The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - October 14, 2020
Episode Date: October 15, 2020Breonna Taylor's Boyfriend Kenneth Walker speaks with Gayle King about the night Breonna was murdered by Louisville Police. Ana Kasparian and John Iadarola 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
Transcript
Discussion (0)
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.
What's up, everyone, welcome to TYT.
I'm Anna Kasparian.
Joining us today is John Ida Rola, because it's Wednesday, and he always co-hosts with
me on Wednesday.
We're actually in the same room, but because of social distancing and because of the fact that
we have like shield guards and all this stuff protecting us, we're not actually able to be on the same desk.
But some of you guys were insistent that we get back in the studio. You got what you wanted. We're here. We're back in the studio.
And got to be honest with you, I like doing the show from home. But that's all right. We're going to have a good time today.
I've been annoying her a lot and she can't just like turn off the Skype connection. No one's annoyed me. The only upside is that I get to spend time with you guys.
in person, in the flesh.
But other than that, I miss my dog, I miss the comfort of my own home, I miss not wearing pants.
But it's all right, I'll survive.
I've managed to blend the two.
We got a great show ahead for you guys.
We have an update on Kenneth Walker, that was Brianna Taylor's boyfriend.
He had an exclusive interview that we'll share some highlights from.
He did shed some light on his perspective on what happened that night.
Later in the show, we'll also share possibly one of the dumbest statements on Fox News regarding the issue of masks.
And that's saying something because that network is littered with dumb commentary.
But I think this one takes the cake.
But before we get to all of that, I do want to remind you all that we have a wonderful partner, aspiration.
And because of aspiration, people are able to do their banking at a financial institution that
cares about the environment, does not invest in fossil fuel companies, and is just overall
wonderful. So to learn more about Aspiration, go to aspiration.com slash t-y-t.
All right, without further ado, let's get to the news today.
I actually want to start on.
When were you finally told that Brianna didn't make it?
I never really got told, like, directly.
I saw it on the news.
That's how you heard Brianna Taylor died on the news?
Pretty much.
That was Kenneth Walker who gave an exclusive interview to Gail King.
And Kenneth Walker, for those who might not know, was Brianna Taylor's boyfriend.
He was the one in the apartment along with Brianna Taylor when Louisville cops busted into their home in plain clothes with a no-knock warrant and immediately started opening fire.
as soon as Kenneth Walker fired a warning shot.
Now, he maintains that he did not know that the individuals who used a battering ram to enter
the apartment were cops.
He really emphasizes that throughout this interview.
But there are some pieces of information that we've learned through this interview that
we previously did not know.
So let's go to the first clip where Walker talks about the cops not announcing that they
were cops as they were entering their unit.
There's a loud bang at the door.
No, nobody was responding.
And we're saying, who is it?
You all did ask, who is it?
Several times.
Several times, both of us.
And there's no response.
You know, the police say that they said several times,
it's the police.
If they knock on the door and say who it was,
we can hear them.
It's dead silent.
I know a million percent sure that nobody identified themselves.
fight themselves. So you hear the heavy knocking and what do you do? So now at that point we're
getting up to put on clothes and make ourselves decent to answer the door. Then I grabbed my gun.
We should also say you were licensed to carry the gun. For sure. That was the one time I had to
use it. I mean if it was the police at the door and they just said where the police, me or Brianna
didn't have a reason at all not to open the door and see what they wanted. And that makes a lot of sense
Because remember, even though that was a no-knock warrant based on a drug trafficking investigation,
there was really no reason for Kenneth Walker or Brianna Taylor to hide anything or to threaten the lives of those cops.
The cops found absolutely nothing.
They were in no possession of drugs or of illegal weapons.
Nothing illegal was in their apartment.
So why would Kenneth Walker feel the need to shoot if he knew that?
that the people trying to enter his home were cops.
It just, it, the narrative that we keep hearing from the Louisville Metro Police Department,
it just, it makes no sense.
And witnesses, John, as we know, claimed that they did not hear the cops, announced themselves.
One witness said that he heard one of the cops say it.
But I wanted to get your thoughts on that exchange.
Well, and even that witness had earlier, about a month earlier, had not said that.
It was only later on when they were requestioned that suddenly they came up with that.
You're so right to point out, like, we think, okay, common sense, the cops are busting in your apartment, and you think, well, the way to get out of this situation is being shooting at them.
That's crazy. Who would actually do that?
But we need to understand that the people who believe that, that we can't seem to get through to, they believe that about all of these.
They think that, you know, Michael Brown was going to rush a cop, had already been shot, was going to rush and try to strangle the life out of a cop.
They really do seem to believe that very often the idea is that black individuals want to kill people with their bare hands.
And they will do it. And so you can't just fight or run. No, you have to kill these people because Trayvon Martin, he would have strangled the life out of George Zimmerman.
And they really do seem to think this.
And we've talked about, you know, the long ago, decades old origins of this idea that was very common in the media that black individuals were portrayed as if they were Yetis or something like that, stronger than a regular person, more difficult to put down.
And that sort of narrative, you don't see that on headlines on The New York Times anymore, but that does not mean that people don't believe that.
That they think that ways that they would never act themselves.
They really do seem to think that some people are just waiting to kill people with their bare hands.
And these are the people that we have to try to get to understand that, no, we're all humans.
Nobody wants to kill, nobody wants to die.
That person didn't want to be killed by cops or have their girlfriend be killed by cops.
And we just can't get through to people on something as simple as that, our own shared humanity.
The lack of justice in this case is beyond infuriated.
especially when you find out that, you know, the prosecutor did not recommend criminal charges for the murder of Brianna Taylor when it came to the grand jury.
And only one of the cops, Officer Hankison, is the person who's facing any criminal charges, but it's not even related to shooting and killing Brianna Taylor.
As we've reported on previously, it's related to wanton endangerment because check out how brave this guy was.
He ran away from the apartment into the parking lot and then just started shooting indiscriminately.
So he absolutely should face criminal charges for that.
But when it comes to what happened to Brianna Taylor, no criminal charges.
And it's just beyond infuriating.
In the next clip, Walker talks a little bit about what it was like once the cops started shooting.
Take a look.
One officer fired six shots.
Officer Mattingly, Officer Cosgrove fired 16 shots.
shots. Officer Hankinson fired 10 shots. That is a lot of fire power. I still try to make sense of it
to this day. There's definitely, there's definitely nowhere to hide. There's bullets coming in every
direction. When did you realize that Brianna had been shot? I guess in the middle of all the
gunfire, like she screamed, but like I was holding her hand. You were holding her hand?
Yeah, like while this was happening, I pulled her down to the ground. But, you know, she was just
scared, so she just didn't get down.
So in the middle of all of this, you realize that she's been hit.
Was she alive at the time?
She was still, and when all the gunfire stopped, she was, like, bleeding and stuff,
and I was holding her.
No, then that's when I called my mom.
You called your mom first?
Yeah, I told her that somebody just kicked in the door and shot Brianna,
and she's freaking out at this point, but she told me to call 911, so I did.
And then when he did call 911, and I think this part is so important, and I wish I did a better job at noticing this when we had previously talked about this story, the way that he's talking to, you know, the dispatcher, as he's calling 911, makes it abundantly clear that even at that point, even at that point, he did not know that the people who had entered the apartment were cops. Listen.
So what happened is somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend?
While you're on the phone, you don't know it's the place.
I didn't know it was the police, not at all.
And I even proceeded to tell 911 that, you know, somebody just kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend.
You know, I didn't know if I knew who it was, I would have said the police, I wouldn't
been calling the police on the police.
Like, that doesn't even make sense.
So, John, I wanted to get your thoughts on that.
Obviously, I had heard that call before, but it's just yet another piece of evidence that
when he fired that warning shot, he genuinely believed that the people entering his home
were a threat that they were breaking and entering and were going to harm him and his girlfriend.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's absolutely insane.
Yeah, it's a great point that it's more evidence, and it makes you really wonder what
actually happened during the grand jury.
What was actually said? What did they use all the time for if they're hiding all this important
information? The fact that the one person that said that it was that they heard the cops
changed their story, that phone call seems like very strong evidence. I mean, what is the
counter to that's evidence he didn't know? The idea that no, no, actually in the middle
of this gunfight, his girlfriend shot so he decides, you know what I'm going to do, I'm going
to call the cops and I'm going to lie. They could bust in and finish him off at any second.
Who thinks that? But again, it's the people who won't watch the interview and honestly
don't care what happened to him or to Briona Taylor. They will always believe the worst.
It's so frustrating to see this and to know that nothing is going to come of this. No more justice
is going to come of it. And they're going to go on thinking that fundamentally not a racist
country, nothing needs to happen with the cops, no reform is necessary, all of that. It's incredibly
frustrating. What's also incredibly frustrating is, you know, we keep hearing about how, you know,
the whole purpose of having police is that they keep us safe. They're supposed to protect and serve.
But there was just this fundamental disrespect for human lives during this whole incident. And even
after the fact, you had some of the cops, and this is all caught on tape, admitting that there had
been some sort of miscommunication, but what was also incredible was how they refused to provide
medical aid to Brianna Taylor as she laid there bleeding out. Kenneth Walker talked about that
in the interview. Let's hear what he had to say. The police didn't come rushing in?
Not at all. I don't think I realized that it was the police until I was on the phone with
Brianna's mom. I hear like people outside talking. I thought they was, you know, coming for help
because I called 9-1-1-1.
So you think they're coming to help you.
Yes.
So when I come outside, there's guns pointed at me.
You know, I'm being threatened with dogs and whatever else.
Don't look that.
Put your hands on your head.
You want to fucking threaten?
That's what's going on.
The officer asked me, was I hit by any bullets?
I said, no.
He said, that's unfortunate.
So that threw me off, too.
So I'm like, what's he mean by that?
That's unfortunate.
He said to you after you've just lost your girlfriend and you don't know what is happening.
What did you think when you said that?
I didn't know what to think and I really wasn't worried about me.
The only reason I'm even out here is because the only way for her to get help in there is for me to be out here.
We were scared.
We didn't know who it was.
We didn't even know who it was.
And it doesn't surprise me that a cop would tell him that it's unfortunate
that he didn't get shot, because that means that there's a witness there who just experienced
the unbelievably, just the disregard for human life that those cops demonstrated that night,
right? And you have a witness who saw it from beginning to end, who experienced it beginning
to end, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the cops lied to a judge
in order to obtain the no-knock warrant.
They lied about the post office.
I can't get over this.
Lied about the post office allegedly telling them that there were suspicious packages
being sent to Brianna Taylor's apartment.
And that's why they needed the no-knock warrant because they needed to check out
whether she was trafficking drugs.
Later, a postal inspector said, no, no one said that.
No one said that there were suspicious packages being delivered there.
So that lie alone should be a huge, huge red flag.
And again, to know that there's been no justice specifically for Brianna Taylor and her family is beyond infuriating.
It doesn't matter that her boyfriend survived and is able to tell his story.
Even after all of that, no one's being prosecuted.
No one will stand trial specifically for murdering Brianna Taylor in her own apartment.
Yep.
And from both the behavior and the way that they talk to him, it's their gangs.
That's all it is.
In some places like LA, it's formal.
I mean, there's basically no distinction.
They talk about themselves as, you know, gang members would.
And in some places, they just act like it.
They like that they have the power of life and death.
They like knowing that if they dole it out, it's basically impossible that they'll ever face any kind of justice.
Worst case scenario.
They have to work at another police department, 10 minutes down the road.
It's madness.
And thankfully, throughout the course of this year, some people have been moved over to the position
of realizing that reform is necessary, but not nearly enough.
Well, let's take a break.
When we come back, I will update you on the ongoing debate regarding economic stimulus.
Many people are heated about Nancy Pelosi's rejection of Donald Trump's proposal,
but it's a nuanced issue, and I think it's important for everyone to know all the details.
So we'll give you that and more.
We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-F-The Republic or UNFTR.
As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations,
are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful.
But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom.
In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be,
featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity,
The UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew
about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows.
But don't just take my word for it.
The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational,
aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school.
For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it,
You must unlearn what you have learned.
And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're up.
uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your
lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed,
angered, and entertained all at the same time.
We return.
Welcome back to TYT, Anna and John with you. We're still trying to get our handle on
how things are working out here back in the studio.
So John, we'll be reading member comments in just a minute.
But before we do so, I wanted to check in on our thermometer and see how we're doing with our fundraising effort.
As you guys know, we're trying to raise money to remain sustainable here at TYT.
And the goal is to raise 200 grand each month until the end of the year.
And so far, let's take a look where are we at?
Where are we at?
44,392.
Not bad. Not bad. All right. We still have a long way to go for this month. So for anyone who wants to help contribute to TYT, please go to tYT.com slash go. John, what's going on with our members?
Okay. So a couple member comments for you. Sedona, Susan says, please stay safe, you guys. I want you to stick around. Love to you all. Very nice to Susan.
Randy F. says, I hope John stopped leaving his shirts all over the place now that Ann is there.
Okay, get a block Randy F's member comments there.
To be fair, to be fair to John, he did disassemble the Murphy bed that he had in the studio while we were all away.
I've heard more about Murphy beds.
I've called out your Murphy bed, even though it doesn't actually exist.
It was for my dog, and it's not a Murphy bed.
Speaking of dogs, Ruth Iverson says, but in the studio, Anna can't pimp out Charlie for donations.
I know, I know.
That's true.
It's okay.
We have better lighting here, I will say.
Oh my God, not for me.
We need to get a little bit more lighting from this side, actually.
I'm a little bit dark.
But anyway, Mickey C on the more serious end, says,
isn't it amazing that stand your ground and the castle doctrine don't apply to people of color?
Yeah, no, that's exactly right.
That's exactly right.
Yeah, I mean, literally, the only thing you need to do is change his skin color,
and he would be on Fox every day as an example of, you know,
standing up against the police state and stuff like that,
although they now support the police state.
Finally, Superchat comments.
Heart Song says,
Hi, John and Anna.
My heart is broken.
Could I please have a shout out
for my poor kitty Lulu who passed today?
So sad.
I'm sorry about Lulu.
So sorry.
That's, oh, God.
Habitat for Huge Manatee.
That's funny.
Sent to a Super Chat saying,
I turned 31 this Sunday.
I miss being able to celebrate with my family.
Totally.
Totally.
And more to read,
but I'm sure we can do that for the next break.
Yeah, so let's move on to,
the topic of economic stimulus, because as much as I dislike Nancy Pelosi and I've been very
transparent about it, I do think that a lot of the heat she's been receiving lately is
misdirected, and I'll explain why. So House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been catching a lot of
heat over the fact that she has rejected Donald Trump's stimulus proposal, which would be a $1.8 trillion
dollar stimulus proposal. Now remember that House Democrats would like 2.2 trillion dollars in
stimulus spending. And so on the outside looking in, it appears that there were enough concessions
by the Trump White House in order to make a deal. So why is it that Nancy Pelosi said no?
Well, the topic is a little more nuanced than that. But one of the critics is someone who we
deeply admire, Representative Rokana, who explained his side of the story in a recent
interview. I voted for the original Heroes Act, which is $3.4 trillion. I voted for the $2.2 trillion that
the House Democrats have. I believe our House plans are better than what the White House is
proposing. But the point is, I'm one of 435 members of Congress. There are two chambers of Congress.
The Republicans control the Senate. Trump is in the White House. And the point is, I could say,
well, let's have a Kana Ryan plan or nothing. Or I can say constituents of mine are
hurting, we have to compromise, we have to get something done. And I rather they get some stimulus
check and some rent assistance than nothing. And that's really what we're talking about is
get something done. Let's all compromise at a time of a national crisis. So I agree with
Rokana there. He makes a lot of great points. And at first I thought, well, look, it's not
just about how much the bills cost, right? Trump could be proposing a $1.8 trillion.
stimulus bill that has all the wrong priorities that just funnels money to corporations as opposed to ordinary Americans, while Democrats might be focusing more and prioritizing, you know, ordinary Americans who have lost their jobs, who desperately need unemployment assistance. So I looked at the two different proposals. And to be quite honest with you, when it comes to what Donald Trump is proposing, it is pretty good. It's not as robust as the previous CARES Act was.
For instance, the $600 a week in unemployment subsidies from the federal government will be lessened to only $400 a week.
But that certainly is better than nothing, especially right now when so many people are losing their jobs.
People are getting laid off by these companies that originally took PPP, but now are able to lay off workers since the regulation related to PPP has expired.
That expired on September 30th, so they can go ahead and lay off their workers now, and many companies did.
Disney laid off tens of thousands of workers.
Airline companies also laid off tens of thousands of workers.
So I understand where Rokana is coming from, and what Trump is proposing actually looks pretty good.
But here's the problem.
Donald Trump said via tweet, because we all know that that's how he communicates, that he wants Republicans to sign on to something big.
In fact, he has made clear that he wants Republicans to pass a stimulus bill that does more
and spends more than what Democrats are proposing.
So if I'm Nancy Pelosi and I know that Donald Trump, who these Republican lawmakers
love to lick the boots of, wants a bigger spending bill, why not hold out for a bigger
spending bill?
But here's the real problem.
The real problem is Senate Republicans.
And that always gets left out of the conversation.
It drives me crazy.
Mitch McConnell is not interested in passing Donald Trump's version of stimulus.
He's made that clear.
He does not want to help ordinary Americans.
And I'll give you the details on that in just a second.
But John, I wanted to get some of your thoughts first.
Yeah, there's a few.
I mean, one is that supposedly what you hear from the right is that all of this is, of course,
fake, it's all made up.
And the Democrats want it to be as bad as possible leading up to the election, because that'll
benefit them and it'll hurt Donald Trump, that they want the suffering to continue and all
of that. But then why is it Mitch McConnell that's stopping the aid that would go to the American
people that Nancy Pelosi would almost certainly agree to in that case, assuming it wasn't
you know, an insane offensive bill that like you said, just puts money directly in corporations,
which we already had the first time. Why wouldn't he support that? They seemed like they're
saying it's the Democrats that are trying to maintain this impasse because it benefits them politically
in the short term, but it's literally Mitch McConnell, who is in month six of blocking any aid
whatsoever. Yeah, you're absolutely right. In fact, Mitch McConnell is going to hold a vote on
his version of economic stimulus that mostly just focuses on providing PPP to businesses,
because that's where his priorities are. So Mitch McConnell is the one who will ultimately
reject any type of robust stimulus that overwhelmingly impacts, positively impacts the lives
of ordinary Americans. So let me give you the details on what Trump is specifically proposing
because, again, to be honest with you, it's not bad. For instance, the new offer proposes
$300 billion for cities and states up from $250 billion in the earlier proposal. It maintains
a $400 weekly enhanced unemployment insurance benefit from the previous version. But for a
somewhat longer duration, which is good. That's good. I would like to see a $600 weekly
enhanced unemployment insurance benefit. But this is a, you know, of course it's a little less,
but it would, if this passed, it would go on for a little longer than the previous bill.
So the White House's offer on stimulus checks also includes $1,000 per child instead of the
$500 per child provided in the Original Cares Act approved in March.
according to two people with knowledge of the plan.
The increase in the payments of children appears to be intended as a compromise measure
for rejecting tax credits for children pushed by Pelosi in negotiations.
I gotta be honest with you, I would rather have cash in hand than some tax credits for when I file my taxes,
especially when the situation is as desperate as it is today.
Meaning I agree with what Trump is proposing more than what Pelosi is proposing with the child tax credits.
Also, roughly $400 billion of the spending would come from money that had already been approved by Congress and would be repurposed.
That's a red flag for me.
I want more details on that.
And no one has looked into this or given more details on where that money would come from.
I'm worried about that.
And just to read the rest of that graphic, so the net cost of the bill would actually be closer to $1.5 billion since they would repurpose money that had already been allocated.
I don't know what that money had been allocated for before.
Now, the House bill is closer to $2.2 trillion in spending.
It does provide specific language on aid to hospitals, which is incredibly important.
It appears that the Republican version of the bill, Trump's version of the bill doesn't have that.
It also, yes, provides child tax credits.
Assistance with child care, I think that is important.
And the Trump bill leaves that out.
And finally, language on testing and traces.
It doesn't surprise me at all that Trump wouldn't include something like that in his version of the stimulus bill.
And here's where Nancy Pelosi and Steve Mnuchin seemed to disagree.
The figure for states and cities, first reported by Politico, is still significantly lower than Democrats had been seeking.
That issue has been a long-running point of contention between the two sides with Republicans claiming Democrats are trying to bail out blue states,
which, to be fair, is infuriating because there are plenty of red states,
who are asking for federal aid.
So John, thoughts so far on where they disagree?
Yeah, well, two thoughts.
I like the flat money better than tax credits too, but it's still, look, if this is what
we can get, then I guess that's what we can get.
But if you had told, if you'd sat down with every American family and told them seven months
ago, okay, so they're passing this one bill, they're gonna give you $1,200, but don't worry.
In half a year, they're gonna give you another grand.
Who would have accepted that?
That's madness.
And that all along the way, Mitch McConnell, like Senate Republicans generally, but especially
Mitch McConnell, hasn't cared at all to help people out. And polls show that he's up over
Amy McGrath by 8 to 15 points. That apparently you can flip the bird of the American people
for months and months as hundreds of thousands of them die. And maybe it'll hurt you in the polls
by a little bit. What a democracy that we have. In terms of actually passing something,
I mostly agree with both you and Rokana. People need the help, obviously, even though you do have to consider the fact that anything that gets past, the media is going to, like they want drama in these last couple of weeks. They are going to look to be giving credit to the man that they haven't had much to give credit for. But that's fine. If that saves lives, if it saves people's houses, if it keeps them from being evicted and all of that, I guess that's a necessary cost.
And so, again, I really want people to hold Republican senators accountable, specifically
Republican senators who don't have to worry about re-election because they're floating around
the same nonsense talking point about like, oh, the deficit, the deficit, the deficit,
we're so worried about the deficit, they're not worried about the deficit.
They just don't like spending any money on ordinary Americans, that's really at the heart
of this.
Can I have something really fast to that?
You're 100% right, I forget exactly where I saw it, but a lot of people who have
have watched this show for a few years, aren't going to be surprised by this. Some anonymous
Republicans are saying that the hyper focus on the cost of this bill and the deficit is intended
to begin that narrative for when Joe Biden wins, because a lot of them expect that he is going
to win. They want to immediately be able to transition into, we can't afford literally anything.
So starting the conversation around the deficit is one way to do that. And if it passes,
then they will use whatever cost of this bill as another example of why we can't
afford to do anything except, you know, like bomb Syria or something.
Yeah, no worry about the deficit when Trump successfully passed his tax cuts for the rich
in 2017, okay? No worries about that. That added, that costs $2 trillion. Two trillion
dollars, tax cuts for the rich. No worries about the deficit, the federal debt. No worries
about that. But anyway, I do want to read some specific comments from Republicans in Congress
who have no interest in passing Donald Trump's version of the bill, they also deserve blame for potentially in the future if House Democrats approve Trump's bill, you know, the Senate Democrats would reject it.
So there is GOP disunity as Senate Republicans bulk at a $1.8 trillion relief package. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has offered to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
James Comer said the following. A lot of conservatives are concerned about excessive.
spending until we get liability protection and spending under control, I don't think a lot of
conservatives will be real excited to vote for another stimulus package. And Representative
Eric Cantor, you know, House Majority Leader said something very similar, arguing I'm doubtful
in the end something gets done in a big, big way. Because of course they don't actually
represent us or show any concern for our well-being. You've got to remember, there's a lot of senators
on the Republican side of the aisle who are not in cycle, meaning they're not facing re-election,
and one of the most damaging votes they could take is to spend another couple trillion
dollars spent in a relief bill. So that's where they stand, and Mitch McConnell is planning
on holding a vote next week on his version of stimulus, which is essentially a $500 billion bill
that mostly just helps businesses. There could possibly be a little bit of help.
when it comes to unemployment insurance, but overall his bill only prioritizes businesses
and gives ordinary Americans a giant middle finger. So he deserves a lot of the blame,
and I'm just not seeing much of it right now in the media, particularly in leftist media.
I get the disdain for Nancy Pelosi. I certainly share that disdain, but I do think in this case
it's a little misdirected, especially when you consider just the disgusting,
feckless behavior we've been seeing from Senate Republicans.
All right, well, let's move on to some other news.
Story that bores me to tears because it's the same thing every single time.
So Amy Coney Barrett is still undergoing her Senate confirmation and she refuses to answer any questions,
which is definitely problematic when she gets asked questions that should be considered layups.
For instance, when it comes to electoral issues or the possibility of Donald Trump, you know, really flexing his muscle and attempting to turn this country into a full-blown dictatorship, she seems to be open to some of the maneuvers that he has floated.
So for instance, when it comes to the possibility of Donald Trump delaying an election, something that Trump again has considered in the past, Connie gave a concerning answer.
President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election.
Does the Constitution give the President of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?
Does federal law?
Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues.
colleagues and go through the opinion writing process. So, you know, if I give off-the-cuff
answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit. And I don't think we want judges to be
legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.
Yeah, except, I mean, people like Amy Coney-Barritt consider themselves constitutionalists
who take the Constitution and interpret it verbatim, literally. So let's take a look at what Article
2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says about the possibility of delaying a presidential
election, the Congress, not the executive branch, the Congress may determine the time of choosing
the electors and the day on which they shall give their votes, which day shall be the same throughout
the United States. So long story short, Congress gets to make that decision, not the incumbent
president. John? Yeah, yeah, it's clear. And the only thing clearer than that is that she will
answer questions very forthrightly and very quickly and perfectly happily about things that
don't reveal that she is nothing but a right-wing ideologue who's being put into the Supreme
Court to take away your health care and take away your right to practice of reproductive
freedoms. And if necessary, give the election to Donald Trump. That's what she's there for. Those are
the things that she's sort of cloaking. There's a side of not accepting the science on climate
change, of course, as well. But mostly it's that she doesn't want to reveal that all the
things that the left and even the center fear she'll do on the Supreme Court. She totally is
being chosen for that. The right doesn't need to ask detailed questions because they already
know that. That's why she was chosen on the election related stuff. Trump wouldn't have
nominated her if he asked her, hey, if I bring a case to you asking you to shut down the mail
ballot. Are you going to do that? And she'd say, well, no, that would be unethical. I'm certainly
not going to shut that down. Yeah, he still would have nominated her totally. He has no
interest of his own at heart. No, all of that is so clear. And I don't know if maybe that's
why in your intro, you said that this is so boring. But yeah, kind of. I know who she is.
It's the same, it's the same, you know, situation with a Supreme Court nominee evading the
questions, you know, answering specific questions regarding constitution.
by just discussing what she would do procedurally.
Yeah, yeah, we know, we know how the Supreme Court works, okay?
We're asking for you to weigh in on what the Constitution says about the president unilaterally
delaying the election.
This is not difficult.
Yep.
But of course she's going to evade the question.
As she does, in the next video we show you when it comes to Donald Trump and his, the possibility
of refusing a peaceful transition of power.
Should a president commit themselves, like our founding fathers, I think, have a clear intention,
like the grace that George Washington showed to the peaceful transfer of power.
Is that something that presidents should be able to do?
Well, one of the beauties of America from the beginning of the republic is that we have had peaceful transfers of power
and that disappointed voters have accepted the new leaders that come into office.
office and that's not true in every country.
And I think it is part of the genius of our Constitution and the good faith and goodwill
of the American people that we haven't had the situations that have arisen in so many
other countries where there have been, where those issues have been present.
Oh good.
Yeah, congratulations.
A president, you know, hinting that he will not have a peaceful transition of power is unprecedented.
Congratulations, you realize that. Now, why don't you answer the question?
No.
What was that? Like, I don't need a history lesson. I don't need a comparative analysis between
the United States and some other country. I need to know what your thoughts are on an incumbent
president losing the general election and refusing a peaceful transition of power. What are
your thoughts on that?
Yeah. No, we're not going to get it. I mean, the whole thing, it just feels so point
at this point. Apparently it can't be stopped. We knew before the first hearing why she'd been
chosen. And more importantly, we knew everything we needed to know about her ethics. The fact that
she was willing to be a party to this process. Three and a half weeks before the election after
so many people have already voted, the fact that she was willing to stand for a spot on the
SCOTUS under that, told us what we need to know about her ethics. She will do whatever she needs
to do to get that position. She's obviously made promises and she's ready to make good
on them. And you know, just going back to the Constitution, which she claims to value, what does
the Constitution say about the transition of power? Well, the terms of the President and the
vice president shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of their successors
shall then begin. That is what the U.S. Constitution says. It's the 20th Amendment. Now, when it
comes to Title III, Section 1, Chapter 1 of the U.S. Code, here's what it says about a peaceful
transition of power, the electors of president and vice president shall be appointed in each state
on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November in every fourth year succeeding every
election of a president and vice president. So it's a very wordy way of saying, hey, yo, the person
who loses needs to do this and the person who wins needs to do that. And let's go ahead and
follow through on what our so-called democracy requires us to do when someone loses
loses an election. But she evades that question. And she evades it by either talking
about procedural things that she did in the previous video we showed you, or giving us a history
lesson, mentioning how unprecedented this is in her own cute little way. It's just, it's pathetic.
One more video for you. This was the exchange that she had with Amy Klobuchar on
Voter intimidation.
Judge Barron, under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls?
Senator Klobuchar, I can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation,
and I can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts.
I can only decide cases as they come to me litigated by parties on a full record
after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing an opinion.
And so I can't answer questions like that.
Okay, well, I'll make it easier.
18 U.S.C. 594 outlaws anyone who intimidates, threatens coerces,
or attempts to intimidate, threaten or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering
with the right of such other person to vote.
This is a law that has been on the books for decades.
Following that, Senator Klobuchar threw a stapler at her.
I'm just kidding.
She didn't do that.
No, but I mean, she did a great job.
with that line of questioning, she provided evidence for why it's considered illegal.
And all Amy Coney Barrett had to do there was say voter intimidation at the polls is illegal.
That's it. Yeah. That's it. That's all she had to say, but she wouldn't say it.
Yeah, because the, yeah, well, we could go on for a long time, obviously. And we probably will have to in future days.
But yeah, no, it's pretty clear what we think.
Yeah, situations dire. But we do need to take a break. Let's take a breather. And when we come back, we have more news for you.
don't miss it. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking
control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing our data. But that doesn't
mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the
prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your
IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also
encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals.
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 TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans.
That's EXPRE SVPN.com slash TYT.
Check it out today.
Hey everybody.
Welcome back to TYT and John with you.
Before we get to our wonderful stories of voter suppression, John has some more comments to share with you all.
So John, take it away.
I do.
There's so many.
I won't build to read them all.
Build a track and trace army in the member's comments said if the Republican Senate would stop the bill,
wouldn't it be good politics to pass the bill in the House to have the Senate stop it?
and Republicans lose the Senate, apparently Pelosi is not so confident the Senate would block it.
But they have passed bills in the House any number of times.
Right.
I get what you're saying.
But also, let me just, let me stop right there.
The one thing that I am concerned about is how much funding, like is there, as we found out
through the CARES Act, there was a huge amount of that money dedicated to bailing out
huge corporations, right?
And so there's still a question mark, because we haven't seen.
the actual bill. We've seen summaries of the bill. We've seen what Trump claims the bill will say.
But one of the things that I'm kind of getting frustrated with is how much of this money
is going to go toward more bailouts for corporations. And so it really does depend on the
priorities in both bills. But I hear what you're saying. If it's a great bill and Nancy Pelosi
rejects it simply because she thinks that it's going to be rejected by the Senate,
that's a bad move. Like let McConnell take the fall. Why are you?
taking the fall. That's a good point. Totally. We have a couple of big super chats, including
from Prescott Small, who says, you know those cops turn Briona's place inside out to find
any one little thing that could be used to justify their actions. Also, what about the forced
gentrification claims that seems to have disappeared? Any update on that? T.I.T. investigates.
I believe them on the gentrification claims. But that's a really interesting topic to
explore. I will look into it and see if I can find anything to share with you guys. But thank you for
bringing that up. Wingway also says, take my stimulus. That's funny. Hey, you haven't gotten
it yet. But yeah. And imitation Asian says, glad to see y'all back in the Stu Studio on this,
the day of my 34th birthday. Thank you guys for all that you do. I can't say it enough. Love you
guys. Oh, we love you guys. I'm happy that we're here and happy you're enjoying the show.
Exactly. You won't enjoy this next story though. So buckle up. Let's get to it.
Turns out that an appeals court has decided to re-implement an awful policy in the state of Texas that would limit the number of ballot drop-off locations in the state to one location per county.
This was a new order by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and it's absolutely disastrous when you consider the fact that some of the more populous counties will only have one.
drop off location to drop off their ballots.
So it could be a problem, especially when it comes to sorting and counting those ballots.
Now the appeals court concluded that Texas is actually expanding voting, even though Abbott's
move limited mail-in ballot drop boxes to one per county in a state where some counties are
bigger in areas than some states and other counties have larger populations than some states.
So the order reversed a move by a federal judge to expand the opportunities voters have
to hand in mail-in ballots in person.
At least a handful of Texan counties, some of them with populations larger than some states, had
planned to set up multiple sites for ballot drop-off.
Now in the beginning of the pandemic, Governor Abbott was like, yeah, a lot of people are going
to vote by mail, and so we need to increase the number of ballot drop-off locations.
That's important to do.
But then he realized, oh wait, hold on, things aren't looking so great for my buddies.
So let me just go ahead and unilaterally limit the number of locations to one per county.
And luckily a federal judge had stepped in and blocked Abbott from doing this.
Something very similar was implemented in Pennsylvania and a federal judge blocked it in Pennsylvania as well.
Unfortunately, the appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District Circuit
of Texas, reinstated the voter suppression that Greg Abbott initially wanted to implement.
Exactly, and I think the same thing might have happened in Ohio as well.
So he technically expanded it by allowing the ballot drop boxes at all.
Even that is for Texas, it's like, oh my God, they're making it easier to vote.
How amazing.
And then they realized either what you said, that things aren't looking great for their buddies
because this election isn't looking like it's going to be great for Texas, or Donald Trump
began a months-long campaign to demonize literally anything that makes it easier to vote during
an election, and he doesn't want to appear to be out of step with the president. But really,
what he's done is the perfect thing specifically for Republicans in Texas, because in those
small counties where there's just 100 people, 200 people, 1,000 people, one drop-off box in these
red rural Texas counties is a pretty big expansion of your ability to vote. One of those in Houston
is nothing. It doesn't really help much at all, a little bit hypothetically, but not that
much. So this is like a barest nod to expanding the vote in the most prohibitively difficult
time to vote in living memory while making it as hard as possible for blue areas.
No, it's beyond, it's beyond frustrating. They're so transparent. Like,
Abbott is so transparent about what he's trying to do here.
It's no surprise that the more populated parts of Texas lean Democratic, and as a result,
he wants to make it even more difficult for people to vote in those areas of Texas.
I want to go to this cartoon that really perfectly illustrates what the situation entails.
So this cartoon shows how under this order, like Loving County on the west side of Texas,
which has a population of 169 people, has the same number of mail-in drop-off boxes as Harris County
on the east side of Texas, which has a population of 4.7 million people.
So you can see the disparity there. You can see the problem, right?
So this is what we're dealing with. And by the way, people want to vote. Luckily, it seems
like citizens are very aware of these attempts to suppress the vote. And so right now, we're seeing
these insane lines when it comes to early voting. And it just really demonstrates, first of all,
how difficult it is to vote because you're going to be waiting in these long lines.
But it also shows how defiant people are and how motivated they are to cast their ballots.
So even though they're going to be standing in those long lines, you know, to either vote in person
or drop off their ballots, they're motivated to do it. And that's a pretty good sign.
John, any final words before we move on?
No, no. I'm looking for any good signs, though.
Yeah, me too.
Oh, one good sign. That 97% registration in Travis County is like the most amazing thing that I've heard.
And I really hope it bears out in the actual election.
Yeah, I think the one thing I will say is the media has done a decent job in covering these stories of attempted voter suppression.
If people weren't aware of it, I have no doubt that people would wait until elected.
day to show up to either in-person voting places or maybe to mail in their ballots.
But people are voting early. I know that I got my mail-in ballot. I'm going to turn it in very
soon. I just want to make sure I really fully understand those ballot initiatives. They can get
tricky. But, you know, educate yourself as much as you possibly can on how to register to
vote if you haven't already, how to vote what the voting rules are in your municipality, your state.
And, you know, please, please, please take part in the effort to get that madman out of office
because it's important, even though we don't have the perfect candidate on the Democratic side.
It's at least someone who values maintaining our democratic process, and that's important.
Okay, so we have a few more minutes left, but not enough time to do a story.
I love it when I do the timing this way.
It's really great.
We can read some member comments if you want.
some member comments, let's do it. We can totally do that. I'm happy to. First of all, let's acknowledge
the people on Twitter being awesome, including Obie Mom Kenobi, who's continuing to gift
subscriptions. She is up to 923, which is just amazing, but also to people who have resubscribed,
including Central Committee, Wooden Monkey God, Queen Witch, Dobbs Murk, and other stories. Thank you
for that. We also had some comments on Twitch. A trollopee said congrats Anna and John for being
back in studio. Not just us, by the way, but also Edwin and Bart and Mike and Dave are out there.
They're much more spaced away, but it's nice to see more faces here.
Trashy plays asks why Hilo didn't get a Murphy bed. It was a bed for Hilo. That's the whole
thing. And Key John says, what do you think would happen if Trump and Biden's town halls
are at the same time, and Biden had better ratings? I just don't think that that's going to happen.
Yeah, I don't either. I want to just say that NBC News is pathetic for agreeing to hold a town hall with Donald Trump, essentially rewarding Donald Trump for his bad behavior and the fact that he wased out of a debate with Joe Biden.
The fact that they're going to go ahead and play ball with Trump and hold a town hall literally at the exact same time that Biden's doing his town hall, it's just pathetic. And it shows you what the huge downside is of these media.
companies that just want to turn a profit and don't care all that much about doing what's right
for our democracy, for the American people. Why are you rewarding Donald Trump? It just doesn't
make any sense. Yep. Yeah. And look, Town Hall with Biden, I got to be honest, it's probably
not going to be very entertaining. It's not going to pull in a bigger audience because Donald Trump
is a train wreck. Everyone knows it. So I would argue that he's likely to have higher ratings,
but not because people like or respect him.
Postgame is next.
TYT.com slash join.
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.com slash t-y-t.
I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.