of an investigation is a crime. So pretending as though the real victim here is the very person who committed that crime is so out of control and ridiculous. And look, I would expect it from someone like Tucker Carlson. I'm not gonna pretend like I'm surprised, but make no mistake, Roger Stone threatened Randy credit go who agree to cooperate with Mueller's investigation into Russia's meddling in the US

election. Yeah, this is what you get, unfortunately, when all of the president's political allies, media allies, and supporters out there in the population desperately want him to break the law on a regular basis. You are never going to be able to convince them that it's a bad thing that they broke the law. That's what they want. Yeah, and the language that Trump uses on Twitter is very similar to the language that

that you heard from Tucker Carlson in that segment, because Trump takes his cues from cable news. He's, you know, he likes to present himself as this strong man, but there are two things that are true of Trump. He is easily manipulated, and he is incredibly thin-skinned and seeks validation. And so if you say complimentary things about him on the one cable news network he likes to watch incessantly, well, then he might grant you favors. If you're critical of him, he will use any and all of his power to attempt to destroy you, starting with Twitter, right?

A rough description of Trump could read, he's an insecure person who craves and recklessly pursues attention. That's exactly right, that's exactly right. Maybe that's why he has such admiration for Roger Stone. Well, Tucker Carlson's little spiel there was unsurprising, but one person who seemed to be pretty principled throughout all of this was Judge Napolitano, one of the other personalities on Fox, but he has decided to go in a completely different direction in the clip you're about to watch. The judge should interrogate the departed prosecutors about what they knew about this four

person and when they knew it and why they quit and then determine whether or not the integrity of Stone's trial was adversely affected by this juror. It seems inconceivable that it was not. Now, I don't know what the president is going to do, but this is absolutely- Are you suggesting he might pardon him? I'm suggesting he might pardon Roger Stone today. Because the minute he signs that pardon, this judge is divested of jurisdiction in the case. And Stone walks out of the courtroom. That's the reason I'm saying only a pardon can fairly undo this mess.

This is not about politics and it's not about friendship. It's about the Constitution and human decency. So this is a talking point that you've probably heard from Trump or Trump support. that the four person in the jury was somehow too biased to be the four person, was against Trump. And so as a result, manipulated the outcome of the jury's decision. That is actually not the case. In fact, jurors have spoken to the press about this and said, no, the four person went out

of their way to ensure that we were thorough. And even if that weren't the case, we would have come out with this. ruling anyway. Again, Stone was guilty of all seven charges. And that would be a great response if Trump actually cared about supposed bias on the part of the foreperson, but of course he doesn't care. And of course in cases like this, there are mechanisms to try to weed out bias. Second of all, you're not going to find a single person in America that doesn't have a view positive or negative towards Donald Trump. By his logic, there is no one who can stand as a jury of appear to a supporter of

Trump like Roger Stone. And third of all, while they have mechanisms to weed out the political bias, why would they want to? Why not let someone slip through as an excuse, a cheap excuse to just pardon him in the end? Especially if you know that he definitely did what he's being charged with. Well, for now, Trump is not planning on pardoning Roger Stone, but I don't really trust anything he says. If you were to, if I had to take a bet, I would bet that Roger Stone will not see a single

day behind bars. Here's what Trump tweeted, though. I'm not going to do anything in terms of the great powers bestowed upon a president of the United States. I want the process to play out. I think that's the best thing to do because I'd love to see Roger exonerated. And I'd love to see it happen because I personally think he was treated very unfairly. So how could he possibly be exonerated?

Well, his team, Roger Stone and his attorneys plan to appeal the case. ask for a retrial. And so that's what he's waiting for, but if he doesn't get what he wants, there's no question in my mind that Trump will pardon him. I agree. Yeah. I agree. I don't know if he won't spend a day, but he's definitely not, like if Trump doesn't get reelected,

Roger Stone's not still gonna be in prison. That seems crazy to me of the thought. And by the way, just a quick clarification or correction, that statement that I read from Trump was a statement, it was not a tweet. My mistake, I said it was a tweet out of habit because that's usually how he communicates with everyone. Yes. Especially in official context.

Yeah, exactly. All right, well, let's move on to one other abuse of power story related to Trump, and this is also pretty terrifying. Donald Trump doesn't have a lot of affection for the intelligence community. However, he just named the acting director of national intelligence, and he is certainly one of Trump's loyalists. He's actually also a well-known Twitter troll, and his name is Richard Grennell. Now he has been acting as the ambassador to Germany.

Germany has been miserable with him as the ambassador representing the United States. And so they were desperate for the US to recall him. But they got their wish, unfortunately now we have to deal with him as the acting director of national intelligence. And that's terrifying considering his previous statements about women, his previous statements about people within his own party. But more importantly, how much of a Trump loyalist he really is. Now Trump announced his new role on Twitter writing, I'm pleased to announce that our highly

respected ambassador to Germany, Richard Grinnell, will become the acting director of national intelligence. Rick has represented our country exceedingly well. And I look forward to working with him. And then he goes on to thank Joe McGuire for the wonderful job he is done. And we look forward to working with him closely, perhaps in another capacity within the administration. It's weird that considering how highly respected he is, he's just making him the acting,

you know, DNI rather than going through the process where the Republicans in the Senate would just confirm him, right? I mean, there's nothing crazy or obscene that would come up during that process. He's so highly respected, just, you know, put him up and have him confirmed. I'm so glad you mentioned that, John. Now, since he has been confirmed by the Senate for his role as ambassador to Germany, he does not have to be confirmed as acting director of national intelligence. Which doesn't make any sense.

They're not the same position. We should change the law. But again, according to Politico, Grinnell is already Senate confirmed. So Trump can name him acting DNI under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. So who is this guy? Let's go a little deeper and figure out how much of a disaster this really is. Well, he's a former Fox News contributor. He's known to be a fierce online warrior for Trump, who has been unafraid to parrot the Trump

line and lecture his host country, which was Germany, so much that they called on the White House to recall him from his ambassador post in Berlin. Also, he has a history of saying pretty terrible things to women, including women in his own party. I should note he's openly gay, so he is now the first openly gay. acting director of national intelligence, but just because he's gay doesn't mean he's a good person, he's actually a pretty terrible person. Laurie Blackford, a producer for Chris Matthews long before he came to MSNBC recalled remarks

Grinnell allegedly made to a fellow campaign staffer on the 1992 Bush Quail reelection campaign. She was quoted as saying, one of our staff people came in and had on a flowery dress in red shoes, and Rick, meaning Richard Grinnell, looked at her and said, didn't your mother ever tell you, only whores and very small children wear red shoes. Is that like a common phrase? I've never heard that before. I really like red shoes, actually. I don't get paid for sex. So I guess you're a kid at heart. I might be an exception to that rule. I don't know. It's such a weird thing to say, both obviously sex is misogynist and totally inappropriate and weird at the same time that he could end up.

up being the Democratic nominee. God, the state of our country, as my brother who has a baby at home and is very stressed out likes to say, our lives are in shambles. Okay, it's all shambles as far as the eye can see. It's just, it's so much. And one other thing I wanted to bring to everyone's attention, Grinnell was infamously fired from his role as national security advisor to the 2012 Mitt Romney campaign. after a right wing backlash over his being openly gay.

So that was wrong, what the Romney campaign did was wrong. So two things can be true, Grinnell can just be an incredibly flawed, terrible human being, and Romney can also be wrong for firing him over his sexual identity, or sexual orientation. But one thing that I do want to say is I think the Romney angle also informed Trump's decision in picking Grinnell. Because remember, Romney was the only Republican who voted to convict Trump on one of the articles of impeachment, which was abuse of power. And I'm sure that Trump is kind of like, you know, a little cherry on top. Let me go ahead and, you know, name him acting national.

By the way, think about how scary this is. You don't think that the Trump administration would use, you know, our intelligence community to spy on his political rivals or people he doesn't like? No, because what if he got caught? Think about the consequences. Oh, yeah, I mean. Think about the consequences. Right. Yeah, it's also, I know this is just that this is a thing that a lot of Americans who are

not straight and Republicans have to deal with, but it's just so weird that like you're forced out of an advising role in national security has nothing to do with anything to do with your identity, but just your identity is enough that like regular Republicans insist you be fired and you just try to find another position in that safe. party that like is fundamentally as evil as they were. I mean, I know that that's a difficult thing and if you believe certain things politically, like what else are you supposed to do? But that's, man, that's gotta suck.

I mean, so does he, but that's gotta suck. I think the real losers in this entire situation are the American people because Trump has proven over and over again that he has no problem abusing his power. And if he takes all of these top positions within the intelligence community and fills them with his loyalists, he can abuse his power further. And warrantless wiretapping was a huge problem under the Bush administration. We found out about the indiscriminate spying on American citizens through the NSA under the Obama administration.

I mean, they abuse their power as well. But Trump is a completely different animal, which is why when you have a president in office who you like and they abuse their power. You need to think ahead and consider what kind of impact that would have if someone you don't like is an office. Yeah. Yeah, and also, I mean, like we've rightly pointed out that he's got this terrible reputation. And most likely that's why Trump knows about him and likes him in the first place, because

of, you know, he supports Trump and he's awful, that's all it really takes. But also, like, while we disagree with a lot of what, you know, various officials inside the intelligence community would do and have done, I still also think that you probably should be qualified in some way for that position. And this guy isn't in any, like I'm imagining, like I got this job without any like prior news experience or anything, which was a questionable decision on all of your part. You proved your, let me just be clear about that. You proved yourself.

Thank you. He would send in like correspondent videos for our TYT university show and he was great. I'm just, I'm just being self-deprecating. I made the decision to bring them on. But this is, she did. I make good decisions. Thank you. I appreciate the life you've given me.

But this is not like you can learn. The DNI, I'm guessing it's complicated. I mean, we have, what, 17 different organizations involved in the collection of international intelligence. We have to synthesize all of that. You have to know these sorts of things. Wouldn't we want someone who has some experience in that? We would, but here's the thing.

Trump, of course, does not. He has no interest whatsoever in any of that working. He doesn't have to weed through resumes, he just chooses somebody he likes, because he's He wants it to grind to a hall. I mean, that apparently, I forget exactly who it was in the Intelligence Committee, but they briefed Congress like five days ago on the likelihood that Russia is working right now to get Trump reelected. That is really inconvenient if you're Donald Trump.

Why would you want that sort of briefing to even happen? Just hire some loyalists who's going to make it difficult for the intelligence community to do its job. And even if they do their job, he'll provide one more stopping point for that information before it can get to anyone important. So I'm going to think about as we go to break. It is. All right.

When we come back, we'll switch gears, move away from Trump-related news and talk a little bit about the aftermath of the Nevada debate. I also want to discuss how the Sanders campaign has decided to play offense a little bit, which is so important considering how consistently they're attacked. We have that for you and more women. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The Republic or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich

and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it.

The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained

all at the same time. We return. Welcome back to TYT. and John with you. John is the host of damage report here on this network. Nice. One of our top hosts. Nailed it. That was great. Thank you. All right. Okay. Just making sure I do right by you. Just a quick announcement about TYT's affiliate program. If you're looking to help TYT and support this show, there's one way you can do it. There's many ways you can do it, but one of the ways is the affiliate program. So so far we have signed up 725 affiliates. And

And these are people who are supporters of the show who are helping us sell membership. And if you're interested in doing that, there's a financial upside for you, but more importantly, you help to keep this show independent and sustainable. You can learn more by going to t.t.com slash win win. They're also having weekly conference calls where TYT affiliates are connecting from around the country. God, that sounds fun, right? It's kind of like Christian Mingle and like, but it's only TYT and not, do you get what I'm saying?

Like you had to come up with an example of fun and the first thing you thought it was Christian Mingle. No, no, just like, you know how there's like, this is not for dating by the way. It's exclusive. It's exclusive. I mean, it's not for dating. No, it's not for dating. Yes, it's exactly like Christian Mingle, minus the religion and the dating. Okay, let's just, let's go.

No, let's run this as an ad. Let's cut that one. Anyway, it's great. It's awesome, and you can make money doing it. Yes, exactly. All right, so let's talk a little bit about what our members have to say about the stories and her coverage. Megan E writes in and says, Warren had already murdered him, meaning Bloomberg.

I don't know why he offered her the assist with that joke comment. I think these are probably older, let me refresh this. Brenticorn writes in and says, anyone who thinks there is actual tension between John and Anna doesn't get what real friendship looks like. No, there's tension. Oh, but maybe there is, yeah, exactly. Yeah, John. People really think?

I don't think people really do. John and I are super close and just to prove how close we are, I let him watch my dogs time to time. Like I don't do that with most people. And I like her enough that I actually give it back, which goes against every instinct I have. All right, real quick, some super chat comments, Omar writes in and says, shame on Warren for now deciding that it's convenient for her to take super pack money for millionaire.

That is also a new story that maybe we'll also talk about that in the post game today. Proud that Bernie is now and still the only candidate with a backbone who will fight for me. And Devious Devil says, TYT needs to sell a salt shaker with Anna on it. That's a good idea. Yeah. It could be an Anna shaped salt shaker. That'd be pretty cool. Let's make it, among people.

All right, well, let's talk about some of what happened last night during the debate and what the discussion is about today, because this is a pretty huge story. Last night during the Nevada Democratic primary debate, Bernie Sanders was the only candidate, the only person up on that stage who answered yes to a very provocative question by Chuck Todd. Take a look. There's a very good chance of none of you are going to have enough delegates to the Democratic National Convention to Clint's Fis nomination, okay? If that happens, I want all of your opinions on this, should the person with the most delegates

at the end of this primary season, be the nominee, even if they are short of a majority. Senator Sanders, I'm going to let you go last here because I know your view on this. Whatever the rules of the Democratic Party are, they should be followed. And if they have a process, which I believe they do, so everybody else, everybody can do. So you want the convention to work its will? Yes. Convention working as well means that people have the delegates that are pledged to them, and they keep those delegates until you come to the convention.

Okay, yes or no, leading person with the delegate. Should they be the nominee or not? No, let the process work is the way out. Not necessarily, not to listen to. Senator Klobuchar? Let the process work. Senator Sanders. Well, the process includes 500 super delegates on the second ballot. So I think that the will of the people should prevail, yes. Thank you guys. Most votes should become the nominee. Five nose and a yes. So there is, this is such an incredible story. There's a reason why, uh, why. And look, to be fair, I think if the tables were turned and let's say Warren was the frontrunner, I think he would answer in the same way, right?

But that's my speculation. Let me give you the subtext here because I think it is relevant. As New York Magazine writes, the subtext here is that the candidate most likely to arrive in Milwaukee with a majority of pledged delegates, i.e. those in caucuses and primaries, is Bernie Sanders. It's what the projection say and what logic says too. But as the strongest candidate, Sanders is also the candidate most likely to fit Todd's hypothetical of someone with a plurality but not the majority of pledged delegates, right? So if he has the most delegates, but he doesn't have the majority, Bernie Sanders believes

the right thing to do is to give that person the nomination, right? Now, some would argue it's convenient for him to say that because he's the frontrunner and he has the most, does he have the most delegates now? I don't know the updated count, actually, but I do know that he's gotten more votes in both of the states that we've had so far. That's right, exactly. So let me give you, okay, so give me your thoughts on that. I think it was an absolute disgrace that five people answered the way that they did. I think it should be the story of the day, the scandal of the day. It was our lead off story on the damage report. I just finished an op-ed that is mostly about that. All of them should be facing an incredible amount of pressure.

And I know that they won't because their supporters aren't going to be calling for it. The vast majority of the people in this country want the person they like to win. Principles really don't enter into it. And what I love is that we can occasionally come together around things like, hey, doesn't it seem crazy that in the electoral college you can get more votes but still lose? Hey, wouldn't it be cool if the person with the most votes wins? Oh wait, this time it's not mine? And then screw that whole thing.

No, I think if more people support one candidate, especially if it's not even close, how could you possibly give the middle finger to all of them and say, no, we're gonna decide. It's been a fun little goof these primaries and caucuses, but it's time for the adults in the room to decide. How could anyone call themselves a Democrat and hold such a fundamentally undemocratic stance? This story further soured my perspective on Elizabeth Warren, the way she answered. made me sour on her further. But Chris Matthews had a rare moment of clarity last night because he realized that everyone on

that stage who answered no did so because they realized that they're losing and Bernie Sanders is winning. In fact, here's the video. Here's what he said. There's only one candidate there who believes he's going to have the most delegates going into Milwaukee. And we know it was. He was the guy that said that person should be the winner.

Everybody else said tonight, I will not have the most delegates. They all made it official. They were not going to give the win to the guy or the person with the most delegates. That was so telling tonight. Today, it was an acknowledgement that Bernie is the winner, not the winner. The winner is so far in this whole fight. And he may be the winner all the way. And I think they think so.

So if you're a member of the show, write in right now, because I do want to hear from you and hear what you have to think. We'll read some of your comments in just a few moments. But one person who's not happy about this is Mary Ann Williamson. So she put out a tweet and these are strong words and I really like it. She says, the Democratic Party should be on notice. If you even think about using superdelegates to take the nomination from someone who has the plurality of delegates going into Milwaukee, we the people will not take it lying down.

Now, Warren disagrees. In fact, she, in an interview with Chris Matthews, tried to defend her position on all of this and said the following, according to a reporter's tweet, Elizabeth Warren on MSNBC on why she isn't supportive of going with the candidate who gets the most delegates on first ballot. Quote, we need to pick a nominee who can beat Donald Trump, and that means we gotta have someone who is talking to all parts of the country. party, it's important.

That wasn't even a subtle jab at Bernie Sanders. That was a sucker punch, and she's been doing that more and more often. And I put my own political feelings aside and just look at the facts as they stand. Every time she's done that, it has hurt her campaign. So I don't know why, you know, on the heels of a great debate performance last night, she has decided to go in this direction of, you know, using a disgusting democratic establishment talking point about how Bernie isn't suited to beat Trump. Are you kidding me right now?

Yeah, it's a weird move to make. What she said about, first of all, about the first ballot, I understand that they do the ballot process. I find it frustrating to talk about it again, as I say a lot, in that sort of sanitized sense. It's the first ballot, but what they mean by that is it's the result of people. voting, the stuff later is very few people in a room who've been senators and congressmen and all those. Then they get to vote. I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about

the actual people voting in primaries and caucuses around the country. That's what presumably we've been doing this whole thing for. So I kind of think that that's pretty important. If you are going to say screw all of that, instead we need to worry about X, I would come up with something better than he doesn't speak to all parts of the party when he's been dominating you in terms of the number of votes so far. So if he's he's, if he's, he's He's not speaking to all of them, how can you possibly make the case that you are? And especially someone who can beat Donald Trump. Look, I like Warren less, you know, with every passing day as she's going down this road.

But if you want to talk about who can beat Donald Trump, I would love to sit down and have a talk about the general election matchups going back literally years. On July 18th, get excited. This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry.

Smurfs, only dateers July 18th. In some of them, Warren does beat Donald Trump, but the margin is always far, far closer than it is with Bernie Sanders. And of all of the zombie myths and politics that we have to destroy, the idea that any of them other than possibly Biden, who also does well in matchups, to show them not biased, I will give him credit for that too, even sometimes I can point up on Bernie Sanders. The idea that any of the others who are often tied with Donald Trump are actually losing to him can say that electability should be the guideline, like the people are already clear.

Look at who they think is most likely to win. They're saying Bernie Sanders and they're voting accordingly. You're exactly right. In the post game today, that's for our members. We will talk about some of the other attacks that Elizabeth Warren has done just over the last 24 hours against Bernie Sanders, including talk of his medical records and just really below the belt nonsense, that's beyond disappointing. But I'm gonna go, I'm gonna go a little further.

I think that all of this, including her new willingness to take super pack money, you know, funds from billionaires, shows that she was malleable when it comes to her political identity, depending on what's convenient and politically beneficial for her in any given moment. And that's really sad to see, but more importantly, does she really think that she has a chance against Trump, I think she has a chance. But her political instincts have been a disaster, right? So look, there's policy and then there are political instincts. And she started seeing a giant dip in the polls back in November when she rolled out her specific

policy for Medicare for all, right? How she would roll it out, how she would fund it. And it's because she very clearly moved to the center. She bought into all the pressure, probably from the former Obama aides that are now supporting her campaign, all this pressure to move to the center because they think that that's more appealing. Obviously not, certainly not in the Democratic Party. So if she's easily manipulated like that or malleable in this way and has these terrible

political instincts, you think that that's going to work against Trump? I mean, she's the one who put out that DNA test and that also was poor in terms of her political instincts. So for her to make this accusation against Bernie is really pathetic when he's the only Democrat who has a populist economic message that's real, that he truly believes in, that he's fought for for decades, and it really does resonate with Americans across the board, regardless of political identity. I agree.

All right, well, let's take our break. Actually, no, I wanted to read a few of the member comments. If you'd like to become a member and support the show, you can do it. do so by going to t-y-t.com slash join. Eclectic Michelinia says the rules of the Democratic Party must be followed, says the multi-billionaire that they changed the rules for so he could be on the stage or the debate stage while other candidates who followed the rules were forced to drop out. Yeah.

Such a devastating point. Mariguana's number three fan says the frontrunner should be the one to get the nomination plain and simple, same argument that you made, John. Cam J says, it is very obvious that the party establishment is looking to make it go to a second ballot and use superdelegates and the delegates of other candidates to stop Bernie from winning. Remember, they were already like, they're already testing the waters with bringing super delegates back. You remember that?

Yeah, yeah. So. Yeah, my hope is that because other than Bernie Sanders, there are five people who are to varying degrees deluded about what the country actually thinks about them and what their chance. are of winning, that all of them will stay in, thinking, well, if I just stick around until the convention, then, you know, some people in Democratic leadership can choose me, they can flip off the voters and say, no, this is going to be our candidate. And the thing is, if you, like I said, I think in my live video this morning before the damage report, if you have like

three or four people who all have similar levels of support, then they'll be splitting the delegates and no one will end up with the majority. But if you have eight people splitting the vote, then a bunch of them are not going to meet the threshold for delegates at all. And in fact, that means more of the delegates will go to the people who do meet the threshold, including Bernie Sanders. And so all of them getting involved in this plot, it's sort of like a prisoner's dilemma. They're screwing each other over and possibly making it more likely that we don't have a contested convention.

Right. But look, to be fair, the DNC has been consistent when Bernie Sanders, when it was between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, they didn't get mad at him. for refusing to concede immediately, right? They didn't. No, they were very fair to him. It's not dangerous to have a long primary or whatever. It's, I know.

Whoever gets the most votes wins. That simple, you could write it on a post-it note, brought to you by Amy Klobuchar's state. It'd be so simple, think about it. I know, but they don't believe in democracy, I think that's pretty clear. We gotta take a quick break. When we come back, we have some more news from the Sanders campaign, including their new decision to pivot toward playing offense, and I think that's important. Later on in the show, we will also talk about some of Bloomberg strategy when it comes to donors.

It's pretty disgusting. All of that and more when we were- 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. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to expressvpn.com slash t-y-t, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans.

That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. 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 session. Hey everyone, welcome back to TYT. I wanted to make a quick announcement before reading some of your comments.

So we have an exciting new announcement about Google Assist. They have a news platform known as your news update and they've included us as part of it. And so if you have a Google phone or have Google Assist, you can actually get some of TYT's content through this customized platform. form for news. So if you're interested in trying it out, you can go to Google Assist by selecting your profile, then tapping news, and then news playlist format, update news, or your news update. So look, that might sound complicated. If you want detailed information on how to do this, just go to tyt.com slash notice, tyt.com

slash notice. And we have both the main show and the damage report on there. Really? Yeah. So if let's say you're not interested in the main show, you only We only want damage report, still search for TYT because all that content is under TYT. Awesome.

So definitely check that out. Again, if you want more information, just go to tyt.com slash notice. Now let's read a few of your comments and we'll move forward. Nick Thompson in the super chat section says Warren attacks Bernie that way because she knows she has a better chance of superdelegates giving her the election than actually winning it. PETA Boot Forever says, if they don't give it to the one with the most votes, that means that our votes mean nothing. It should be the popular vote, can't wait for the post game, yeah, I can't either.

Some of this like Warren news broke a little later in the day after our production meeting, but I wanted to make sure that we talked about some of her attacks against Bernie. So you can become a member by going to t.yt.com slash join. From our members section, changed my Borg destination says, agree with Marianne Williamson. I knew you'd like that handle. Warren believes that she has the establishment support, and it kind of seems like that's true. On the second ballot for superdelegates, excuse me, I think she'll be very surprised that she was played as she was played in 2016.

Yeah, wait, so you knew what that was a reference to, that handle? It had something to do with Borgs, so no, but I knew that you'd like it because it has something to do with Borgs and you like Borgs. But you don't know what's from? No. I got excited for nothing. What is it from? Star Trek.

I definitely don't know. I dared to dream, okay? I whispered of a Star Trekian dream. Yeah. Okay, Nick from TYT Live says Bernie is the only one with the right answer. What else is new? DFC says, I agree with Crystal Ball that if the Dems decide to pick someone who has less votes as another for the nominee, it will definitely tear the party apart. There's no question.

blame Bernie supporters for a lack of unity. And yeah, that's all we have for comments for now. We're sore winners. That's crazy. Yeah, I mean, it's the situation where you're slapped in the face over and over again. And if you react in any type of way, any type of negative way, they accuse you the victim of being unfair, of being a Bernie bro, of being cruel. Really fast.

My last op-ed for The Hill was the establishment scam of unity. They spent the first year of the campaign saying that if on the debate stage you criticize Biden, that's unacceptable because it's hurting the frontrunner. So criticizing a year in advance is bad. Taking the nomination away is good. That makes sense. Out of control. Well, let's talk about some of those attacks that the Sanders campaign has been dealing with

and how they've decided to pivot to playing offense. Bernie Sanders' campaign has been focusing a little more on drawing attention to the insane amount of harassment and abuse, some of the women working on his campaign have received online. Now, the reason why they're doing this is because the conversation in the media has been dominated with this narrative that the Bernie Sanders campaign is somehow bullying people online. Now, there hasn't been a single example of that. You have the corporate media and people like Jennifer Rubin saying it without providing any examples. However, there have been specific examples of Nina Turner and Brianna Joy Gray, the National Press

Secretary for Bernie Sanders, getting attacked viciously so. Now, Nina Turner talks about that a little bit on MSNBC, which, as we know, has not been a very Bernie friendly platform. Let's take a look. Does Senator Sanders need to do more to speak out against some of his supporters? who other people have said are crossing lines in that regard. You know, every campaign has people that go too far, and the senator is exactly right.

I mean, for me, the types of attacks, I couldn't even say the types of things that people have put out on social media because it would be so vulgar, inappropriate for daytime TV. Senator Sanders is standing up for the people on his campaign who attack Brejoi, for example, as national press secretary, attacked viciously all the time. Dr. Jane Sanders, his wife, attack viciously all the time. People have a one-sided notion about this. They only talk about

the supporters of Senator Sanders, or maybe the supporters. Anybody can be anybody on social media. The senator is said until he's blue in the face that he does not accept vicious attacks from people. But other folks don't talk about how other people come at people like me in this campaign in some of the most sexist, racist ways ever imaginable. And it is totally unacceptable. So she's right and anyone who's on Twitter has actually seen it. Anyone who's been on social media has seen it. But the Bernie camp, along with his supporters, have been hyper-focused on two things. Well, for Bernie's staffers, it's to push policy and specifically talk about how his policies

differ from the other candidates, which is what you should do in a primary. And then they have to, unfortunately, waste their time defending him against smears that we've been seeing in the corporate media. When it comes to the voters, the supporters, they do more, they do both, actually, now that I think about it. They also want to talk about policy, but they find themselves having to defend Sanders against these unfair smears. But if you go to this archive, and there was an archive created by someone known as Ace Archivist or Archivist, is Archivist or Archivist. Archivist, yeah, Ace Archivist. Bart was an archivist, we should ask him.

And it keeps track of some of the abuse that Sanders campaign officials have been receiving. And it's titled, Keep It Clean, and Archive by Ace Archivist. And so we're going to give you a few examples that we had to censor for obvious reasons. But just to show you, there was this one Twitter exchange where there's a photo of Nina Turner and Larry Sanders. And someone writes, they're both pieces of ish in my eyes, especially that loud, obnoxious hoodwreck. on the right. Okay, so, I mean. So presumably we could go into Twitter, find that account and see who they support in the

Democrat to primary and then demand that that candidate. Answer for it. They should, and we should ask about it over and over until they answer for it. And then keep asking anyway, over and over for the rest of time. Let me give you more. One other person, let's not go to the graphic because I actually don't want, I don't think we blurred the identities of these people or their handles on social media. And I just don't want to even risk anyone doing anything or saying anything to them.

But one other person, and again, don't put these graphics up, wrote, Oh, Nina Turner is Bernie's house slave doing everything her master tells her to. It's disgusting. I wonder how much he's paying her. And then one other person wrote, don't forget, he also has Aunt Jemima. and they included an image of Bernie Sanders and Nina Turner. So look, this is, I don't think that this is indicative of the candidates that these disgusting people support.

How could it be? This is what happens online. And I get it. It's abusive. I know firsthand how abusive it is. And it's disgusting. What's even more disgusting, though, is like being obtuse or pretending to not know that and treating Bernie Sanders as if, you know, his supporters are unique in being extremely

abusive online. That is just not the case. And by the way, oftentimes, these are like anonymous accounts that don't have any identifying information. Yeah. We know that there are bad actors that are trying to rip the Democratic Party apart, that are trying to meddle in our elections. Why are we giving them this kind of power?

Why are we empowering them by including them in this discussion like it, like this? ridiculous. I don't, like, it's nice every once in a while when you realize, I think, that we have been entirely consistent about this. There are how many different candidates in this race that we didn't support and have focused on even at times. You focus on Biden quite a bit, we're focusing on Bloomberg now, we focused on Buttigieg. Have we ever talked about something that one of their supporters tweeted, let alone made that the dominant narrative in a campaign? So I think that from my experience, the most vociferous supporters have been those who supported Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard.

And some of them went so overboard that I had to block them, right? But the reason why I bring that up is because I don't think that reflects on Tulsi Gabbard. Did you ever ask her to answer for it? I don't think that reflects on Andrew Yang at all. No, I didn't. Yeah, of course you did. That would be crazy. That would be, and it would be so disingenuous.

And you just saw it there in the video. I mean, Bernie was asked, and other people were asked, what, four questions about his supporters last night, and he denounced it, said they're not my real supporters. If they act like that, I don't want there. Like, he can say whatever he wants the next day, so should he do more? Should he do more? That's the whole idea is there's nothing he can do that would stop this concern trolling. There's nothing.

It's designed to be unanswerable. Because it's an easy strategy to deflect from policy and try to tank someone else's campaign. Now, in the case of Yang or Tulsi Gabbard, the reason why I didn't focus on their supporters and things that they say to me online is because I want to talk about their policies, right? I think that they're interesting candidates, they were interesting candidates. Well, I think Tulsi Gabbard's still in the race. But I think their policies are up for discussion and debate. That's what this whole process is supposed to be about.

But when you're some corporate media hack and you don't want to do the the hard work and the research and the real analysis into these policies, an easy way to smear a campaign or smear a candidate is to focus on anonymous randos on Twitter. It's disgusting and stupid. I would be so embarrassed if I had like had an interview with Andrew Yang, a bit like recently I did before. And I asked him like, hey, the Yang Ganga was mean to me. Do something about it. I know, I know. How pathetic and small would I be? And yes, abuse is terrible and by its very nature has no connection to the candidate.

There's nothing they could do to stop it, assuming that they are their supporters. And I'm assuming in the case of the Bernie abusers, some of them are probably bot networks that are actively trying to hurt him. Some of them are authentic person because I know of people who supposedly support Bernie Sanders but I think are genuinely terrible people. Those people exist. And in both of those cases, Bernie Sanders can't do anything about it. Right.

And everyone knows that. I also refuse to concede to that narrative that Bernie supporters are abusive or most of them are or even a- Well, I'm not saying that. I'm saying some people. There might be like, yes, there might be a few people here and there. But overwhelmingly, from what I have seen online, they usually want to do rebuttals when someone lies about what Bernie Sanders stands for, what he said, or what his history is, and they don't like the fact that you have like a swarm of Bernie supporters pointing out

what the reality of the situation is. They hate it, they feel like they're being attacked, but that's not an attack, you're being corrected, and I get it, it might feel overwhelming if there's a lot of people at the same time. But abuse is very specific, and being corrected by many people simultaneously does not constitute or stand for abuse. And my final thing is, the shock of these reporters to get put When they attack Bernie Sanders is not fundamentally Bernie Sanders as a politician's fault.

It's the fault of every other politician because these media people have gone years and years and years talking about a whole bunch of politicians that nobody really cares about. They don't have any authentic, genuine, passionate support. They've never had a crowd of people to defend them online because they're boring and they don't get anything done. Now we have politicians like Bernie Sanders that are doing something and thus have generated passionate support get used to it I hope we got to take a break when we come back we have some information on how people are reacting to Bloomberg especially Donald Trump and later in the show we'll discuss

how Bloomberg is trying to rig certain elements of this election to his favor we'll be back by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.