The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - June 4th, 2020

Episode Date: June 5, 2020

Are Mark Esper’s days in the Trump administration numbered? 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. All right, welcome to the young term, shaking, you guys, what is this? This is 2020, and the debacle of our lives. Please, just get us to 2021. By hook or by curve, just get us to 2021. I'm not even playing.

slash go, okay, just go all the way to 2021, and then everything will be fine, okay? I hope. I believe everything will be fine. God, it's amazing. Like, I used to be like you, Jank. Like, I remember in 2016, I was like, oh, it was just got to get through 2016. Got to get through 2016. It can't get any worse than this. And it did. So now I've just learned to like enjoy the chaos that we're currently in, because based on the trend we've been experiencing, it's just going to get worse. No, no. I see a tiny little light at the end of that very, very long tunnel, okay?

Look, down goes Steve King. Steve King is no longer a U.S. congressman, voted out by a very red district in Iowa. I'm not saying anything. I'm just saying there's a glimmer of hope, okay? So you want to make hope happen? I'm not playing, t-y-t.com slash go. My hope is that you get us to 2021 and we're all right from there on. 40,000, 850, got to get to 200 every month.

Long Road brothers and sisters, every dollar counts. Every dollar matters. We love you. Love you for doing it. We do this show together. Our goal at the end of the day is to empower you. And so I'm going to find a way. I'm going to find a way to empower you guys.

And hey, look, Jamal Bowman looks like he's in good shape. J.D. Shulton looks like he's in good shame. Don't call it a comeback. Here come progressives. All right. Anyway, that being said, we are still in the middle of 2020 with disastrous news. So, Anna, take it away. All right. Well, we start off with some drama. Someone in the White House disagreed with Donald Trump as the White House turns. Made some very big mistakes. I asked for his resignation.

Attorney General. White House sources have been speaking to the press about how Donald Trump feels about Defense Secretary Mark Esper. And I was actually shocked to find that Trump had issues with Mark Esper before some of Esper's statements this week in regard to using the military against peaceful protesters. Now, in a story that we shared with you recently, Esper said that he actually disagrees with using military force against protesters. He said so during his own press briefing.

Take a quick look at that. To use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act. So now senior Republican sources speaking to CNN say that Donald Trump is not happy about what happened in that press conference because there are because there was a departure from the messaging that Donald Trump wants, and that is messaging

to attempt to intimidate these protesters by the threat of military force against them. Trump and other top officials, including national security advisor Robert O'Brien, are not happy with Esper after his Wednesday remarks, three people familiar with the White House's thinking said. One White House source said, I think this is the end for him. And if you just look back at Trump's, you know, three and a half years in office, it's not surprising if Trump is considering firing Esper for disagreeing with him. A U.S. official close to Esper and familiar with the White House thinking said that the secretary

is being skewered by those inside the White House for coming out Wednesday to express his views. I'm not sure who thought that was a good idea. Another official told CNN. And by the way, Jank, I mentioned earlier that Trump already has. had issues with Esper, and I didn't know about that. I was curious about it, like what did Mark Esper do to cross Donald Trump? And you know, just when you think you understand just how thin Donald Trump's skin really is, you come across a video like what you're about to see and realize, no, it's actually

much thinner. Because what Esper said in this interview with Brett Baer last December apparently upset Donald Trump, let's just quickly watch that video and then I want to hear you. your thoughts. I have a very good relationship with President Trump. We have a great national security team. You called out Robert O'Brien there. You know, my classmate, Secretary Pompeo and I have a good relationship. It's a good, strong team. The president is always open to good ideas. He lets you have your say, your word. We're constantly kicking ideas around within the team. So it's good. And he's just another one of many bosses I've had, you've had

your time that you learn to work with. And again, I think he really, what's reassuring, he really believes in America's military and our young servicemen and women. So the issue that Trump had with that statement was that Mark Esper said he's just like any other boss. But it was like a long statement where he's like applauding Trump, saying all these complimentary things about him. It's just amazing how thin skin Donald Trump really is, but there's actually an instigator within the White House, which I'll get to in just a minute.

But I want to hear your thoughts. Yeah, hashtag baby. And if it turns out you can't put baby in a corner as long as it's in a bunker. So Esper said it's like working with any other boss. You know, you learn how to deal with it. Something along those lines. You guys just heard it yourselves. And of course, we all know why he's saying that.

And to be fair to Trump, he knows why he's saying it. Because the guy's a moron and he's super hard to deal with. He changes his mind all the time, doesn't know what he's talking about, gives you nonsensical orders and endangers your career and sanity and everything. else are around him. So everybody knows that's what that was a reference to, but you're right. It was smothered in a flattery sandwich, and it still wasn't enough for Bunkerboard. So now, as for why did he do what he did?

Because he's clearly now saying something that Donald Trump doesn't agree with. Donald Trump made a big show out. I'm like, ah, yeah, we're going to send a military. And here's the defense secretary saying, I don't agree. Well, what happened was Mad Dog Mattis came out, and several other generals did. and Jim Mattis is the former defense secretary and said that Trump is making a mockery of the Constitution. But furthermore said that Esper and Millie, who's the head of the Joint Chiefs, should

not have joined him in that photo op. And that criticism is stinging Esper, and he knows that they are right. That's why he did this absurd thing where he was like, was that a photo op? I didn't know where we were going. I thought maybe we were going to get a sandwich or something. He didn't say the sandwich part, but he did say everything. He's like, I didn't know that. We were going to say, Jaws.

They were taking pictures? I didn't know. So he's backpedaling furiously because for a couple reasons. One, Trump's reign is going to be over hopefully in a couple of months. And then you have to worry about, you know, being humiliated for the rest of your life if you joined his illegal and unconstitutional actions. And they are worried about their careers. Let's keep it real.

But the second thing is the sense of the cultural. the military. And the culture is that you don't get involved in civilian things and you don't violate the constitution. And that's what your oath is to, a constitution. And so he knows that if Trump, he does what Trump orders, if Trump eventually orders it, it's going to be a violation of his oath. And he's trying to send a message there like, don't do it. But that's not what's going to happen. What's going to happen is he's going to get steamrolled. Yeah, look, um, uh, I, I could be wrong, but I am not buying for a second that any of these generals or, by the way, including Mattis, actually have any concern about the oath or protecting the Constitution.

And let me explain why. Sure, yes, Esper's also worried about his career, but more than anything, let's just take it back to the root of the issue. Who funds the military, Jank? We do. We do. We fund the military. Who, no, no, but okay, so also how do they recruit people to be part of the military by all sorts

of pro-democracy, protect the country, protect our constitution propaganda, right? How are you going to recruit people and how are you going to persuade Americans to comfortably hand over their hard-earned money to fund the military when the military is fighting the very people that fund it? It's just not good PR for the military. And I really think that that's at the heart of what we're hearing. And look, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm being, maybe I just have a very dark view of humans.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic. But these are people who watch Donald Trump take a giant crap on our Constitution over and over again, basically scale back our civil liberties since the beginning of his administration, scale back on protecting our very environment, the environment we live in, since the beginning of us administration. You think they actually care about doing the moral thing here? Of course not. I think what they do care about, especially Jim Mattis, is, well, if the military or funding the military isn't a popular thing to do anymore, how are we going to lobby to members of Congress to increase our military budget when their own constituents are viciously against it?

I think that's really at the heart of what we're seeing right now. I don't know. Just my My thoughts. Yeah, Anna, look, that might be the underlying reasons, but the culture is real and culture does determine action. And this is not just the US military, a lot of militaries, Turkish military, and so many others have this edict of do not turn your guns on your own citizens. And when they do, there is rage over, which goes to your point as well. But it's just, it's against military culture and definitely in America.

So I think that Esper having grown up in that culture felt the pushback there, and that's part of why he did what he did. To me, the most important question is, is he going to last these next five months? Or actually, more importantly, until January 21st. Because if they get rid of him now, God knows who Trump will replace him, whether he replace him like Jared Kushner, I'm only half kidding. It might be that he didn't, you know, when push comes to shove and we're after the election. and Trump is lost and he tells the defense secretary, we're not leaving.

Well, you know, apparently Esper would say yes, you are, but the next guy might not. Well, Kaylee McEnany was actually asked about how whether or not Esper's days are numbered. And I think her answer, even though of course she's not as forthcoming as she should be, still did reveal a lot. Take a look. The president still have confidence in Secretary Esper. So not that I'm aware of in terms of expressing his opinion. and I wouldn't get into the private conversations that went on here in the White House.

And with regard to whether the president has confidence, I would say if he loses confidence in Secretary Esper, I'm sure you all will be the first to know. But as of right now, he still does? As of right now, Secretary Esper is still Secretary Esper. And should the president lose faith, we will all learn about that in the future. Yeah. So for like the moment being, Secretary Esper is still Secretary Esper. And if that changes, you'll be the first to know.

I'm not qualified for this. Well, I think she's saying something slightly different. First of all, Anacusperian, still Anacusparian. Okay, there's two hilarious parts of that. One is that statement, obviously. But the other is her saying, well, if he loses faith in Esper, you guys will be the first to know. I think she's being literal, because it's not like she's been there a couple weeks.

She knows. Trump's not following any protocol. He's not going to go through his communication department. apartment, get out of you. He's not going to tell Katie at you first. He's going to tweet it. He's going to tweet it. So she knows. So she's like, I don't, what do I know, man? I'm just up here trying to do PR. I don't have any actual information. And you know he's going to tweet it the minute he's ready to go. And that's, it is what it is. Exactly. All right. Well, let's move on to Mattis. I already unfortunately gave you most of my commentary on that, but there's still more to the

story. So Donald Trump is not responding well to his former defense secretary, Jim Mattis, calling him out pretty aggressively in a statement to the Atlantic. So Mattis actually denounced Trump and his actions in a statement to the Atlantic following Trump's decision to viciously attack the peaceful protesters in D.C. just so he can clear the way for his ridiculous photo op, right? So we've all seen the videos, it was terrible. And now Mattis is speaking out, and here's what he wrote. When I joined the military some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking the same oath would be ordered under any circumstance

to violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens, much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander in chief with military leadership standing along. Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people, does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. And then finally, he says, we must reject any thinking of our cities as a battle space that

our uniformed military is called upon to dominate. At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so on very rare occasions by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict, a false conflict between the military and civilian society. And just a quick note, when he references the word battle space, what he's referring to is a word that was reportedly used by Mark Esper in describing the word. the area where the D.C. protesters were peacefully protesting. And, you know, Esper rightfully got

a lot of backlash for that. Now, Trump, in typical Trump fashion, responded on Twitter in the way that you would expect him to. Here's Bunker Boy's statement. Probably the only thing Barack Obama and I have in common is that we both had the horror or had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world's most overrated general. I asked for his letter of resignation. and felt great about it. His nickname was chaos, which I didn't like, and changed it to Mad Dog. But did you? I think that was, I think Mad Dog was his nickname before he even joined the administration. I mean, I could be wrong. Also, he says his, meaning Mattis's primary strength was not military, but rather personal public relations. I gave him a new life, things to do and battles to win.

But he seldom brought home the bacon. I didn't like his leadership style or much else about him. And many others agree, glad he is gone. I didn't know that the defense secretary was supposed to bring home bacon. Okay, so much to say about this. I think Jim Mattis put out that statement as signal not to American citizens, but to the U.S. military. That was a long way of saying, remember you're old to the Constitution.

I think he's worried that not only is Donald Trump going to use the military inside the country, but also use it to try to hold on to power. And so that was a shot across the bow to say, remember, if you're in the military, do not listen to this madman. And it had partly worked because Mark Esper then came out and said, well, look, I didn't really mean battle space. And I didn't know that was a photo op. And no, we should not use the Insurrection Act and use the military inside the U.S. So in a sense, mission accomplished. In a sense, he brought home the bacon there, if you will.

Now, now onto an amusing part of the story, Donald Trump in the middle of a pandemic, 108,000 dead, 40 million now more than 40 million unemployed. We got tanks rolling down the streets, I mean, civil unrest. In the midst of all this, his retired four-star general, former defense secretary, his own former defense secretary comes out with a serious screed against Trump and in favor of the U.S. Constitution. And his response is, oh, yeah, I change your nickname. Oh, my God.

I mean, that's why Matt has put in there the thing about needing mature leadership, because he worked with him for two years. He knows he's a child, a total. her child. And Trump's response to that is, oh, you think we need mature leadership? Well, that's why I change your nickname to Mad Dog. And Anna, you're right. No, he always had the nickname Mad Dog. It just Trump's in Madman. He's just, he's like, no, no, I don't, I gave him the nickname. Not the bad nickname. Oh, I'm such a good nickname giver. You're president. Yeah, it's amazing. And also, I think like it was, it was his nickname.

name before because he likes that nickname. Like, you know what I mean? It was like a nickname given to him in admiration for his hawkiness. Like, it's just amazing that Trump is like, oh, yeah, I'm the one who gave him that nickname he really likes. Oh, bravo, bravo, you're a real leader there. He's just so sad. Like, he's just a sad, pathetic, weak, like, child.

And I just can't get over. the fact that he's this way, that he's, again, the most powerful person in the world who has all this privilege, he's had all this privilege his entire life. He didn't have to work a day in his life. His daddy handed him over $400 million in his inheritance. And with all that privilege, with all that luck in his life, he still thinks he's a victim and it just, it blows my mind. Anyway, I do want to note that there are people in this world who are actually more pathetic than Donald Trump because they defend him no matter what just to stay relevant. People like Senator Lindsey Graham, watch.

I would tell General Mattis is that you don't quite understand that from the time President Trump wakes up to he goes to bed, there's an effort to destroy his presidency. And I would ask General Mattis to look at the behavior of the politicians in these cities and see if you can find fault with them. It is so fashionable to blame President Trump for every wrong and wrong. America. And he can be a handful. And can he do better? Yes. But the problems we have in America today weren't caused by Donald Trump. To General Mattis, I think you're missing something here, my friend. You're missing the fact that the liberal media is taking every event in the last

three and a half years and laid it at the president's feet. I'm not saying he's blameless, but I am saying that you're buying into a narrative that I think is, quite frankly, unfair. to Donald Trump, and I think it's unfair. Sure, he violated the Constitution, but is that really a problem when people are mean to the most powerful person in the world? I want you to think about that General Mattis. Pathetic. Speaking of nicknames, I'm always amused by doo-doo. So Lindsay Graham comes out And says, now, remember, that that is my precious, precious boo-boo. Anyway, Donald Trump. And remember, Trump docks Lindsey Graham during the private.

Have some self-respect, Lindsey Graham, just a little bit. He insulted him in the most outrageous ways and then gave out his phone number and told. told everybody to call him and call him those stupid names until Lindsey Graham had to change his phone number. Now he's out there licking Donald Trump's boots. Okay. And every day this servile little pathetic man walks into his office, knowing that he got unmanned by Donald Trump and he thinks, oh, but he's my new master.

Ooh, I gotta lick his boots real good. Nobody gonna look it better than me. That's Lindsey Graham. That's doo-doo over there. So go ahead, lick away, Lindsay. Lick away. You're pathetic. Maybe if you're lucky, you'll find you relevant again to docks you again.

And I just want to note there were other retired generals who spoke out, including retired Marine Corps general John Allen, who said, the slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1st, 2020. I'd argue a little earlier than that. Remember that date, it may well signal the beginning of the end of the American experiment. And he also said, it wasn't enough that peaceful... We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-Hing 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 lines. lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of On 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. Protesters just had just been deprived of their First Amendment rights. This photo op sought to legitimize that abuse with a layer of religion.

Donald Trump isn't religious. has no need of religion and doesn't care about the devout except insofar as they serve his political needs. Damn. Like a bunker boy. It's just so sad. He's like, what is this thing? I have, they have given me a book they say that the humans care about. I will now hold it up as if I also care about this book.

You know, I happen to see today the old questions they asked them. during the 2016 campaign, which verse do you like in the Bible the most? And he's like, oh, do, there, you know, I can't pick a particular one. Okay, but my favorite part of that little 30 second exchange was, they said, are you an Old Testament or a New Testament guy? I mean, the easiest question. Jesus is in the New Testament. Look, everyone, everyone knows the answer to that question.

You don't have to be Christian, right? And or if you're like, hey, eye for an eye, maybe you say Old Testament, even though I love Jesus, et cetera, right? And he's like, uh, well, I tell you, uh, both. He's never in a word. He's never in a word of it, okay? And so in this case, the general's all right. And look, guys, we're not overly deferential to the generals. We're not MSNBC.

We don't think they're always right. In fact, I'd be shocked if I didn't disagree with John Mattis on, you know, 90% of issues. And I know he's way too much of a war hawk and interventionist, et cetera. Even the right wing generals are saying, watch out, watch out. We might even have a coup. For God's sake, not this guy, anybody but this guy. Exactly.

All right, well, we got to take a break. Let's do that. And when we come back, I'll let you know why I think maybe Jake disagrees with me. The New York Times is trash. We'll be right back. All right, I'm back on the young Turks. Jake, you're at Getsbury at TYT here. So, time to go to the members, t.yt.com slash join.

You make our show possible. If you're watching on YouTube, you get in the join button down below. Facebook, there's also some sort of button there to become a member on Facebook. Anyway, Maui Greg says, things have gotten so bad that just mere sight of Ed and Jenk put me at ease. I've never been more thankful for TYT. Well, that's wonderful to hear. Thank you. And you made me want to go to Maui.

So now there's so many others here. Oh, Lieutenant Mac G says, Mike G, right, said, yes, I served 10 plus years in the army to protect the American people, not oppress them. And unlike some of these generals, even as a captain, I had the personal courage to disobey an illegal order, which is legal, according to the UCMJ. That is absolutely right. And they should all do that. In fact, Gabby Marita chimes in it says, I've been texting with my father, retired United

States Air Force colonel, a lot in the past few weeks, and he's repeatedly reminded me. that military officers are bound by regulations to refuse to carry out an illegal order. Yes, that's true until they're fired and they're replaced by someone else. And then they're fired and they're replaced by someone else until Trump finds the military leader he wants. Anyway, Breith Rima says, oh, M.G, I love you, Anna. That was amazing. Spot on. Saying it that way, for instance. A lot of people agree with that. Lauren M.W. on YouTube super chat says, Anna, you are a goddess. Thank you for being you.

Okay. Thank you. Is it a little bit too far, but that's all right. I actually agree with that. But thank you. It's a sweet comment. Jorge Fontaine, right? And Jamal Bowman is going to buy Elliott Englo one-way ticket to wherever AOC sent Joe Crowley. Yes. Okay. Bowman for Congress.com. Jamal Bowman is awesome. Let's, oh, man, if that happens, I'm going to be so excited. And by the way, the ticket is to K Street. Joe Crowley is now a lobbyist. And then Jonathan G. says, she knows in Turkish Grandmother Voice, he wrote him Brett.

And last one, Chio Maria, also on YouTube Super Chat. We love every one of you guys. Says, you guys are the light at the end of the tunnel. Love you guys. Okay, t.yt.com slash go. Let me see the thermometer. Did you guys know I wore the number 42 when I played football in high school? Okay, so I'm not saying we've got to get to 42,000 by the end of the show.

I'm just saying that would be awesome and amazing. Oh, 41,063. Can I see 42,000? Let's go hit somebody. TYT.com slash go. All right. Much love. Anna.

You're up. All right. The New York Times is catching some heat for its decision to publish a, you know, an op-ed written by a fascist, Senator Tom Cotton, who believes in using the military against American citizens practicing their First Amendment right and peacefully protesting. So he had shared his thoughts on using the military before during an interview with Fox News. Immediately after that, Donald Trump actually did use the military against peaceful protesters in Washington, D.C., to clear the way for his ridiculous photo op where he demonstrated to the world where he doesn't

even know how to hold a Bible. Well, now Tom Cotton is doubling down on this in an op-ed that should not have been published by the New York Times. He writes, bands of looters roved the streets smashing and emptying hundreds of businesses. Some even drove exotic cars. The riots were carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich, as well as other criminal elements. Some elites have accused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical sheikh, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful law-abiding protesters.

Let me just stop for a second. The main takeaway from what Senator Cotton is saying here is, I'm going to go ahead and conflate the rioting and the people engaging in violence to the peaceful protesters. Because the protesters who were attacked in DC were not breaking any laws. They were not rioting. They were not looting. They weren't even breaking curfew. And they were met with such viciousness and such violence.

And that was a constitutional violation, right? And that is what Tom Cotton is calling for. He wants more of that. He also says one thing above all else will restore order to our streets. An overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain, and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what's necessary to uphold the rule of law. Let me also just note one thing.

would not have a problem keeping peaceful protesters safe if they actually had an interest in keeping the peaceful protesters safe while focusing on rooting out any type of looting or violence that they might come across, right? But the issue here is that they have focused most of their energies on the peaceful protesters. Look at the number of arrests and then look at the ratio of peaceful protesters who got arrested because they broke curfew versus the number of arrests. of people who are actually looting or doing anything violent. They're focusing on the wrong thing, and I don't think that's a mistake.

And Tom Cotton wants the cops to continue doing that. And he wants more military action to further punish these people for having the audacity to call out police brutality that has killed countless unarmed black people in this country. Yeah. Well, now a debate has started as to whether the New York Times should have published that in the first place. And so I think probably Anna and I are going to disagree about this one. But Anna, do we have a poll on this? And do we have the other New York Times writers disagreeing first so that people have the context? Because I want to do two things at once. I want to heavily

criticize Tom Cotton and probably in this case defend the New York Times. So you go ahead first, yeah. Well, first, let me give you the reactions from people who actually work at the New York Times because they did speak out against this. In fact, I'm going to give you some statements. Here's one of the writers for the New York Times. She's won awards for her reporting. And she writes, I'd probably get in trouble for this, but to not say something would be immoral. As a black woman, as a journalist, as an American, I'm deeply ashamed that we ran this. The Times opinion editor, Jen Parker, also disagreed with the decision to publish Cotton's op-ed, saying, running this puts all black people in danger, including New York Times staff members.

And let me read one more. One other person writes, surreal and horrifying to wake up on the morning of June 4th, the 31st anniversary of Tineman Square crackdown to this headline. So Amy's actually a reporter who focuses on current events in Asia. So, you know, hearing from her was important here. And by the way, these are not the only people who work at the New York Times who spoke out. There were countless tweets, and they all said negative things toward the New York Times for their decision to publish this.

Now, here's our poll. We want you guys to take part in it. You can take this poll by going to t.yt.com slash polls slash cotton. And the question is, should the New York Times have published this op-ed? Very simple options here, either yes or no. Again, go to t-y-t.com slash polls slash cotton. Okay, so look, so do I agree with Tom Cotton? Not one percent.

Can't stand it. I think that he's a very dangerous guy. He's a rare combination of a neocon and a Trump-like nationalist at the same time. Usually, those are two terrible, different camps in the Republican Party, but Tom Cotton has found a way to join them. And there isn't a war that Tom Cotton wouldn't start. He's new Lindsey Graham in that sense, but also a nationalist. And so this op-ed is not at all surprising. It's loaded up with, at a minimum, racist dog whistles like an order.

orgy of violence. It almost feels like that book that the Steve Bannon crew loves so much, Camp of the Saints, where they refer to orgies and violence from immigrants, et cetera. He says we should do a show of force. Well, isn't that what the protests are about in the first place? Too much. Show of force by the police. And his answer is give more of that, give more of the hatred and the ugliness that is in America.

So I don't want anyone getting a misimpression. I'm defending Tom Cotton 1%. Having said that, he's a United States senator. And, I mean, you can't make him, like, so what the New York Times is not supposed to cover Republicans. If I had that call, if I'm the New York Times, I probably run it. Because then it's on the record.

I mean, there's an op-ed of him saying all those terrible, ugly things. So, he has already said those terrible ugly things on the record. I mean, he's said it on Twitter on his own page. He's said it in interviews with Fox News. There's already a record of who Tom Cotton is and how he believes that the military should be used against its own people. There are some ideologies that should not be given equal weight to valid opinions, thoughts, concerns, this type of unconstitutional nonsense is incredibly damaging to our democracy.

And I just find it laughable that the publishers over at the New York Times think it's totally fine to publish Tom Cotton's fascistic nonsense, but they still have a ban on Nome Chomsky. I mean, just sit with that for a minute, okay? So there are, there was misinformation in his op-ed where he claimed that, you know, there's violence carried out by members of Antifa during these protests. The FBI indicates that that is not true. So is the New York Times comfortable running something that's not only fascistic, but also continues to perpetuate nonsense conspiracy theories about what's going on during these protests?

I mean, it's just, it's incredible who they give a pass to and who they give the middle finger to. I have no doubt your band from the New York Times. How many times have you pitched an op-ed to the New York Times and they gave you the middle finger? You're not valid, Jank. Your ideas are not valid for the New York Times. Noam Chomsky's ideas are not valid for the editorial board at the New York Times. But Tom Cotton, calling for a violation of our constitutional rights, that's totally fine.

It's just a valid viewpoint that maybe we should discuss and debate, not buying it. No, look, Anna, if you're going to say that New York Times discriminates against progressives, I 100% agree. And they would much rather give an op-ed to a Republican who is in favor of, you know, the military controlling us in a way that is unconstitutional and un-American than to a progressive. They're much rather, a thousand times they'd rather do that, right? And if there's somebody from the New York Times watching, they'll cry and cry over that and go, no way!

No, Ted Cruz still calls us liberal. I don't care what Ted Cruz calls you. Okay, you, and if you have, I'm sure you have Democrats, you have tons and tons of Democrats that work for you, right? But are any of them progressive? I mean, maybe you could find two in the building, but you certainly wouldn't let them do op-eds. So I'm not disagreeing with that.

But if New York Times gets in, like, I want them to be more open-minded, not less open-minded. If they get in the business of censoring ahead of time what the op-eds are, well, I guarantee you, first people are going to happily. censor immediately is any progressive. They say, well, that's not within established thought. That's not allowed. Other people are offended by it, et cetera, and they're going to ban it. Tom Cotton exists in the world. He's a U.S. Senator. And so I don't mind people hearing what he has to say. They're going to hear it anyway. So what difference does it make if it's set on Fox News are published in the New York Times? I don't find the New York Times to be any more sacrosanct.

And I don't want to get in the business of policing that. Let them run any op-ed they want. react and we say Tom Cotton's a monster and on him look here I'm saying like look and I'm just I want to be clear I'm granting to you that the New York Times does not do this in a fair or just way. If I propose an op-ed calling Tom Cotton on American, which he literally is, like he is against. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN

hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and 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. American principles, which is we do not have the military policing in our country.

It's a core principle of ours. They would never allow it. Never. But look, they serve power. And so Tom Cotton is in power, progressives or not. And New York Times thinks, well, I'm going to give you some of Joe Biden and I'm going to give you some of Tom Cotton. Why did we have such a huge problem with CNN hosting debates with a climate scientist and

a climate denier? Because it made it appear as though both parties were on equal footing, that they both had valid perspectives. And Tom Cotton does not have a valid perspective. He has, it's just not a valid perspective. You can't use the military against peaceful protesters, which is exactly what Donald Trump did. He wants more of that. Tom Cotton wants more of that. I mean, you have military general, former military generals, you have Donald Trump's former defense secretary speaking out and calling it unconstitutional. But for the New York Times, no, totally valid opinion.

Let's definitely run it. Not a problem. So let me make one more important note. They can fact check and they are supposed to fact check with an op-ed. And so they should not have let him say that about Antifa when it has not been proven. And as you point out, our former colleague Ken Klobstein, got a memo from the FBI showing that they do not think Antifa was involved. And so, but other than that, and I know what bothers you.

You're not going to get me to defend Tom Cotton at all. Anything he says, I can't stand the guy, but is it a valid opinion? I don't know. It's the opinion of the President of the United States and most of the Republican senators. So I, you know, once New York Times gets in the business of judging valid opinions, guaranteed the first opinion they ban as progressive opinion, guaranteed. Then there's journalism is, it's worthless. It's worthless.

The whole point of journalism is to fight back against these type of undemocratic ideologies and to hold people in positions of power accountable. It's to speak truth to power. That's the whole point of journalism. If you're simply just going to provide a platform for someone to share these unconstitutional, undemocratic points of view, then there's really no point to your publication. I mean, I think it cancels out good reporting that's done at the New York Times. Like, how are you going to trust people who work there when they're totally okay with publishing

this kind of crap? And I'm not talking about the staff writers. I'm not talking about the reporters. I'm talking about the people who have actual power within that publication, right? So, look, we disagree. The audience gets to vote on this and tell us what you think. Please take part in that poll. But for now, we've got to take a quick break.

We'll be back with more in just a minute. All right, back on I'm church, Jane and Anna with you guys. Tonight, we've got another episode of Between Me and Yugar on our Twitch channel. Yes, we've got a Twitch channel now. Twitch.com. Twitch.com. Jawsallie's going to be on. How's that for fun?

NBA legend, multiple champion, and very provocative, thoughtful, and thoughtful. provoking guests. So John Sally on Twitch tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern, check that out. Okay, a bunch of you guys wrote in, fine, you all agree with Anna, whatever. Smooth rights in. Take your time. Take your time. Offense sections are often crap. I don't take New York Times staff members that seriously. They never clap back against third-way neoliberal nonsense in that section. Those policies have disproportionately hurt people of color, a great deal for decades. Fair enough. Megany, with an excellent point. As I said at the side of this, if the New York Times actually did share all sides and all beliefs there might

be an argument to defending this, they don't. They pick and choose and they pick this. There is no defense. Loana says probably the only upshot of the New York Times running it is that he will also be voted out when up for reelection. I wish that we're true, but that is not anywhere near true. In fact, he's up for reelection now and he is running unopposed. That's how great the Democrats are. Way to go, Democratic Party. Unopposed, that guy. Okay, YouTube super chat real quick. Ben Bail says, I'm loving Anna's impressions this evening. Keep up the great work. I'm in the UK and I trust your reporting of everything going on. Thank you. Dark Energy 17 says you're doing great work. Work. Appreciate you all and fix rights in. UTI guys are smashing it tonight,

as always. I love the UK audience. Thank you guys. Thank you for using. a YouTube super chat or for donating at t.yt.com slash go. All right, Casper. All right. Our former colleague, Ken Clippenstein, continues breaking the good stories. In fact, he just recently broke a story for the nation about how there is absolutely no FBI intelligence indicating that Antifa is causing violence during these mass protests that we're seeing throughout the country. In fact, someone who works for the FBI, leaked an internal document to Ken Clippenstein, and here's what it had to say. Based on CHS, that's confidential human source canvassing, open source slash social media partner engagement

and liaison, FBI, WFO has no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement slash presence. Also, the report did warn that individuals from a far right social media group had called for far-right provocateurs to attack federal agents, use automatic weapons again, and use automatic weapons against protesters. So in order to protect that FBI investigation, Ken Klippenstein did not give the identity of this far-right group. But I do think it's important to tell you what the details are, what the intelligence community is gathering on the ground as these protests happen. And don't fall for like the outside agitators' narratives. I think that it's purposely being done to distract from the real message, the important

message from these protesters, which is defunding the police, ending this nonstop brutality, and really reforming this system of systemic racism that has gone on for far too long. That's what this protest is about, end of story. But the reputable journalists over at Project Veritas would have you believe otherwise I'm being sarcastic when I say reputable. These are, this is the organization that's tied to James O'Keefe. He has been arrested for, he's been arrested way too many times for me to even remember. He's the one who put out those false videos claiming that Planned Parenthood was selling baby parts.

Just complete nonsense. And then he puts out the video that you're about to watch, which to be fair, most people realize it's BS, but there have been right-wing news outlets who have published it, which blows your mind because once you see like the first frame of this video, you should just start cracking up. Take a look. I've been undercover with Real City Antifa since July of 2000. Depending on the setting, if I were to be caught or found out in a setting where I am present with them, it couldn't escalate to violence against me.

Don't be that fucking guy with the goddamn spiked grass and uncles getting photos taken on you. Police are going to be like perfect, we can prosecute these . Not that we're not, but we need to . So currently I am a prospect for Rose City Antifa and I am about halfway through the prospecting process to become a full-fledged member of Antifa. Rose City, Antifa holds required lectures for prospecting members. members in secret at in other words bookstore before they open and as part of their security

culture they require us to put our phones in the bathroom and next door the whole goal of this right is to get out there and do dangerous things as safely as possible how violent is antifa or rca particular practice things like an eye gout it takes very little pressure to injure someone's eyes They do not hesitate to either push back or incite some kind of violence. With RCA, it seems much more structured, almost like a company or like a business. So, you know, I feel like there is some type of outside funding, influence, or resources being used. Okay, that was laughable. At one point, if you notice, there's a date on some of the footage.

And it says February 25th, which is a curious time. to plan, you know, this infiltration of these mass protests, right? That's a little weird. And also that bookstore that they referenced is a bookstore in Portland, Oregon that has been closed since 2018. You know, that meeting place for all these members of Antifa who are plotting to infiltrate these protests and cause a ruckus. Yeah, it's been closed for two years. No, yeah, two years. It's just they're so sloppy in how they do this. It's amazing. Yeah. Fox News ran it without questioning at all on their website, you know, undercover journalism by Project Veritas exposing Antifa. I mean, we don't have any journalists in the building to verify any of this. So just we were taking

their word for it. And you could tell because they have compelling videos. of a closed bookstore where they had, I mean, you got a meeting in a bookstore. And? Okay. And then they made us put our cell phones, the bathroom, because they thought somebody might sneak in a cell phone like I did. Okay. But what my favorite is of videos.

There's nothing that's clear at all from the videos. They put a guy's picture on it, but the guy's not actually in the video. Like, and we can't tell. You certainly can't confirm that he's in the video, right? But if the other shot looks like, it's like everybody's a quarter of somebody's face, it mainly looked like Blair Witch Project Part 2, right? Look at the hoodie guy. Just look at the hoodie guy with the sunglasses.

Like, it's a joke. It's just a joke. Like, the fact that anyone would take this seriously and, like, associate themselves with promoting this. Like, are you not embarrassed? Do you not have any self-respect? Just a little bit of self-respect. How embarrassing is this? The hoodie guy, guys, the hoodie guy.

The hoodie guy. I can't get over here. He looks so comical. He really does. A ghost boss to that got stuck in the wrong place. Okay, I'm scared. I'm so scared. Okay, anyways, all right, we gotta go, guys.

We have a giant post game for you guys. t yt.com slash join uh we'll see you there 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