The Young Turks - TYT Hour 1 - November 14th, 2019

Episode Date: November 15, 2019

A second staffer overheard the call between Trump and the Ukrainian president. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Jane Cueger, Anna Gosparian on a special interesting day. So lots going on. I promise you guys a special announcement today, you will get a special announcement today. So it is going to be in the eight o'clock hour. So you know we do the show for three hours. And eight o'clock is normally when we have guests. So as we told you there was going to be a special announcement on Tuesday, I think that we delivered on that. And I told you that day, I was a little nervous about that for whatever reason. And I'm also a little nervous today.

So it'll be fun for everybody. Okay, so Anna, what's in the show? A lot of news to get to. I just want to let you guys know that in the second hour we will be doing coverage of the shooting that happened in Santa Clarita. But for now, we're going to focus on updates on the impeachment investigation, and there are some damaging updates for Donald Trump, so let's get started. A second U.S. embassy official has corroborated what William Taylor,

testified during the impeachment hearings yesterday. Now, there was some new information shared by U.S. Ambassador William Taylor, and it had to do with a staffer of his who had overheard a conversation between Gordon Sondland and Donald Trump. Now, a second U.S. embassy official has come forward and said that this individual has also heard the conversation. Now, what was the conversation about? Let me refresh your memory.

Let's take a look. Last Friday, a member of my staff told me of events that occurred on July 26th. While Ambassador Volker and I visited the front, this member of my staff accompanied Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Sondland met with Mr. Yerbach. Following that meeting in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump and told him of his meetings in Keefe. The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone asking Ambassador Sondland about the investigations.

Ambassador Sondland told President Trump, the Ukrainians were ready to move forward. Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff, asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for. At the time I gave my deposition on October 22nd, I was not aware of this information. I'm including it here for completeness. As the committee knows, I reported this information through counsel to the State Department's

legal advisor as well as to counsel for both the majority and the minority of this committee. It is my understanding that the committee is following up on this matter. Now as we know, one of the defenses that the GOP uses in order to try to make it appear as though Trump did nothing wrong is they'll say, well, Trump didn't have direct conversations about these investigations into the Bidens. There's a lot of hearsay going on. When in reality, based on the conversation that Trump had with Gordon Sondland, he was very well aware of the investigations.

And so the other offense that you hear from Republicans is, well, this is hearsay because this is a staffer of William Taylor's and William Taylor didn't hear it. So how do we know, well, here's the thing. The second diplomatic staffer also at the table during this conversation is Siria Jayanti, a foreign service officer based in Kiev. A person briefed on what this individual overheard, spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter currently under investigation. The staffer told Taylor, or the staffer Taylor testified about is David Holmes, the political

counselor at the embassy in Kiev. Holmes is scheduled to testify before House investigators in a closed session. So these are individuals who heard it firsthand and they are going to testify to House investigators. Look, it's exceedingly clear. So the rest is just political games. And yesterday I said that they would make fun of Kent's bow tie. He was the other guy that testified yesterday. And I don't know if they got into the bow tie, but two things happened.

Rush Limbaugh said, oh, it's okay, these are just a bunch of state department nerds, okay? And a couple of the press totally picked up on the White House talking point that the hearing was not exciting enough. So no one got voted off to island, no one was naked nor afraid. There wasn't enough pizzazz. Pizzazz is the exact word used, okay? So the guys calmly, sober-minded, testifying to, here's the president breaking the law, and here is our witness testimony showing that he broke the law and how unusual it was.

They also testified to that, right, totally. And now witness after witness corroborating, right? Not enough pizzazz. I mean, nobody jumped off the top rope. There wasn't a pile driver or a suplex. I mean, this is what I was gonna ask you, but I don't have to ask it, I know it. This is what we have devolved to. Yeah, this isn't a joke, right?

This is a real investigation into wrongdoing by Donald Trump. And for all the people who think it's not a big deal, right? I mean, just imagine if your preferred candidate was targeted in the same way that Joe Biden was targeted. Donald Trump specifically looked to dig up dirt on his political rival. Now I'm not a fan of Joe Biden's, right? But I understand the severity of the issue at hand. You cannot allow a foreign actor to meddle in U.S. elections.

You cannot allow a sitting president to dig up dirt on a political rival using the help of a foreign government. And that's exactly what Donald Trump did here. And I also want to note that the phone conversation between Gordon Sondland, the EU ambassador and Donald Trump happened on July 26th, one day after. Trump had his conversation with Vladimir Zelensky. Yes, so guys, I don't know why the Democrats don't ask this. If Donald Trump is allowed to ask foreign governments to interfere in our elections, can

I also ask them, right? Can any of the Democrats say, why don't they testify, like say, hey, so I'm just curious for if the Republicans call witnesses, right? So could I ask the Chinese to help me against my Republican opponent? How much could I ask for their help? Can I ask them to dig up and up a research against them? How about the Russians? How about the Chinese?

How about the Venezuelans? Who can I ask and how much can I ask? Because I'm trying to understand what the laws here are. Now he's in clear violation of the law and you say that's okay. So okay, then I want to know what's okay because I'm going to use it against my Republican opponents. The minute you tell me it's okay, I'm just going to make a deal with a foreign government, but I'm going to dig up dirt and maybe a lot of money because apparently it's okay.

Now foreign governments can donate to my campaign because that's what they're doing. They're spending a lot of money if they was successful to do research, do an investigation on behalf of the Trump campaign, not the Trump administration. Okay, so how much can I ask China to give me to destroy every Republican who ever runs against me? And what's the point of sovereignty, right? If you're a big believer in sovereignty, which I am, right? And by the way, if you're a big believer in borders because you want to protect the country

from the foreigners, so you don't want to protect foreign meddling in U.S. elections? Yeah, that's another great point by Anna. Look, we've got to have borders, okay? We've got no borders here. If we don't have borders, we don't have a country. The guys who are so worried about that sovereignty are like, oh, Russia, Ukraine, please, please interfere in our elections and help us. Oh, come on.

So it's, all of this is a foregone conclusion, you know, but look, I'm most disappointed in the media honestly, because like I feel like we're in idiocrycy, you know, people talked about that before, everybody knows it, right? But it's gotten to such an absurd point that even if you put it in idiocry, I'm not sure that they'd believe it. Oh, like, so the wrestler president, okay, then it goes and does something and does something criminal. Let's say you're watching that movie, and then they have hearings about how it's criminal.

And the guy in a nerd, kind of bow tie comes on and explains why it is. And then the commentators, the media earnestly come on and go, yes. but there were no suplexes. He was not even put in a headlock, so sorry. He's obviously lost the intercontinental championship, and he's dismissed. If they put it in idiocry, even in that movie, you might think, that's still a little too much for that kind of movie, it's still too over the top. But here we are, here we are.

So let me know, look, it's not the media overall, I think that there has been pretty good reporting, but there have been a few sources that have covered this as if it's meant to be the bachelor or the bachelorette, right? There needs to be like some big climactic thing. And look, if you've actually been following this impeachment investigation, you've been following the details of this case, it actually was, I wouldn't say entertaining, but you, there were some revelations revealed during that testimony that are incredibly important if you care about the rule of law, if you care about protecting our democratic process and our elections.

If you don't care about those things and you're just looking for a nude person running through a is somewhere. Yeah, you didn't get that. But you got testimony from highly credible Trump administration officials about his wrongdoing and his attempts to dig up dirt on his political rivals. And if you don't care about his political rival in this particular case, whether it's Joe Biden or in the case of China, he wanted China to investigate Elizabeth Warren, well, I mean, how much more evidence do you need?

It's amazing. It's amazing. So he's telling us that the two countries is interested in corruption. And he doesn't care about corruption anywhere else, including America. And Saudi Arabia, yeah. Saudi Arabia, oh, you chop people up, I got no problem with that kind of corruption, right? And you do it for money, I like, that's why he said it's okay, for the money. Okay, but Ukraine and China, I'm very concerned about their corruption.

In Ukraine, it's mainly Joe Biden that's doing the corruption. And in China, it's mainly Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Who could be stupid enough to entertain that as a real point? And so, and that's why I brought up the media, not because most of them covered it wrong. Those couple of headlines were very, very frustrating, but no, it's the idea that we have to debate anything that the Republicans say or that Trump says. So their talking point yesterday was, okay, maybe the president's a criminal, but the people telling us he's a criminal weren't exciting enough.

And there we are, we're knee deep in a debate about whether they were exciting enough, right? So no, you just, it's okay to dismiss them out of hand. I know they're never gonna do it, they're never gonna do it. But I mean, okay, now let me ask the media. Is there any line? What if they said, well, obviously you can't trust Ambassador Taylor, he doesn't have two heads? Would we have to debate whether he has to have two heads? Some media outlets, yes, they would 100% mention that, and then they would engage in some

sort of panel debate about it. It's ridiculous, I get it. But just to mention one of the other outrageous things that Republicans focused on from the hearings yesterday, apparently George Kent drank too much water. I'm not even kidding, that was a thing that you heard from Republican defenders of Donald Trump. They're so desperate to defend him, and they can't do so based on the substance of what's being revealed during this impeachment investigation. So they focus on nonsense like that. My point is, and I think your point is, the media shouldn't cover those things,

shouldn't care about those things. You're helping their cause by simply regurgitating their nonsense. All right, you know what, just last thing guys on this. Okay, how about us, we don't have enough money here, right? But these other media organizations have billions of dollars. How about you put together a poll or a panel of legal experts and ask them, what percentage of law professors in the country believe this is a criminal act? Oh, look at that, 95% think it's a criminal act.

Or maybe it isn't, maybe it's 65%, maybe it's just 13%. It'd be interesting to know, right? So instead of one side seems to show clear violation of the law. And the other side says the guy drinks too much water. So we're gonna call it even or we're gonna entertain that conversation. Or how about you try to, to the best of your ability, ascertain what's real? Well, it turns out 98.5% of law professors of the country believe that it is a clear, clear violation of the law.

Well, okay, that's an interesting fact, right? How about we try to get at the truth? Absolutely. All right, well, let's move on to some fun because there are some right wingers who are really struggling with this impeachment investigation and it's wonderful to watch. So, Attorney General William Barr seems to be ghosting a little bit on Donald Trump as the White House turns. indeed be disappointed in the Attorney General. In a recent interview, William Barr said he did not remember President Trump ever asking

him to hold a news conference declaring the commander-in-chief broke no laws in a controversial phone call with the leader of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky. But he acknowledged discussions with the White House on how his department would communicate to the media about this matter. So let me give you his exact quote. He told the Washington Post, I don't remember any such request. In fact, my recollection is that I told the White House that we would do what we would normally do, and that is issue of press statement, which we did, and that was not an issue.

There was no pushback on that. So let me give you some background. It was earlier reported that Donald Trump had urged Attorney General William Barr to do a press conference announcing and declaring that Donald Trump's phone conversation with Vladimir Zelensky was a perfect call. It was perfect, right? Now, Attorney General William Barr didn't do it because as we all know, it was not a perfect call.

He asked Vladimir Zelensky to dig up dirt on his political rival Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. And so the Justice Department did release, a press release. It did not have William Barr's statement in it. There was no statement from William Barr. He has really distanced himself from this investigation for obvious reasons. How can you defend Donald Trump on the substance of this investigation? There has been so much damning testimony against him from Trump administration officials.

So, drums. I believe that we have a phrase for this. Back pedal, back pedal, back pedal, back pedal, back pedal, you gotta get out of there, man. Olympic champion in the backstroke. William Park, that's a pleasant image. Picturing him in the little hat. We don't need to keep visualizing it. I'll just leave it at the cap. Okay, so this is a guy who was picked to be his yes man

and to cover his ass. And he did. I mean thoroughly. During the Mueller investigation, Mueller says 10 counts of obstruction of justice. Way of our reason and goes, Mueller says he's not guilty. What? So he thought Now, even though Mueller clearly said there are 10 counts of obstruction of justice, he thought, well, I could still say it wasn't, right? That that was not a bridge too far for him. But the Ukraine call was so bad that he would not do a press conference and say, no, no, it was good, right? For Mueller, he did a press conference.

He's like, I don't say any obstruction. I don't know what you're talking about. In fact, I think Mueller said he wasn't guilty, right? And then everybody read the report. They're like, Mueller, Barr, what are you doing? You 100% lied about what Mueller said. So what, so what, right? He's that guy.

He is that guy. And he looked at the Ukraine calls like, I'm not touching that man. You know why? Because look, the Mueller investigation, when it came to obstruction of justice, I mean, you really need to like get into that 400 page report. And the vast majority of Americans aren't going to do it. It's complicated, right? Now here's the reality, what Donald Trump did here as the simpleton that he is, is very simple

to understand. He asked a foreign country, a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival. You can't do that, that's obvious, and it's easy to understand. And at this point, you have several White House officials, people who are working under Donald Trump coming forward and providing damning testimony to prove his guilt here. And so William Barr would be stupid to do that press conference. Then you're on the record, there's video of you defending a president who has done something Incredibly wrong, who might get impeached over what he did.

And one more note on that that's important. Remember, he's also implicated because Trump said on the call, William Barr will call you. And there was separate reporting saying that Barr was furious about that. It's like, what are you telling them, I'm the attorney general, what the hell would I call a foreign government for? Like just Trump has no understanding. He's three years into his presidency, no understanding of the presidency, no understanding of the presidency. The office at all.

If you wanted an official government representative to call Zelensky, it wouldn't be your agriculture secretary and it wouldn't be your attorney general. That doesn't make any sense. And so instead of having a state department official, he's like, oh, I'll have my personal lawyer call you and the attorney general. Why? Because he's an idiot. So Barr sees that and he's like, oh, for God's sake, not only are you guilty.

Now, I might be guilty if people think I actually did call him because then I'd be part of the crime. Oops, that's why he's not out there because it's obviously a crime and he would not like to go to prison. Exactly. So one thing that I did want to bring up in the context of William Barr running away from defending Trump publicly is what John Dean said recently on cable news. So John Dean is actually or was a White House lawyer under the Nixon administration. So he knows a thing or two about impeachment investigations and get a load of what he had to say about the first day of public hearings in the Trump impeachment investigation. We know from what's come out of the executive sessions generally where this is going. And what struck me today in listening to these two witnesses is they already have more than they had against Richard Nixon to impeach him.

Just on all accounts, because the evidence is there. Oops. Yeah, look, Nixon did a lot of things wrong as well, and John Dean would know that. But here we have four crimes against Trump, and so it's the two crimes in Ukraine soliciting to help from a foreign government and bribery slash extortion for the quid pro quo. And then you have the obstruction charges from Mueller for the Russia investigation. By the way, same idea, different countries, but hey, why don't you help me against my political opponent, even though, and in the case of Russia, you're arguably one of our top adversaries.

I mean, it's before Trump, all of this was unimaginable. And then the fourth crime, of course, is a hush money to the, to his mistresses that he was having sex with while his wife was pregnant at times. And but he wanted to hush them up. So he had his lawyer, who's now in jail, pay them off. And that is another campaign finance violation, clear felony. I know it's a clear felony, well, his co-conspirator is in prison. And by the way, his other co-conspirator, his other lawyer slash-fixer, Rudy Giuliani,

currently being investigated by the Manhattan prosecutors and the Justice Department. Trump's own Justice Department is considering putting Trump's second lawyer in jail. Gee, I wonder if he's guilty. Delicious. All right, so we have to take a break. When we come back, we have more news for you, including Andrew Napoliton. continuing his dunking sessions on Donald Trump on Fox News. We'll be right back.

We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The-Republic or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-Fu-The-Republic or Un-U-N-N-E-N-E-Rubbleau. 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 complete. compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and

entertained, all at the same time. All right, back on a young Turks. My gay marriage writes in, where can I buy an audiobook narrated by Bill Taylor? Like butter. By the way, I don't know anything about his politics. I don't care. I don't want to know. But he's got a good voice.

Okay, well, and that's all that matters. All right, I bathe in a very stable genius, his tears, right? So the cracks in the dams are widening, more than trickles are coming out, the orange little Dutch boy, and his fat GOP fingers can't stop the leaks. Now, while it is amusing, I do have to say, look, our job here is to be fair and principled, okay? We can't be hypocritical and say he's got tiny hands and fat fingers, so we kind of have to make up our mind.

I mean, it's possible, it's possible, but it does seem a little contradictory. What? To have fat fingers with small hands? Yeah. That is 100% possible. I've seen it all the time. All right, I withdraw my statement. Okay, there's- How dare you discriminate- Sausage fingers? Yeah, sausage fingers, exactly. Right, okay. Man, you have been neglecting the Fat Fingers Society. I have, I'm so sorry to that community. All right, so, and last one here for now, I collecting miscellaneous says the eight o'clock hour, the suspense is killing me.

Okay, there's not really much suspense, but I want to see it made official. I'm gonna have to either They're convinced my wife to put it on the TV or go in the other room and watch on my laptop. No way I want to miss this announcement live. Well, indeed, no matter what you think it is, one, you're certainly not sure. And two, the banner in which it will be done will be interesting. Anyways, that's 8 o'clock hour. Let's do the news now. All right, it's nap time.

Andrew Napolitano has been really speaking the truth about Donald Trump on Fox News, which is rare to see. However, when it comes to the impeachment investigation, he has been incredibly honest, and the next video is a perfect example of that. Isn't it all based on opinion and hearsay? When you read the transcript, everyone has their own opinion. Well, everybody does have their own opinion. But if you look at the big picture, there doesn't seem to be any dispute, but that the president wanted dirt on Biden and the president was willing to hold up military aid in order to get it. I've already said, in my opinion, the law is not on the president's side. The law says asking for a campaign favor, whether it arrives or not. It's an investigation of a previous election. Well, that depends on how you look at it.

Are they investigating 2016 or does he want dirt on Biden as prophylactic for 2020? The Ukrainian president didn't ever feel pressure and he got his money. Do we ever know if he turned over anything about Biden to the president? Apparently he did it. So that's not quid pro quo. This is the worst shakedown ever. Yeah, the delay is the quid pro quo. The delay of 55 days knowing that the Russians were at the board.

So one thing that I think Democrats have actually, they have not done a good job at this based on the first day of public hearings, they need to make it abundantly clear that the only reason why Trump eventually allowed that money to flow to Ukraine is because there was bipartisan backlash by congressional lawmakers who had appropriated that money for Ukraine's military defense. against Russia. Hey, if I was Democrats, I'd even call the Republicans to the stand. Did you or did you not call the White House? You're under oath to say to release the money, because we know that they did.

So the Republicans themselves know, they're the ones who made Trump release the money to Ukraine, which he had no intention of releasing. Napolitano is also right that even the delay is extortion and a threat and supposed to, and could have gotten the results earlier. And Trump keeps, he's not really lucky because it doesn't matter, it's still a crime, right? But as a matter of optics, since other people do not want to participate in his crimes, he gets a tiny bit lucky in terms of how things look. So for example, Don McGahn, the former White House counsel, he told him end the investigation

into me because I don't want him to investigate me. McGahn's like, that's illegal, I can't do that. It began, had done it, boom, it's already over, right? And then he tells me again, okay, now go to lie to Congress and say, we didn't have that conversation. McGahn's like, I can't do that. That's also illegal. So then he turns around and go, see, McGahn didn't lie to you and see, he didn't end an investigation. But you asked them to, right?

And so in this case, he's like, well, Ukraine took a look. They were, by the way, about the investigation. It announced an investigation of Biden. As Anna has told you on a number of occasions, Zelensky was about to go on CNN. Fareed Zakaria's show specifically. And announced the investigation because they desperately need that money to defend themselves from the Russians. And that's when they had the bipartisan measure. And to be fair to the Republicans, the Republicans were the ones along with the Democrats

who pressured Trump. No, you can't do that. That's illegal, it's wrong, et cetera. You must give the aid over. So slight credit to Zelensky for holding out 55 days and not consummating his portion of the crime, right? Exactly. But even asking for a solicitation from a foreign government is a crime, the quid pro quo still holds

for Donald Trump. But the last thing that they have is, like, it's here, I'll give you one quick analogy about it. You go to rob a bank, you have co-conspirators, you told all these Giuliani and the ambassador Sondland, et cetera, go let's, we're gonna go rob the bank, they get their thing, and Trump is part of it. He did the call, he had conversations with all these people, there's now all the witnesses who say, yeah, he told me to hold up the aid, et cetera.

It's conspiring to commit the crime. So they all go to rob the bank and they've got the weapons and they point the weapons, and it just turns out that the bank had no money, right? That doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime. Right. You still definitely committed a crime. It's just that you're such a serial bundler. You picked a one bank with no money.

That doesn't make you innocent. So the first day of public testimony in the impeachment investigation was so damning that the White House was panicking behind the scenes. So according to reporting, the White House was furious. Rapid reaction mode, or the White House was in furious. rapid reaction mode during the first day of impeachment hearings of Donald Trump, reportedly sending out as many as six to seven talking point emails every hour to House Republicans, overwhelming them to the point of frustration.

In fact, it got so bad that at one point, Republican lawmakers would respond back by saying, stop spamming me, right? I mean, these are Republican lawmakers who are doing their best to defend Donald Trump. Of course, they don't focus on substance because they can't, but they're doing their best to defend him and the White House, you know, pretending like they're not paying attention to the hearings, we're paying very close attention because the testimony was so damning. Now, I want to go back to Napolitano because earlier this week, Napolitano went through a lengthy list of Donald Trump's wrongdoing.

Now, this did not air on Fox News Channel. It aired on the digital platform Fox Nation. But nonetheless, get a load of a conservative, Andrew Napolitano. listing all of Donald Trump's wrongdoings. In nearly three years in office, President Donald Trump has spent federal dollars not authorized by Congress, separated families and incarcerated children at the Texas-Mexico border in defiance of a federal court order, pulled 1,000 American troops out of Syria ignoring a commitment to allies and facilitating war against civilians there, and sent 2,000 American troops to Saudi Arabia without a congressional authorization or declaration of war.

He has also criminally obstructed a Department of Justice investigation of himself but escaped prosecution because of the intercession of an attorney general more loyal to him than to the Constitution. The Constitution. At the outset of his presidency, Trump took the presidential oath of office promising that he would faithfully execute his obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. James Madison, the scrivener of the Constitution, insisted that the word faithfully be in the presidential oath and that the oath itself be in the Constitution to remind presidents to enforce laws and comply with constitutional provisions,

whether they agree with them or not, and to immunize the oath from congressional alteration. Recently, Trump referred to a clause in the Constitution as phony, and he thereby implied that he need not abide it nor enforce it, notwithstanding his oath. Yeah, the other reason for the word faithfully, and I love that he pointed that out, and it's, you can read in the Federalist Papers and other notes from the time, and their debates in the convention, et cetera. So is that they wanted to make sure the president did not serve his own personal interests,

but faithfully served the people of the United States. Remember, they just overthrown a dictator, a tyrannical king that only served his own personal interest. So these were the revolutionaries who overthrew that king that wrote that document. So that's why they were so careful to say the president must serve the people and not himself. And boy, if they saw what it devolved to, they'd probably be mortified. But Napolitano, I can't give him enough credit for being principled. Again, on political issues, we don't agree with him at all.

But if you'd shown me that clip when Trump was going into the White House and said, this is what it's going to wind up becoming, I mean, look, I knew that Trump would be a disaster. I told you that on day one, but that Fox, some people on Foxman's would turn so thoroughly that they would have to warn their audience that the president doesn't care about the constitution at all and has violated his oath of office over and over again. Now, mind you, of course, there's still other clowns on Fox when he was debating on Fox and Friends. Notice what they said, well, there's two opinions on that, aren't there?

Well, there's two opinions on everything. So is there no truth at all? Can you imagine if you went to a court and you told the judge who was trying to decide whether you're guilty or not guilty? Well, you honor, obviously I'm not guilty. There's two different opinions here. There's a prosecutor's opinion and my opinion, not guilty. You should be like, that's not really how it works.

Exactly, yeah. And so I do give him a lot of credit for being principled. I wish that segment aired on the actual cable channel. No one watches Fox Nation. Let's just keep it real. But nonetheless, he's doing a decent job in speaking truth about what's happening in the impeachment investigation on Fox News channel. And that is something to be applauded because it's really hard to find principled Republicans,

especially in elected office. All right, well, let's move on to a little bit of fun news. Things got a little heated between Wolf Blitzer and Kellyanne Conway during a recent segment on CNN. Now, as we all know, George Conway, Kelly Ann Conway's husband, has been vocal in criticizing Donald Trump and pointing out all of his questionable behavior in the White House. And so Conway gets confronted about that. She doesn't like it. Take a look. Well, I just have a final question, a sensitive question. And it's a political question. It's a substantive question. I don't want to talk about your marriage. I know that there are there, there are issues there. Your husband, George Conway, he's a lawyer. Did you just say? Your husband, George Conway. Did you just say there? You don't want to talk about, no, I don't want to talk about your marriage. I don't want to talk about your marriage. I don't want to talk about your marriage. I want to talk about a substantive point that your husband, George Conway, he was on television all day yesterday during this, the first day of the impeachment hearings. And he said, this about the President of the United States. I just want your reaction to the substance of what he said. So before you play the clip, which I haven't seen, why, and why are you doing that?

Because he's a legal scholar, he's a lawyer, and he was really going after the President of the United States, and he was all over television yesterday. And come on, I just want you to, I just, and he's married to me? Well, you know, he happens to be married to you. What's wrong with that? You can run the clip of Jeffrey. He happens to be married to me. That's bizarre. Okay, let me just say there are no winners in this story, Okay, I'm not buying this whole like Kelly Ann Conway versus George Conway nonsense, right? Oh, George Conway, he's so bold in criticizing Donald Trump, I don't care, right? You're married to a woman who constantly defends him on cable news. So I don't know, you should really take a look at your own house and figure out what's going

on in your own home before you decide that you're gonna be like this bold truth teller. I like that he's telling the truth, but at the same time, like do you have these conversations with your wife? Because she's constantly defending him. Okay, there's no winners. That's my take. You might disagree with me on that. But I want to talk about Wolf Blitzer for one second.

He's so scared. I know. He's so scared and it's so pathetic. Just ask the question, Wolf. Look, we want to give you credit. It's a good, it's nothing wrong with that question. Just ask it. But he never got to the question because he was like, now, I don't know, I don't

say, I know there's issues. I mean, I don't know there's issues. I don't want to talk about your reasons. And it's a serious question and he's at least, just ask a freaking question, wolf, ask the question, right? I just want to say, this is a political question. This is not about your marriage, even though it has to do with your husband and it definitely is about your marriage. But I just don't want you to think it's about your marriage because I'm really scared of you. You're really, really mean sometimes.

Just ask it. Anyway, look, he meant to ask it. I want to give him credit for that. Just ask it and be bold and strong, that's it. All right, don't get, like, you know what's interesting? And there is an underlying problem here that's bigger than justice interaction, which is that the press is afraid of power. Yes.

So you're supposed to be the watchdog. The watchdog doesn't come to the robber and go, now I said, look, I know you're looking to rob the house, but I just, I just look, look, I know, I'm going to let you rob the house, I'm going to let you rob, I'm just, could you just know the watchdog attacks, right? And says, hey, I'm going to hold you accountable. Your husband, George Conway, legal scholar, says this, oh, he's my husband. That's off bounds. Hey, I don't care what you think off bounds is, okay?

Here's a top legal Republican scholar saying that the guy you work for is obviously a criminal and should be impeached. How do you answer that? He's my husband. I don't care that he's your husband. Answer the question, answer the question, right? That's watchdog. That's not this, right?

So, and look, in terms of their marriage, look, I almost hope that they're in on it. And like my theory that later Kellyanne Con was going to say, hey, you knuckleheads, I was obviously telling them to do it, what did you think? I'm anonymous and this was an SOS to the world, et cetera. Okay, if it's not that, then I kind of feel terrible for them. And I guess that's the lib in me. Marriages are hard. And my God, they're in the public eye more than you could ever imagine.

And so they're, and so I don't know what, you know, I don't even want to think about the dinner table, et cetera. But that's got to be kind of brutal. if they're really earnest and they really disagree this way and the husband's going out there saying, oh, my wife's boss is a monster and who would work for a person? He said that something like that the other day, right? Okay, so, and then meanwhile, she's going out all over town and going, the only reason you care about him is because he's subservient to me and I'm the person in charge.

You remember when she yelled at the reporter on tape? The only reason why he's relevant is because he's married to me. God, Jesus, if you're the husband. Wait, she said that about her own husband? Yes. I mean, George. It doesn't matter. I'm curious, George.

I'm curious. Like, what are you doing? No, because you don't know because they got kids, they got kids. So that's why I genuinely don't care about, it's not about their marriage. But it's a fair question about here's a guy who is considered by the Trump administration for a position. So he's not a never trumper. And so can you answer the question about why he thinks that your boss should be

Impeached. Fair question, but we never got to it. No, we did get to it, actually. I mean, in that clip, sorry. Yeah, so let's go to the next clip because the conversation continued. But I know there are issues. Why would you say that? What is it? I don't want to talk about your, I don't want to talk about your Why would you say there are issues? Listen to what your husband said. I'll play the club. The problem with Donald Trump is he always sees himself first. Trump is all about Trump. And that's why it was inevitable he'd get himself. into the soup once again. And that's what this is all about.

He was using the power of the presidency in its most unchecked area, foreign affairs, to advance his own personal interests as opposed to the countries. All right, that's a serious allegation, a serious charge. He was using the power of the presidency, its most unchecked area, foreign affairs to advance his own personal interests as opposed to the countries. That is his opinion. And we, I don't think MSNBC was lacking for anti-Trump voices. And we've heard things like that said on CNN for three years.

And we've heard things like that said on that network for three years and elsewise. And where, honestly, where is the shame? Where is the introspection of people who have said for three years respectfully? Well, actually beginning in May of 2017, I'll quote your wife's husband right now. I won't talk about your marriage, but I'll quote, your wife's husband. 2017, you asked Angus King, are we getting closer to impeachment? I don't know why that's a controversial question to ask, right? That's a nonsense response.

But I just want to mention something. She's putting herself in the position of a victim, right? Because Wolf Blitzer is asking a question about a very serious disagreement between Kellyanne Conway and her own husband, who is a leader. scholar, right? And she's the one who goes on national television to defend Donald Trump's disgusting policies at the border, which has led to dozens of migrants dying in cages. Those are victims, those are victims. You're not a victim, you're in a position of power, okay?

So don't make yourself out, oh, there's all these other people that disagree. So why can't you play their clips? Because it's interesting that your husband, who's a legal scholar, is speaking the truth, about the lack of legality in the White House, okay? That's why, that's why. So is it a relevant question to ask about impeachment in the middle of impeachment to one of the president's top advisors? I can't imagine a more relevant question.

What were you supposed to ask about? What'd you have for lunch? Of course is right. Did you notice? She never answered. Never answered. That's Kelly and Conway 101. Divert, divert, divert, squirrel, bucket of squirrels, right?

Oh, I can't believe you'd ask that. Shame, May of 2017. Yep, but wait, did he advance his own personal interest in conducting foreign policy? On the other hand, squirrel, squirrel, so she, okay, for the record, never answered it. And if my theory is right, she'll then turn around and go, if you notice, I never answered it, right? George and I were working on this the whole time, and whenever you ask me about, what he said. I never denied it, okay? So that could easily be the shell game that they're playing. But my favorite part was at the end, have you no shame?

Yeah, have you no shame? Working for the Trump administration. Being there, his top lackey, going out there and defending all the monstrous things he did. And you're asking if other people have no shame. All right, duly noted, Kellyan. I have to say one final thing, if that is the shell game that they're playing, right? And if she plans on coming forward sometime in the future when Trump is no longer in office to say this was our plan, you know, George Conway, my husband was saying this and I never disagreed with him publicly. Okay, just understand that she continued working for Trump and she continued defending

Trump. Why? Is there anyone putting a gun to her head and telling her she needs to work for Trump and defend Trump? No, she has made a decision to do so. Why? Why has she made a decision to do so? because of the power, because of the access, because of her own self interests.

So she doesn't get to go through the mainstream media, you know, laundering cycle to clear her reputation. She's a bad person, period. I don't care what her husband does. I care what she does. And she defends him time and time again, defense Trump time and time again. Look, I'll give you a quick example and why it's so seductive for the people in Washington. I was at an event during the White House Correspondence dinner weekend.

It was actually arguably the top party of the weekend. And Kellyanne Conway, this was two years ago, Kelly Ann Conway walks in and everybody was like, and like the whole crowd buzzed around her, media people, other politicians, everybody at the party, all of a sudden everybody's taking pictures, and she was the big celebrity at the party. That's why. That's why she does it. Later, when she'll pretend that it was out of principle and she was leaking and she was trying to help the country and save the country, no way, she loved the fame and the power. That's why she did it.

We got to take a quick break. When we come back, we have some more to cover on Donald Trump's joint press conference with Erdogan. 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 cybercriminals.

And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EX, P-R-E-S-V-N dot com slash TYT. Check it out today.

We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media become a member at t yt dot com slash join today in the meantime enjoy this free second all right back on the young turks let's go to the member section t yt dot com slash join to become member what he sometimes says it's the worst shakedown in history referring to what they said on fox news and then he says in jenks voice of course trump's too stupid for a good shakedown I like that I did, of course, in Jenk's voice, as if I'm not Jenk. Okay, anyway, S-M-M-F-H till it falls off, writes in.

Oh my gosh, Anna, I was yelling at the TV yesterday. He only released the funds after pressure from Congress. Yeah. Hashtag week Dems, but hold, hold, because I want to go to YouTube super chat. Silas Greystone said, Chairman Schiff did bring up on the record that aid being released only after Congress and Senator order to Trump to release it on September 9th. You are right, okay? He said that during his opening statements, but like, can we just all acknowledge the fact

that Schiff seems like he's about to fall asleep while he's talking? Yeah. I mean, I was paying close attention because I want to pay close attention and I want to know exactly what he's saying for the show, but he had no enthusiasm whatsoever. I don't know, maybe it's part of his strategy, but it's easy to ignore or not really pay attention to what he's saying. Yeah. I just think that when the Republicans are doing their questioning, as soon as a Democrat follows

it, they need to ask a line of questions that makes it abundantly clear that the only reason why Trump released that aid was because he was forced to. Yeah, look, and there's a difference in witnesses and people on a different size making their case. So the witness doesn't have to be exciting. The witness has to just tell you the facts, right? But if you're prosecuting the case, well, you have to grab the attention of the jury, right? So to continue that analogy.

So in this case, Adam Schiff, you're saying we need to impeach the president of the United States. Then you need to make that case effectively. And so that's when if you're droning on in technical language, you're not getting through, you're not bringing through the American people. But I love that you're participating in the show and pointed that out, and because I want everybody to know the full context, so thank you for doing that and thank you for using YouTube Superchat.

Last couple of ones here, Funk Taco writes in on the member section, Trump has lived so long outside the rule of law that he has no idea what the law actually is. Very true, he thinks he does that the law is for other people, usually minorities. I think he genuinely doesn't get like, why are you prosecuting? I'm a rich white person. What are you talking? No, I don't go to jail, you go to jail, right? That's his mindset.

And so it's a fluenza set in and so he's got a critical case of it. Set in, it's been- I know, right? It's been an effect. Justin T. Brown on YouTube SuperChance says, Jank, loosen up, you're gonna do great, much love. Okay, anyway, yes, there is an announcement at 8 o'clock, so almost an hour and it'll be interesting to see. Anyway, notorious ETC on Twitter says, Jank, you got me so amped up to vote next year by

by speaking truth to power, hashtag bucket of squirrels, hashtag Pelosi, are a Republican in a mask. Okay, well, that's his take on it. Okay, let's go forward. A few announcements for you. Next week is the Georgia debate for the Democrats. It'll be the fifth Democratic debate, and we will be providing special coverage of that debate here on TYT.T. You can watch live by going to t.com slash live, and on the panel we'll have John Iderola, Ida Rodriguez, and J.R.

I will also be part of the coverage. So again, this is on Wednesday, November 20th at 11 p.m. Eastern Time, 8 p.m. Pacific. And there will also be a revolution rally in Georgia. And if you want to attend that, all you need to do is go to t.t.com slash rally for more information. Now let's talk a little bit about aspiration. If you're looking for a wonderful financial institution to put your money in, aspiration is the place to go. They will not invest your money in any shady industry, including the fossil fuel industry. Just go to Aspiration.com slash TYT to learn more.

And finally, if you are looking to invest your money, Doe might be the answer for you. Doe is a great place to go if you're new to investing, because what they'll do is ask you some questions about what your interests are, and then they'll give you some investing options is based on that. And so there are apparently no fees to trade, which is really nice. So you can check it out by going to Doe.com slash TYT. All right, let's move on. After Trump made his abrupt decision to pull US troops out of northern Syria, and he essentially

abandoned our Kurdish allies by doing so, Erdogan, the president of Turkey, launched a military operation into northern Syria, which led to the death of our Kurdish allies, and also the abandonment of certain prisons that were keeping ISIS fighters. Now this was a huge issue. It led to both Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence going to Turkey to demand a ceasefire. However, what was interesting is during a joint press conference between Donald Trump and Erdogan, The topic of a letter that Trump had written to Erdogan came up. Now, Trump really wanted the ceasefire to happen, and so he had referred to Erdogan as, well,

he said, do the ceasefire, because if you don't, you'd be a fool, you'd be the devil. It was an insulting letter to say the least. And so Erdogan was asked about it during the joint press conference, and here's what he had to say. President Trump sent you a letter on October the 9th, urging you not to launch a military action into northern Syria. He said, quote, don't be a tough guy, don't be a fool. You ignored that letter and you went ahead and you launched a military action into northern Syria. Can you explain why you ignored the president's warning?

Well, this letter was represented to Mr. president this afternoon and I've also underlined the fact that a terrorist such as Fyiddhar Abdu Shahin should not be considered as an interlocutor by a country such as the United States and this individual Fyred Abdi Shahin has been instrumental in the killings of the hundreds of Turkish civilians and he is a person labeled as a has like a son for the terrorist leader who is currently incarcerated in Turkey, Abdullah Ojalah. So a person like this should not be welcomed by a country such as the United States.

So look, I want to talk a little bit about the substance of what Erdogan is saying in regard to the Kurds because the fact of the matter is he's conflating the Kurds who are part of the PKK and who have conducted terrorist attacks in Turkey with our Kurdish allies. in northern Syria. But nonetheless, let's just quickly focus on the letter because Trump writes this letter and it's insulting and unprofessional and ridiculous, right? And Erdogan at first, it was reported just like tossed it in the trash, but apparently he didn't.

He kept it and then presented Trump with that letter when they met for this joint press conference. Yeah, there's one more piece of context there. When the press and Turkey asked Erdogan about the letter, he remember Erdogan at the time had gotten everything he wanted. The supposed deal was that the Turks would then house the ISIS detainees. Now, that never came to fruition because the Kurds have them and the Kurds would not hand them over to the Turks.

None of that made any sense. So Erdogan was like, yeah, sure. Oh, Trump, you want me to do that? Yeah, sure. Have the Kurds send him over to me. And so he got northern Syria. He got everything he wanted. So when they asked him about this incredibly rude, bizarre letter, he said, oh, no, no, we're okay, no problem, right?

But later, I know what to do with that letter. Okay, so now when everyone says that that means something, okay? So apparently what he meant is when I go to the White House, I'll hand it back to him and go, no thank you. Right, and that's what he did. And that's what he did. And so that, you know, we don't agree with his actions in northern Syria, but that is bad. And of course, Trump, I don't know, look, he's so weak. When it comes to actual strong men, Trump is such a coward.

No, but you know, he is such a coward. I'm gonna provide evidence of that in just a second. I mean, we've provided evidence in the past. But if you pay close attention to Trump's body language while the reporter is asking Erdogan the question, once he mentions the language used in the letter, Trump does this, he goes, Like, he's so proud of himself. And it's like, no, you don't understand, that was not a tough letter. Erdogan laughs at you, right?

And that's devastating because Erdogan's not a good guy. He's a really bad guy, especially with what he did with that military operation in northern Syria. And to argue that those Kurds in northern Syria are all terrorists is ridiculous. So there is a portion of the Kurds, the PKK, who have conducted terrorist attacks in Turkey. But that's not all the Kurds that we were allied with in northern Syria. These are individuals who helped us fight ISIS in northern Syria. They were guarding ISIS fighters in prisons in northern Syria. Well, so, okay, now, one more thing about the letter, and then I want to give context on that, too.

So I think that it's actually a really smart move by I don't know if he thought this through and if he knows how unintelligent Trump is. But after his dealings with him, he probably figured it out. When he hands the letter back to Trump, that's in Turkey will be perceived as like, man, that is strong. You go to the White House and go, no thank you, take this goddamn letter back, right? And so he wins a lot of political points back at home. But Trump's such a dummy, he probably doesn't understand.

What happened? He's like, oh, you gave me the letter back. Oh, okay, thank you. Thank you. Like he just doesn't- I wanna keep this for my record. Yeah. I might frame it and put it up in one of my golf courses.

Oh, I guess you're giving it back to me because it was such a strong letter. Like he's not gonna get it, so it's kind of a win-win for Erdogan. So now on the sums of it, look, I think it's a little bit more complicated and nuance than, okay, these Kurds are bad guys and these Kurds are good guys. So is PKK is a terrorist group. Now, with all terrorist groups, they say they're doing it for their homeland and to protect the rights of the people that are Kurdish within Turkey, et cetera. But the Turks justifiably go, they're bombing civilians, it's totally unacceptable.

And then are there different people who are also fighting against ISIS with us in northern Syria that are Kurdish? Absolutely. Are the Kurds mainly either one of those groups? No, most people are civilians and you can't lump either one of them as the Kurds, right? Now having said that, are there some PKK that probably interact with the other Kurdish forces in northern Syria? Probably, right?

And it is very hard to unwind that. So that is what infuriates the Turkish government and honestly the Turkish civilians saying, we know those guys are working together, and you say, hey, they helped you in Syria, and they helped you against ISIS, and that's great, but they're bombing us. And so- But I like, look, Jank, I get that, right? Which is why it was important. Look, this is one of the rare cases where the Pentagon actually had decent sound foreign policy, right? Because they were working on a safe zone in northern Syria. So the threat to the Turks no longer existed, or at least was mitigated, right?

Was mitigated. But Erdogan didn't want to wait for that. Erdogan wanted to launch his military operation. That's exactly what he did. And he committed war crimes as a result of that. So I just don't want us to be hypocritical. I think that this, I'm positive the Turks didn't think that the safe zone was sufficiently mitigating the terrorism arising from what they perceived to be that area.

But what's my analysis, the safe zone was actually in a very, very difficult situation, probably almost as good as we could have done. So we did separate the warring parties, yes, there was still some conflict. and still some terrorism that came out of there. But yes, we also did defeat ISIS in that area, right? So we were trying to thread a very hard needle. So I think America, you know me, I'm willing to criticize American foreign policy to no end. But in this case, I thought they did a pretty good job.

Turkey might not have perceived it that way, but hey, we're all different countries and you know, we all have our different national interests. So it's a rare situation where our foreign policy in Pentagon, we're doing not a perfect job by any stretch of the imagination, but a pretty good job in an extraordinarily difficult situation. But Turkey kind of bulldozing in there. The only part that I point out is, hey, let's not be hypocritical is if Turkey were Israel and they said, wait, these no good Muslims are bombing us, let us obliterate them.

We would, you know we would, we have over and over. again, and there would have been no discussion of nuance. And here, by the way, we're the only ones doing nuance. Everybody else is like Turks or the devil, who cares about terrorism inside Turkey, et cetera, et cetera. And when it comes to Israel, it seems like it's the exact opposite, right? Whereas we're trying to be consistent here. So the Turks should not occupy northern Syria, Israel should not occupy West Bank and Gaza's trip.

The Palestinians should not do terrorism, PKK should not do terrorism. But Turkey and Israel also should not do state violence. And state violence is often undercounted. In this case, the American media goes, no, Turkish state violence is the worst thing in the world. Israeli state violence, oh come on, they had the bomb the schools in the hospitals because I mean they were using civilians as shields, that's totally okay. So understand the hypocrisy in the media and also the substance of it here.

None of this excuses going into northern Syria. All right, let's take a break. When we come back, we have some more on what Erdogan had communicated to Republican senators. What did Lindsey Graham have to say about the propaganda that he was shown by Erdogan. And then later we're gonna discuss, man, Leon Cooperman just will not let it go. Oh dude, you gotta go away, man. It's my favorite story. Just cry at home.

That's where most people cry. But he wants to do it for everyone. He wants to show us his tears. All right, we'll be back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Yugar, and I'll see you soon.