The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - January 28th, 2020

Episode Date: January 29, 2020

Dianne Feinstein says she's uncertain if Trump is guilty or not Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur, 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. Jake, you're at a despairing with you guys.

A hell of a day. Lots of news about Trump's impeachment and lots of news about the campaigns. The full-throated attack against Bernie Sanders has commenced. We will counterattack. Jonathan Chait, who writes for New York Magazine, lies to everyone about Bernie Sanders, his record, the popularity of his policies. I can't wait to dig into that story. He gets paid by New York Magazine to lie to the American people.

But, you know, he's just representative of everybody in Washington. They're all so biased, they can't see straight. No matter how many polls shows that Bernie Sanders is the most trusted candidate, the one that people say is most likely to fight for them, the most honest, et cetera. They're like, no, no, none of my corrupt friends in Washington think so. So obviously that can't be the case, I'll report the opposite just in case that smear job works. Anyway, we'll get to that later in the program. There's a lot we're gonna get to later in the program.

Don't miss a minute of this, this is massive, including the first story. All right, story that just broke, actually. So Senator Diane Feinstein of California signaled to reporters over at the Los Angeles Times that she might actually acquit Donald Trump. And then after a considerable amount of backlash, she tried to backpedal and make it appear as though the reporters at the Los Angeles Times misunderstood what she was saying. So let me give you her statement. She told the reporters, quote, nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic. We are based on the will of the people.

The people should judge. That was my view and it still is my view. Wait, that's a Republican talking point. Republican talking point 101. Hey, listen, you don't want to overturn the will of the people. And you know, this is what we have elections for. Impeachment would be like a coup. It would be overturning the will of the people.

How many times have you heard that from Republican senators? A million, right? And here comes Republican Senator Diane Feinstein coming in, pretending to be a Democrat and going I don't know, I mean, my friend Donald Trump, he didn't give me a nice tax cut. I'm incredibly rich. I don't know if you guys know that. She's incredibly rich, exactly. She knows a lot about sweetheart deals to corporations, you know, real estate investors,

those types of things like her husband. So maybe she has a little bit of empathy for Donald Trump, who knows? And she did vote for the Bush's tax cuts. Anyway, we told you Diane Feinstein is really concerned who she is. Let's give you her back pedal and then I wanted to talk about how absurd the back pedal is and then how much the media immediately believed it. Okay, hold because there was more to her statement. I want to give you the entirety of what she said.

What changed my opinion as this went on is the realization that impeachment isn't about one offense. It's really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves. Okay. And then asked whether she would ultimately vote to acquit, she demurred saying we're not finished. What part of that is unclear? So if you say, hey, listen, she might not acquit, okay, I get it based on that quote, right?

But if you say she's definitely not acquitting, she said we're not finished. By definition, it means she's not sure she might acquit. Nope, nope, nope, nope, no. The beloved Diane Feinstein must be protected after it blows up in her face. But the reality is she said those things, or unless she's saying the LA Times and everybody else is lying that she never said any of those quotes and they just manufactured it. I guess that she would be calling the LA Times fake news. So after the backlash, she tweeted the following.

The Los Angeles Times misunderstood what I said today. Oh, misunderstood. So not misquoted, misunderstood. Before the trial, I said, I'd keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it's clear the president's actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain that can't be allowed to stand. Now I want to give you a quick stat so you kind of understand where this is likely coming from, the back pedal, which I find to be disingenuous.

She told the Los Angeles Times that she received hundreds of thousands of letters from constituents about this impeachment trial. Feinstein told reporters that her office had received roughly 125,000 letters in support of the impeachment last week, and about 30,000 against it. So she actually went against the best interests and the wishes of her own constituents in order to give that previous statement to the Los Angeles Times, right? So she should have expected the backlash. She got the backlash, and then she backpedaled in the most disingenuous way imaginable.

Yeah, so look, I open it to Diane Feinstein and all the other reporters now weirdly defending her, although at this point you guys know it's not weird, that's what the mainstream media does. If progressive says something, they'll jump all over the progressive, and they'll never, ever, ever believe the progressive no matter what the paper, and then they'll believe the national media no matter what, right? But if it's someone in power all of a sudden, no, no, no, no, I'm so sorry, we're We must have misunderstood.

Of course, Feinstein is beloved and cherished, and she couldn't possibly be this conservative. Her voting record is massively conservative. Voted for the Iraq war, voted for Bush's tax cuts, didn't want to legalize marijuana. Well after we already legalized marijuana in her home state of California, and I could go on and on and on. But no, no, no, no, she must be protected. So then what do you mean by misunderstood? Misunderstood, how? What does it mean that we got nine months left to go to the election?

What does it mean that you're not decided? What is the reference of the will of the people? What are you talking about? Do you want to clarify? And reporters, do you want to ask her to clarify instead of trying to cover her ass? You're amazing. You should be all over this story now like, oh my god, a senator from California just said that she's not sure about Donald Trump and that we should wait to the election.

Don't you at least want clarity? What do you mean, misunderstood? No, the Democratic Party is so embarrassing because the whole argument in favor of this Senate impeachment trial, this entire impeachment investigation, knowing that Republicans are going to acquit Trump, knowing that Republicans could dominate the Senate, right? The whole point was, all right, this is an opportunity to get Republican lawmakers on the record enabling Donald Trump's criminal behavior in the executive branch. And then you can use that aggressively to campaign against vulnerable Republicans, get them voted

out of office, and get Democrats to control the Senate. That was the whole point. But then you have these feckless losers like Senator Feinstein, you know, putting out these stupid statements about like, let's just let the people decide. No, your job as a senator is to sit there, listen to the evidence, and make a decision that makes sense. Acquitting him doesn't make sense if you actually listen to that evidence, including members of Trump's own administration testifying against him and showing that there was a quid pro quo.

Speaking of feckless, what does it mean in the context of impeachment to let the people decide? It's not a popularity contest. The question is, was it a high crime or misdemeanor? Was it something that violated his oath of office? Should he be removed from office? That is a question of fact and law. It is not a question of popularity, it's not a question of elections. If you say, and this is pure Republican talking point, that the people should decide that

means there should be no impeachment in the Constitution because that means we have to just wait for the elections. But yet the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton. So by definition, impeachment is not about elections because then we would just wait for the next election no matter any time the president broke the law. These are Republican core Republican talking points. And to Anna's point now, now when Cory Gardner, who's vulnerable in Colorado and Martha McSally in Arizona and Susan Collins in Maine, et cetera, go out and if they vote to acquit

Trump, they're gonna say, what do you mean? Even Diane Feinstein from the liberal, liberal state of California wasn't sure at all. She wasn't convinced at all. You see that, obviously we're right and the Democrats are the unreasonable ones. Hashtag unity. Hilarious, by the way, Feinstein does say that she really, really likes Susan Collins. And I'm not, look, I got to look more into if she just said that she doesn't want her to lose or she was misunderstood or whatever it is. But she's big buddies with Susan Collins.

Oh, policy, who cares? Democratic priorities, hilarious. But she's my friend inside the club, right? And so that's how these Democrats operate, they don't care about us at all. These Democratic Party leadership, they're conservative to their bones, and they don't give a damn about their voters. Feinstein should be held to account for what she actually did say and have her explain what the hell she meant by being misunderstood. Well, if that story doesn't have you feeling the rage that I'm feeling right now, this next story will because it just makes Feinstein's comments much worse, given the more evidence

that comes out. So let's go to John Bolton. So we're learning more about the Trump administration revelations behind John Bolton's book. Now we haven't seen his book, it hasn't been released yet, apparently individuals who know what his book says, spoke to reporters at the New York Times, and we're learning that the book indicates that Bolton was concerned that Trump was using his relationships with some of the unsavory international leaders in order to, you know, push for his own personal financial gain.

And he raised these concerns to Attorney General William Barr. Bolton reportedly told Attorney General William Barr that he feared President Trump was granting personal favors to the leaders of China and Turkey. Bolton reportedly wrote that Barr responded that he was worried Trump may have created the appearance of having improper influence over investigations involving companies based in those two countries during personal conversations with the leaders of China and Turkey. Barr specifically singled out Trump's conversations with President Xi Jinping about the Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE as a cause for worry.

Now, just to give you the back story on that, ZTE was facing investigations here in the United States, and all of a sudden, Trump lifted sanctions toward that telecommunications company after his daughter, Ivanka Trump, received the trademarks that she was lobbying for. We pointed that out on the Young Turks immediately and thought, what an interesting coincidence, especially because even the Pentagon was concerned about ZTE, saying it could have national security effects, especially in the middle of a trade war that Trump was doing with China, all of a sudden, the most egregious violations by the most egregious company in China, and Trump all of a sudden lifts it, and hey, voila, look at that, all of his daughter's

trademarks get approved. Now, but there are no bounds with Republicans, so they could look at that and go, Yeah, so what? He's helping his family get richer. So what? So what? Nothing's impeachable. We don't care.

And oh, yeah, John Bolton, he's a liberal. It doesn't matter. Truth doesn't matter anymore. But should John Bolton testify? Of course he should testify. It would be unconscionable for him not to testify. If he knows of a specific personal business deal that would enrich the president's family at the cost of American national security, not just about Ukraine, but now with

China and Turkey, and what was the deal with Turkey? Did he remove our troops from northern Syria because of a financial deal he had in Turkey? If you don't want to know the answer to that, that means you know he's corrupt and you're the one covering it up. Well, don't worry, Jank. Now that we have learned of these revelations through John Bolton's book, we have Senator Chuck Schumer to save the day. Here he is making a passionate speech about how Trump must be held accountable. Now, just look at the other New York Times report. Last night about Ambassador Bolton's book, several members of the administration had concerns about the president's dealings with autocrats, particularly Xi of China and Erdogan of Turkey.

Did the president have financial interests at stake when he was talking to Erdogan, Orban, Xi, and others? Maybe his kids had some economic interest at stake. And did it impact our nation's foreign policy with those countries? Those questions are not the subject to the president's impeachment trial. But this report should be a warning sign to any Republican in the Senate. If you vote with the White House to suppress and cover up evidence, the odds are strong that the truth, the truth will eventually come out.

What was that? What was that? He asked questions like, could it be true that Donald Trump might have some financial crimes involved? Yes, yes. Have you been asleep? Have you been asleep? I mean, these topics have been discussed in the press for months and months when it comes

to Donald Trump's decision to pull troops out of northern Syria. Why do you think he made that decision out of nowhere after one phone call with Erdogan? Why do you think Donald Trump decided to lift sanctions on ZTE after his own daughter got the the trademarks that she wanted from China. Look, he talks about how these possible financial crimes are not part of the impeachment investigation. Yeah, because of you guys, Democrats made an active decision to avoid talking about or investigating Donald Trump's possible financial crimes, which I argue are much more serious. Now, we said that on the show a hundred times, but this is textbook Democratic weakness.

Now you say, all right, well, look, Jane, let's be constructive, so how would you handle it? Okay, I'm glad you asked. So if I was the Speaker of the House in this crazy hypothetical, I would say, oh, you know what? It turns out, Joan Bolton has testimony about other corruption, which would be literal bribery if it's for the financial benefit of Trump's family. It doesn't get any more literal than that. It is bribery. So now those are the allegations being put forward in a New York Times story. We're reopening impeachment hearings in the House.

Okay, and we could add charges, and I don't care if the Senate calls John Bolton, I'm going to call John Bolton, and we're going to find out what he promised and what benefits he got from Turkey and from China, right? And by the way, guys, what did I tell you about all this, the wrong strategy on impeachment? First, I said, go broader. They're only talking about Ukraine, so the Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, okay, when, and then secondly, I said, he broke five different crimes. Don't make me repeat all five crimes now, okay?

And so charge him with the crimes. Nope, no, no, no, we're going to make it vague, an abuse of his office or of his authority. So now the number one talking point of Republicans on TV all over social media is, oh, he didn't break any laws, so this is all about nothing. No, he did. He broke five different laws even before the China and Turkey revelations. So for God's sake, act with strength and said it's always equivocal and maybe and did we and oh my God, what should we do?

Look, it's easy to pursue the truth and justice when you have a clean heart and you know that you have nothing to be afraid of. When you have the truth on your side and you have a clear conscience, you can go after injustice and you can go after criminality with no fear. The fact that Democrats are so scared to go after financial crimes, I've said this before, I'm gonna say it again. It makes one speculate that they have committed financial crimes of their own. And they don't want to be investigated, which is why they're staying away from Trump's

financial dealings. I mean, what else, what other possible explanation could there be? Richard Neal, the head of the House Ways and Meas Committee, refuses to take Trump's tax returns. He had a chance to get his New York state tax returns. He didn't do it in the time allotted. And Schumer, if okay, in this hypothetical where I'm the Senate majority or Senate minority leader in that case, instead of Schumer coming out, you say, there are charges of bribery.

We will talk about that in the impeachment proceedings. If we do not, I will ask Speaker Pelosi to add impeachment charges, and we'll go through this again and again and again until we get through the truth. But we will hear from Bolton, if there was bribery and the president took money or his family took money, the American people deserve to know. And anyone else who disagrees is part of the cover-up. And by the way, there will be charges on the cover-up as well. Man, it's just depressing to see, you know, the party that's the party.

supposed to be like the opponents of Donald Trump, the ones that check his power, enable him over and over again. It's frustrating to say the least. But let's talk a little more about how Republicans are reacting to John Bolton and his memoir. So John Bolton's memoir indicates that Donald Trump did commit some of the accusations that have been lodged against him by this impeachment investigation. In fact, recent revelations indicate that Bolton was worried about some of the financial dealings that Donald Trump had with world leaders, including the leader of Turkey and China.

Now, keep in mind that John Bolton, former national security advisor, was loved by all right-wingers in the country. He is a warhawk. He has been in Republican circles for decades. But all it took was this memoir to make everyone turn against him, because everyone wants to bow down to Trump's power, and here's an example of that. And as for John Bolton, well, it's really disappointing if he ends up being just another think tank type trying to cash in on his time in the White House.

You know, I like Bolton. He's been on the show a number of times, but he's a neocon who never should have been hired by Trump in the first place. John Bolton himself has been reduced to a tool for the radical Dems and the deep state. This is beneath him. Yeah, I think it's perhaps, perhaps not as beneath him as far as you think. Here's a man who purports to care about the national security of this country. And the only reason anyone cares about what Bolton has to say is because he was Trump's national security advisor, period. We do not need to hear from him or read what he writes. Donald Trump used to recite a poem about a woman who took a dying snake into her house and nursed it back to health.

The snake did become healthy and then immediately whipped around and bit the woman. As she breathed her last breaths, the woman asked the snake, why did you do this? Well, because I'm a snake, was the reply, that's what we do. All of which somehow reminds us of disgraced former national security advisor John Bolton. What a rancid, corrupt, absolutely disgusting move for him to have made. Bolton's a red herring, so is the entire idea of calling witnesses. You know, how much does it cost to sell out potential national security in your country? The best thing here would be Ambassador Bolton to pull this book until Mr. Trump leaves office or at least until after the election in November.

Republicans in Washington night seem shocked to discover that Bolton has turned and betrayed his former boss, Donald Trump, but they shouldn't be shocked. That's who John Bolton is. That's who John Bolton has always been. That's what John Bolton does. He is obviously so profoundly disappointed in John Bolton, as frankly are most of us who at one time thought he was a man of principal. Now, there is one Republican who's standing by John Bolton, and it was also a person who served in Trump's administration, former chief of staff, John Kelly, John Kelly told CNN, quote, if John Bolton says that in the book, I believe John Bolton, he always gave the president the unvarnished truth and is a man of integrity and great character.

Okay, so I feel like Bolton is piggy in Lord of the Flies, and so he gets the conch and there's going to be consequences. So all these guys that you saw bashing him today, I can show you a thousand clips of them in love with John Bull. I mean, Laura Ingram referred to him as a neocon who should have never served in Trump's administration. Laura, that's a neocon. What does she think she is?

Laura, it's not like we don't know that you were in favor of the Iraq war. You said it a million times on air. It's not like we don't know all of you, with this slight exception of Tucker Carl and kind of, we're all in favor of the neocons, you yourselves were neocons, you all loved John Bolton, you love the wars he started, you love the wars, he wants to start now, okay? She said the only reason why anyone cares about what he has to say is because he served in Trump's administration. Didn't John Bolton work at Fox News?

That's right. So. And that was before the Trump administration, so why did you guys care? Okay, and you loved him when he was in the Bush administration. So no, but complete loyalty is required. In fact, principles are to be ignored. Extinguished. Right.

So if you have any principles at all, or you tell the truth at all, you must be destroyed. So look guys, this is what fascism looks like. So if one of your own says something that's true, seek and destroy. The truth must be destroyed. Now look at us, since John Bolton is saying negative things about Donald Trump, do we We turn around and go, oh, you know what, John Bolton's a great guy. No, no, no, John Bolton's a terrible guy. And he is a neocon, and he does want to start wars, and we don't agree with him on anything

on policy. But in terms of who's right and who's wrong and who's telling the truth or not, you have to look at the context. And you have to see, okay, who is more likely telling the truth, given their track records. Bolton, to be fair to him, has never hid that he's a war monger. He said, before he went to the UN as ambassador under Trump, he said, I wish I could take out 10 floors of the United Nations. The reason why he's loathed among progressives is because how honest he is about how conservative

he is, and how he wants to start those wars, and how he's a neocon, and how he thinks we should attack Iran, and how much he was in favor of the Iraq war to this day. So he has a track record of being a terrible person. He does not have a track record of being dishonest in that sense. Donald Trump, on the other hand, 15,000 lies in counting. Second of all, people inside the administration like John Kelly back up John Bolton, all the other people inside the administration that testified back up John Bolton, and every other piece of evidence backs up John Bolton.

That's why Laura and Grimm and the rest are desperate to, no, no, don't have them testify. Red Herring, red herring, don't have them testify. Because if you hear it with your own ears and you watch it with your own eyes, you might realize, oh my God, it's so obvious. And by the last thing on this, whether it's China, Turkey, those are new deals, those are are really, really interesting. And now it looks like there's allegations of personal bribery for his family. So that's massive, massive.

But on the issue of Ukraine, where Bolton says, yes, he told me, apparently he says this, we're gonna have to have him as a witness. He told me that he wanted to stop the Ukrainian aid until he got an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. Are we still being surprised by this? Of course, of course he did. I don't even understand how that's a new revelation. I know the importance of it because it's firsthand, but everybody knows that's true.

And even the Republicans, though, even Cornyn, number two, Republican in the Senate, he said, look, the facts are not in dispute, but, you know, we don't know if this arises to high crimes and misdemeanors. Okay, so you acknowledge he did hold up the aid, and it's because he did want his political rival investigated. I mean, that's really the only defense they have left, right? and it's so weak and so pathetic. Oh, well, I mean, yeah, he did all this stuff, but is it really that bad?

Yeah, it's bad, it's bad. This is the type of corruption that should be, you know, a call for removal in the executive branch. And guys, Democrats, for God sake, look, I won't go through all the crimes, but just too related to Ukraine. Asking for a foreign government's assistant in an election is 100% illegal. If any of you did it while you were running for office, you would be guaranteed to be arrested if we're. found out, guaranteed, okay? And then saying you'll hold up U.S. national security interests until you get an investigation. That's the second crime, that's the quid pro quo, that's the bribery extortion.

That is also obviously illegal, obviously, let alone the fact that he held up the aid and broke another law that he was supposed to immediately give it was Congress authorized it. That's a third crime just within the Ukraine story. This whole conversation about did he do it or did he not is total and other nonsense. If we had actual journalists in this country, everyone would say, the journalist would say it is, there's no question at all. Even the Republican top leadership, John Cornyn admits there is no question about the facts. He did it.

You want to have a question about, hey, I think the president should be above the law and he should be allowed to break laws all the time, okay, well, you make that case and let's have that debate. We got to take a break. When we come back, we'll do a deeper dive into Donald Trump's defense, which has been absolutely pathetic, and then provide even more evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. And then later in the show, we'll discuss how Pompeo is retaliating against the press after he had a tense interview with NPR.

We'll be right back. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-Fing 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 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. All right, back on the Young Turks, our member Meg simply says about the Feinstein comments, should have been Allison Hartson. Well, it should have been pretty much anyone else. Yes. It's incredible. Alison would have been amazing. Trigger incarnate writes in, the world has gone to hell in such a spectacular way that

every time I hear breaking news, I immediately go into PTSD, include induced anxiety. So I hear you on that. That's actually exactly why John Iderola's show is called Damage Report. Because now when you're checking the news, you're like damage report. So now in the Ethernet writes, and these are all our members, tyt.com slash join to become a member. Thanks to TYT's encouragement, I finally got my copy of manufacturing consent from our local bookstore. Okay, well, that's great. I love that.

I've been quoting, we've got people by Ryan Grimm all over the place, and that's a great book. And speaking of which, Ryan Grimm just tweeted that populist guide to 2020 by the rising co-hosts, including Crystal Ball, Now rising significantly, if you will, in the top 100 at number 64, and this is all in a hurry and headed way up. It's almost as if being populist progressive is popular. Interesting. And now to Twitter, idyllic moronery writes in Corporate Democratic Politics 101 appear to be fighting a losing battle. If it appears to actually be a winning battle, tip the boat, and half capsize your own argument. happens every time, that is exactly right.

Also, let me jump in on something because I did get a tweet arguing like, look, the point of this impeachment process is not to use it for political campaigns, obviously, right? This is a matter of principle and holding Donald Trump accountable for his actions. My only point is, it is unlikely that Republicans will do the right thing. And it's important to hold them accountable for enabling Donald Trump's criminal behavior. And the fact that you have people like Feinstein, and by the way, Joe Manchin, who are going to help in the efforts to enable Donald Trump is a problem. That's the point that I'm trying to make.

Yes, Chip Huwa writes in, oh yeah, this is my favorite version of Anna Kasparian. I knew she was walking in like this today. How did you know? Maybe because of what's in the news. And last one's from YouTube super chat. We always appreciate it when you use that. Alexander Schmidt says, love your show, your work is important around the world. from Munich, Germany.

All right, right back at you. Thank you for watching. And I wanted to take a quick moment to remind everyone about the TYT affiliate program. So we are looking to reward our viewers who help us sell memberships. Memberships help to keep this company afloat. We wouldn't be able to survive without our wonderful members. And so if you happen to be watching this and you want to help out in signing members up, not only will you help keep this show sustainable, but you would also get a cut of the money

that members pay each month for their member fee. So if you're interested in doing this, keep in mind we already have 592 TYT affiliates who are helping us sell memberships. Go to tyt.com slash win win to learn more about how you can get involved. You'll get a personalized link and then you can share it with friends, family, anyone you know in an effort to help us sell membership. And as long as people are members, the people that you signed up are members, each month you get a cut of what they pay in membership.

Yeah, and look, if it's great side money for you guys, that helps you along, that's wonderful. And we all together spread the progressive message, and it keeps us on air in a super important election year. So appreciate it, guys. All right. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is part of Donald Trump's legal defense team in the impeachment trial. And it's important to remember that Pam Bondi dropped an investigation into Trump University after the Trump Foundation gave her campaign $25,000, okay? That later on she got caught and tried to return that money, but just important context.

Well, now she's part of Trump's defense team, and she decided to regurgitate the same talking point that we've heard over and over again in regard to Burisma and how the Bidens are the real corrupt ones that we should be investigating. Take a look. In Ukraine, there's a natural gas company called Burisma. Burisma has been owned by an oligarch named Mikola Solchevsky. Here's what happened very shortly after Vice President Biden was made U.S. point man for Ukraine. His son, Hunter Biden, ends up on the board of Burisma, working for and paid by the oligarch

Zolchevsky. In February 2014, in the wake of anti-corruption uprising by the people of Ukraine, Zolchevsky flees the country, flees Ukraine. Zolchevsky, the oligar, is well known. George Kent, the very first witness that the Democrats called during their public hearings, testified, Zolchevsky stood out for his self-excus. stood out for his self dealings, even among other oligarchs. House managers didn't tell you that.

Ambassador Kurt Volkler explained that Burisma had a quote, very bad reputation as a company for corruption and money laundering. So what's fascinating about the repeated accusations against the Bidens is that There are new revelations about bipartisan efforts in order to hold that prosecutor that Biden allegedly fired accountable because that prosecutor himself was corrupt. So this was a letter that was written by both Republicans and Democrats in the lead up to firing that Ukrainian prosecutor. Let me give you the details.

Republican senators echoed Biden in urging Ukrainian president to reform prosecutor general's office. Then you look into the details of it, and end of February 2016, by partisan letters signed by several Republican senators that urged then Ukrainian president Petro Pereshenko to press ahead with urgent reforms to the prosecutor general's office and judiciary. The letter shows that addressing corruption in Ukraine's prosecutor general's office had bipartisan support in the U.S. and further undercuts a baseless attack made by President Donald Trump

and his allies that Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire then prosecutor general Victor Shokin, who to stop investigations into a Ukrainian natural gas company that his son, Hunter Biden, sat on the board of. Okay, so Democrats and Republicans, I'll tell you the names of the individuals who signed that letter in just a second. But it's incredible because this letter is unearthed, and we know that there were both Democrats and Republicans who wanted this prosecutor out because the prosecutor himself was corrupt and wasn't doing the proper investigation into Burisma.

Okay, so that's a great point on the substance of Ukraine. But Pam Bondi, we're talking about corruption. You heard what Anna said before you watch the video. There's two layers of that corruption. So Pam Bondi said to reporters that she was considering filing a lawsuit against Trump University, because it was a scam, and it turns out it was a scam, and Trump had to admit that and pay a settlement later. $22 million settlement.

So that's when she was the Attorney General in Florida. So then four days later, just four days later, the Trump Foundation, which shouldn't be, should be giving charity, not political donations, the Trump Foundation then sends her a $25,000 check. And she immediately drops the case. I mean, Pam, you're talking about corruption? That's the conversation you're having. So I had Alex Gibney on the show, and you should check it out on the conversation. He's legendary film documentarian, he's got a new movie out, Citizen K, it's about how Putin

does corruption in Russia, and how he targeted Khodorowski, who was the richest man in Russia. And I asked him, do people in Russia actually think that democracy is real and they're having real elections when Putin arrests all of his political opponents, and there is no real democracy there? He said, yeah, it's amazing what they get people to believe. And Putin once, you remember that clip where he played the Russian national hockey team? And he scored five goals. And he looked comically old and he was like so slow going around and then he would score

and the goal he would go, oh my God, and they would let the puck go through. And why do I bring that up? Because the lies are so brazen and they still get people to believe it. And it's part of how propaganda works. Make the lie even more outrageous. So nothing seems unbelievable. So to have Pam Bondi talking about corruption, when the only reason she's a lawyer on Trump's case is because she got bribed by Trump for the $2,000 to $25,000 and dropped a criminal

case against them. It's like Putin scoring five goals on the Russian national hockey team. It's unbelievable. It's so unbelievable that even some of the national media said, oh, that does look like corruption. By the way, whenever anybody gets a $25,000 check from anybody in politics, it's usually corruption. Yes, so who signed this letter, right, asking for this prosecutor to be fired? Again, Democrats and Republicans, the 2016 letter sent by members of the Senate Ukraine caucus

was signed by Republican senators, Rob Portman, Mark Kirk, and Ron Johnson, as well as Democratic senators Dick Durbin, Gene Shaheen, Chris Murphy, Sherrod Brown, and Richard Blumenthal, and focused on longstanding issues of corruption in Ukraine and urged reforms of the government. What's amazing, though, is the pathetic way that those Republicans have handled this impeachment trial, because they are also regurgitating these nonsense talking points about the Bidens. Johnson signed onto a letter with Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley last week to Attorney General William Barr asking him to investigate, in part, allegations surrounding Biden and Ukraine. So you signed a letter, okay, you signed a letter indicating that this prosecutor should be fired,

And then fast forward to today, and you decide, oh, no, it's not a politically convenient thing to bring that up. So let me go ahead and tell William Barr that he needs to launch an investigation into the Bidens because Biden executed what I encouraged him to execute. It's disgusting. This is who Republicans are. And on the left, you have these insanely weak, feckless lawmakers who don't know what they're doing.

And so the criminality continues, and it remains unchecked. Yeah, look here, here's a forward-looking analysis, and then we do this on the Young Turks all the time, so we're not just Monday morning quarterback. When now on Wednesday the senators are beginning, are going to start to ask questions of each sides. Are we going to get any Democratic senators to ask, hey, Ms. Bondi, you talked about corruption in Ukraine, that was a big part of your testimony on behalf of the Trump legal team. So why did you take that $25,000 from the Trump Foundation?

Was that a bribe? And is that why you dropped a case? I guarantee you, anyone who asked that question will be admonished, right? You know, Chief Justice Roberts admonished both sides because he felt that both Democrats and Republicans weren't being appropriate to one another during the Senate impeachment trial. So you're not even allowed to bring up evidence, including a $25,000 bribe that Pam Bondi took. And by the way, why do none of the Democrats call it a bribe?

Because they take bribes too. Because they also take campaign contributions from folks like that. In fact, Trump gave campaign donations to some of the Democrats that are still in office. So that's why they're reluctant to say when Trump gives a donation, it's a bribe. And by the way, the only person who actually went close to saying that was Donald Trump himself. When he was on the stage with the other Republican nominees during the 2016 primary, he said, I gave all these guys money and they did whatever I wanted him to do. And that's why he won, because people are like, that's obviously true.

But yet none of the Democrats will call him out for on it because they took his money too. And they take all the corporate money and all the lobbyist money. And this is how this disgusting carousel goes round and round. We've got to take a break. 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. 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 cyber criminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So, take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available,

ExpressVPN.com slash 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 second. All right, back on the Young Turks, members' section, as usual, liberal mathematician in the rights and headline on CNN, McConnell says votes aren't there to block witnesses.

This could be fun. Is it funny that they wanted to block witnesses in a trial to begin with? Okay, gee, I wonder who's guilty and who's not, hard to tell. All right, thank you for being a member, t.y.t.com slash join to become one. And the Mad Lib writes in on Twitter, it is incredible that Pam Bondi is out and about practicing law and not in jail. All the criminals are out there in positions of power. Yep. Karen Curley says too many people are being desensitized to what's really happening, causing people to see, causing people

who see it to feel crazy or told that they are crazy. Yes, and the media participates in a giant chunk of that, unfortunately. Last one is from Craig Reeves on YouTube Super Chat. Much of the hostility toward Bernie Sanders is due to the fear that his victory would prove Hillary Clinton was the wrong choice all along. Well, Craig, that's a part of it, but that's not the main part. Yeah, it goes further than that. It challenges their power, right? Yeah, no, no. The overwhelming part is, then they would lose power. And it's not the theoretical anymore. It's not like, oh, well, we have hurt feelings. No, the corporate consultant class, the lobbyist class would be in a world of trouble.

There are livelihoods on the line. They're the ones who make money off the corruption. So as you're going to see a little bit later in the show, they're frothing at the mouth. They're so angry about Bernie Sanders winning. Yeah, so by the way, one other programming note for today, come to my one shot, let's get him out. So, on the conversation today, I will be interviewing Jank Yuga, congressional candidate for California's 25th District. His political opponent is up to all sorts of dirty political games, some of which have targeted

people who he's close to, and she has taken a bat to a hornet's nest. So you'll enjoy that interview, check that out on the conversation tonight. All right, let's move on. Oh yeah, and then dinner in LA. And then are we done? Is this the last live read? Okay, thank you. Thanks.

All right. So we are doing a sweepstakes along with Aspiration, one of our partners, and we want to have dinner with you. So in order to participate in the sweepstakes, and the prize is dinner in L.A. with me, Jank and John, all you have to do is go to t-y-t.com slash dinner in L.A. to register. And you'll find all the details there. But you do have to open up an aspiration spend and save account. And then after that, you register your eligibility.

And then you just use your debit card the way that you would use any other debit card. And every time you do, you enter for a chance to win a dinner in L.A. with me, Jank and John. You get flown out to Los Angeles and you get put up in a nice hotel. We did this one other time when we were financing the studio. And it was a guy from Belgium who came out, who was wonderful. We had a really nice dinner. And that continues to be my favorite graphic ever where I'm poking out going, I'm still here. I know, it is pretty funny.

All right, hopefully we'll have dinner with you guys soon. All right, what's next? All right. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had a bad interview with NPR. Got a little tense, he got a little embarrassed. And so he has decided to retaliate against an NPR reporter who was supposed to be following him as he conducts State Department business. So according to the Hill, the State Department removed NPR reporter Michelle Kellerman

from a group of journalists traveling this week to Europe and Central Asia with Pompeo. The State Department Correspondents Association, this is an association that represents the reporters, said it believes the removal of Michelle Kellerman from the press pool was a response to the flare-up between Pompeo and her NPR colleague, Mary Louise Kelly. Now, this is a story that was recently covered by the Young Turks, but in case you missed it, or if you need someone to refresh your memory, here's how disastrous that interview was with Mike Pompeo. People who work for you in your department, people who have resigned from this department under your, leadership saying you should stand up for the diplomats. I don't know who these unnamed sources are you referring to.

I can tell you this. These are not unnamed sources. This is your senior advisor, Michael McKinley, a career foreign service officer with four decades experience who testified under oath that he resigned in part due to the failure of the State Department to offer support to foreign service employees caught up in the impeachment inquiry on Ukraine. I'm not going to comment on things that Mr. McKinley may have said. I'll say only this. I have defended every State Department official. We've built a great team.

The team that works here is doing amazing work around the world. I've defended every single person on this team. I've done what's right for every single person on this team. Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yvonnevich? I've said all I'm going to say today. Thank you. There's something about the Trump administration where everyone likes to speak like in a breathy way. Like Trump is very breathy. Same with Pompeo in that interview, but aside from his tone and the breathiness of it, it was a nightmare, it was a disaster.

And it's very rare to come across tough interviews like that when it involves a Trump administration official or anyone in a position of power. But I do respect how that interview went down. There was also apparently a portion where Pompeo accused her of not knowing where Ukraine is, that she couldn't point to Ukraine on a map. and that later she was basically presented with a map and she did point to Ukraine. And then later he accused her of pointing to Bangladesh instead. I don't know, it's all silly nonsense.

But the fact that he is now retaliating against an NPR reporter because he embarrassed himself in that interview is worrisome because we're supposed to have First Amendment rights. We're supposed to have freedom of press. We're supposed to have constitutional protections for freedom of speech. Having the government retaliate based on someone's political speech or speech in general is a big problem. The most disturbing part of this story, I think, is not him retaliating, that's really bad, not him cursing at her afterwards and bringing in this map and, you know. So lame. Yeah, it's such a weirdly demeaning thing to do, although, and clearly lying about it afterwards, there's no way in the world she pointed to Bangladesh.

Bangladesh is nowhere near Ukraine. It's preposterous to say that. You should have at least come up with a clever lie, right? I don't know, like you don't even have to be that close, say Tajikistan. Okay. Or don't say anything, don't be petty. Or don't lie, how about that? Because you're obviously lying.

Okay, but to me that's not the worst part of the story. The worst part is he apparently yelled at her afterwards and said you weren't supposed to bring up Ukraine. Oh, so that's how this works. So you get people that you assume and demand friendliness from in order for them to get access. And then you tell them what they're allowed to ask and not allowed to ask. And if they have the temerity to actually be a journalist for a couple of minutes and ask you about something that is clearly in the news and the most relevant things you can possibly

ask about, the American people don't care about Ukraine. Trump's getting impeached over Ukraine. So it's not like she picked a random country out of nowhere. So for you to be upset that you'd be asked the most relevant question, because you had assumed that you had the media under your control, I think that's the most telling part of the story. That is the most telling part of the story. And I think that it does speak to the unfortunate marriage between the press and people in positions of power.

Because, and it's been clear for a long time. But I think that it's become more and more transparent that the media just serves as an extension of political campaigns, or, you know, they do anything and everything in order to keep that relationship open with people in positions of power. And the only way to do that is to avoid challenging them ever, right? So he goes in thinking like, this is gonna be a friendly interview, I have nothing to worry about, they want access to me, I'm a, I'm in the White House, right? And he apparently prearranged the she, in his version of the story, that she not asked

about Ukraine. No, you don't get to do that though. Well, that's not how, but by the way, we say that's not how. it works, but actually it is how it works. And that's the disturbing part. And that's not how it's supposed to work. Now, credit to Marie-Louis Kelly, who did not listen to that, and asked the relevant questions, and asked hard questions, and asked follow-ups filled with facts.

So she did a fantastic job. I love giving credit where credit is due. And by the way, if you're asking, well, how do they have this kind of power over the press? Why did he assume that he would not get any hostile questions from NPR? Well, look at what he just did afterwards. Oh, yeah? Now you'll be punished and you'll lose access. And right now, I guarantee you they're having a conversation at NPR about how to react to what

the White House is doing. Should they give them concessions? Should they- No, no, no, I guarantee it. I don't know how this is going to turn out. I know that the temptation to just believe that they're going to cave. to the Trump administration is there because that's what we've seen happen over and over again. But like to any journalists who might be watching this right now, here's my question to you. Like why? Why did you get involved in this? It's not a fun job, right? It's actually pretty

terrible a lot of the time. Why are you doing this? Like, why did you make a decision to be a reporter or a journalist, right? If you're just gonna cave to whatever people in positions of power want, there's no point to what you do. You're nothing more than a tool for corrupt politicians. Why do you want to do that? That's where you're gonna dedicate your life and your career to? It's pathetic. If that's the direction they go. But for the moment being, great credit to Mary Louise Kelly, being a strong, brave journalist,

exactly the right way. So, and look, last thing on the rest of the journalists, because we don't really know what NPR's reaction is going to be. But there's a case to be made that the press should have stuck together and say, if she's not going on the plane, none of us are going on the plane. Now, that would have been solidarity, that would have been unity, that would have been journalism, that would have been saying, hey, you're not going to pick us off one by one, you're not going to bully us, all right, then we're not going to cover what you're doing.

And then it would have put the Trump administration on the defense, but that would require courage on the part of the other journalism organizations. And by the way, I do have to show you one last video on this, because it really does speak to the arguments that we're making about access to political figures. Now, recently, and I'm going to go to video C3, recently Donald Trump snapped at a reporter during a press conference and pay close attention to what he told the reporter. Then I released the transcript, there was supposed to be a second whistleblower, what happened to him.

There was, wait, wait, otherwise I won't do your show. Wait, wait, there was supposed to be an informer. Wait, wait, don't ask me any questions, I don't want to hear, otherwise I won't do your show. I mean, he's transparent, he just says the quiet parts out loud. It's amazing. And that's how that game is played. It's one thing for the politicians to play. It's another thing for the journalists to play.

They shouldn't, but far off and do. One more time though, great credit to this NPR reporter. So let's talk about Donald Trump's Middle East peace plan because that has been released and we have more details about it. So after three years of delays, scandal and obviously incompetence, Donald Trump has unveiled his Middle East peace plan and it's a disaster. So let's give you the details. According to USA Today, in a surprise move, the initiative called for a two-state solution,

an independent Palestine sitting alongside Israel sharing a capital of East Jerusalem. Details about the initiative's economic proposals, including $50 billion in infrastructure spending and investment over 10 years for the Palestinian territories and neighbors Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon have been previously announced. Trump said he wrote to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas saying territory set aside for Palestinian state would remain open for a transition period of four years in what amounts to a freeze in Israeli settlement construction. Now let me just stop and say that Abbas has already responded to this proposal and he is

not in favor of it because as you will see from the details I share with you, it is very much slanted in favor of the Israeli side. The plan would more than double the territory under Palestinian control. It recognizes Israeli sovereignty. Sovereignty. I'm sorry, sovereignty. It recognizes Israeli sovereignty over major settlement blocks in the West Bank, a scenario many Palestinians will find difficult to accept.

The plan will limit Palestinians to specific parts of East Jerusalem and leave Israel in sole charge of holy sites that are sacred to both sides. There's more, but Jake, do you want to jump in? Yeah, that part about how it doubles the Palestinian land is massively misleading. So Israel gave back the Gaza Strip, kind of. They don't actually have sovereignty over it. There's blockades, and you can't cross the border. If you try to come anywhere near the border, you get executed.

And that's literal. It's happened many times. So they don't actually have sovereignty over it. But they're saying we're going to give you a little bit more than what we gave you when we kind of not really gave you the Gaza Strip. That doesn't mean they're getting double the land that is occupied. No, they're getting less of the land that's occupied. So, in fact, I think that's the next part of the explanation.

Let's give you that, and then we'll give you the full detail. So according to time, the size of the Palestinian state is considerably smaller than that proposed in past U.S. mediation efforts. Trump said his plan would more than double Palestinian territory. Under it, however, Palestinians could control some 70% of the West Bank compared with 94 to 96% proposed by Bill Clinton in 2000. So you can understand why Abbas is not in favor of this proposal. In fact, Donald Trump was bragging about how he met with Israeli leaders, including

Benny Gantz and Benjamin Netanyahu in crafting this proposal. But it's pretty clear that Abbas was not invited in the negotiations. Okay, so it's not like there's things in here that aren't. tiny, tiny piece of good news. Hey, it turns out we haven't completely abandoned the two-state solution. And some are now seriously talking about, oh, one-state solution. You just have, Israel have all of it, and then the Palestinians get no rights, and we're done with it. What?

Okay, so all right, we didn't go to the most extreme radical and honestly racist solution that there would be. Okay, then there is Palestinians get East Jerusalem. That's also kind of, because they don't really have authority over the religion. religious sites, which is what they care most about. Now there are parts of the solution that would have to be put into any peace deal, like no right of return. Palestinians desperately want right of return. My guess is at the end of the negotiations, they will not get that because then you can't

have all the Palestinians coming back and reclaiming their houses inside Israel or their land inside Israel. Okay, but when you get to the core parts of this deal, they're a total disaster. So you're gonna take 30% of the Palestinians land in the West Bank? That's insane. All the settlements that were illegal under international law that we consider it illegal before Trump, now they're like, oh no, they keep all of that. They stole your land and it's over, over, over, over, and we're not even asking you.

That gets to another core part. But before I get to the core part of what's wrong with the so-called deal, the so-called negotiations. One other ridiculous part of this deal is, oh, no, you don't actually have sovereignty. You will not be able to have your own security forces and you can't control your own borders. Well, that means you're not a country. That means you're literally not a country. So in essence, you get absolutely nothing, plus we solidify the 30% of your land that we're

taking and it's over, okay? So now the core part of why this is like so horrific that it's comical is they never even asked the Palestinians. This was the Trump administration, a right-wing administration in America, negotiating with the right-wing government of Israel. That's not a peace deal. The Palestinians weren't even invited, okay? They get this thing afterwards, and in a press conference with then Yahoo and Gans.

So the Israeli government and American government come out and goes, you know what? Man, this is tough negotiation, but we decided not to include the Palestinians and decided to take 30% of our landing, give it to our bodies over here. who are also right wingers. And Gantz is theoretically more moderate than Netanyahu, but he's part of this process as well. And so the whole thing's a sham, it's absurd. It's like doing a peace deal back in the day with the Soviet Union without involving the Soviet Union. Okay, and here the Palestinians are not the bad guys, they're the ones occupied.

They're the ones who have been in this permanent, near state of permanent occupation. They're the ones whose lands have been settled, okay? Now, both sides can be good people, obviously, right, good guys, if they would actually come to the table and do a real two-state solution and actually have peace for Israel and justice for Palestine, but this certainly ain't it. Of course, this isn't it. The United States is not a neutral arbiter, right? They're not involving the United States to settle some sort of peace deal between the Israeli

government and Palestinians is ridiculous. The United States is not objective when it comes to this situation. And so when was the last time the United States executed any type of successful peace deal, with the exception of the Iran nuclear deal, right? But other than that, I mean, in recent history, the United States goes in and purposely destabilizes entire regions of the world for political gain and for financial gain. So look, it's a story today and we have to talk about it, but it's a waste of time. Because it's not going to go anywhere.

And it's just another example of how the U.S. government will spit in the face of the Palestinians over and over again and then pat themselves on the back because they think they're actually working toward peace. But there is one really important part of it. And I don't want to leave the story without you knowing that, which is that this is actually a Trojan horse. It's not an attempt to actually genuinely get to a peace deal. Otherwise, they might have invited the other people involved, right?

No, it's a way that Netanyahu can do a couple of things. One is distract from his corruption trial, that's about to begin, and help him in his mind politically at home, but also so they could annex the settlements. And so they're saying, oh, well, we offered up a peace deal of the Palestinians, and they're the bad guys for not taking it. And part of that is that we get to annex 30% on their land. So we're just doing that right now, and they have four years to agree to our annexation. So it's the exact opposite of a peace deal.

It's actually to make the occupation of that 30% permanent, permanently take that land. Exact opposite of what would lead to peace for Israel and Palestine. Yeah. All right, we gotta take a break. We'll switch gears when we come back and discuss how the DNC is aggressively fighting progressives. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks, support our work, listen ad-free, access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcasts at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon