The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - June 23rd, 2020

Episode Date: June 24, 2020

Kamala Harris is calling out the GOP policing bill. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss on The Young Turks.    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. Jay Huber and Anna Kasparan with you guys. So a big day today. We've got the normal show for an hour, and then right afterwards, at 7 o'clock Eastern, we go to election coverage. Yes, they're still happening. And really important ones tonight, Jamal Bowman versus Elliott Engel in New York now has a ton of media attention.

When we get a lot of media attention, our chances of winning skyrocket. Last poll has Jamal Bowman, the just Democrat, up by 10 points against Elliott Engel, a sitting chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for the Democrats. One of the top Democratic leaders in the House, in a world of trouble tonight from a Justice Democrat. So it's super exciting. Don't miss a minute of that coverage. We're going to cover it for three hours, guys, because different places are closing at different times.

The polls are. We also have Virginia and Kentucky tonight. Most importantly, Kentucky has the Democratic nomination going on right now to take on Mitch McConnell. As you can see, Benjamin Dixon, Michael Shuride, Rodriguez, and John will join Anna and I. throughout the night. And that's an establishment of Amy McGrath versus progressive Charles Booker versus populace Mark Mike Breyer. That is a hell of a race in Kentucky. So don't miss that either. All right. So that's coming up in a little bit. Now, just a fun note, it's member

appreciation week here, the Young Turks. And so the crazy folks at shoptot.com are doing free shipping, for international audience if you're buying over $75. So there's a very rare opportunity. There's some great shirts and great masks that are really selling so well that there's some chance they'll sell out. TYT.com slash notice is how you get notice of how to take advantage of that I offer. You have to be a member on our website. TYT.com slash join to become a member, and that's one of the benefits of membership.

and then go to t.wit.com slash notice to get the special discount. Today's a great day to do that. All right. Anna, we've got a lot of stories. Let's do it. All right. Well, as protests rage on throughout the country, senators are trying to figure out the best path forward with legislation to reform the police. As you can imagine, there's a pretty huge disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on what adequate police reform would look like. And so Kamala Harris went on the Senate floor to argue against the GOP's policing bill because it is toothless. It doesn't do much. For instance, it increases funding to police departments for body cameras, but does not mandate that they use body cameras, just gives them more money and says, hopefully you use this

on body cams and then report back and tell us how it worked. It also doesn't have strong language outlying chokeholds. And it calls on the attorney general, William Barr, to determine what is considered excessive force. So understandably, Kamala Harris isn't buying it. Neither are other Senate Democrats. And although Mitch McConnell would like to bring the GOP version of the bill up for a vote tomorrow to see if it will move on to the next stage so they can debate it, the GOP is unlikely to have the 60 votes necessary to do so. Democrats have already gone on the record to say that they plan on blocking this. Now, I want to go to the first video where Kamala Harris lists all the ways in which the GOP proposal is inadequate.

Take a look. There are no mechanisms to hold law enforcement officers accountable in court for their misconduct. There is no transparency into police misconduct, which is necessary, of course, to enable communities to hold officers accountable. There is no requirement of data collection on all use of force incidents or on racial or religious profiling. There is no ban on harmful policing policies and practices such as racial and religious profiling. No-knock warrants in drug cases. We're not banning all no-knock warrants. No not warrants in drug cases because Breonna Taylor would be alive today had that been the case. Choke holes,

carotid holes. No reform of those issues in the Republican bill that's being offered. And there is no standard, national standard for use of force. So that is honestly the calmest and, and I don't mean to use the word calm. Like that's where she's just calmly explaining why this bill is inadequate. The entire speech was excellent, it was good. It was exactly what I think Kamala Harris is extremely skilled and talented at. She's very persuasive. She makes her point.

And then you have a clown like John Cornyn. who's a Republican senator, try to come in and troll her. And that's where she gets fiery. And I definitely appreciate it. We're gonna go to that video in just a second, but Jank, I wanted to get your thoughts first. Yeah, look, so Kamala Harris did a good job here. The whole thing is based on the media because I've seen these political games for 25 years straight now.

So, and yeah, both sides do it depending on who's in charge. But what they do is they put up a bill that they want. the Republicans do in this case. And it's super watered down. It's going to do almost no reform at all. But it takes one piece of what the Democrats want, which is an anti-lynching provision, which Republicans had blocked earlier, because in the year 2020, we're still having a debate about lynchings, okay? Pro or con? Can't quite tell. Rand Paul had blocked that bill. And he would claim on procedural grounds or whatever BS libertarian excuse he has. I don't know if it's a libertarian philosophy to be able to hang other people.

But anyways, so the Democrats aren't going forward. They're saying, no, we want an actual bill that we can debate and that we could actually decide one by one. Do we want that provision? Do we not want that provision? And we want to be able to do that in the Judiciary Committee, then come out with a bill and it's not going to be perfect, but that we've debated and now is final. instead of having you shoved this super weak bill down our throats and pretend you did something.

Now, she's a hundred percent right about that. She's not always 100 percent right, and the Democrats aren't always 100 percent right. When they control the Senate, they often do similar tricks. But no one does them more than Mitch McConnell when he's in charge, and that's what he's doing here. And so it's on the media to then explain the Republicans are doing a trick. It's a watered down bill. But they're never going to say that. They're never going to say it.

No, they're going to say, oh, McConnell says this and Kamala Harris says that. And at the end of the day, the Democrats blocked a bill that would have prevented lynching. Well, then you just helped the Republicans lie about this entire episode. So unless the media does this job, these good to great speeches by Kamala Harris and others is going to be wasted. You're absolutely right. And there's already evidence to back up what you're saying because right before we went live, I was watching an interview that Jake Tapper was doing with Dick Durbin, a Democrat. And the line of questioning from Jake Tapper was just incredible.

It was just, well, aren't the Republicans in charge? And isn't it just better to accept what they're proposing rather than block it and get absolutely nothing at all? But here's the thing, when the federal government is encouraging more taxpayer money go toward police departments without getting any type of, you know, mandatory thing. body cameras in return, then no, no, I'd rather them not pass this kind of legislation. I would rather not continue to fund already bloated local police department budgets, period, right?

And so the line of questioning was ridiculous, and it was definitely this like both sides framing, hey, Democrats, you're not in charge, so why don't you just cave to what Republicans want? I think that what we saw on the Senate floor by Democrats, and in particular, Kamala Harris, was the type of strength that I want to see more of. And by the way, you're going to get a little taste of that in this next clip where John Cornyn, again, Republican Senator, tries to troll her, and she's like, I'm not going to buy it. Let's take a look.

Madam President, I wonder if the senator would tell me the bill that the Police Act that it sounds like the Democratic Conference intends to block tomorrow, includes the anti-lynching legislation, that you and Senator Booker have championed. Are you aware of that? The same one that Rand Paul's obstructed a couple weeks ago? Yes, I am aware of that.

So you're going to block, Mr. Madam President, so the senators are going to block their own anti-lynching bill by their vote tomorrow? Absolutely not, and I think that it is important that we not distract the American people from the task at hand. We cannot pull out a specific component of this bill and leave everything else in the garbage bin. And that is the logical and actual and practical conclusion

of where you're going with the suggestion that we would sacrifice issues like no-knock warrants, issues like national standard for use of force, issues like the need for independent investigations of police misconduct, issues like pattern and practice investigations with subpoena power for the United States Department of Justice, in sake of one. It's like asking a mother, save one of your children

and leave the others. I appreciated that response. That was good. Yeah, and that's about as strong as the Democrat gets. Now, let me tell you how I would have done it. And this part of why I ran for Congress, I would have said, all right, so the senator thinks he's being cute by saying, oh, you're voting down

your own anti-lynching provision. Okay, well, what if your bill had an anti-lynching provision, plus a million dollar bride for every Republican senator. Am I supposed to vote for it just because you put an anti-lynching provision? No, not good enough. I'm glad that the Republican Party has finally figured out that lynchings are wrong, about a couple hundred years too late. But that is not remotely good enough, and I will not agree to the rest of your terrible

bill. So if you want to choke out black people in this country and you will not put an anti-choking provision in the bill, we will vote no, because you are pro choking. and choking African Americans to their death like George Floyd. So I'd like to ask the question to the senator back. Are you in favor of chokeholds like the one that murdered George Floyd? That's how I would have handled it. But as far as Democrats go, it was pretty good by Kamala Harris.

And then the media will water it down further. And then at the end of the day, no one will be able to tell who's right or wrong. So let's go to the next clip because, again, there was a second attempt by Cornyn to I guess throw Kamala Harris off, and he definitely failed in this attempt. Take a look. Madam President, may I ask one last question of the senator? What I'm trying to fathom, Madam President, is why the senator would rather have these negotiations occur behind closed doors as opposed to here on the floor. of the Senate for the American people

to see broadcast on television. Don't you think that sort of interaction and debate and negotiation out in front of all 330 million Americans would be beneficial to healing our country and coming to some consensus about what the appropriate reforms should be? Indeed, that is the beauty of the Judiciary Committee.

Our meetings are public meetings. Come on, Jank. I love it. And look, I'm hearing what you're saying about like, here's how I would do it. But they're on the Senate floor. And look, the way that unfortunately women are perceived is different from how men are perceived. So if she went up there with guns blazing and was as aggressive as you would be, I think that she would be treated differently. I think she made her point in a strong way.

She didn't have to yell. She didn't have to get out of control. Like, all she needed to do was explain what Republicans. have done consistently is obstruct any and all attempts to progress this country, right? And she explained all the ways in which their legislation comes up short, which I appreciate, while also mentioning, hey, this is what we want to get done. And all the attacks that you have against me or Democrats in general, Cornyn, are completely meritless. I just think she made him look like a clown. Yeah, God bless. God bless. I don't want to get distracted by him. Was

she's strong enough. I think that women have been stronger and well received, AOC. She's much stronger and the country loves it. But look, Kamala Harris did a great job. No problem with that, okay? So in terms of these theatrics, the thing that gets under my skin, Anna, is the whole deference to their goddamn colleagues. And I can't. And by the way, I'll give Senator Harris more credit, in the middle of the speech, she actually said something that would be perceived as very, could be perceived as rude. And I bet she gets talking to after the speech when she said, you know, Senator Booker talked about working well with our colleagues on the Republican side in a bipartisan way, but I'm not sure that I see that. So she kind of called out Booker

for that. She complimented Booker in a lot of other ways, but she called out Booker for that. I'm so glad she did. Because stop trying to work with Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn. They just figured out Tuesday that they were anti-lynching. Okay, so look, stop being deferential to those Republicans. And I don't care about your decorum and your colleagues. So, yes, I get it. I'm harsher than the average senator by a hundredfold. But I look, good, good. Kamala Harris, do that more, right? Now, I guarantee you that if anybody is watching from the establishment or D.C. or whatever, and they look at this, they go, oh, they're going to think, So the young Turks are not in favor of Kamala Harris for BP. No, we're just giving her credit

where credit is due. Okay. Actually, it's funny because that statement, okay, I can't even believe we have to address this. It's ridiculous. But that kind of statement doesn't, it's not coming from the establishment. Like I shared this video on Twitter because, yeah, credit where credit is due. I think that it's totally possible to disagree with someone wholeheartedly on various things, including their prosecutorial record or what they support policy-wise and still be able to give them credit when they have a moment of strength. Okay. So it's giving her credit right now doesn't cancel out everything else that we've said about

her in our analysis in the past. Okay. So I'm mostly addressing some of the progressive viewers who think that you're not ever allowed to say anything positive about someone who you disagree with politically. Listen, we've said a million times of Republicans that they're much better at messaging than Democrats. Does that mean that I support the Republican Party? Of course not. I can't stand the Republican Party. I've said before that Donald Trump understands marketing better than most Democrats do. Does that mean I support Trump? No, Trump is a hideous person. But both things can be true. He can be a hideous person who I do

not support, while also understanding and recognizing that he has, you know, some skill when it comes to marketing himself specifically. So that's all I want to say. And I don't want to give, you know, the critics too much air here because I don't think that it's really representative of most people. I think most people understand that two things can be true at the same time. Okay, last thing. I want to just mention the substance of the bills. So the Republican bill, as we told you, nonsense. The weakest non-reform you'll ever see. just repeating things like, we shouldn't hang people from a tree and the sky is blue and the grass is green. Okay, so it's an effort to cover up what the cops do and to continue what the cops do to African Americans.

So it's counterproductive. The Democratic bill is middling. So, you know, when Trump bragged about, oh, I'd ban chokeholds. And then he puts a giant asterisk that says, but not really. If you felt threatened by a black guy, you should choke him to death. So, okay, that didn't help at all, right? And so Democratic version is a little better on chokeholds and it has a real positive component to it, which is independent look into what the cops have done.

And so that's real and real reform, and I like that a lot. Credit where credit is due there. But it doesn't go anywhere near defunding police. It doesn't talk about the culture of policing. It doesn't talk about reorienting the funding of policing, not completely defunding it. But it doesn't really even go towards defunding. at all. So it doesn't go to any of the structural changes, not any, to be fair. It doesn't go to a lot of the structural changes that the reform movement wants. I'm giving you that as context,

not to just keep blaming the Democrats, but to give you a sense of how insanely right-wing Washington, D.C. is. When Democrats ask for half a loaf or a quarter of a loaf, it's seen as an absolute outrage, right? So, you know, we've got an amazing movement in the streets. But the people in D.C. are the very, very, very last people to reform anything. They love the current status quo that keeps them in power, and they hate to change anything, including their private security guards called cops. We got to take a break. When we come back, we have an update on Trump's comments regarding slowing down coronavirus testing.

And then later in the show, we'll discuss how the establishment is having a meltdown over Maggie Haberman, who apparently isn't pro establishment enough for them. We'll be right back. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom.

In each episode of Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom, and upend the 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, welcome back to the Young Turks, Anna and Jank with you.

Hey, guys. So I was just looking up with your comments. First of all, I'll tell you something interesting that we're doing. We're trying to help build up local news. Wish us luck. In order to do that, we're going to need your help. What we're trying to do is empower you guys to do local news. So we set up a TYT Academy to teach you how to do it, both the news aspect of it and the publishing aspect, which is very hard.

It's not very hard to want you to go through our process. And we get, look, we made, we did this project with Google. And so we're not getting anything out of it at this point. What we're doing is just trying to help you guys and empower you to do local news. So go to tyt.com slash academy. me, and you'll see how to get started and how you can begin to do local news. We try to make it as easy as possible for you guys so that you know some of the tricks we know about publishing it on the platforms like YouTube.

So, God, I'd love an army of you guys doing great local news all across the country. So now, I want to take a look at something that is keeping us out of the air, and that's t.yt.com slash go. It's really important in times like this. We've got massively important elections and obviously we've got to stand up for progressives. So let's see the thermometer and see where we are. 102,591. That's great. I don't know how in the world we're going to make it to 200,000 by the end of the month. But if you guys can help out, if we can get to 105 by the end of today, I think that's super doable given the election coverage. That would be amazing and would help so much. Thank you guys appreciate it. So there's just way too many comments. That's why I was buried in them as we

came back from the break. But let me just read a couple here. Generation Progressive writes in on YouTube Super Chat. Please interview progressive candidate Charles Booker running for U.S. Senate in Kentucky against Moscow Mitch. But the first, he needs to beat centrist Democrat, Amy McGrath. That's happening today. So you can still vote in Kentucky. And if you want Charles Booker to win, you go out there and vote. We're going to explain in the election part of the show that they've made it very difficult in Kentucky, especially for black people. I know, broken record, same thing every time. There's a couple of different interesting candidates. And by the way, have I interviewed Charles Booker? Mission

accomplished. I have. And I'd love to interview him a thousand times more if he beats McGrath and is up against McConnell. Last two is from our member section at t.com slash join to become member, Penns-Wood, he says, Jake would not be able to operate as he says he would on the Senate floor. They have rules of decorum that would not allow it. Yes, I'm aware of that. You can't curse. There's a couple of things. But you can work around those rules. And yes, you could raise your volume. And yes, you could make forceful arguments. Mostly the Democrats choose not to do that. David Eldridge says Kamala Harris is the second most progressive voting record. Second to Ed Markey, actually, she doesn't sound progressive. Her passes at

the DA certainly wasn't progressive. But on a purely voting record, she's number two. because they don't vote on any bills that would be anywhere near actually progressive. But yes, credit where credit they just do on that as well. And I'm glad you're bringing up a record. We always want to bring you the facts and be honest with you guys. So good job on our voting record there as well. All right. Anna, what's next?

All right. Donald Trump received a lot of backlash after he confessed during his Tulsa rally that he wanted to slow down testing. Well, he was just recently asked again while he was apparently in front of a, helicopter, whether he was joking, was that a statement made in jest? And here's how he answered. I don't kid. Let me just tell you. Let me make it clear. We have got the greatest testing program anywhere in the world. We test better than anybody in the world. Our tests are the best in the world. And we have the most of them. By having more tests, we find more cases.

We did 25 plus 25 million tests. Think of that, 25 million. If you look at other countries, they did 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, big countries. We did 25 million, way more by double, triple, quadruple, any other countries. Therefore, we test we're going to have more cases. By having more cases, it sounds bad. But actually what it is is we're finding people. Many of those people aren't sick or very little.

You know, maybe young people. But what's happened is because of all of the cases that we find, we have a very low mortality rate, just about the best in the world. We do not have a low mortality rate. In fact, we're in the top five when it comes to high mortality rate connected to COVID-19. I just want to give you some of the latest statistics coming from Johns Hopkins University. Hopkins University. Now, this is per capita, right? So deaths per capita, that's per 100,000 people in the population. The UK has the worst mortality rate at 64.27 out of 100,000 people.

Spain is at 60.62, and Italy is at 57.35. The United States comes in number four at 34.80. So I mentioned, I'm sorry, 36, not 34, 36.80. The reason why I mention that is because the United States actually does have a very high mortality rate compared to pretty much every other country that Johns Hopkins University is keeping track of with the exception of UK, Spain, and Italy. Okay. So first of all, I'm just tired of this guy. We have the best testing, with the best test.

I'm so exhausted from it. I know. Everything's the best. Everything's the strongest, the biggest. Just the nonstop carnival Parker. Now, in terms of the reality, he's actually half right about what he's explaining. It's true. If you have more testing, you'll find more cases. But then what'll happen is the number of people who died, who were tested, will also go down, right? So meaning that your percentage of people tested who pass away will be lower. But we're also not that law in that score. So, and you can't fake a mortality rate, largely, China covers up there the number of people who died from coronavirus, and some other countries do as well.

But at the end of the day, if they died from coronavirus, that is what it is. And we're the fourth worst in the mortality rate. So that is independent of testing. They would have died whether you tested them or you didn't test them. Now the reality is you could, now this is the part where he's massively wrong. You could prevent some of those deaths if you effectively test and then trace the contacts of the person who had the disease. Germany did it, South Korea did it, their results are much better than ours.

Testing saves lives. So what Trump, when he goes to finish his thought, okay, testing leads to more discovery of more cases, true. But the correct way to finish that thought is so we should do more testing so that we can yet ahead of this disease and make sure new people don't get it so we have a lower mortality rate. But he doesn't finish the thought that way. He finishes it by saying, well, it means that we know about more cases, and that doesn't look good for me.

So I don't want it. It hurts me politically. I want you to think that there's less cases, even though they actually exist, whether you test them or not. I just don't want you to know the truth. That's why I was not kidding. I asked to slow down the testing, which could kill you. but it makes me look better.

And that's the kind of despicable monster Donald Trump is. Yeah, and he doesn't want to take the steps necessary to slow the spread of COVID-19. I mean, so many of the red states didn't even take COVID-19 seriously to begin with and barely, barely shut down businesses in order to flatten the curve. But they opened businesses back up prematurely, partly because Donald Trump was urging them to, so the economy would recover, and it wouldn't hurt. his chances of reelection. Again, it always goes back to him. So while we finally did catch up to the bare minimum in testing, okay, seriously, the bare minimum in testing, the truth is,

it doesn't matter if we're able to test people more efficiently if we're not going to do anything with that new data and that new information. Right now, we're not doing anything. We account for 4% of the world's population, but 25% of all coronavirus deaths. That What is a stunning statistic? Now, I also want to note that Donald Trump said that he wasn't kidding around one day after all of his cronies, including the White House press secretary, Kaylee McEnany, tried to defend him by arguing that he made that statement in jest. Take a look.

Here's the bad part. When you do testing to that extent, you're going to find more people, you're going to find more cases. So I said to my people, slow the testing down, please. suggestion that testing has been curtailed is not rooted in fact. Did you ask to slow it down? If it did slow down, frankly, I think we're way ahead of ourselves. What is saying that he told officials, he told us people to slow down testing is not true? It was a comment that he made in jest.

Come on now, Jake. You know, it was tongue in cheek. Come on now. Come on now. That was tongue in cheek. I know some people thought it was tongue in cheek. It's unfair. Tung and cheek.

Was that tongue in cheek or, well, it's semi-tonged cheek? We're 60 seconds into a tongue and cheek thing. A comment that he made in passing. I don't kid. Let me just tell you. Let me make it clear. It was a light moment. It's appropriate to joke about coronavirus when 120,000 people have died?

He was not joking about coronavirus. What you heard from the president was frustration. They tell my people it's a double-edged sword because we do so much testing. We test. We're going to have more cases. By having more cases, it sounds bad. Instead of doing 25 million tests, let's say we did 10 million tests. 10 million tests, we'd look like we're doing much better.

Another awesome J.R. Jackson compilation video. But yeah, he doesn't kid, Jank. He doesn't kid. He didn't make that statement in jest. Yeah, well, it's absolutely clear. But guys, here's a stunning thing about Donald Trump that we understood from day one, and it's taken about four years for everybody else to catch up. Just how stunningly unintelligent he is. So why did you have McEnany and Navarro and your acting Department of Homeland Security Chief? all go out and say that you're kidding. If you're going to come out the next day and say you don't kid and the reason you didn't do more testing is because it makes you look bad. You said it. You set the quiet part out loud. So why did you admit to the thing that they were trying to protect you

from? Why did you have them lie if you were going to undercut them the next day? Because you're an idiot and you have no ability to strategize. You can't think one step ahead. John Bolton wrote about it in his book, now media's like, oh, Bolton said it, so let's take it seriously. Of course, it was plainly evident and everything he's ever done. He can't think one step ahead. So he threw himself under a bus today by admitting, yeah, I wasn't kidding. We slowed down the test because it makes it look bad. And it's caring about optics.

It's caring about his political career over your life. On that alone, you should never consider voting for. Well, in one other area where Trump doesn't seem to take coronavirus seriously is when it comes to his own political events. And he has one coming up, so let's talk a little bit about that. So Donald Trump is planning to visit Phoenix, Arizona to speak at an event organized by a conservative advocacy group called Turning Point Action. I'm guessing it's probably part of Turning Point USA.

But keep in mind that coronavirus continues to spike in. states like Arizona. Now, 3,000 people are expected to attend this particular event that's going to be held at a church. And the church has a very fascinating statement about how safe it is to hold this type of event in their establishment. So as of Monday night, by the way, Arizona tallied more than 54,000 cases of COVID-19 and has doubled the number of cases in just 15 days. The state has recorded 1,351 deaths. The mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, where this event is going to be held, has mandated that people wear masks when they're indoors with around other people.

And she's hoping that the mask mandate will be implemented during this Trump event. But we all know how Trump feels about masks. He told the Wall Street Journal that he thinks that some people wear masks, masks just to make him look bad, and he sees wearing masks as weakness, even though these masks would definitely slow the spread of coronavirus by 80 to 85%, depending on which study you're looking at. So if everyone actually followed suit, it would be a huge, you know, it would be a very positive step forward when it comes to this virus. Now, let's get to the church where this event is going to be held. So the event is going to be a Dream City church. They have one of these churches

in Phoenix, Arizona. And so the senior pastor, Luke Barnett, and the COO of the church argue that people are the safest there because they have a special filtration system. Take a look. Hey, gang, we have some exciting information about what we're doing to fight COVID-19 here at Dream City Church. We're probably the first church in the nation to. Yeah, we've installed Clean Air E-XP. We have a local Arizona company. It was technology developed by some members of our church. And we've installed these units, and it kills 99.9% of COVID within 10 minutes from independent testing.

It's ionization. Is that what it is? It's ionization of the air, and it takes particulance out, and COVID cannot live in that environment. So when you come into our auditorium, 99% of COVID is gone, killed if it was there. in the first place. So you can know when you come here, you'll be safe and protected. Thank God for great technology and thank God for being proactive. Amen. Bless you guys. Wow, Jank, I don't know about you, but I definitely feel confident. I'm glad the church is open to alternative lifestyles, but they should also be open to science. So that's, of course,

not true. Now, I'm actually shocked to find out that apparently those kind of systems, do help a little bit. I was very surprised to find that out. But does it actually prevent 99.9% of coronavirus case? Of course not. No. So first of all, coronavirus usually goes from person to person. So for example, when folks sing in a church choir, which has happened on a couple of occasions, the particulars that they are released from their mouths, it's uncomfortable, but go into the mouths and noses, eyes, et cetera, of other people that are there. And so even if that system worked perfectly, wouldn't be able to prevent that, which is the main spread of the disease. But it doesn't work perfectly. And was it tested on coronavirus? No. It was tested on

another virus, a substitute virus. Yeah, exactly. It's crazy. Because also, I mean, when these types of air filtration systems are tested, yeah, they're tested in a lab. And the environment in the lab is very different from what the environment in a crowded church is going to be, right? And so I just want to read a few statements from actual experts on this. So there's Jeffrey Siegel from the University of Toronto, and he tells Turning Points memo, quote, this claim has not been demonstrated in any peer reviewed independent forum that I'm aware of. Lindsay Marr from Virginia Tech says, when I'm in a crowd and I'm close to people, I'm going

to end up breathing their exhalations before they have a chance to get that purifier, get to that purifier, and come back, right? So those are people that I trust far more than individuals at a church who stand to probably make some sort of profit by hosting this Trump event. And it's just incredible because in action after action, we've seen Donald Trump show that he just does not value human lives at all, especially when his own political career is on the line. Even if it gives him, in his head, a little bit of an advantage, he'll do it. He'll risk people's lives just to host this type of event while simultaneously discouraging people from wearing masks.

It's just, it's incredible. Yeah. All right. So Jesus was well known, by the way, to support chief operating officers. He thought, you know, your church really should have several business. executives in the church and be focused on making money largely and be excited that you're going to pack 3,000 people into a place filled with disease. And look, guys, one last thing about that.

That stat that Anna read you about how coronavirus cases have doubled in the last two weeks in Arizona, that is not a good stat. That is a world of pain. And you're going to put 3,000 people in a church, some of whom I hope wear masks, a lot of whom won't. And by the way, the president is going to be in that church, and he's not going to wear a mask. Tick, tick, tick. Look, I don't want that to happen because I don't want him to be considered some sort of victim or anything along those lines. But he's playing with fire, and he keeps playing with it. He's above 70 years old. It's dangerous, not just to everybody

else there, but to him as well. We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, the Maggie Haberman store, that I promise you, and I promise you don't want to miss it because as a New York Times reporter, we've criticized her in the past for her extreme pro-establishment bias. And it's incredible that she's getting dragged for not being establishment enough. 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 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 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. 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. Hey, back on Young Turks, Jenkinana with you guys. All right, t.t.com slash go to keep Young Turks healthy and strong and sustainable. We appreciate it. Just time for a couple of comments here.

Carol L from the member section with an excellent comment. Meanwhile, he himself gets tested three times a day and using testing as political gifts for the families of oil executives. So he believes in testing when it comes to him, right? Three times a day when it comes to you guys, ah, I want less testing. so I we have better numbers for myself he's so sick um and uh here we go and just time for one no two more aaron graham from youtube super chat says so if i don't see my landlord my rent doesn't exist hashtag trump logic okay love that great point Aaron uh and then um

Last one is Aaron Green, a different Aaron. The church holding the Trump rally needs to start paying taxes. Yes. I remember when I was running for office, you couldn't make speeches at a church because otherwise that would expose the church to having to pay taxes because they're involved in politics. But Republicans break that rule so flagrantly all the time. It's insane. Pay taxes.

All right. All right. Well, let's talk about Maggie Haberman. Maggie Haberman, who is a New York Times reporter, very well-known New York Times reporter, was trending on social media today. And I was wondering, why? Are people finally waking up to her insane and intense pro-establishment bias? And I was, I guess, shocked to find out that she was being dragged for something incredibly benign. Here it is. I don't know any Democrats, honestly, Anderson, who think this is going to be an easy election. I think David can possibly speak to that more than I can, but I certainly don't know any who thinks this is going to be easy, in part because a lot of people are very scarred by thinking the 2016 was going to be easy.

And by people, I mean, Democrats were scarred by thinking that Hillary Clinton was naturally going to defeat Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton thought that, her top advisors all thought that. And they were sort of appalled and couldn't allow for the fact that he was doing as well as he was. and reality overtook them. And so I think that there are Democrats who are concerned that that is what will happen again. Look, as much trouble as Donald Trump is in politically right now, a lot of it of his own making, but certainly not all of it. Joe Biden is still a very flawed candidate. He is running a flawed campaign so far. There are still four months left. So a lot can happen. And I do think it is important to remember that that at the end of the day,

elections are still binary. And people, if they decide to vote, unless they decide to write someone in, are going to make a choice between these two men. And there are going to be a lot of people who, even if they aren't happy with Donald Trump right now, there will be people who still decide to vote for him in the end. It is a real mistake for anybody to start calling the election today. I honestly can't believe that her statements there were considered, like, offensive. Like, so much so that her name was.

was trending on Twitter. So many pro-Biden Twitter users were going after her. One of the writers at Mediite, who we know well, Tommy Christopher, wrote a whole opinion piece criticizing her over those statements. I found one thing that she said in that interview objectionable. And it was when she said that, you know, Donald Trump isn't doing well. Most of it is his own making, but not all of it. Okay, so what do you mean by that? Like, I would have liked a little more clarification on that because Donald Trump has made mistake after mistake, has, you know, been involved in scandal after scandal. He's been directly involved. So like, what is she referring to when she says, it seems like she's trying to play like the, oh, I'm a fair reporter game by saying that.

But what she said about Biden was not, in my opinion, in any way offensive or incorrect. What she said about Democrats possibly feeling a little too overly confident, I think is absolutely correct. I think that we need to have our guard up if we want to beat Donald Trump and not just assume that it's going to be a cakewalk. It's not going to be a cakewalk. And of course Biden's campaign has made mistakes. Of course there have been flaws, right? Flaw number one that I can think of just off the top of my head was telling black voters that they're not black unless they support his candidacy. That is a flaw. That is a flaw. I mean, why is that is somehow a controversial statement. I don't, I really don't get it. But what's awesome is

that Maggie Haberman for once is the one getting gaslit. It's certainly a sight to see. Yeah. So there's a couple twists in the story. So first off, they, I just, when I watched it, I was like, wait, I must have missed it. I got to rewind. Where's the controversy? And it turns out You're just not allowed to say anything negative about Joe Biden. And so, look, political correctness is real. The people who do it the most are Republicans. Don't worry about what's factually correct. Just do whatever Donald Trump tells you, even if it's factually incorrect, because it is now

the politically correct position. Like, for example, lower the sentencing of Roger Stone. That's another story that broke today. A prosecutor came out and said it was definitely done for political reasons. It doesn't matter that he was convicted. that doesn't matter was factually correct. It only matters what's politically correct. Second worst offenders are democratic establishment. So is Joe Biden a flawed candidate? Of course, he can't get three people to go to a rally. We're having a conversation as if he's a perfect candidate and no one is

allowed to say that he's flawed? Nope, that you might be factually correct, guys, but you are not politically correct, and you will be punished for them, right? And so you want to know his flaws If you're forced me to, I'll tell you, okay, I can go on for a couple of months, which I did. But his civil rights record is actually terrible. He's lied about it a great number of times. What he did with a criminal justice bill was awful and imprisoned millions of Americans unjustly. What he did in the bankruptcy bill was horrific and saddled generations of Americans with debts

that they could not unload. I can go on and on and on. But so the theoretical critique they had of Maggie Haberman when forced to explain why that clip was unacceptable was, no, she's doing both ciderisms and false equivalency. Well, I hate false equivalency, so that's an interesting argument. So does that mean just because we despise Donald Trump and no one despises him more than I do, that I have to lie on behalf of Joe Biden or that Maggie Haberman has to lie on behalf of Joe Biden?

So then they challenge Maggie Haberman, all right, point out his flaws. Then at that point, I don't know if she's just part of the establishment and has never read anything about Joe Biden's record. She doesn't answer. She tells what's wrong with Donald Trump, but she doesn't answer what's wrong with Joe Biden. Or if she's just scared, because she's like, oh my God, if I say anything wrong about Joe Biden, I might get fired, right? Because we got witch hunts everywhere.

And so if you break any politically correct code by any set of people, you're going to be canceled. So, but it's more likely that she is the establishment. So she barely knows anything wrong with Joe Biden. So she says he's a little flawed just to seem fair, even though she hasn't bothered to look into what his flaws are. So she can't even name them. But the establishment says, not good enough, okay? Throw her into the water. Let's see if she flows. So Maggie, you were part that brigade for a long, long time. So we're here ironically to defend you, although you deserve no defense. 100%. I totally agree with you. And by the way, look, I read Tommy Christopher's opinion piece on this, and there are parts of it I agree with, but what he's bringing up

has nothing to do with what she said in her statement during that interview. So for instance, he mentions in 2016 her reporting wasn't helpful in defeating Donald Trump because she seemed to be harping on Hillary Clinton's emails. Okay, that's a fair assessment. So, and it also kind of gave me a little bit of a peek into why there was such a negative reaction to Haberman. Because I think that people are, and fairly obsessed, right, to get rid of Donald Trump, to get him voted out of office. And that is a legitimate desire. I definitely sign on to that desire. And so I think there's a little bit of a worry that if you give reporters an inch in criticizing Biden, that things could be blown out of proportion, and then there could be a possible but her emails

type story that derails his candidacy. I don't know if that's really what they're thinking. I feel like that could be some of the reasoning behind it. But of course, Biden is a flawed candidate. Of course, his campaign is flawed. That doesn't mean that you're trying to help Donald Trump win, that means that you're, you know, raising some red flags and urging the campaign to be aware of it and to move forward in the best possible way to actually beat Donald Trump. Being overly confident in any situation where there's a race or some sort of competition is just a bad idea. And we saw what happened in 2016. We shouldn't be willing to make the same mistakes again, period. That doesn't mean that Maggie Haberman's like a huge

Trump supporter, which she's now being accused of. She's both being accused of being accused of a birdie bro, which is laughable, and at the same time of being a Trump supporter, which anyway, it's just nonsense, absolute nonsense. But hey, Maggie Haberman, how do you like being gaslit? Okay, so look, one last thing on this. Look at the assumptions built into these attacks. The assumption is the mainstream media is supposed to work on behalf of the Democratic establishment. So if you don't do that, you committed a cardinal offense, okay? Cardinal Sin. And so there are enemies of the establishment, yes, Donald Trump, but also progressives.

We lie about them or we attack them nonstop. But most importantly, we play defense for this democratic establishment. And we cover up all the things that are wrong with them. And if anybody dares to talk about it, even in a vague reference like Maggie Haberman, we seek and destroy. Maggie forgot the rules for a second there. she almost paid the price. I don't know the internal politics of New York Times. I don't know if she got a talking to, but Blue Check Twitter was very upset. Remember, Maggie, the media

does not do news. It does propaganda. That's what they were trying to remind her of. Right. And look, she's supposed to be a reporter. And I don't know why she would agree to do something where she's expected to give her opinion or do analysis because, yeah, this is the kind of response you're going to get if you don't play by certain rules. And we just saw that happen. Anyway, primary coverage is next. It's going to be awesome. Stay tuned. We're going to be right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com

slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Yugar, and I'll see you soon.