The Young Turks - U.S. Won't Stop Meddling In Venezuela Conflict And Trump Dogs His Own Official

Episode Date: February 26, 2019

The United States seems to be interested in Venezuela purely for money. Trump's Secretary of State can't even make sense of his North Korea rantings. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS 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 Cougar, Anna Kasparian, on yet another momentous day on TV. We just can't stop having momentous days.

So a little bit later in the program, Elizabeth Warren joins us again on the show. She's got a new policy proposal again, and we will be discussing it. Is it a good proposal? Look, we do perspective on this program, so I'll be very clear with you. Now we'll ask her some interesting questions about that, so it doesn't, my opinion about the proposals is not going to stop us from asking interesting slash challenging questions. Having said that, I love the proposal, okay, and I'm going to be clear about that in the interview as well, we never hide the ball.

We tell you what our true opinions are, obviously, right? And so she's coming on the program in about half an hour or so, so stay right here, okay? Then later on Bernie Sanders Town Hall, we'll be covering that on t.yt.com slash live, everybody checked that out, and the coverage, you'll be second screen, so you'll be watching it along with us, and then we'll do analysis, and that'll be mainly for the members. So t-y-t.com slash join to become a member, or you can try for a week free, t-y-t.com slash trial. Okay, so again, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in his sense on the same program

one more time, but I want to be very clear about one thing, and this is important editorially. We are asking all of the presidential candidates to come on, and so we now have had five or so on and those are the people who agreed. If you don't see a presidential candidate on the show, that means they have not agreed to come on. So that's not on us, that's on them, okay? So I just want to be clear about that.

So, okay, and lots of amazing news in today's program, Fox News with yet another hilarious attack against Acacia Cortez, we'll cover that a little bit later. We've got Venezuela, we've got North Korea, we got China, we got a lot of foreign policy, We got, but I don't want you to miss this. Look, there's so many wonderful things in today's show. But Trump answering, talking to the US trade representative in front of the Chinese and in front of national cameras, absolutely make, I mean, if you think he's made a fool himself before, you're absolutely right.

But, and this might top it. It was mind-boggling, yeah. It broke the record on stupid. So later, Trump, unbelievably, because he's done it something. many times. One more world record on stupid. So, and you're going to get to see it with your own eye, so don't miss that story. Okay, Anna, take it away. All right. Violence erupted on the Venezuelan border with Colombia as humanitarian aid was blocked into the country. Now, of course, there's hyperinflation in the country. People are going hungry, and as a result, there's been

an effort by the United States to try to get humanitarian aid into Venezuela. Now, Of course, it's fine to question the real intentions of the United States, which we will get to in just a minute. But to give you the details on what's currently happening, the latest news over the weekend, Maduro has decided to break diplomatic ties with Colombia. Maduro loyalists have also clashed with the opposition's efforts to deliver this humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, two protesters were killed along the Brazil border with Venezuela.

And also Guido, who is the opposition leader here, has agreed to meet with. with Vice President Pence in Colombia. So that's just quick bullet points over what's currently happening. But Juan Guido says the following, our call to the armed forces couldn't be clearer. Put yourselves on the right side of history. Now when he says that, he's specifically referring to the military in Venezuela, which for the most part has been bought off by Nicholas Maduro. He has shared some of the money with them in order to keep them loyal to Maduro.

And that, of course, is what's helping him stay in power as the dictator of Venezuela. Okay, so as usual, there are no winners here. Lots of bad guys all around. Let's try to break it down. So, and we, I believe, we're certainly among the very, very few media outlets that are in the middle here, that are trying to discern facts in a situation littered with propaganda from both sides. So there's the side that says Maduro's, you know, rides on unicorns over.

We're rainbows, not buying it, I don't see why he wouldn't let the humanitarian aid in. Don't get me wrong, I know the humanitarian aid is a trick by America and his opponents. That's why he's not letting it in. No, I get it, but so what, let it in anyway? And be like, thanks a lot, we appreciate it, there's no change, no. We don't accept your coup, but we do accept your food and medicine. That's what I would do, I know the situation is complicated and that might be an oversimplification. But did Maduro's basically a guard fire on protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets, stuff

that we decry when the government in the United States does it to our protesters? Yes, they did. On the other hand, what almost nobody in the mainstream media tells you is, this is, wait a minute, the protest, so-called protesters, some of them are real, absolutely, and some Some of them are not so real. Also through rocks at the police and the army, the Venezuelan army. And they took a bus and lit it on fire. Now I know what would happen in the US if protesters through rocks and police and let a bus

on fire. They would be the bad guys and the cops would get to do whatever the hell they wanted to them and the protesters would be called terrorists. Now remember, in this case, the protesters are against Maduro and on the ostensible side of America. So let's just be clear about the propaganda that is out there. Because I don't see any mainstream media calling the protesters terrorists. I know they would do it here.

I know Fox News would do it here. I'm positive of that if the situation was reversed. So the army, the Venezuelan army should not fire at the protesters. And the protesters should not have thrown rocks and lift things on fire and endangered people's lives. So both sides have done things that are wrong. So if you're on either one of those sides and you think either side's an ancient, you think either size as an angel, go ahead and get mad at us and do whatever you like.

But we're trying in a very difficult situation to deliver the facts. Right. So one other failure of the mainstream media is the lack of clarity on why the United States is really interested in getting involved in this effort for regime change in Venezuela. And make no doubt about it, this is an effort for regime change. And the intentions here are not to look out for the Venezuelan people. Are there some government officials who genuinely believe that? Maybe.

But the underlying objective here has to do with oil. Because if you look at our actions anywhere else in the world where we're involved in conflict, Yemen for example, we don't care about the humanitarian crisis. In fact, we are assisting Saudi Arabia in creating a humanitarian crisis in Yemen. So you can't listen to the Trump administration and believe them when they say, oh no, we're very much concerned for the Venezuelan people. In fact, John Bolton himself admitted that there is a real business interest in Venezuela that they're seeking.

And I don't want to put words in his mouth, you can hear it for yourselves. Take a look. I want everybody to know, we're looking at all this very seriously. We don't want any American businesses or investors caught by surprise. They can see what President Trump did yesterday. We're following through on it. So if you think of a company like Sitco, which is owned by Pedavas, which is the state-run oil company there in Venezuela. We have a lot of those Cisco assets right here in the U.S.

Is that something, for example, sir, that you're looking at? Yeah, well, we're in conversation with major American companies now that are either in Venezuela or in the case of Citgo here in the United States. I think we're trying to get to the same end result here. You know, Venezuela is one of the three countries I call the Troika of tyranny. It'll make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. It'd be good for the people of Venezuela, it'd be good for the people of the United States. We both have a lot at stake here, making this come out the right way.

So John Bolton is not hiding the fact that they're very much interested in the oil in Venezuela. I mean, he said it, that that was him, those were his own words. But that's not to say that we support Nicholas Maduro or that Nicholas Maduro isn't doing anything wrong. Of course we're not saying that, I would argue that right now there is no good guy. This is a very complicated situation and unfortunately people are trying to look for a good guy and a bad guy, but unfortunately you're seeing some bad actors on both sides.

Okay, so let's talk about the things that are clear. So I want to thank John Bolton, it's not something you'd hear me say often on the program. Why? For the clarity that he's given us. So now we know for a fact, look, he started out with admissions that were borderline startling. Look, we're looking out for U.S. business interests. So now it's sometimes mentioned tangentially, like we care about the people of Venezuela. I mean, business interests too a little bit, okay?

No, but he started out with business interests. And then at the end, he just dropped all pretences and said, no, we want American companies to get the oil in Venezuela, period, period. And by the way, it's not complicated. And that is, so I'm going to call out all of the mainstream media undoing, here we go. A terrible job of giving context. Why? It never occurred to you that the two main places where we want regime change are Iran and

Venezuela that are not connected by anything else other than giant oil producers that have not given their oil contracts to American oil companies. That didn't occur to you. You don't think that's relevant to mention in all these pieces? Well now, okay, if you said, oh, that's speculative, well, I didn't analysis, I I guess on your part is just not necessary. You just repeat the propaganda of the U.S. or any other government puts out, and you shut up about it.

I don't think that's doing the news. I think you need analysis and context, and you are missing it. But now we don't have to have that debate, because Bolton, you just saw it with your own eyes, said yes, we're doing it so that American oil companies can get the oil contracts. What part of it is complicated? So our interests in Venezuela are clearly tainted. We are going in there for financial reasons, so do not cover it as if we care about a humanitarian crisis or the fact that Maduro did not legitimately win those elections, because we obviously

do not care. Now, why is it further obvious? Well, we support about three quarters of the dictatorships in the world. So why randomly pick Iran and Venezuela out of that giant swath of countries that have dictators that we support? Why are we not animated, for example, about the dictator in Saudi Arabia, who's a butcher and who chops people up? Why?

Because our companies have oil contracts with Saudi Arabia. It's all about the money, all about the money, so let's be absolutely clear about that. And so we do not have legitimate extra grievances with Iran or Venezuela more than we would with Saudi Arabia or any other dictatorship. The only real reason why we're animated about those countries and why we are agitating for regime change in those two countries is the oil, period, period. But yet in the rest of the mainstream media, it is never mentioned. Not only, hey, look, young Turks, I get it, you make a persuasive case, but I don't know if that's

90% of their equation, 100%, 70%, 51%, that's an interesting debate. No, they mentioned it as 0%. Preposterous, that's not news, that's propaganda. So look, I look forward to people coming up with constructive solutions on how to get aid to Venezuela and constructive solutions on how to do a real election in Venezuela. But what is not constructive is us agitating for regime change. so that oil executives in America can make more money. Not interested, that's a hell no, no, under no circumstances.

And also keep in mind that the United States had already assisted in a failed coup in Venezuela back in 2002. So U.S. officials have had their eyes set on Venezuela for a while now. And again, you can chew gum and walk at the same time, right? And it, critiquing the U.S. involvement is not, you know, giving a pardon to some of the horrific things that are taking place in Venezuela. But it is important for the American people to be fully aware and informed on why the United States is involved in the first place. Yes.

And by the way, more context. 12 members, at least 12 members of the National Guard have switched over and defected to Colombia. So at the lower levels of the military, there is great discontent because they're living the same economic situation as the rest of the people in Venezuela. There are real protesters against Maduro. There's a mother that went out there, for example, and says, look, I got it, there's no bread. There's no bread.

I need bread for my kids. They're worried I'm going to die in the protest. But on the other hand, I'm worried they're going to die without food. Another dad drove 18 hours to try to get medicine in for his son. So those stark economic conditions in Venezuela are real, okay? And there are real protests. There's also, again, a lot of young. young males that are going out there in mass on and lighting things on fire.

Those are the folks I would put in the American and Guido-led propaganda units, okay? And then finally, in terms of scope, what I hear in the American media all the time is there are huge protests against Maduro in the streets, including in the Capitol. That's true. Okay, what will you find out today is, it turns out actually there are bigger rallies in favor of Maduro. Okay, so let's report both. To say that there are no protests against Maduro is totally wrong, okay?

To say that the protests are larger than the ones supporting Maduro are also wrong. Now why are all those people in the streets in favor of Maduro? How come no one in the American media ever asked that question? So that's, I mean, given the economic disaster that is happening in Venezuela, it's a fair question why all these people are still supporting Maduro. Could it be that they're tired of American coups in Latin America? That could be part of it. And the constant interference and the constant demands that their oil be given over to American

oil companies for their profit. Yes, both of those things are real and are factors here. Please, please try to do your job without the government or any government, whether it's the Venezuelan government or the U.S. government, telling you what you must say. Let's move on to other foreign policy. Donald Trump has traveled to Vietnam for his second summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, and it appears that in the second meeting, Trump has significantly lowered his expectations for Oon. Take a look.

We have a special feeling, and I think it's going to lead to something very good, and maybe not. Speaking to the U.S. governor's Sunday night, President Trump said he's no longer pushing North Korea to quickly give up its nuclear weapons. I'm not in a rush. I don't want to rush anybody. I just don't want testing. As long as there's no testing, we're happy. North Korea has not tested a missile or nuclear device for more than 400 days, a self-imposed pause long before the Singapore summit. Kim Jong-un claims he's already completed his nuclear program and no longer needs the tests.

But there is ample evidence that the regime is still producing nuclear fuel, working on its weapons programs in evading international sanctions. North Korea has taken no clear steps towards denuclearization, despite President Trump's tweet after the Singapore summit that there's no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea. Okay, so he is lowering expectations. He's like, look, as long as they're not testing these missiles, as long as they're not testing nuclear weapons, I'm okay with this,

which is, again, lowering expectations. Initially, he wanted North Korea to completely denuclearize, but as you know, there has been some evidence indicating that Kim Jong-un has continued on with developing his nuclear arsenal. Okay, so, it's not just a matter of lowering expectations, because a lot of administrations do that for a lot of issues, including meeting with foreign leaders. It's about moving the goalposts. So as CBS did a really good job there of giving you context, they stopped testing. their missiles well before Trump met with Kim Jong-un in June of 2018.

So he did not get that concession at that meeting. That's just not true. And so now, does that mean that they have stopped their nuclear program altogether, as Trump claimed? Absolutely not. So they're still working on their weapons programs overall, and they're still producing nuclear fuel, and they're still evading international sanctions. Now look, you put sanctions on a country, no matter how much I disagree with the country,

they're gonna try to evade them. I'm a little less concerned about that, that's my opinion, okay? I don't want them to evade it, but I understand the back and forth that's happening there. But are we applying the same standard to North Korea as we are to Iran, for example? Because Iran never had a nuclear weapon program, Iran never tested any nuclear weapons at all, And they gave up their nuclear energy program on top to produce energy in a concession to America and Russia, China, and Europe. And America says now, not good enough, no, you gave up every part of your nuclear program,

including nuclear energy, I don't care, not good enough. You turn around in North Korea, they still have a nuclear weapons program, they still are testing other missiles, and Trump turns around goes, good enough, as long as they're not doing any test that I could see with the naked eye, I don't care. All right, great, then let's apply that standard to Iran. No, I want to go to war with Iran. Gee, I wonder why. Iran has oil, North Korea has no oil.

Donald Trump says he's in love with Kim Jong-un. He literally said that, that's not me, literally said that, okay? And that's because he'll get together with dictators who know him, who are savier than he is, they'll compliment him, and he'll immediately fall in love. So maybe if Ayatollah Khomeini sat down with Trump and complimented him incessantly, Maybe then we wouldn't have to worry about war with Iran in the future. Yeah, we still would, of course, because they still have oil. I can't imagine Donald Trump being saying, I fell in love with the Ayatollah.

But you never know, the guy's a lunatic, so he might. He is a lunatic. Right? So let's, again, if you're the mainstream media, let's be clear about our standards here. Do we have the same standard? Do we have principles? No, we don't. It is completely situational based on whether the country has oil or not, whether we want to agitate

John Bolton, neo-conservatives, that now control Donald Trump like a puppet would like to engage in war or not, okay? So I want a peace deal with North Korea. I like that he's meeting with Kim Jong-un, but saying, hey, as long as they're not testing missiles right now, we're good to go. Well, then why are you even meeting with him? Because he's already not testing missiles. That's not the issue at all.

What we want him to do is stop doing the things that I talked about. We want him to stop producing nuclear fuel. We want him to stop working on their weapons programs altogether. And if you're not going to get that, then why are you going? Exactly, exactly. Well, another part of the story that I thought was kind of interesting was how often Donald Trump make statements that conflict with what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says, especially when he goes on various news shows. So I'll give you an example. First, Trump makes it seem as though, hey, North Korea, it's already denuclearized.

We have nothing to worry about. In fact, he had tweeted about that, which was covered in that CBS News report. And then Pompeo contradicts that very statement. Take a look. Do you think North Korea remains a nuclear threat? Yes. But the president said he doesn't. It's not what he said.

I mean, I know precisely. He tweeted. There was no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea. What he said is that what he said was that the efforts that had been made in Singapore, this commitment that Chairman Kim made have substantially taken down the risk to the American people. It's the mission of Secretary of State and the President of the United States to keep American people secure. So again, the tweet said, you can rest easy. North Korea has denuclearized.

That was the tweet. Yeah, I give you the quote now for the third time. Trump said there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea. Pompeo, you just saw it with your own eye. He said, oh, he never said that. Except that he did. Word for word, okay? And so, and he's like, oh, the agreement that we got the last time they met has greatly

reduced the risk of any kind of nuclear conflict. Except there was no, the agreement was so vague. Pompeo himself will admit that no one really knows what it means. That is why they're meeting again to try to clarify what the hell Trump and Kim Jong-un meant by the incredibly vague agreement last time. Because it doesn't really demand anything of them. And you know, even if they have this meeting and they come out with a real contract, right, with genuine terms of agreement, I mean, it depends.

I mean, is Trump going to honor that? Because it seems like he doesn't really care for contracts very much, which is a story that we'll do later today. He is apparently very much against contracts, detailed binding agreements between one country and the other. And so what are we left with? He said again, Trump did about Kim Jong-un, quote, we have a specific. special feeling.

This is on top of him declaring that they fell in love earlier, and he says, I think it's going to lead to something good, but maybe not. Okay, what is something good? Can you define anything? Can you do your job at all? So I desperately want him to succeed on this issue. I want him to get some sort of tangible benefits because I do not want to go to war with North Korea.

That would be disastrous. I like that he's meeting with Kim Jong-un. For God's sake, can you stop being a child for a second and actually get tangible benefits in those negotiations? I think you're asking for far too much. Like, let's keep it real. All right, second part of the story I want to get to is actually about Trump's love affair with Kim Jong-un, so let's get right to it.

Following Donald Trump's first summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, he went on a tour talking about how he has a great relationship with him. In fact, Trump has praised Kim as someone who loves his people and told supporters at a rally last year that the two men, quote, fell in love. Now Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, was asked about this right before Donald Trump traveled to Vietnam for the second summit with Kim Jong-un. And here are his thoughts on this. Well, having been the CIA director not too terribly long ago, I'm very familiar with

the fact pattern. We do know the history. We know the history of the North Koreans making. promises, making commitments, lying, taking American money when President Clinton said, we've got this resolved back in 1994. This administration's not going to do that. We have charted a different path. Frankly, we've been criticized for taking that path, where we work, we negotiate, and then the two people who can actually effectuate the denuclearization in North Korea and a brighter future for the North Korean people will gather for a second time. We have economic

sanctions in place. We know the standard for relieving those sanctions. And I'm very hopeful that we'll make a substantial step towards achieving the full denuclearization in a verifiable way in North Korea. The South Koreans, the Japanese have been great partners in this. And we're very hopeful we can get a good outcome. It's mind-boggling to me that anyone would want to work for Donald Trump, someone who causes explosions and then expects everyone around him to clean up that explosion immediately afterwards. Now Pompeo, of course, is doing his best trying to cover up Donald Trump's incompetence.

But I just want to remind you of that incompetence in a wonderful match. that J.R. Jackson put together for the show. Take a look. How long will it take to figure out whether or not they're serious. I said, maybe in the first minute. I think, honestly, I think he's going to do these things. I think I'm very well prepared. I don't think I have to prepare very much. How long will take? I think within the first minute, I'll know. I just my touch, my feel. That's what, that's what I do. I think I've been preparing for the summit for a long time. I also think I'll know whether or not it will happen fast. I may stand before you in six months and say, hey, I was wrong.

I don't know that I'll ever admit that, but I'll find some kind of an excuse. During an interview with Fox News, Trump also applauded Kim Jong-un because every time he walks into a room as a dictator, everybody stands up and he thought that was pretty good. I mean, he has a love affair with Kim Jong-un, who again is a dictator. North Korea is not our ally. Kim Jong-un is not our ally. I'm not saying that we should enter a war with North Korea. That is the number one thing I'd want to prevent from happening. So I like the diplomatic approach. But Donald Trump is not approaching this with the mindset of, hey, we need to protect our country.

We need to look out for national security. We need to do what it takes to get Kim Jong-un, our enemy to denuclearize. So he doesn't pose a threat to us and our allies. But that's not the way he's handling it. He sits down with Kim Jong-un, or Kim Jong-un gives him a bunch of him a bunch of him a by bunch of compliments, and then he goes around talking about, oh, it's my touch, it's my feel. He's going to follow through with these promises, even though he hasn't followed through with a single one of them.

Unreal. So, let's break it down. So some people say, well, all you guys don't want him to meet or get an agreement with North Korea? No, don't be stupid. So when Dick Cheney said about Iran, we don't meet with evil, what a stupid thing. But in this case, to be fair to Dick Cheney, because it's not a stupid guy. It's a stupid policy, but he doesn't actually believe it. He just wanted their oil contracts, so he wanted to invade.

So that's why he didn't want to meet with them, because they would have given him concessions and he didn't want those concessions. So we don't agree with that kind of ideology, okay, of we don't meet with evil. So for example, Roosevelt worked with Stalin, one of the most evil men who's ever existed. And why, get a little of this, at the time he was the lesser of two evils. And we worked together to defeat the Nazis, which was incredibly important. So should we do that? Yes.

But did FDR come out and say that he fell in love with Stalin? Did he say, I'll know within the first minute of meeting Stalin, whether it's going to work out or not? No, because, of course, he's a smart person. No smart person knows what's going to happen in a complicated negotiation in the first minute because you actually need to get into the details, and you can't just look at someone or touch them and be like, oh, I know, I know what's going to happen. I know it's going to be Clause 13, Section B2.

No, he's a moron. He walks in, and Kim Jong-un goes, my, Mr. President, you have such glowing orange skin. It's beautiful on you. And he's like, I know it. This guy's awesome. I fell in love with him. I'm in love with him.

He's awesome. I don't need anything else. I don't need anything else. Why? Because he's not negotiating on our behalf. He's negotiating on his behalf. He just wants compliments. We have an unbelievable buffoon as president.

And let's note the overwhelming record-shattering hypocrisy of Fox News and all conservatives and all Republicans. If Barack Obama said that he fell in love with Kim Jong-un, they would have started impeachment hearings, Fox News would never, ever stop quoting that. And this Democrat who's soft on dictators, the guy's got gulags and concentration. Well, which is true, by the way. Okay, and he says he fell in love with him. Now, Trump says it, they're like, oh yeah, of course, that's what you're supposed to do.

Tough conservatives are supposed to fall in love with dictators that are against our interests. Okay, if that's what you believe. One final part of this that you should know about is Russia's involvement. And I'm not exaggerating this, this is not a red scare, but according to Russian state media, they revealed comments from Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in which he said Moscow believes the U.S. should offer security guarantees to Pyongyang in exchange for a deal to abandon its nuclear arsenal.

Now, why do I share their thoughts on this? Well, Russian State TV also noted that Donald Trump reached out to the Russians for advice on how to handle this. That's not a good idea, not a good idea considering some of the accusations against you. If you, I want you to understand what's normal diplomacy and what's not. If you were to go after you have an agreement and check with the- With your allies? Not just with your allies, but at some point you say to the Russians, hey, here's a deal

we struck, we want you to be aware of it so that there's no misunderstandings, that's perfectly normal. Asking them ahead of time, what deal should I do? It's crazy. Come on, man. Okay, and then finally, when Chris Wallace asked Mike Pompeo, why did the president say that he fell in love with Kim Jong-un? So good job of Chris Wallace on Fox News, so I'll give him and only him credit on that.

He said, oh, well, you know, it's because the relationships matter, et cetera, and then he added this, Pompeo did. I have observed this over the past weeks and months, I watched them exchange messages, I watch their team understand the messages that the two leaders are providing. In other words, nobody has any idea what they're talking about. We're trying to decipher it, but they keep telling each other how much they love each other, but there's no actual negotiation going on. There's no tangible, hey, you will stop this nuclear program or you will stop this missile

program, nothing except you have beautiful orange hair, and you are a wonderful dictator who loves your people. And even Pompeo on TV is saying, I'm trying to figure it out, I don't know. We have a fool for a president. It's, if you can't see that, you're blind. We got to take a break when we return an interview with Senator Elizabeth. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-Hing the Republic, or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations

are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those 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 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. Elizabeth Warren. All right, welcome back to the Young Turks. We've got a lot more news for you guys, but we're going to talk to Senator Elizabeth Warren right now.

So joining us to Senator Warren, who is running for president. She's got a new policy proposal out. It applies to herself. She's not going to do any more private fundraisers or one-on-one meeting with big donors, and she also won't be doing call time. So that is a bold proposal. We have a perspective here on the Young Turks, and my perspective is I like it. So I want to be clear about that.

Now, Senator Warren, I did want to ask you some details. Thank you for joining us. We appreciate it. So as a matter of context, what percentage of your donations used to come from that category as opposed to small donors that you might raise online, for example? You know, it's a good question. And to tell you, I haven't looked at the numbers on this. I know that I've raised a lot of money from large donors, but I've raised a lot more money

from small donors. It's been apart from the very beginning of how the campaign, when I first ran for the Senate back in 2012, was really about people all over Massachusetts and all over. over the country who just said, count me in. Five bucks here and 25 bucks there. And that's how you built it. But part of doing that is everybody goes out and spends time with the rich and the well connected. And this is not the kind of campaign I want to run for president. We're in a primary. And a primary gives us a moment. We're just running against other Democrats at this point. So think about what we can do.

We can actually walk the walk here. We can say that what we want to do in a primary is build the grassroots foundation of how we're going to run in the general election and how we're going to make real change after we win. So we have this opportunity to do it face to face person to person, neighbor to neighbor, all over this country. Okay, Senator Warren, I just- I've spent all your time with rich people. Right. And so of course the reason that other Democrats give for doing that, and it's

understandable, and again, you did it in the past. And so it's, I get why they say they need to do it. I don't agree with it. I like your new proposal a lot. It makes people able to trust you more. And, but they say, hey, look, it's, you've got to be able to raise money from these folks. Otherwise, we're not going to be competitive. So when you did it in the past, I just asked you about what percentage of your donations came, but also I'm curious, what percentage of your time went into those kind of fundraisers and those calls? And that's the problem. It is about time. So look, I understand in a general election. I didn't have a deeply competitive primary. I was in a general election. I was in a general election.

up against Republicans. I was up against a Republican who started out on the first day I declared already had $10 million in the bank. And I understand how all of us, you've got to be in these races. I do not believe in unilateral disarmament. But the estimates I've seen is that across the board, folks are running for federal officers spending somewhere around 70% of their time on big donor contact, call on wealthy people asking them for money, showing up at fancy cocktail receptions to hang out with wealthy people so they'll give money, going to private dinners in mansions. And that's time you're not spending with the people who really are going to drive, not just the presidential in 2020, not just Congress, but all of the races up and down

the ballot who are going to drive those races and who are going to give us the wind and the sales to make the changes we need to make. So go ahead. Yes, Senator Warren, I just, I'm just going to follow up one more time, though. You said other people spent up to 70% of their time on that, and I've reported that as well, and I understand that, and that's why I think this policy change is so positive. Did you spend about 70% of your time on that, or was it a different percentage? It was a lot lower for me. I've been very blessed since the first day I got in my first campaign back in 2012 when I ran for the Senate. And I got a lot of small dollar donations from the very beginning. So I was never in that position. Now, I have been out there at these events and I have raised money from it. But I didn't have to put that kind of time in. But it's not right.

And this is about both the kind of campaign I want to run. I want a campaign that's about ideas and about principles, not about spending all your time scooping up buckets and buckets of money so you can dump it into a bunch of television ads later on. I really want to be building this thing person by person right now all across the country. I think that's what we've got to do. Senator Warren, you're in a very unique position to give the American people insight into what we've been arguing on the show for a long time is undermining our democratic process.

And so, you know, you have never been loved by the fat cats on Wall Street. You have always taken them to task, even when you were accepting money from big donors. But I am curious, did you as a representative, as a member of our Senate, feel pressure by some of those big donors to carry out certain things that they wanted as a result of them contributing that money to you? So, you know, the funny thing is when I started running, it was pretty clear before I ever got in the race what I stood for and what I was willing to fight for. Remember, my first political fight was not as an elected official.

It was first the bankruptcy wars where I was out there fighting for. for families that were going broke and fighting giant financial institutions, it was second during the crash trying to bring some accountability to the troubled asset relief program, that horrible bank bailout that had no constraints on it. And then it was going around trying to get people to support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and then setting up the Bureau. So by the time I up running for Senate, which I had never thought I was going to do, never thought I was going to run for public office. By then it was pretty clear what I stood for and what I was going to fight for, and pretty

clear that I was willing to take on Democrats and Republicans, that I was willing to take on really powerful interests on Wall Street, and that I wasn't going to back down around this. It was all pretty established. So the way it worked out for me, like I said, I was really blessed. A lot of small donors got in early on and made it clear that this was going to be a viable campaign. And to the extent I spent time doing call time or showing up at cocktail parties, most of the people who came over to talk to me knew pretty much what they were going to be signing up for if they wanted to make a contribution.

And I appreciate that they did that, but do understand there's an incredible sense of entitlement associated with that, a sense that you should spend your time listening to rich people instead of spending your time listening to people who are out there trying to make go of every day and try to engage and build a campaign, not just. just off dollars. Yeah, it takes dollars. It takes lots of dollars. But to build a campaign off of volunteers, off connection, of building that now, that's how I see this. That's what I see it's going on here. So, and I want the audience to understand it. So when Marco Rubio says, hey, look, the donors just signed up for what I already believe, it's a little convenient because

he believes in giving almost everything to his donors. So when they sign up for you, well, that's a different equation. That's right. Some of them, it's not exactly, you know, I sometimes will be in a room full of people and I say, give me a chance and I'm going to raise your taxes, you know, that's not quite your standard sales pitch. Yeah, no, no, no, that's not a normal political pitch. But I wanted to ask you, you mentioned earlier that you don't believe in unilateral disarmament.

So does this only apply in the primaries or will you carry this over the general election or any other election you will have going forward? So this is for primaries. Look, I do not believe in unilateral disarmine. We need to win. We need to win in 2020. And when we hit 2020, and we're in a race against Donald Trump, when we're in a race for control of the Senate and control of the House and in control of the state houses and the governor's mansions, in all of those, the Republicans are going to be bringing a lot of money, a lot of power, a lot of dark money, a lot of super-pals. acts all to the fight. We play with the same rules. And in that one, I say we got to be all in,

because we have to beat the Republicans. But here's my key point. We're in a primary, a Democratic primary that's, we've got a whole year ahead of us in this. We have a chance in this primary to do something extraordinary and to show how it works. Think of it like this. once you get to the general, yeah, everybody's going to be out. There's going to be a lot of money, a lot of fighting. Everybody's positions will be well known. But right now, in the primary, we have a chance to build something special. We have a chance to build something that is a rock solid foundation. It's the part that says, I'm in for 20 bucks. Go to Elizabeth Warren.com and say, I believe this is how we should finance campaigns. I believe that this is how it should

work. It's about our principles. It's about our priorities. It's about ideas. And we're going to build that rock solid foundation in the primary. And when we do that, we not only will have something the Republicans sure as heck are not going to have. So when it gets down to what we do the general and their TV ads going back and forth, we're still going to have our foundation. Senator Warren, are you at all concerned, though, that if you pivot toward accepting money from big donors, that would turn some of the, you know, I want to say progressives, but it's not just progressives who want to see the abandonment of big donors. Most voters are concerned about this issue. Are you at all worried that they would stay home during the general election

if you pivot toward accepting that money? Look, I think that what we've got right now is we got to show what we can build person to person to person across this country. I think we've got to show what we can build through democracy, that we believe in democracy, that we have faith in democracy, that we can make democracy work. I think we can show that in our primary. I think then we can just be tough as nails and take on Donald Trump. take on the Republican senators and congressmen in the general election. And then we've got to change the laws.

Let me let me just say I've got the biggest anti-corruption bill since Watergate. Money floods Washington and money is choking our democracy. We've got to take steps and start taking them now to reestablish our democracy to show what we can build. person by person by person across this country. And this is a chance to do this. Me, this is a chance to run the kind of race I want around. A race based on ideas, a race based on issues, a race based on principles, and that nobody's buying access to me.

So I just want to give the links one more time, and I'll tell you why. When candidates turn down big donor money, we want to make sure that small donors know how to access them. And we did this for all the just Democrats, we did this for Ocasio-Cortez when she was running. So I want everybody to know, it's Elizabeth Warren.com. If you want to donate, it's Elizabeth Warren.com slash donate. And you could also volunteer, which is a huge part of the equation as well at Elizabeth warren.com slash join dash us.

Senator Warren, thank you for joining us and explaining this policy. We really appreciate it. Let me tell me what I'm going to do. I'm going to be doing call time tonight. I'm going to be calling people who've donated. Only whether or not you get a call is not based on how much you donated. It's just whether or not you're in. And I'm going to call as many people as I can tonight and tomorrow night and the next time.

I'm going to do call time. It's just going to be with the people who are all in on this campaign. And when you're all in, you're all in. It's not about buying access, it's about being part of it. So we won't be the only ones talking to Senator Warren tonight. You might be able to talk to her tonight as well. So we'll have those links down below if you're watching this later on YouTube or Facebook. Again, Senator Warren, thank you for being on.

We appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, we've got to take quick break. And when we come back, one of the things that we promise you guys, Donald Trump shows how he does not understand contracts at all. It's an amazing display of ignorance. We'll share it with you when we come. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data.

But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and 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. 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 E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-Y-T. Check it out today. I'm back. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks.

If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. Probably right. Okay, hey, guys. We're back. All right, so some programming notes, some comments from you guys, and then the hilarious clip we promise you guys.

So first of all, tonight Bernie Sanders is a town hall on CNN. We're gonna do second screen on that, just like we did with the Super Bowl. What that means is we can't show it to you because it's not CNN, but you could watch along with us. And we're gonna have play-by-play commentary on t.yt.com slash live, free and available to everyone. That's right after this show at 5 o'clock Pacific 8 o'clock Eastern. if you're watching online. And then later in the week on Wednesday, Michael Cohen testimony, live coverage, okay?

Starts at 7 a.m. Pacific, 10 a.m. Eastern. Again, t.wit.com slash live. Whenever there's major news like this, we will be doing play-by-play commentary. Don't miss it. Tell your friends, tell your family, your neighbors, tell Randy Gazas. Okay. I'm coming. Yes, he is.

And by the way, Anna did a wonderful segment. Bernie Sanders on no filter today. So you guys will get to see that soon and members now get video version of no filter. So please check that out if you're a member. If you're not, t.com slash join. Now look, I want to keep it real with you guys on the different ways that you could watch and listen to the shows. Everybody can get no filter as a podcast and you should.

So damage reports of podcasts, young Turks, a portion of the shows a podcast, a portion of old school, aggressive, progressives, or podcasts. Well, sorry, old school is not aggressive progressive yet, but some portions of that are on YouTube as well. So what we're trying to do is give everyone a big chunk of the programming because we want to spread the message out, but we want to reserve all of it for the members. Okay, so in the case of no filter, free podcast to everyone, so please sign up for that. And then if you're a member, watch it, the show as it's intended as a video show.

Okay, so and if you want a free trial, you can get a free week to try out all these different shows at t-y-t.com slash trial. Okay, now let me read your comments as quickly as I can. Progressive Fate on Twitter wrote, Bernie's my first choice. That being said, if for any for unforeseen reason, he isn't the nominee, he's inspired millions of people across every generation that real change is possible. The more people on the record for progressive policies, the better, referring to Elizabeth Warren's policy. so that is a positive comment, but there were definitely not so positive comments as well. Go to the member section. Reliquary says, I really hate it when a politician acts like the source of their money,

some mystery that's handled by lower level staff. Every one of them knows exactly where the money's coming from. Just answer the damn question. I'll give you exactly what was said. Now, I don't fully agree with that. I get where you're coming from. I'm going to save that for a second. Smooth says, Trump won with hundreds of millions less than Clinton.

There will be around a billion dollars worth of free coverage. There is no such thing is disarming in a presidential general election. I totally agree with that. I'll get to that as well. And last one, Richard Atkinson says on YouTube super chat. Great question, Jake. You got her to reveal the real Elizabeth Warren, progressive only in the primaries. Ugh, can you stop pretending she's on our side?

No, no, no, guys. Look, I'll give you my opinion on it. You make any decision you like. So Elizabeth Warren does actually have great legislation. If she didn't, I wouldn't tell you that. I got no dog in the race. She's not my aunt. I'm not related to her.

There's nothing that would make me say that, okay? So her anti-corruption bill is the best in Congress. So now when she says, hey, I'm not taking any big donor money during the primaries, that is a wonderful step forward that you should sell. I believe, this is now my opinion, that she could raise enough from that if she were the winner, right, that she wouldn't need to date big donor money in the general election. But that's, I'm not the candidate she is, that's her call to make, and she says she wouldn't. So I don't agree that she should take the money in the general election from big donors.

So I agree with you on that. But I don't think you should write her off. I don't think you should write off the second most progressive senator in the country and one that has fought against corruption and the big banks her entire career. Bernie Sanders is true on all those policies because he fought for his whole career. Anna just talked about that on no filter. Elizabeth Warren is true on fighting against corruption and against the big banks her entire career.

So understand the full context. Yes. Okay. All right, we gotta do other stories. So Anna, let's go to the next one. All right. Donald Trump is still in the middle of negotiations regarding trade with China. And as a result of these talks, Trump has decided to do.

delay implementing an increase on tariffs with Chinese related goods. So he said, quote, as a result of these very productive talks, I will be delaying the U.S. increase in tariffs, now scheduled for March 1st, assuming both sides make additional progress. We will be planning a summit for President Xi and myself at Mar-a-Lago, how convenient Mar-a-Lago, to conclude an agreement a very good weekend for U.S. and China. So upon that announcement, of course, stocks soared, investors felt a little more comfortable. But something happened in the Oval Office that gives you a sense of how incompetent Trump really is.

And this all went down in front of a Chinese trade official. So in the middle of these negotiations, the idea of what's essentially a binding contract came up. And here's what Trump had to say about it, take a look. I don't like MOUs because they don't mean anything. To me, they don't mean anything. I think they're just going into a document. An MOU is a contract.

It's the way trade agreements are generally used. People refer to it like it's a term sheet. It's not a term sheet. It's an actual contract between the two parties. A memorandum understanding is a binding agreement between two people. And that's what we're talking about. It's a detail that covers everything in great detail. It's just called a memorandum of understanding.

That's a legal term. It's a contract. And would you think that would be a very long-term deal, sir? Yes, I think so. Contracts last while they last. There's no term. They last while they last. Okay, so I want to be clear about this.

You're going to see some great video coming up in a second, okay? But Lightziger, that's the, the U.S. trade representative. And he's pretending to explain to the reporters. He's actually explaining to the president. because everybody else understands this. If you're a plumber and you don't understand it, bless your heart. But the reporters covering it generally know it, almost every other official knows it. A memorandum of understanding is a contract.

It's just called a memorandum of understanding. What he said is it's not a term sheet. So a lot of times before you get a binding contract, you'll get a term sheet, which is not binding. And he explains that is not what this is. Okay, now the fact that he had to explain that to the president is, incredibly embarrassing. And that's bad enough, that's bad enough. But if you think that it can't possibly get worse, it's about to get worse.

Buckle up, race for impact. By the way, I disagree. I think that a memorandum of understanding is not a contract to the extent that we want. We're gonna have, we're doing a memorandum of understanding that will be put into a final contract, I assume. But to me, the final contract is really the thing, Bob, and I think you mean that too, is really the thing that means something. A memorandum of understanding is exactly that.

It's a memorandum of what our understanding is. But to me, the contract is, the real question is about, so we do a memorandum of understanding, which frankly you could do or not do. I don't care if you do it or not. To me, it doesn't mean very much. But if you do a memorandum, how long will it take to put that into a final binding contract? It is a final binding contract. That's what it is.

That's what it is. What is happening right now? No. How do you not understand how low his IQ is? He just explained it to you. It is a binding contract. It's just called memorandum of understanding. He's like, Bob, you'll agree with me here.

It's not a contract. It doesn't mean anything to me. Oh my God, you just told everybody, including the Chinese, that the thing we agreed to doesn't mean anything to you and doesn't count. Oh, God, go. So, okay, this is a little bit of a side story, but I want to put it on everyone's radar. Right now, there is, in my opinion, a legitimate concern about how far ahead China is in the development of 5G technology.

Now, the reason why I say it's a legitimate concern is because if China solidifies that technology and they're able to get other countries to sign onto it, well, that could pose as a certain threat or a security risk for the United States. So it is a legitimate concern that the Trump administration has right now. I think most people who are aware of the situation do see it as something to be working. worried about, but our leader is an idiot, right? And so not only have we dismantled education in the country, not only are we falling behind when it comes to, you know, innovations and technological advancements, we have a president

who doesn't understand anything, much less the importance of investing in education to ensure that we're ahead. We're not anywhere near ahead, we're not even even at this point. We are far behind China when it comes to the development of 5G. So what does the Trump administration do in response to this? They decide to strongarm China and essentially get Canada to arrest one of the executives at Huawei, which is one of the telecommunications companies that's working on this technology in China.

So instead of thinking, hey, maybe we need to find a way to compete, Trump administration officials think, no, let's just strong arm officials in China. So we have another amazing video, we're not done yet with his idiocy. And I think that, like, people get on us for calling him an idiot. Come on. It's objective. Come on. No, if you-

Well, you think he's smart? Okay, no, no. You think he's smart. If you're saying that he's, it's an arguable point that he's intelligent, you're being politically correct. It's super obvious to everyone, including his own trade representative, and everyone in the room, what an idiot is. But we're gonna get back to him in a second.

But I want to underscore what Anna just said. William Ryan, former United States trade official, now senior advisor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the president has undercut privately or publicly every one of his trade representatives. The president is his own trade representative and he's going to make the decisions. So now given that he lacks even basic understanding of trade issues, do you trust this guy to make an intelligent deal with China on trade or the North Korea? Koreans on nuclear disarmament or anybody with anything.

So now the trade, our trade representative is in a position where he's mortified. The president keeps saying things that aren't true and in a way, in a way that is so painfully unintelligent that he's put in an awkward spot. How is he going to resolve this? Let's find out. What? From now on, we're not using the word memorandum understanding anymore. We're going to use the term trade agreement, all right?

No more. We'll never use the term. We'll have the same document. It's going to be called a trade agreement. We're never going to use MOU again. Are they going to put that into another agreement? Assuming you decide on an agreement, it'll be signed by the two people. It'll be a trade agreement between the United States and China.

I like that much better. I like that term much better. Do agree with that. I don't, I wouldn't go into a memorandum, I would go right into a trade agreement. Either you're going to make a deal or you're not, to have these other agreements, Because they're not that meaningful, in my opinion. But anyway, I like that much better. He said, you heard it, you can rewind the team.

Lightziger said, it's gonna be the same thing, we'll just call it a trade agreement, okay? And Trump's like, good, I like that. Are you gonna transfer the same thing? He's like, it is the same thing. Oh my God, I can't. It's the same exact thing. He's like, good, good, we resolve this. And Lightziger, I feel like looks around like, did this just happen?

No, my favorite part about that video, I mean, to say favorite, it was devastating and incredibly depressing. But the amusement or like the look of victory on Trump's face right after Leitzinger makes the first point, right? The first sentence where he's like, you know what, we're just not going to use MOU anymore. We're not using it. Look at Trump's face. I'm sorry to do this to our director, but can we play the beginning of that video again?

And again, I want you guys to pay close attention to Trump's face, that smug look as if he's victorious. Like he made a good point and he got everyone to concede to his great point. Take a look. From now on we're not using the word memorandum, I better say. He's going to use the term trade agreement, all right? Okay. No more.

We'll never use the term. He does a subtle nod and like he goes from a kind of a frown or a scowl to like a, yeah. See, he thinks he won. He thinks he won. But this is how you talk to a child. You know what, from now on, we're not calling it broccoli, okay? We're gonna call it a special treat. Okay, then, I'm gonna eat it.

I don't like broccoli, I don't like broccoli one bit. Okay, look, if you can't understand that President Trump is stupid, then you're stupid. Period. It's not arguable, if you watch that, and you can't figure out why Donald Trump is unintelligent, that means you're also deeply unintelligent. So that's just a fact, and you can do whatever you like with that fact, okay? But that is a national embarrassment right there. We got to take a break.

All right, let's take a break. Let's compose ourselves, and we'll come back with more devastating news. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.