The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - November 20th, 2019

Episode Date: November 21, 2019

Gordon Sondland's testimony is DEVASTATING to Trump. Ana Kasparian, Nando Vila, and Nomiki Konst, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Thank you. What's up? Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm Anna Casparian, and we have, like, a full night of awesome programming for you. Joining me on the hour one panel, Nando Villa, and no Mickey Kahn. Yes. I'm here back. I'm so happy you're here.

It's been a while and I'm glad you're gonna discuss these topics with us. We're gonna talk about impeachment and everything, lots of big news from Gordon Sondland's testimony. But the story that I'm actually looking forward to discussing with you guys the most is on Elizabeth Warren and some of her missteps recently on foreign policy. So I had been waiting for her to say stuff about her foreign policy positions. She has done so and we'll do some analysis on that. But before we get to any of it, Nomeiki, I want you to tell me a little bit about a project

that you're working on. You founded something called Matriarch, and what is it, and how can people get involved? Well, thank you for having me and for welcoming me back. So Matriarch, it's very exciting because it's been in the works for a couple of years now. It's a coalition of over three dozen women, almost four dozen at this point. Activist organizers, union organizers, former elected officials, current elected officials, on the progressive side across the country who are unifying together to support progressive working class female candidates running for Congress on an economic justice platform,

an intersectional economic justice platform. And we wanted to fill space in the democratic organization ecosystem that was not being filled. A lot of candidates to get the attention of organizations, they have to raise $250,000, $300,000. That's not how it should be. That builds a system of rich people or people have access to money. So we want to help these candidates early on, help them get media attention, help them with their organizing, staffing, all the above, so that they can be viable, as they like to say, candidates in their primaries or in the general elections. I love this. I love this because there's a lot of organizing happening on the right.

There's this infrastructure in place to help right-wing candidates. But I feel like the left has really dropped the ball on that. And you're seeing like organized movements with progressive candidates. And I love that you're helping them out. Because really, we were talking about this during the break. The way the system is set up really discourages people, good potential leaders from running, whether it's due to financial issues or fears of smearing, you know, opponents and attacks like that.

So this is great. Where can people go to find more information? So you can go to matriarch pack.com. We are raising money to help candidates. So if you can chip in, whatever you can afford from $1,000 to $5,000, that is the max. That is the max you can take. And we will be building the infrastructure, the staffing, so that it's not just a candidate. When you're in office, you can raise money for your campaign when you're running for office,

but you may not have the assistance when it comes to press. You may not have the assistance when it comes to policy advice. Most campaigns don't have policy advisors. So we want to help candidates work through. a lot of this early on so that they have, they're ready to go, you know, when they're running and then they can take on the big beasts, which of course is the corporate, the corporate establishment. So they don't have to go to the Center for American Progress for their policy advice.

Oof, yes, I'm not good, don't go there. That's spot on top. That's very good. That's very good. You're building independent institutions on the left, so important that can actually wield power when we take it, very important. And one more question for you, Nomeki. So let's say there is a female progressive who's thinking about running for

for office, how can they reach out to you? Sure. So if you go to the website matriarch pack.com, you scroll down a little bit, there's a nominate a candidate. Some primaries are very far away, like in August, so there's still time for people to enter the race. Our nominations are open until December 1st. So if you want to get support for this election, have someone in your community nominate

you, make a good case, and then we'll send you a questionnaire back, and we're gonna be pacing out the endorsements, so obviously we have to raise money. So we're gonna try with a few at the top that have primaries sooner and need the support earlier, and then hopefully we'll be able to support more candidates as we go. I love it. I absolutely love it. All right, well, let's get to some of the news today. The impeachment investigation continues, and just when you think the testimony can't get any

more damning against Donald Trump, you have what happened today with Gordon Sondland. So let's do it. to the European Union, Gordon Sondland testified during the public hearing as part of the impeachment investigation. And remember, Sondland had previously given testimony in a closed-door hearing that made it appear as though maybe there was a defense that Republicans could rely on when it comes to Donald Trump and this very clear quid pro quo with the Ukrainian president. But today's testimony really did open the floodgates when it comes to. to Donald Trump's involvement, direct involvement in demanding investigations.

And more importantly, who told government officials, including Gordon Sondland, to work with Giuliani in order to pursue these investigations? Without further ado, let's go to the first video. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United States. We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani,

we would lose a very important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the president's orders. So again, that very last part is the most important, where he says we followed the president's orders. And if you see the headlines in response to his testimony today, oftentimes they'll be worded along the lines of Sonlin decides to protect himself rather than the president, right? Which is what some Republicans were hoping he wouldn't do. And so today his testimony, again, is very damning, it draws a direct connection between Donald

Trump and the demands for these investigations. We're at the point where it's every man for himself. And if you recall, because none of us were alive, during the Nixon impeachment, this is ultimately what got him. I mean, it wasn't even that he stepped down. He resigned before he could fully be impeached, perhaps to save the Republican Party. I'm sure there's many historians who would have different interpretations. But I personally think that's where we're going to go.

They're going to end up to try to wrap this up as soon as possible so that they can make it into this, we have Senate elections, they want to hold the Senate. If Donald Trump decides that he wants to step down, that's like a real hope there, you know, after every man for himself, then maybe Mike Pence comes in and he establishes enough strength. That's just like, you know, at this point, conspiracy, but we're dealing with the Trump administration. We have no idea what's going to happen. You know, we have members of the administration who are stepping down, quitting, who are turning

on him, and this testimony was explicitly clear and legally advised. language was legally advised to protect him. Well, let's go to a little more of that legally advised testimony. In this next clip, he throws Giuliani further down that bus or under that bus. Although we disagreed with the need to involve Mr. Giuliani, at the time we did not believe that his role was improper. As I previously testified, if I had known of all of Mr. Giuliani's dealings or his association, with individuals, some of whom are now under criminal indictment, I personally would not have acquiesced

to his participation. Still, given what we knew at the time, what we were asked to do did not appear to be wrong. So remember, Sondland was not a government official before the Trump administration. He has absolutely no expertise in governing. The only expertise he has is giving a president candidate or in the case of Donald Trump, someone who's about to be inaugurated, a million dollars. And that's how he was chosen for the position of ambassador to the European Union. So I only mention that because when you have these individuals who have no expertise in what the laws are, what governing is, they're going to move forward with a legal request, which is exactly what happened with Trump's request to launch these investigations to the Bidens.

Yeah, it looks bad. Looks like they did the thing, right? I don't know, what do you guys think? Do you think they did the crimes? I think they did the crimes. They did the crimes. Yeah, they did it. Yeah, okay. Also, you have to keep in mind that these, traditionally the political appointments go to smaller, inconsequential, you know, regions of the country, of the world, you know, countries that, like the Maldives or places that, you know, maybe great places. Wow, I look forward to all the tweets from the Maldivians. Sorry, Mildegians, but your ambassador usually is a viciously anti-Maldives. No, I'm just saying.

No, but I get what you're saying. I totally get what you're saying. Not the head of the EU, and specifically Ukraine, there's financial interests there. So I don't know what his connections are in terms of, that might be something an investigative reporter. If they haven't done so already, it would be very interesting to see, you know, Ambassador Sondland's connections to financial interests, natural gas. I mean, really, it seems like everything comes down to the Ukraine and natural gas,

and liquefied natural gas. So I'd be very curious to see why he in particular was put in charge of that role. Oh, that's, you know what, I haven't heard anyone with that take yet. And that's actually a really good point. So yeah, I think that he's realizing, look, the walls are caving in on me. And the main reason why he changed his testimony from the closed door hearing is because all those other government officials who testified against Trump did not corroborate what

Gordon Sondland was saying, right? And so look, I, you're right, Nando, they did the thing, it's so obvious. And the evidence just keeps piling on. Right there. They did it. It says it right there in black and white. They did the thing. And these are not, you know, Democrats from the opposing party.

No. And this individual that we're talking about right now, Gordon Sondland, is not a never-Trumper. He gave Trump a million dollars. This guy's a hotel business like magnate who, you know, classic dumb guy fashion thought that he could enter a respectful society by buying an ambassadorship to the EU, because it sounds important to a guy like him. him and he thinks he could get into like the cool parties now. He thought it was gonna be fun. He thought it was gonna be buckets of fun.

And it's- He has to like, you know, do crimes with Giuliani. That sounds like a nightmare. Well, let's quickly talk about the notion of a quid pro quo. As we all know, Republicans kept arguing there's no evidence of a quid pro quo, no quid pro quo. Trump keeps saying that there was no quid pro quo. But what did Gordon Sondland have to say about that? I know that members of this committee.

frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes. So he says there absolutely was a quid pro quo, and the testimony, even in his opening statement, was so damning that you have a Trump loyalist like Devin Nunes looking like White in the face? I mean, let's show the video and everyone can judge for themselves.

That concludes our 45 minutes, I now recognize Mr. Nunes. Oh, okay. Why don't we take a five or ten minute break? Thank you. All right, so that was explosive testimony there. Yeah, that's the Curb Your Enthusiasm theme. Do you do. Zoom in.

Full circle. Yeah. Look, when you have the truth on your side, there's nothing more liberating than that, right? Just be an honest person. I mean, by the way, that goes for Democrats as well. Acknowledge the fact that Hunter Biden working on that board was a bad idea. It was a conflict of interest and it didn't look good. And it's something that Republicans can, I think, in a very credible way, latch on to.

And so why don't you undermine the power that they have by saying, you know what, Biden did make a bad decision. His son shouldn't have been on that board. But this is very different. That might have been an abuse of power or nepotism. In this case, we're talking about Trump trying to create an avenue for foreign government to meddle in our elections. I think ultimately, you know, what we were just saying about the natural gas, that's really what the – there's the fight out in front about Russia versus America. and like, you know, these interests, the oligarchs versus the American oligarchs. But what he really comes down to you is Secretary Clinton was in a battle with Putin, remember

the Russian reset, over natural gas, over exploring the Arctic for natural gas and oil. And the Ukraine, you know, has a pipeline there. It's a key part of this. And the EU, of course, was, was, has banned natural gas, has taken a big stand on this issue. And the less unified the EU is, including the UK, the more. Putin has a stake in this. And so I think the Democrats, from their perspective, that would uncover, you know, who really wants to have this territory and our own conflicts.

I'm not saying what Putin was doing was right or wrong or there's this Russian conspiracy. I'm saying that the Ukraine, this is all about natural gas assets. That's what Barista or whatever the organization is. Burisma, yeah. Barista, like AOC. She was involved in it somehow too. Okay, so they did the thing, let's game it out. They did the thing, the testimony from Gordon Sondland says he did the thing.

Let's game this out. What happens? Yeah. Well, I think that he's gonna be impeached in the House, and that's what the House does, right? But that doesn't mean that Trump is gonna be removed from office. Then it goes to the Senate, and the Senate gets to decide whether they're gonna convict Trump on the articles of impeachment. So really, I don't know how it's gonna play out in the Senate.

I know that everyone is already convinced that Republicans overwhelmingly are going to support Trump. But there are some cracks beginning to form because the evidence presented in this testimony or in the various examples of testimony show that Trump did it. It's clear. There's clear linkage of Trump to the calls for the investigation. He did freeze the military aid. So I don't know how it's going to play out in the Senate. Look, for me, this is not simply about like I hate Trump and I want to get rid of him, right?

For anyone who thinks that that should be the only motivating factor, you're wrong. because that sets a terrible precedent. For me, it is about protecting our elections. It is about, more importantly, ensuring that a person in a position of power isn't above the law. And so senators, Republican senators, don't want to be on the record voting against convicting Trump. That's why they're so afraid of what's going on right now. I want them on that record. Because I want them to basically say, yeah, the president is above the law.

he can go ahead and undermine our democracy by having a political or a foreign government launch a political investigation into his opponent. And there was a, there was a sort of line that was out there before the impeachment thing that said, you know, oh, you impeach Trump and you're only going to rally his supporters more and make it more popular. But, you know, after 2016, 2015, those years, I've stopped trying to make political predictions. I have no idea how it's going to play to the public, I stopped making those predictions a long time ago, it does look like Trump's numbers are down, so maybe this whole impeachment

thing is probably up to the best. His loyal supporters are his loyal supporters, but I think that the Democrats have to be careful of here is if it does drag out, you know, there's, this is surface level testimony right now. If it was truly a court case, which it's not, and you know, quid pro quo is not necessarily a legal battle that we're gonna be fighting, if it goes to the Senate, how deep are they going to go? And once you go that deep, that's when Joe Biden's name and Hunter Biden are gonna be repeated

over and over. Why was Hunter Biden on the board? What was the board doing? You know, what was this really about? And of course, that's what Donald Trump wants, because his entire motive was, you know, it went back to that server. It went back to 2016, you know, grab that server that the Ukrainians had. It really, it's this delicate balance that the Democrats, the establishment Democrats and the

establishment Republicans, you know, and their deep state, they're battling it out. But the populace, I think, are the ones that are going to win. So if- So maybe he's all for the best. That's why it destroys Biden's campaign, that's a net positive. And look, besides, outside of, you know, political strategy and trying to predict what's going to be best for candidates, for me, it's just about. They did the bad thing and they should probably be punished. Yeah, for me, that's what it's about. It's as simple as that, right?

And I know people probably won't believe this, but I would feel the same way if it was a Democrat in office. Yeah, of course. I 100% believe it. Yeah, I mean, we certainly were not nice about Obama. What was wrongdoings when we were, you know. Those stupid Democrats under the bus. Let's bring up drones while we're here. Yeah.

Can we weave that in drones now? Obama's deportation policy, let's impeach him for that. Well, that was definitely terrible policy and we called him out. And so that's the right thing to do, right? Someone in a position of power should be called out when they abuse that power. So I want to read just a few member comments in regard to this story. Gabby Marito writes in and says, I am 100% with Anna. If Democrats had any spine, they'd outflank Republicans and call Hunter Biden to testify.

then turn to Nunes and Jordan and say, pick one, Jared or Ivanka? That is such a good point, right? That's good. Javanka. Javanka. I know what Javanka Beckles is amazing. I don't want to loop her into that. No, not her.

Gabby, thank you so much for your comment. And if you are not a member and you want to chime in on the stories as we cover them, just go to TYT.com slash join. You can become a member. And not only do you get perks like this, you help to support the show, you help keep us independent. independent. All right, we're gonna take a quick break. When we come back, we have some more news on how Republicans are handling this damning

testimony. Come right back. Welcome back to TYT, Anna, Nando and Nomeiki with you. All right, I wanted to give you a quick update on some of our debate coverage tonight. There is a Democratic debate happening today in Georgia, and we will be providing some special coverage. So right after the main show, there will be a special video for you guys featuring what went down during our rally in Atlanta. So make sure you check that out. You can watch it live at YouTube.com slash TYT. And then our main coverage for the debate will take place

obviously on this channel. It's the fifth Democratic debate, and we'll go live at 11 p.m. Eastern Time, 8 p.m. Pacific. On the panel, we have John Ida Rola, Ida Rodriguez. myself and J.R. Jackson. Wow. Woohoo! So go to TYT.com slash live to watch us live. It's gonna be good. Yeah.

Yeah. All right, so a few TYT lives from Twitter. Mandy writes in and says, Sondland is spilling all the tea. He is just worried about himself, right? I mean, it's all selfish reasons. He's like, I can't be the only one lying up here. Well, he's not gonna go to jail like those other goons. What do they know their names anymore?

I never get excited about the possibility of anyone going to jail. anyone going to jail. True. Yeah. Well, I mean, look, to be fair. I'm kidding. Well, you know what, Anna, like you are a very, very enlightened person to say that. I don't know if, no, no, no, you're getting me wrong.

I don't like to get myself overly excited for something that might not happen. Like it would be disappointing. Right, okay, got it. I thought it was like a religious thing, like no one deserves that kind of punishment. Oh, no, I would love to see Trump in jail. Are you kidding me? That'd be awesome. Bernie beats Trump writes it and says, I love Nomeiki Cons's voice.

I have it on, but I'm walking around the house. I find myself listening closer when No Miki is talking. Love you to Anna Kasparian and Nandoviel. Well, that's all for the best. Don't listen when I speak. That's the most important thing you can do. What do you say? You're crazy.

All right. I hope you heard that. I said stop it to him. Okay, so let's get to how Republicans are handling Sondland's testimony today. The impeachment investigation into Donald Trump is so disastrous for Trump that Republicans who are loyalists to him are having a difficult time figuring out how to defend him. Now if you can recall in the beginning, they would argue and just parrot what Trump says, that there's no quid pro quo, that there was no quid pro quo between Donald Trump and Vladimir

Zelensky, the Ukrainian president. But now things are changing because Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, has testified and made it abundantly clear that there absolutely was a quid pro quo. And so let me give you the details on how Republicans are responding. When the claims first surfaced in a whistleblower complaint, remember, Republicans said that if true, they might be forced to consider impeachment. But that's off now, okay? It's gone from there is no quid pro quo to there's a quid pro quo, but not a pro

to even if there was a quid pro quo, it's not that bad. This is just how things are done. You can say it's bad, but it's not impeachable. That sounds like a tongue twister, like how much wood could it would chuck chuck if a wood could pro quo, quote, prude. Yeah, yeah. That's good. That was, I mean, it wasn't an easy graphic to read, but that's not a statement. That's not a statement from a journalist.

That's a statement from a top GOP aide who spoke to the Washington examiner on condition of anonymity. But let me give you some statements from actual lawmakers that kind of displays or demonstrates this, right? So Representative Mike Conway says asking people to do something in order to get the foreign aid. That's a relatively common occurrence with all of our foreign aid. You could say all of our foreign aid is quid pro quo. Well, see, that's, that's, I love it when this is like a great thing about the Republican era in this, like the Trump era basically, is that they say the thing that they're not supposed to say out loud, they just say it out loud. And yes, it is true that the United States uses foreign aid as a sort of weapon to, you know, further its empire and all that stuff.

It's not- But you, first of all, I agree with you that it's problematic when they do that to benefit the empire, right? But they do it to benefit the empire. In this case, with Trump, it's for his own personal political. Obviously, but I'm saying like that he just said it like, well, you could argue that all are our foreign aid is like, comes with strings attached and like, yes, you could argue and you should. And all those weapons that are being used against us, we invested in a few years ago. I mean, we could talk about that, too. Yeah, totally. And, you know, throughout the impeachment hearings, you actually do hear that come up,

and they're very candid about that, about how, you know, it was very important for that military aid to get to Ukraine, not because the United States actually cares about the well-being of Ukraine, but because the United States wants to mitigate the power and influence of Russia. Right. And so, and they're clear and honest about that. They're worried about how this affects U.S. foreign policy, not how it affects Ukrainian policy. Well, I think that's also just, I mean, when you think about when in the early 80s, Reagan-era foreign policy, and I mean, that was how it was interpreted then.

And then it really took the modern-day Democratic Party, the establishment Democratic Party, to be like, no, we're about stabilizing the world and democratizing the world, which was all code for. Right. We're not as brutal as they are, but we're still pretty brutal. We just don't advertise it. Liberal interventionism. That's the proper term. Yeah. So then you have Representative Tom Cole, again, another Republican saying of the quid pro quo,

which is very clear now, it doesn't matter much anymore. Oh, okay, okay, yeah. And then David Drucker, David Drucker from the Washington Examiner writes, a House Republican estimated that even in the presence of a clear and unmistakable smoking gun, which we did get today, by the way, implicating Trump in a quid pro quo, there are maybe 10 GOP congressmen that would consider impeachment. Now, you could take that in two different ways. The way that I take it is, this is awesome, I mean, that's all you really need in the Senate, right?

But I mean, actually, I don't know if they're talking about, they're probably talking about the House of Representatives, so in that case it doesn't matter. Yeah. God, it's so devastating how much they stand by Trump and how much they're willing to defend his behavior in this case. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting to imagine the counterfeit. of like this happening to a Democrat. Like I say the Democrats had nominated some

cartoonish goon, like, I don't know, whatever. And, um, and this. What's the big billionaire in Texas? Mark Cuban. Mark Cuban. Yeah. And, um, and like something like this was going on.

Like how quickly would the Democratic Party like abandoned him? Oh. Oh, immediately. Are you kidding me? Like at the first sign of trouble. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, look, look what Nancy Pelosi.

We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-Fitting the Roe-Hing the Roeigh. Republic, or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical

episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it. You must have learned 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. Was very close with Katie Hill. And as soon as there was a little bit of what Nancy Pelosi referred to as a distraction.

Wow, she pressured him, pressured her to resign. So it's just, yeah, you're right. Democrats are spineless and they cower when it comes to any type of bullying from the opposite party. But with that said, I mean, this is how Republican lawmakers are responding to it. How is Trump trying to defend himself against Sondland's testimony? Well, it's confusing and it makes no sense, which you're about to see in the late. latest edition of Chopper Talk. I just noticed one thing, and I would say that means it's all over.

What do you want from Ukraine? He asks me, screaming, what do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories. This is Ambassador Sondland speaking to me. Just happened, to which I turned off the television. What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories. What do you want?

What do you want? It was a very short and abrupt conversation that he had with me. They said he was not in a good mood. I'm always in a good mood. I don't know what that is. He just said, now he's talking about what my response. So he's going, what do you want? What do you want?

I hear all these theories. What do you want, right? And now, here's my response that he gave. Just gave. Ready? You have the cameras rolling? I want nothing. That's what I want from Ukraine. That's what I said.

I want nothing. I said it twice. But here's my response. Now, if you weren't fake news, you'd cover it properly. I say to the ambassador in response, I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelensky, President Zelensky to do the right thing. I want no quid pro quo.

Yeah, yeah. So look, he is reading the back and forth that Sondland testified about, right? I just want to know that it was all handwritten on his papers. Amazing. But he, of course, there's an example, that's what we're like. No quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky. To do the right thing.

But what he did was he took a small portion of Sondland's testimony to make it appear as though, hey, this is all the evidence you need, there was no quid pro quo. But Sondland made it clear that even though Trump didn't explicitly say quid pro quo or that he was pursuing this in order to get something in return politically, it was obvious. I think he used language like, I mean, 2 plus 2 equals 4. Right. Right. It's obvious that what he was looking for and what he demanded was that politically charged investigation

into his political opponent. Donald Trump right now is probably being advised, if he ever takes advice, that he has one job, and that is to make sure that his base still believes in him because the Republican party, those senators who are not going to turn on him, depend on that base to get elected. That's true. They're tied to him. They're tied to his insane popularity. And really, this is why it's so important that people around him start to drop like flies

because those senators that are going to be on the fence that are in Utah or in New Mexico, states that are not very, don't have strong Trump bases. You know, they're the ones. They're the swing votes that are going to say, is it worth my integrity? Is it worth my career? Is it worth, you know, the Republican Party to continue to back this guy when he's making decisions like this? So I think it's a distraction.

That is all about, like, strong messaging to counter, you know, lengthy testimony. Definitely, and it's really not working, right? So you're right in saying like his base is his base, they're gonna support him no matter what, but there are other policies that Trump has pursued that have hurt members of his base who are slowly starting to turn on him. So for instance, farmers in Kansas are like, this trade war is really hurting us and we're not gonna vote for him again. And so Mike Pompeo is thinking about, you know, leaving the White House and running for

Senate in Kansas, but it's not an open and shut case anymore because a lot of the voters there are not pleased with the Trump administration. So, but with that said, I do want to go to one other aspect of this story that I just find hilarious, and it's Trump's denials about whether he even knows Sondland. So after Gordon Sondland gave damning testimony against Donald Trump showing that Trump did directly ask him to pursue the investigations into the political opponent and that there was a quid pro quo, Trump has decided to defend himself in a really strange way, except it's not that strange.

He does this with a lot of people in his own administration. Take a look. He finally gets me, I don't know him very well, I have not spoken to him much. This is not a man I know well. Seems like a nice guy though, but I don't know him well. He was with other candidates. He actually supported other candidates, not mean, came in late. So what did Sondland say about his relationship with Trump during?

the public hearing. Well, let's take a look. Well, he also testified that you confirmed to President Trump that you were in Ukraine at the time and that President Zelensky, quote, loves your ass, unquote. Do you recall saying that? Yeah, it sounds like something I would say. That's how President Trump and I communicate, a lot of four-letter words. In this case, three-letter.

A couple of guys. Seems like Sondland and Trump knew each other well enough to talk to each other that way. On a bus with Billy Bush. Just, you know, he knew he was asked. That's how I talked to all my friends. Love your ass. So if we were to believe Trump, that's the way that he and Sondland communicate when they don't even really know. Yeah, it's the classic, like, mafia guy thing.

I don't even know him that well. It seems like a nice guy. Be shamed if anything happened to him. Yeah, that was basically it. Yeah. Donated a million dollars to Trump's inauguration. Yeah, it's like book Ted Nugent at this inauguration that no one wanted to play in. The whole thing is just so, it's just such a show.

I can't, yeah, I can't say it anymore on Young Turks, but yeah. Yes, a show. It's a type of show. I mean, it's only a million dollars, guys, come on. Yeah, yeah. How do you forget about that? He got the EU for a million dollars? I mean, usually that goes for like 50.

Exactly. Well, all right, why don't we take a break? When we come back, we're gonna switch gears and move on. I wanna talk about foreign policy, how Elizabeth Warren is weighing in on Venezuela and Bolivia. And then later we will discuss a recent house hearing on private equity firms where, unsurprisingly, AOC came out on top. We'll be right back. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from The Young Turks.

If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free segment. Hey guys, welcome back to TYT, Anna, Nando, and Nomeiki with you. A few super chats before we move on. Rowdy says, Solomon's testimony was bad enough that the most delusional fake news trumper I've met said, oh, he's done after that. opening statement.

Ooh. Yeah, it was bad, right? Like, how do you, because you can't call Rowdy, I mean, not Rowdy, you can't call Sonlin a never-Trumper. Right. No. You can't call a guy who gave Trump a million bucks a never-trumper. So I think that's such a great point.

Self-loathing says, lock him up. And by the way, it's just the handle. No, no, I know. Yeah. On YouTube, which makes sense. Right. And then I'm not saying anything about this person, it's just, you know, YouTube, anyone who reads the regular comments, he's experiencing some self-loathing.

And then one quick question, I don't want to spend too much time on this because we've got to move on, but Adriana asks, hey Turks, who do you think would be a good VP pick for Bernie? I'm thinking Rokana. You guys have any thoughts? Usually it has to do with geography and demographics. So I really think we have to see how this pans out in the next few months, meaning how the Democratic Party comes together.

Maybe it's somebody who's not running right now, maybe it's somebody who's in-I think a woman would be fantastic. Yeah. You know, make some history while we're at it and somebody who has a little bit of experience under their belt. Yeah. But I don't know, I mean, it really comes down to what is needed to win. Yeah, I think, I mean, I've floated some names out there, but I think Nina Turner would

be a really good, you know, option. She's, we're gonna talk about her later in the show. She gave a fiery speech about Pete Buttigieg. And she's from Ohio, right? And she's, yeah. Yeah, so that's a good state to be from. Yeah, I think there's lots of good options out there. And I agree with you, I would like to see him choose a female.

Yeah, yeah. I think that would be good. Yeah. And somebody who might be able to excite the centrist, I can't believe I'm saying that. Not a sentence candidate, yep. But like, there's so much Bernie hate that we really, to beat Trump, we don't want people staying home the way that the left base stayed home when Hillary ran because Hillary was checked out.

So is there somebody who is progressive, you know, but also- Well, the problem is Warren would abandon her Massachusetts Senate seat. And then Joe Kennedy would duplicate and, I don't know, he's already ready. Or they would lose it to a Republican. You never know. Yeah, just stuff to think about. But we got to move on. Stacey Abrams might be a good?

Yeah, Stacey. Okay, okay, but we got to move on. Speaking of Elizabeth Warren, she's in the news. She's getting a lot of criticism over some of her statements in regard to foreign policy. So let's discuss that. For anyone paying close attention to Elizabeth Warren and her record, Ford policy tends to be an Achilles heel. And nothing made that clearer than some of the recent statements she made on what's happening in Latin American countries. Now first, let's start off with her take on Bolivia, which was not good because there was clearly a military coup in Bolivia.

This is a story that we've talked about on this show. We gave you the specific reasons why this is absolutely a military coup. coup, but the simple way of understanding this is the military forced Evo Morales, the leader of Bolivia, out of the country. He's gone, and he had won the election, even though an American-backed organization known as the OAS argues that he did not, right? So again, the OAS is 60% funded by the United States, and both Donald Trump and Marco Rubio wanted Evo Morales, a leftist president, out.

So that's the context you should know about. But here's what her take on Bolivia was via Twitter. She said, the Bolivian people deserve free and fair elections as soon as possible. Bolivia's interim leadership must limit itself to preparing for an early legitimate election. Bolivia's security forces must protect demonstrators, not commit violence against them. Now, the reality is there was a coup. She did not call it a coup. And according to common dreams, the coup on November.

November 10th resulted in a democratically elected Morales being forced to resign from office. Morales fled Bolivia for Mexico days after. Senator Janine Agnes, a right-wing Christian extremist, unilaterally declared herself president. So where's the democracy in that, right? And then Ryan Grim chined in as well and said the interim leadership has already threatened to arrest elected lawmakers in Morales' party for sedition while killing people. in the streets, and by the way, who are they killing in the streets, protesters, many of whom are indigenous people in Bolivia.

So the violence against them, the brutality against them has been absolutely horrific. And Warren's take does differ quite a bit from what we saw from Bernie Sanders. So I'm actually gonna skip ahead, guys. I wanna go to video D2. Recently, Jorge Ramos was asking Bernie Sanders about the situation in Bolivia, and let's hear what he had to say. Wrote in a tweet that you thought it was a military to cook what happened in Bolivia. Many people have other point of view.

They think that Evo Morales had been in power 14 years, that he wanted to fight more, and that he wanted to become a dictator. So what do you think? No, I don't agree with that assertion. I think Morales did a very good job in alleviating poverty in giving the indigenous. people of Bolivia, a voice that they never had before. Now, we can argue about his going for a fourth term, whether that was a wise thing to do.

And they always thought it was a fraud, the election on October the 20th. Some people think that as well. But at the end of the day, it was the military who intervened in that process and asked them to leave. When the military intervenes, in my view, that's called a coup. So Bernie Sanders is very clear in calling it a coup. You just saw that in the video. And so what do you guys make of this? I mean, for someone who's paying close attention to Elizabeth Warren's record on foreign policy,

stuff like this really stands out because she has consistently voted in favor of increasing military funding, military spending. In fact, she offered more than what Trump had asked for. And when our very own Emma Vigland, one of our reporters asked her about it, she dodged that question. So I just want to give you the full context. What do you guys think? So I think much like her comments on the fundamental goodness of capitalism and how it's just this good thing that's only ruined because there's certain bad actors here and there that corrupt the system. But that if we just kind of get those guys out, everything works fine. I think she has a similar view in terms of how the world works, and especially the US's

role in the world, which she probably believes is fundamentally good, say for a few mistakes here and there, like Iraq, which was a mistake that killed hundreds of thousands of people, but a mistake nonetheless, rather than seeing it as this sort of comprehensive imperial project. And what that does is it causes her to look at these issues in isolation. She's used to taking something like Bolivia and be like, okay, well, let me, let me do the homework on Bolivia, okay, da, dda, you know, and you don't really need to be an expert on Bolivia to see what's going on. You just have to have a coherent worldview and an understanding of history and how this plays

out the same exact way time and time again. It's almost like they have the same script that they're reading over and over again, In Latin America, especially, the vast majority of countries are resource rich, and they are dominated by maybe five families that own everything in the country. Those five families are supported by the United States, militarily, and through intelligence agencies, and through all manner of diplomatic support. And then starting around the 1950s and 1960s, the people of those countries decided they'd had enough, and they rebelled against that corrupt arrangement.

And the United States did everything possible to. stop that. You know, we supported military coups in Guatemala, in Chile, in Brazil, in Argentina, you name it, Cuba. Chile and Nicaragua. Yeah, it's not even ancient history. You know, we supported a coup in Venezuela in 2002, we supported the coup in Honduras in 2009. It's just what we do the same script over and over again.

So- And it's always against leftist leaders who want, who run on and win with economic populist campaign. supporting the poor people in their country, which is what Evo Morales did. Evo Morales, 14 years ago came to power, first indigenous president in the history of Bolivia. He grew the economy by over 40% in the time that he was there. He reduced poverty by 25%, so reduced it by a quarter. That's amazing. And for that crime of daring to direct some of his country's vast resources to the poorest in his society, he was removed from office.

And that's fundamentally, that's the game, and that's what it is. And anyone who is steeped in this, like Bernie has been his whole career, you know, he invited Noam Chomsky to come speak when he was mayor of Burlington. I mean, he understands the game and how it works. Yeah, and I'm gonna provide some video evidence of that in just a minute. But before I do, Nomiki, do you want to jump in? Well, I mean, I think you've laid out the history perfectly well. What I'm curious, and I have so many debates right now.

Yeah. It's interesting to me that there's not been one debate on climate change, right? Right. foreign policy because the history of the Democratic Party, there's always a foreign policy debate. When Hillary Clinton was running, it was all about strength. It was a response to being swift-boated in 2004. There were organizations that were founded to literally counter Republicans on foreign policy to show that the Democratic Party is strong on foreign policy.

Yet, while you have Bernie Sanders in this race, there is no foreign policy discussion. So- You're so right. I'm glad that that question was brought up, but it is not being raised appropriate. so that there is a stark dynamic between all of the candidates, including Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders. Yes, I love that you brought that up as well because, and check out my discussion with Medi Hassan on No Filter because we did discuss the fact that there have, there hasn't been much focus on foreign policy during the debates, but he did a good job in differentiating

between Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard when it comes to foreign policy. But I do want to provide some evidence to what Nando said. And by the way, I had no idea that was going to be your commentary. What did I say? How Bernie Sanders has really been steeped in these issues. And there was a video that surfaced on Twitter recently that features Bernie. This is back in, I believe, the 1990s. And he's shredding the Clinton treasury over IMF exploitation of the Global South.

Okay, so there's two clips. Let's start off with the first one. The IMF historically does not have a good record in terms of the poor people of various countries. You mentioned Mexico, Mr. Summers, and your pride that Mexico repaid their loan, and we got a big interest rate back. Boy, we made money. Do you know what's going on in Mexico today? Do you know that working people have seen a significant decline in their wages? They've got millions of kids who are working for no money at all, and you're sitting here telling us how proud you are we made money. So the suffering children and the unemployed workers of Mexico have paid us back and we're gloating

about it. Some of us think that maybe the function of the IMF or the United States of government should have picked up the poor people of the world, not push them down further. 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 baked 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 of everything. 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.

So that was his take on the IMF then. I'm sure that's his take on the IMF today because the same issues unfortunately persist. But then he goes into some specifics when it comes. to Indonesia, okay? And pay close attention because it is relevant given the context of the Bolivia story. Take a look. In terms of Indonesia, this administration has an exceedingly strong commitment to human rights. They have missed something, but those are the ones that I- Well, you did, but once again, I gather you're not telling General Suharto to free the leader

of the union movement who's rotting in jail now, despite the fact that our law requires us to do that. You're not saying that. I, well, I could repeat what I, I'm, I'm, I'm You're not saying that. I am sticking with what I just said. Well, I'm sure the people of Indonesia do not appreciate that. I agree with the fervor with which you deal with them. The people in Indonesia are going to be vastly worse off if we can't, working with the international community, help Indonesia solve the problem that they now face. The people of Indonesia have the right to stand up and fight for their rights and their leader is in jail now, and you are tolerating that situation.

I certainly agree they have a right to stand up and fight for their rights. I think inappropriately jailing people, and I actually don't want to come in the particular I mean, appropriately jailing people is something that should, that is most reprehensible and we view with the greatest concern. But we are giving him billions of dollars and not asking him to free his political prisms. Yeah. So look, I think records matter, and I think consistency matters, and he has spoken out against

the political imprisonment of people like Lula de Silva in Brazil. No other presidential candidate has mentioned that. No other presidential candidate has called what happened in Bolivia what it is, a coup. Bernie Sanders is the only one who's done that. And so these things matter because it's not just about domestic policy. All of this stuff is connected, right? And if your worldview on American foreign policy is, no, no, we just want to spread democracy. We're the good guys and you're just, you know, discounting or more importantly, like failing

to acknowledge how disastrous U.S. foreign policy has been and how much it's actually destabilized various regions of the world, well then you're either asleep or you're being disingenuous. Because democracy is a brand to these people. It's not actually, if anybody is questioning at this point, it is not about democracy. Democracy is letting people self-determine what their futures are, whether it's Puerto Rico on our own land, letting them self-determine, or the people of Bolivia, letting them self-determine who their leader is and what kind of economy they want and what rights they want.

It's our side is democracy building is essentially oligarch empowering. That's right. We want to place a leader in charge who's going to give us the Americans what we want. That's what we've done in several Latin American countries. And to that end, Elizabeth Warren's views on Venezuela, also disastrous. is actually very much in line with Donald Trump on that issue. So I just have one more video to show you. This is her speaking to, I believe, one of the Pod Save podcasts.

Let's take a look. The Trump administration has recognized the National Assembly President Juan Guido as the president and encouraged a bunch of other countries to follow suit. And frankly, what was a pretty impressive diplomatic play by them. He also sanctioned Venezuela's oil industry, which is a major step, which could cut off all their supply of dollars and their ability to, you know, have an economy. Do you agree with those two steps recognizing Guido and the sanctions on the oil sector? And if so, I mean, how do we back up a step as bold as saying there's a new president and it's this guy that we named, especially

given our history in Latin America? So I want to broaden this one out just a little bit. Start with the fact that Maduro is obviously a dictator. He's terrible. He's stolen this election. It's a nightmare. It's a nightmare for the people of Venezuela. So that's part one. Part two, this notion of using our diplomatic tools, I'm all for it. I think recognition, I think getting our allies to do it, it's a way to bring diplomatic pressure. Economic sanctions, yeah, I support economic sanctions, but now we're going to start, we've got to turn the dial some here. We have to offer humanitarian help at the same time. She also backs Juan Guaido, who is the person who the U.S. wanted to put in charge in the most recent failed military coup in Venezuela.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, the fact that she takes aside in the conflict in Venezuela, which is, you know, developed into pretty serious social conflict between, you know, two large sectors of the population, just shows the game right there. I mean, yes, the situation in Venezuela has deteriorated to the point where it's probably wise to get some sort of international commission to oversee new elections. Not recognize the, you know, right-wing loon who, you know, can't gather enough supporters to even launch, they just try to do another big demonstration, it was a total disaster.

You shouldn't be picking sides in this situation. If the situation has gotten so poor that you need to oversee new elections, then yes, Yes, internationally seen over elections would probably be for the best. But to pick one side over the other is just lunacy at this point. Real quick on that. I find it amazing that she picks sides in that, but she can't pick sides when it comes to whether or not this is a coup or not or taking a strong stand on so many issues that determine a strong stand.

So siding with Trump and a far right winger, that's pretty bold. So look, she needs to be clearer in how she would pursue these foreign policy decisions. Right now we're going off of, you know, a podcast interview and a tweet. I think that it's an issue that she's purposely stayed away from because of her record. And by the way, her record's not so great when it comes to picking sides with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So these are things to pay close attention to.

It's not just about domestic policy. It's not just about, you know, who has the most detailed blog post. It's about who would be the best leader comprehensively. So we gotta move on to the next story. And it has to do it, I know, a little dig, I'm sorry. All right, so let's move on to private equity. The House Financial Services Committee recently had a hearing about private equity firms. Now it got fiery because the party that's supposed to be more critical of these private equity firms, which have destroyed several U.S. businesses throughout the years, decided

no, we're gonna go ahead and try to protect private equity firms because a lot of them actually fund our campaigns. Now, they didn't say that quiet part out loud, but that's what's really going on. Now the title of this hearing was America for sale, and one of the only people who was blunt and honest about that was Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who continues to be the voice of reason when it comes to these issues. Now, what do private equity firms do? Why were they having a hearing about this?

Well, the so-called leverage buyout firms borrow money to take over companies and then saddle them with debt, sometimes resulting in the takeover targets going bust. So that's certainly what happened with Toys R Us. That was one of the more recent examples. Tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs as a result of that. And so while all of these questionable people on the Democratic side were defending private equity firms, AOC decided to speak truth, and here it is. The first question that I hear from so many members are how are the returns, but the returns are great, aren't they? How are the returns? And I wasn't sent here to safeguard and protect profit. I was sent here to safeguard and protect people. And we're talking about raining in private equity, which is responsible for wiping out tens of thousands of jobs at toys or us alone. And then we're hearing, but what about, you know,

the companies that made 100 jobs here or 200 jobs there. Toys R Us, 30,000 jobs wiped out, Shopgo, 14,000 jobs, Brookstone, David's Bridal, pay less, not to mention the impacts, the undemocratic impacts on media companies, splinter, deadspin, sports illustrated, local and regional newspapers. In the last 10 years, private equity is behind 597,000 lost jobs. And it's not just about the number of jobs. Isn't that right? Right, Ms. Della Rosa. It's about the quality of jobs, right? When private equity took over Toys R Us, did you see folks' work schedules get cut back? Yes, definitely. Did you see people's benefits in some other ways cut back? Yes. So I love everything that she said there because

it is the truth. And she gives a voice to the voiceless. People who have been, you know, victimized by these private equity firms who haven't gotten nearly enough coverage in the news and have just been kind of tossed aside and it's devastating. Nando, you said that you've experienced this firsthand. Oh yeah, I mean, when I worked at Univision, which in 2007 was taken private, it was a public company, was taken private in the largest leverage buyout in media history. And it was a group of private equity firms, they borrowed a bunch of money, took the company private, And then they transfer the debt from themselves to the company which they bought.

And I remember asking people like that no finance, I'm like, wait, so I want to buy this cup, but I don't have the $10 to buy this cup. So I borrow the money from Nomiki. She gives me the $10 and then I buy the cup. But then I don't have the debt to Nomiki. The cup has the debt to Nomiki. So I can just kind of use the company to pay myself fees and dividends and all kinds of things. But if something were to happen to the cup, I don't have to pay back, Nomiki, the cup is liable

for it. Right, right. How is that legal? I don't understand, like, you're not on the hook, you're the person who did the thing. How are you not on the hook? So the whole point of this hearing is to pass regulations that would make that illegal right, right? And so that's the reason why they're having this hearing, and the Democratic Party, several

members of the Democratic Party who were part of this committee decided to defend the private equity firms. And I want to give you just a few examples, and then Nomeki, I want you to chime in. So just to give you a few examples, Representative Gregory Meeks said he was actually trying to attract private equity dollars to a minority owned company at risk of failing. Well, if they're at risk of failing now, the involvement of a private equity firm could just destroy them completely, right? Representative Brad Sherman said he was not hostile to private equity.

and that the industry was being attacked for doing things that are done elsewhere in our economy. Then maybe we should do something about the fact that this is happening, not just with private equity firms, but elsewhere in the economy. This is a disaster, right? So the list goes on and on. Representative Josh Gothamor highlighted investment returns of private equity funds that beat the stock market. Great. whose former staffer now lobbies for the industry touted private equities returns for pension funds serving teachers and firefighters.

It's just- So this is ultimately, oh, I have so much to say this. Number one, Gregory Meeks. For those of you who wondered what happened to Joe Crowley, Gregory Meeks now has his role in the Queens County Democratic Party. That's an integral part of New York power, aka where Wall Street is headquartered. So just keep that in mind. And Brad Sherman once ran in the most expensive house race in history, I wonder how much of that money came from rich, wealthy, private equity people.

And of course, Josh Gothamor, we've just, it was your district, yes. Josh Gothamor, you know, he mentioned unions. Now this is, there are two avenues that the indefensible arguments take when they want to shift gears. Well, unions rely on this money because of their pensions. And a lot of unions are trying to get off of that pension. especially more progressive unions like CWA, communications workers of America, which has the flight attendance workers, and of course, the national nurses, right? So these are the types of progressive unions we're trying to veer away from this private equity

money, because ultimately this comes down to a business model which hit us in the housing crisis, hits us, you know, regularly, hits media companies, it hits everybody. You know, you started off killing small businesses in the mid-90s, right? The Walmarts came in, killed the small businesses and communities. Now, Walmarts are dying, and the bookstores were dying because, you know, they were taken over by Barnes & Noble. Well, now you've got the Amazon's taking over the Walmarts and everything is becoming monopolized, literally monopolized. And it's dependent on quarterly profits. The entire economic system, in my opinion, is flawed in that we're tying everything from elections to our financial institutions to quarterly profits, which influences our foreign policy, which influences weapons trading, which influences how people.

People are making money. I mean, this is ultimately the problem. I want a hearing on that. Yeah. Seriously. Yeah, and you know, private equity is a relatively new thing. I mean, it basically started in the 1970s. One of the original innovators was a guy named Mitt Romney, who may remember.

He founded Bain Capital. He was an employee at Bain, which is a large consulting group, and he did an offshoot called Bain Capital, basically made the industry mainstream. They used to be the big enemy for the Democratic Party. I remember Barack Obama ran against private equity. In 2012, I remember Corey Booker came out and almost teared up when he defended private equity on Meet the Press. Oh, I forgot about that. Oh, my God.

He was attacks on private equity. I mean, it's like, there are attacks right in here. And so it's a new thing. It's not like, you know, because often we're led to believe that these things are just the way they are. It's just the way things are. And you're naive if you think that they could be any different. I'm like, no, this thing is new. Like we could go back to like when this thing didn't exist.

Let's just take it away. We can use the power of government to take these things away. You're absolutely right. They're facilitators of the 1%, the 1% of the 1%, that is the facilitation of that. Exactly. And so when they wonder why people, and I'm specifically talking about democratic lawmakers, when they're wondering why people are staying at home during the elections and refusing to vote for them, even if their challenger or opponent is a monster, understand it's because

they see this stuff, people are paying attention. So if they feel like you're not representing them and you're not actually looking out for their best interests, what good is it to stand in a long line and vote for them? for you. You got to give them something to vote for. You don't think that there are going to be long lines for President-elect Deval Patrick? Former chairman. Bain Capital. Who worked in being Capitol until yesterday. So, all right. Nandovila, Nomi Kans. Thank you so much. So good to have you back in the studio. I hope you guys enjoyed hour one. Good luck with Maytrak. Thank you. Yes. Beatrick. All right. And then for our two, we're going to have a whole new

panel. Adrian Lawrence and J.R. Jackson will join. We'll see you in just a minute. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.