The Young Turks - Vivek Rama-smarmy

Episode Date: August 29, 2023

Federal judge sets March trial date in Trump's election interference case. The Jacksonville gunman in racist attack legally bought two weapons earlier this year, the sheriff says. Vivek Ramaswamy calls Rep. Ayanna Pressley and author Ibram Kendi part of "modern KKK." WATCH: Vivek Ramaswamy’s NBC hit goes sideways after he says Pence missed his chance to "reunite this country" by not overturning the 2020 election. Trump’s lead slips after skipping GOP primary debate while some rivals gain ground. Rite Aid prepares for bankruptcy that would halt opioid lawsuits. Bernie Sanders attacks Cornel West over criticism of Biden. Jordan Peterson’s cartoonish villain response to a Canadian court ruling against him. A Fox News host can’t stop saying how "hard" Trump looks in his mugshot, but in an "unblemished" and "heterosexual" way. HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur) & Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com 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. Woo! It's up! Welcome, America. Good to have you back.

Young Turks, Jane Cougar, Anna Cusparian. Do we have an excellent show for you guys today? Of course. A little bit of critique of Bernie Sanders a little bit later. It happens. It happens, brothers and sisters. It's okay to disagree. Obviously, we've got tragic news too and Trump News too.

That's par for the course. And then at the end of the show and the bonus episode for the members, we're going to rage about where we have been ranked in media. Not on views, that's where we dominate, but on unreliability. Okay, okay, anyways, tyt.com slash join to get all of TYT's coverage or hit the join button below. All right, Casper. All right, so why don't we begin with some Trump updates, including when his trial will begin? Jury selection for Donald Trump's federal election interference case will begin in March of next year.

And that is according to a new decision by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkin. Now, just a quick reminder of the indictment and the counts that he's facing in that particular case. Again, it has to do with election interference. Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. conspiracy against rights, but they all again relate to the months-long attempt to stay in office despite losing the 2020 presidential election. Now the trial date actually falls in the middle of the Republican presidential primaries, and it's going to take place the jury selection specifically on the day of the North Dakota caucus and the day before Super Tuesday. And during

this hearing on Monday, Chutkin heard arguments from Trump's lawyers and federal prosecutors about when the case should be set for trial. Special counsel Jack Smith proposed that the trial start in January with jury selection beginning in December of this year, while Trump's team said that the trial should be pushed back until April of 2026 after the presidential election. Now, Chutkin disagreed with both parties on this, saying that the special counsel's team is proposing a trial that would begin too soon. And Trump's proposal of a 2026 trial, trial was not reasonable. She says, and I quote, these proposals are obviously very far apart. Neither of them is acceptable. Discovery in 2023 is not sitting in a warehouse with boxes of paper

looking at different, looking at every single page, you know, kind of referencing how the discovery process for the most part, especially on the prosecution side, is pretty much complete. So March 4th is the exact day when they're going to do jury selection. And Trump's team, obviously didn't like the judge's ruling. So I wanna go to a video featuring NBC News, Justice and Intelligence correspondent, Ken Delanian. Here's what he had to say. And immediately after she made her ruling,

Trump attorney John Laro put on the record, he said we will not be able to provide adequate representation. So there's no doubt in our judgment that this trial date is inconsistent with President Trump's right to due process and effective assistance of counsel. So laying the groundwork for an appeal there, But legal experts say this is really the judge's call. This is a tough issue to get overturned in the appeals court.

Obviously, the Trump team is going to try to do that. But Judge Tanya Chuck can heard from both sides in this hearing, and she heard the Trump team make an impassioned plea that there's just so much material in discovery here, so many witness interviews, so many transcripts of phone calls and emails and communications that they needed years and years to go through all this material. But the prosecution, the special counsel, countered that that just wasn't the case. What's hilarious about the argument is a former Trump lawyer was on cable news over the weekend and made the declarative statement that Donald Trump is intelligent and doesn't really need to do much preparation, which again counters the argument that you just heard from the defense, according to NBC News, and they're reporting on this. Yeah, and if Donald Trump wanted to study those documents, he had plenty of time, he just needed to go to the bathroom in Barlago or do the, where was he?

holding it in the, some sort of ballroom. Right. He just goes through the ballroom and look through all those items. Why did you take him in the first place? Right, so that, again, those statements made by his former lawyer were in regard to the classified documents case, but in regard to the case we're talking about right now, it's the federal case with election interference. And you know, maybe you should have consulted with those lawyers a little longer before you decided to try to steal the election. Apparently you thought you had plenty of time between November and January. to cook up a fake elector plot.

So now how much time do you take? I mean, I thought you got clear signed it already from your lawyers. That's why you did it, right? You thought the fake electors and having them sign fake documents was perfectly legal. So that case should be ready to go. What are you waiting on? That's the easiest thing in the world. Come on, man.

Look, I know that the legal process takes much longer than regular human beings anticipate. It is, it's maddening. I mean, look, here we are in August. And they're like, oh, we could never have a trial by March. Really? I mean, we used to have trials where way, way faster than this. And by the way, some of the defendants are asking for speedy trials. And so they're like, no, this is waiting too long.

He's like, it's not waiting long enough, et cetera. Like, can they actually get ready by that date? Of course they can, right? But I hate the timing. I mean, it's on the day of the North Dakota primary. This gives Doug Bergam a huge advantage. Okay. Well, obviously a joke, but I do think that the timing helps to consolidate the notion in

the minds of Republican voters, that this is purely political, it's nothing more than a witch hunt. Now, they believe that already, but I think that this provides in their minds more merit to that argument. Yeah, no, kidding aside, I really hate the timing. And so in my preference would be to start earlier. My preference would be to start right now. Get it resolved one way or another. And MAGA, you should want to resolve one way or another. I mean, it's starting the day before Super Tuesday. Well, how the hell do you know what's going to happen? And by the way, now this is, Fannie Willis had also asked for March 4th.

And New York case is also going to start in March. Oh, God, why did these prosecutors wait so goddamn long? And I know, oh, and by the way, here, I'll give a credit to the Trump side on this one, okay? Because the prosecutor say, no, we can go right now and Trump says, I need more time. And prosecutors are like, no, you don't need more time. Well, brother, you took two and a half years to bring this case. Right? So that is a massive problem for the prosecution.

And of course, the reality is Jack Smith didn't take that long. Stupid Merrick Garland who just sat there like a lump on a log for two goddamn years before he pointed Jack Smith. Because that's what Democrats do, total inaction, total incompetence. So do you think it's incompetent? I mean, obviously this is a question that calls for speculation, but do you think that it's incompetence or do you think this was a, like the timing is politically motivated? Well, I'm gonna need six months to answer that question.

Okay, fair enough. No, but seriously, I don't know the answer. And maybe the different prosecutors have different answers. So it's not on Jack Smith. He went as quickly as he could as soon as he was appointed. So that one to me is totally, it definitely not Jack Smith. Now when you go to New York, that guy didn't want to he did not want to move forward with criminal charges. In fact, two of the prosecutors

that were working on the fraudulent documents slash hush money payments case ended up quitting because they felt that Alvin Bragg wasn't taking the prosecution seriously. And even though they had adequate evidence, he didn't want to file those criminal charges. But ultimately he did, and I'm curious, what changed his mind? I have a sense of it. The donors. And so, and why do I say that. So Alvin Bragg comes in, Sy Vance was the legendary prosecutor, not necessarily in a good way, if you ask me, but before that, and he dragged his heel, dragged his heels. They're going to charge this guy as Michael Cote, his co-conspirator was being charged five years ago, right? And so those New York prosecutors didn't, like, that's what MAGA doesn't

understand. They didn't want to charge Trump, because charging Trump makes it a giant political issue, and they don't want to deal with that. They're loser Democrats. They don't want any hassles in their lives ever. And back then, it was like, whoa, whoa, that's charging the elites. And what if they charge other Democrats? And that would affect us. So don't do that. But after a while, it got pressure mounted that isn't anybody going to charge Trump with

anything when he broke 285 laws, right? And finally, the pressure built up enough in New York that Bragg was like, oh, okay, I didn't mean to have all those prosecutors working on the case quit because I wasn't doing anything. I meant to charge him. I think Alvin Bragg's the worst of them. Like people say he shouldn't have brought those charges because they're weak. I don't agree with that at all.

That is a slam-d-on cases. Coker already went to jail. Those charges should have been brought years ago. Right. So that decision was definitely political, but half of the politics was to avoid charging Trump in the first place. So now when you get to Fannie Willis in Atlanta, who knows, who knows. But it doesn't matter.

At the end of the day, the Democrats invite the charge of corruption. Either because they were corrupt and waited for it to affect the elections, or because of their usual pathetic incompetence, they wind up getting stuck with a corruption charge, you know, allegation against them. And I'm not going to fight it. I don't, that's their goddamn problem. Why didn't they just act when they should have? That's because they never take action for their voters, never, unless absolutely forced to. My guess is overall for the whole thing, they thought Trump would go away. And when he didn't go away, they're like, oh, golly, gee, we have to do our jobs.

Yeah, that could be it. Again, we're speculating as to why these decisions were made for these charges to be filed when they were. Now, I want to end on one other note. Remember, when it comes to the federal prosecution case having to do with Trump's involvement in election, interference, the judge made it very clear that the condition of his bond was that he was not to engage in any kind of like witness tampering, intimidation. Don't try to have your case adjudicated through public opinion, that kind of thing.

It appears that he's not really interested in abiding by these types of rules. In fact, Donald Trump just today on truth social, reacted to the U.S. District judge's decision and said this of Jack Smith, deranged Jack Smith and his team of thugs who were caught going to the White House just put. prior to indicting the 45th president of the United States, an absolute no-no, he says, have been working on this witch hunt for almost three years, but decided to bring it smack in the middle of crooked Joe Biden's political opponents campaign against him. By the way, let me remind you all that he pressured of Vladimir Zelensky to announce a

scam investigation into Joe Biden, which ended up getting him impeached for the second time by the House of Representatives. So what he is accusing our justice system of doing to him was something that he absolutely wanted done to Joe Biden in order to give him a leg up in the 2020 presidential election. But nonetheless, let me give you the rest of the statement. He says election interference today, a biased Trump hating judge gave me only a two-month extension just what our corrupt government wanted, Super Tuesday, I will appeal. So clearly he's planning on appealing this decision.

where it goes. Okay, one thing in favor of Trump, one thing against him. He always, and it's an interesting tactic that he used, it's probably a good political tactic, but it's, of course, nothing but a lie. He says, election interference. He's being charged with election interference. Remember, his team is the one that spread all the fake news in the first place in 2016 on Facebook, and then anytime it was an allegation against him, he said fake news. He turns around everything. Everything is projection, right? He calls Jack Smith, like the most normal, boring, prosecutor, a deranged thug. If there's one person who's deranged here, gee, I wonder who it is. It's obviously Trump. A thug, a lifelong criminal, that's Donald Trump. So everything is

projection. But, and the jury came in in the middle of this story. Okay. I decided to, in answer to your question, I thought about it one other way and decided, no, these prosecutions are in some ways definitely political. Yeah. Here's why. Because I thought if Trump had not run again, would they have brought these prosecutions forward? And my guess is no, because Democrats would have thought, oh, we don't want to rile up to Republicans. Oh, we don't want to prosecute a former president because then we might get prosecuted. It's the elite protection racket. It did appear as though the pursuit of criminal charges became a lot more serious after it became clear that Trump was planning on running for president again. That's my read of it. I just think both things can be true. I think that it could be both political, the timing at least, and the accusations against him, the charges brought against him have merit.

A hundred percent and I don't want anybody to misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm saying they should have charged him no matter what, but they made it political because they didn't want to charge him and only when he decided to run, they're like, oh, okay, panic, Panic, panic, panic. Everybody get your cases together and let's charge him because it turns out he's not going away. I mean, I think Alvin Bragg, again, is the best example of that. Someone who literally lost two of his prosecutors because he didn't want to bring forward criminal charges against Trump. And then later, as election season like starts to ramp up, all of a sudden, surprise indictment coming from New York.

Yeah, last thing, guys, look, my theory is that money controls everything in politics. And so what politicians do can be traced back 99% to the money, to the donors, right? And the donors want the elites protected. And so when they thought Trump might not run, the way to protect the elites was not to charge anyone who was a former president, right? But when Trump decided to run, the elites and the establishment do hate Trump. That doesn't mean he's innocent. He did do those things, but the establishment does hate him, right? And so then they're like, okay, the way to protect the establishment in the elites has now flipped to charging Donald Trump instead of not charging him.

And that's why they're doing what they're doing. All right, let's move on to another big story that broke over the weekend. And of course it has to do with yet another mass shooting in America. Authorities pointing to what they call evidence of hate. The shooter had authored several manifestos. Plainly put, this shooting was racially motivated and he hated black people. A 21-year-old man gunned down and killed three black Americans at a Jacksonville, Florida Dollar General Store. This happened on Saturday in what authorities are describing as a racially motivated hate crime.

The shooter, who the sheriff's office said posted racial writings and even had three separate manifestos killed himself after the shooting. And here's more from the sheriff's press conference with more details about how the shooting took place. I want to begin by honoring the three precious lives that were lost yesterday. Angela Michelle Carr, 52 years old. Anult Joseph or A.J. LaGere Jr., 19 years old. And Gerald Deshawn Galleon, 29 years old. Authorities say they were senselessly gunned down because they were black. The alleged gunman identified as 21-year-old Ryan Christopher Palmetter.

Authorities saying that before the shooting, Palmetter was spotted at a historical black university and Edward Waters University security guard engaging and forcing the alleged shooter to drive away. It looks to me that he went there to change into whatever he needed to change into. He had an opportunity to do violence in EWU. He did not. In fact, a spokesperson with the university said the following. A spokesperson from Edward Waters University said the man was spotted on campus by a security guard shortly before the shooting and asked to leave when he refused to identify himself. He was seen putting on his bullet resistant vest and mask before he drove away. Then the gunmen made his way to the Dollar General store where the

mass shooting took place. I just want to warn you, the next video might be difficult for some to view with that warning. Let's take a look. The sheriff says the 11-minute rampage began Saturday afternoon. At 108, surveillance video outside the store captures the shooter without warning, raising his weapon and firing 11 rounds. Shooting into a black Kia and murdered the first victim, Ms. Angela Carr. He then walked inside, gun drawn, wearing a tactical vest. The suspect enters the Dollar General's store and engages the second victim. A young 19-year-old victim, Anult LaGerry.

One of his guns with a white swastika painted on it. Authorities say minutes later, Gerald Galleon entered the store with his girlfriend. The gunman killing Galleon and missing his girlfriend. At 118, 10 minutes into the shooting, the gunman allegedly text his father telling his dad to check his computer. Father enters the room and finds a last will and testament of the suspect along with a suicide note on his laptop. By 153, the suspect's family called to alert the Clay County Sheriff's Office. But by that time, the rampage was over. The shooter dying by suicide as officers arrived on scene.

So just to provide a few more details, he had two firearms on him, including an AR-15 and a Glock handgun. He also, as I mentioned earlier, left behind three manifestos. Officials say there were writings to his family, federal law enforcement, and at least one media outlet. At least one of the guns had swastikas painted on it. Sheriff T.K. Waters, who you just heard from in that video, said that the shooter made clear in his writings that he hated black people. And we do have an image of the weapon that has the swastika signs on it, providing further evidence that this was a hatefully motivated crime. crime. Yeah, there's no question about that. Okay, two minor issues and then two major issues. The minor issues are, hey, look, security guard worked in that case, at least at the university

before you went to the dollar store. And we, that's not a thing that supports our position overall, but I wanted to note it in this case because that's a fact that not happened, okay? So number two is in the stories that I read, they keep talking about, oh, well, the gun was Well, who cares? I don't understand why that. Like, it's the easiest thing in the world to get a gun in this country. You can just walk in and go, I exist. And they'll give you the Wagner group and have you march to Mouska if you're like. You can get an army of like a flotilla of goddamn guns with no problem at all. So what difference does it make if it's legal? Yeah, and look, it does depend on which state you're in. But remember, we're talking about the state of Florida, which has even more laxed gun laws. It's much more easier to purchase guns in states like Texas and Florida.

In Florida, you could walk in and say, I'm a psychotic, subletic clown, and they'll give you every weapon that you want, right? So that's gonna get to the major issue, but I don't care that it was legal, okay? That's actually part of the problem. So obviously, one of the major issues is guns. That's the one thing that connects all these killings is AR-15s. So this guy is, are there a weirdo, Nazi, racist in the country? Unfortunately, far too many.

The problem, so that exists, that exists in other countries as well, except the other countries don't go around going, here, have an automatic weapon, murder anyone you like, okay? Yeah, if we allow everyone to have weapons, the Nazis are going to have the weapons. The deeply racist guys who write manifestos are going to have the weapons, and they're going to use it to murder people of color, Jews, et cetera, et cetera. Of course, we should stop giving guns to everyone, everyone. Okay, this guy was, had a mental health lockdown order on him in 2017. Doesn't matter, here's a gun, here's all the guns you want, doesn't matter, nothing matters.

You're a Nazi, it doesn't matter, have a gun. We're not going to check. We're not going to check anything, okay? Yeah, so let me jump in on that because I think that there are some caveats to that point that are important to share with the audience. So he did get in trouble with the law on domestic violence issues. For instance, he had been involved in a 2016 domestic violence incident that did not lead to an arrest and was involuntarily committed for a 72-hour men.

mental health examination the following year. Now he used two guns, as I mentioned earlier, a Glock handgun and an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Sheriff T.K. Waters said they were purchased legally earlier this year, to Jake's point, earlier in the story. Now, he was a minor in both those instances, and when you're a minor, your records are sealed, right? So if you're an adult and you had a mandatory 72 hour hold, let's say you live in a state that

has red flag laws that could be flagged and that could prevent an individual from purchasing a gun. But that wouldn't apply in this particular context because of the fact that he was a minor. And I do not believe that Florida is a red state law. And you're making perfectly good. Red flag law. Yeah, you're being perfectly good points, except I don't care about any of that. The reason is I would have a thousand times stricter laws. Like, oh, like, oh, you are mentally incapacitated a little while earlier, but not now. So, okay, that doesn't qualify under the Incredibly weak laws we're proposing and have no chance of passing, okay? So look, no one should have an AR-15.

No one should have these assault weapons at all. You don't need them for hunting, and you know it. If you need it for hunting, you're a loser, a total incompetent loser who's going to butcher half the woods when you go in there, okay? The only reason you use it for is mass murder and shooting Bud Light. So I don't care about you shooting Bud Light enough to say, oh, that's such an important right. Let's just murder our kids and let people murder everyone because Kid Rock wants to shoot at Bud Light with an AR-15. Okay, now look, the racial issue here is obvious, but that one is harder. What are you going to do?

Yes, some people in this country, let's keep it real, mainly right-wing media and politicians, drive hatred and hatred and hatred and hatred, right? And then some people back down that hatred. But what are we going to do? Shut them down? Well, we can't. There's freedom of speech in this country. So look, talk to your family members.

Make sure that they don't get into this cult because the problem is a cult. And one of the other, the Buffalo shooter, now is turned around in court and said he regrets it. He also was totally 100% racial, went to go shoot black people, totally admits it, etc. Had a manifesto, et cetera. Now he's like, I read this stuff online. I can't believe I did it. I can't believe I believe the stuff I read online. And it was, look, I watched, unfortunately, I watched the live stream of that shooting.

Mm-hmm. No, I'm sorry. You don't read propaganda online and feel so inspired by it that you gun down innocent people in a racially motivated hate crime. Anyway, spare me the tears. And of course, he's working on his defense. Of course, all that is absolutely right. But there is, look, I want to say something. Look, you make some legitimate points when it comes to the necessity of stricter gun regulations.

As I've said before on the show, I am not a proponent of banning guns. I do believe in the Second Amendment. However, I do think that it's far too easy for individuals who shouldn't have a weapon to legally purchase these weapons. That said, the other half of this, and I'm not trying to make a right-wing talking point that deflects from the need for gun control. But I do think it is legitimate to bring up the very real issue of mental health problems that go undiagnosed and untreated in this country. And I mean, look at the demographic that we constantly deal with in regard to these mass shootings. They're typically young men. And young men right now in the country are in fact experiencing a pretty significant crisis.

A crisis involving depression, a crisis involving loneliness. Suicide rates are much higher among young men versus women. All of these issues are serious issues that need to be addressed adequately, and none of these issues are being addressed adequately. 100%. So let me clarify it this way. Look, this is a toxic stew here. You've got mental health problems plus propaganda plus assault weapons equals massacres. No question about it. That's exactly what's happened every time. So now the question is what can you do about those three factors? Unfortunately, even the hateful propaganda is the one that is most protected by our Constitution and the hardest one to tackle. Whereas mental health is not a constitutional issue at all and we could do something about it. And every Republican liar after one of these shootings, and I mean the politicians in this case, go out and go,

I get to mental health, not the guns, not the guns, I love my guns. I don't care if they murder your kids with them. I love my guns, right? But mental health, and then they go for a vote, and this is the part that's never covered by mainstream media. They go to vote on mental health, and they all vote no. The last time there was a vote on funding, appropriating the necessary resources for mental health in America. Only one Republican lawmaker voted in favor of those appropriations. Yeah, they're liars, grotesque liars.

They got to put their money where their mouth is, and it's just abundantly clear to me and anyone else paying attention that they use the mental health talking points specifically to deflect from having to discuss, in my opinion, necessary gun reform legislation, including provisions in legislation that the vast majority of Americans, including Republicans, including gun owners, are in favor of. Yes, and by the way, it is perfectly constitutional to do a universal background check. And anywhere from 88 to 97% of Americans, including the overwhelming majority of NRA members, gun owners say we should do universal background checks, but we don't have them because the Republicans are bribed by the NRA. And so you could at least do that. That is so tiny,

but assault weapons is a real one. And that pulls around two thirds. Two thirds of the country says ban assault weapons. There's no constitutional problem with that, but no. Corruption, corruption, corruption, so we can't do that either. I would ban assault weapons in a second. And I would do a lot more mental health counseling, but the Republicans say no. to both, so you're going to have endless massacres brought to you by the Republican Party. Now, during a vigil, Governor Ron DeSantis was addressing, you know, people at the vigil, just talking about how horrendous this racially motivated hate crime was, and he ended up getting booed. We're going to show you that video in our members-only section of the show.

If you're not a member, you can become one by going to t.yt.com slash join, or you can click on that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. But you've got to check out that video. Maybe we'll have a longer discussion about that as well. Yeah, we will because I want to see, talk about whether it's fair or not, whether you let him speak, don't let him speak in a contest like that. But looking forward to seeing the members there, you could hit the join button below the video on YouTube to join as well. All right.

All right. When we come back, we will talk about Vivek Ramoswamy's controversial and provocative statements in regard to Ayanna Presley, a Democratic Congresswoman, and also Ibram X. Kendi, who wrote a book about anti-racism. Don't miss that story. We've got much more to get to. Back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys. So there was a shooting at USC that just happened a little while ago. Teachers been shot. Professor was shot by one of the students who's now in custody.

Yeah, I mean, it's another day in America. There's been two mass shootings per day this year, per day, because our country's lost this goddamn mind. And the last thing is during social break, I was reading a member comment about the parents. And don't make assumptions about the parents. A lot of these guys get their stuff from online and right wing media, et cetera. In this case, the authorities say the parents were as helpful as they could be from what I've seen so far, okay? Right. And his father, after he received that text message from the shooter, immediately alerted the authorities, but it was already too late.

The shooting was already in progress. Yep. All right. All right. Well, let's move on to, well, there was a lot going on over the weekend involving Vivek Ramoswamy, GOP candidate. Let's get to the first story on that. They lynched people. They murdered people. They raped people. They burned their holes. And that was wrong. Simply wrong. So wrong. Okay.

So again, that is obviously a wrong thing for the end up. Absolutely. Absolutely. Do you think that maybe comparing her to the Grand Wizard and the notion of what she said to being a modern leader of the KKK was maybe a step too far? Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramoswamy sparred with CNN's Dana Bash over the weekend following his provocative comments about racism during a town hall event in Iowa. Now, before we get to more of his interaction with Dana Bash, I think it's worth getting into

what the comments were and the type of backlash he has received since then. Let's begin with what he said during that town hall in Iowa. Ayanna Presley, she's in the Congress today, she's a member of the squad. her word's not mine we don't want any more black faces that don't want to be a black voice we don't want any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice literally word for word i'm not putting anybody words in anybody's mouth ibram kendi wrote the book how to be an anti-racist i wrote woke ink it was a pretty successful book his sold more copies than mine here's what it says opening lines the remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination the remedy to present

discrimination is future discrimination so the other side will gaslight you when you say this stuff is like oh do you're just making that critical race theory stuff up no no these aren't my words these are the words of the modern grand wizards of the modern kKK so obviously that last The last few sentences comparing these two individuals to modern day KKK is what led to a lot of backlash. And we should address that. I disagree with that kind of statement. I think he was intentionally provocative in order to experience the new cycle that he experienced over the weekend. However, we did go in and fact check his allegations against Representative Presley and Ibramax Kendi.

And he is correct in regard to what they have said on the record. Let's start with Congresswoman Presley speaking at Netroots Nation in July of 2019. If you are not prepared to come to that table and to represent that voice, don't come. Because we don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice. We don't need Muslims that don't want to be a Muslim voice. We don't need queers that don't want to be a queer voice. And if you're worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don't even show up.

Because we need you to represent that voice. And in regard to Ibrahim X. Kendi, in his book, How to Be an Anti-Racist, here are the excerpts that Ramoswamy was referring to. Kendi wrote, quote, the only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. And then he continues as U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, in order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way.

And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. So I actually do have a problem with those statements. And I think that it leads to more division and racial tension in the country. However, I do not agree with what he had to say about the so called modern day KKK. Again, I think he was intentionally being provocative to get attention and I guess mission accomplished. Yeah, I think these Republican politicians actually ruin it for conservatives because they're trying to do something different than what your priorities are. Your priorities are to live in normal life and get along, et cetera, right? But his priorities to get attention.

So he puts the KKK line in there. And then that destroys this point. Because you can actually have a real debate in which we're going to. We're going to have this conversation about Ionna Presley and Kennedy and see if that makes sense. But he doesn't want you to have that real debate. He just wants to get famous. And so he, I mean, saying that they're the modern-day KKK, really? Professor Kennedy went and lynch someone and burned them alive.

Come on, man. Come on. You're disgusting. Not only that. I mean, think about the damage it does for individuals who want to engage in a good, good faith debate slash discussion about these issues, right? I think there is a discussion to be had. I think there is a debate to be had, again, among good faith individuals who genuinely came on July 18th, get excited. This is big. For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just

smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs, only dinners July 18th. air about bettering race relations in America, but when you have politicians exploit these issues and engage in hyperbole as they talk about these issues, it automatically makes others think that if you engage in that debate, then you're on their side, that you agree with the type of rhetoric and discourse that people like Ramoswamy are currently engaging in. Yeah, and by the way, two can play at this game, okay, I think what the kind of fearmongering that Vivek's doing is the equivalent of the KKK. Okay, he's a racist piece of crap and he likes to burn people alive.

Okay, now of course I don't mean it because I'm not an idiot and a slime ball like Ramoswamy. So it's such an easy thing to do. And what does it do? It divides us, divides us. When in fact, his original theoretical complaint was the comments of Ianna Presley and Professor Kendi divide us. But then he did it on steroids. Exactly. That's such a good point, right?

The irony of him referring to the divisiveness of Iyana Presley and Kendi, in their statements, and then he himself engaging in even more divisive rhetoric. Yeah, and by the way, if I meant it and I actually called him a Grand Wizard of the KKK, you know what would have what Ramoswami would do. He would catch feelings, he would go, or pretend to catch feelings. And he'd go all over media, go, I've been victimized, I've been victimized. Well, he says it about other people, he doesn't give a goddamn about it. And he claims he doesn't want to be a victim, are you kidding me?

The minute someone tweaks him, he's gonna howl, like a stuck pig and you know it, okay? So anyways, now back to the actual, the thing that we could have had a rational discussion about before he lit the goddamn place on fire. Well, I think we should have a rational discussion about it, despite Ramoswami's gross hyperbolic rhetoric. Yeah, so look, so I'm going to be nuanced here.

So I don't know what Iiana Presley meant by that snippet because there's so many different ways to interpret. And some ways are not so bad, and some ways are terrible. So let me give you a little more context. Okay. At the time, there was this battle within the Democratic Party in regard to the progressive wing of the party and the congressional black caucus, which is much more establishment and corporate.

They consist of a lot of corporate politicians. And so rather than address the corporate influence of that caucus, I'm not. Diana Presley went toward race and referring to their race and essentially saying, you know, if you're not going to go along with what I believe the black community should support, then we don't want to hear what you have to say. Yeah, I hear you. But so look, there's so much nuance there. So let me explain.

So is it true that, for example, the right wing like Fox News uses some people who are black, brown, et cetera to attack black and brown people? Of course it's true, right? And so if you say like, they're not really, don't think. pretend they're representing black people. I think that's a very fair comment, right? If you say I don't, they shouldn't be allowed to speak or I don't, like, just because like they're just not black at all because they have that opinion that is an

out of bounds comment, right? So if- It reminds me of Ben Shapiro essentially telling individuals that they are not Jewish if they don't support what the Israeli government is up to. Yeah, right? So I don't want any piece of that. Yeah. no one on Fox News represents their particular background.

In fact, they're almost all selected to sell out their own particular background. So now, but on the other hand, do people sometimes use these, like, hey, my ideology means it invalidates your race? And does that happen on the left sometimes? Yes. So look, it's happened to me. It's behind the scenes and, you know, but I have from excellent sources that someone else in the progressive community said that I wasn't brown enough. I have no earthly idea what that means. Like, do I go back to the store and ask for more brownness? What do I do?

It's ridiculous. Do I blame my mom, my dad? I mean, that's insanity, insanity. So if a right winger were to criticize that part of the left, that would be a perfectly valid criticism, right? But they don't do that. They do what Ramosomami did. But final thing is actually on the specific thing

that Representative Presley was talking about, man, that was super tough. I don't think it is. I don't think that you need to go to race. No, no, I'll tell you why. corporate influence. Yes, but the Hakeem Jeffries of the world hide behind their race. They use identity politics first. So when James Clyburn, one of the biggest corporate hacks in American political history, there isn't anything you wouldn't do for a corporate donor. But the minute

you criticize Clyburn, both Clyburn and mainstream media go, you're racist. How dare you? This is an esteemed black congressman. And anyone who criticize them is racist. They do it for. for Keem Jeffries, they do it for every corporate Democrat. So Presley was partly pushing back on that. Did I like the way that she phrased that? No, because it leads to this misunderstanding, right? Not only that, I mean, it's essentially, look, as much as I, especially at that time and the battle they were fighting,

as much as I disagreed with the Congressional Black Caucus and what they were doing and essentially destroying any progressive legislation, I again think that it would be far more helpful to, again, address what is actually motivating them in destroying progressive legislation rather than going to race. And more importantly, the way that she worded it essentially encouraged the silencing of people of color who don't agree with her politics. And I disagree with that. Yeah, that's why the way that she phrased it, unfortunately, did not come across the but Anna's substantive point is also correct. Because to this day, Iana Presley and all the

other people you saw on that stage, a lot of whom I like, have never criticized specific Whether they're black, white, Latino, it doesn't matter, have never criticized specific Democrats for taking corporate contributions and selling out. So it's easy to say like racial terms, you get nice applause line. But if you were to say James Clyburn or Hakeem Jeffries sold out to such and such bank, such and such drug company, et cetera, he's the key. And I'm not just saying that here's their campaign contributions, here's their votes, here's their actions. that would be 10,000 times more powerful, but that was really tough to do. It is. That takes courage to do.

I don't know that Diana Presley of 2023, four years later now, would even make those comments about Hakeem Jeffries. Yeah, I bet she's now like, oh, no, totally. And so I don't know, but I don't want to be unfair to her because, but I'd be surprised because I haven't seen her challenge any of those guys in a long, long time. Now, in response to what you heard Ramoswamy say about Congresswoman Presswomen Leslie, she had a, geez, she had one of her spokespeople come out, someone from her office saying, we typically don't engage in these bad faith attacks, but yesterday a line was crossed.

A GOP candidate referred to Ianna as a modern grand wizard of the KKK because she speaks out against racial injustice, Presley's team said in a fundraising pitch, this is backwards and harmful, but that is the point. I would have preferred that response in the context of something that's not a fundraising pitch because that essentially made her vulnerable to yet another attack from Ramoswamy, which we'll get to in just a moment. But before we do, Jank, I wanted to see if you had any comment about Ibram X Kendi and what he wrote in his book, how to be an anti-racist. Yeah. So look, again, there, I get it that there's nuance. He went on and defended himself and said, no, look, I was talking about discrimination in a broad way.

Like, for example, we do age discrimination on COVID. We gave the vaccines. That was terrible. That was a terrible argument. In fact, we have that video. Can we show it? And then you can continue. Go ahead. In the book, actually, I define discrimination. And I go to great lengths talking about a scenario in which, for instance, during the COVID 2020, during the COVID pandemic, it was important for us to provide vaccine first for elderly people because they were the most. likely to be dying as a result of COVID-19. That can be described as age discrimination, but it actually was an equitable policy that saved lives. And similarly, when black people are deprived and have been deprived for centuries of rights and resources, how else are we going to create equity if not providing specific resources

and rights to them. I felt that that was a poor defense of the excerpts he wrote in his book, mostly because it was widely accepted that elderly people were the most vulnerable to death because of the coronavirus pandemic, which is why the rollout to elderly people first of the vaccine made a lot of sense. In the case of race-based policies, right, that essentially discriminate against, let's say, white people in order to offer certain opportunities to black people, there are issues there because it focuses on immutable differences between people rather than, let's say, something

like socioeconomic status, which I think is far more important in determining policy and how we can come up with solutions to our lack of equality in the country. Yeah, so what I was gonna say is, I get what Professor Kennedy is saying in terms of, you know, Theoretically, discrimination could make sense in some scenarios, but it's giving me a little bit of Sam Harris vibes. I'm doing thought experiments, and ironically, I'm kind of doing a Ramoswami by trying to grab your attention by saying we should do discrimination, what, forever into the future? So, look, I'm willing to have Professor Kennedy on this show. I'm willing to have a nuanced conversation with him. I don't think, like, these are good, healthy conversations to talk through.

Unfortunately, a lot of the left doesn't want to talk through conversations. They want to just say this is the correct opinion and you have to bow your head to it. We don't do that here. As you could tell, we're having a nuanced conversation about all the different parts of this. But do I agree that we should do present or future discrimination as far as the eye can see to make up for past discrimination? No, you'll never get out of that game because, oh, well, you went too far. Now we're going to discriminate in the other direction. And wait, wait a minute, we didn't discriminate for Asians.

We didn't discriminate for this. We didn't this. Okay, then we're going to do even more discrimination. No, no. I think it's a, look, my thought on it, I've been clear about it for a long, long time is I don't think that's the right way to go. I understand there's an argument for it, but we're here to have those arguments, but certainly not in the way that Ramoswami does, where he just does it for his own personal greed

and says outrageous and indefensible things. Now, he did double down after he received all the backlash he received. In regard to Congresswoman Presley, he said there is nothing more racist than to assume the color of someone's skin dictates something about the content of their viewpoints, which is what Iona Presley peddles to Americans. What's really stunning is that now she's trying to make money off of it. And that was the reference to her fundraising off of this controversy. And then finally, he also doubled down during that interview with Dana Bash on CNN. I wanted to provide a little bit of an example for that. Let's take a look. You know, I'm sure, the KKK was responsible for more than a century's worth of horrific lynchings, rapes, murders of black people. How in any way are the views you're talking about comparable to the views and atrocities committed by the KKK? What I said is the Grand Wizards of the KKK would be proud of what they would hear her say, because there's nothing more racist than saying that your skin color predicts something about the content of your view. You didn't just say they would be proud.

You said these are the words of the modern grand wizards of the modern KKK. It is the same spirit. You're right about that, Dana. I think it is the same spirit to say that I can look at you and based on just your skin color, that I know something about the content of your character, that I know something about the content of the viewpoints you're allowed to express. For Iona Presley to tell me that because of my skin color, I can't express my views, that is wrong. It is divisive. Again, I think that his rhetoric is intentionally inflammatory. It's intentionally hyperbolic.

It literally goes against what he's preaching, right? He's preaching against racially divisive speech as he's engaging in racially divisive speech. And so I don't agree with that comparison at all. You want to have a, you know, well thought out, you know, nuanced discussion slash debate about the way we talk about race relations in the country. country, I'm totally fine with that. The way that he's doing it, I believe, is meant to drum up attention toward him, toward his campaign. I guess mission accomplished, but it does nothing to improve our conditions here in the U.S. Yeah, look, him criticizing I Anna Presley for raising money off of it is hilarious. First of all, every politician these days raises money off of anything

they're ever named it. And Ramoswami does the same thing. And I mean, Ramoswami, come on, brother, your whole shtick is that you're an attention whore. And so now you want to go around saying that, oh, I can't believe people are using attention to raise money for their political cause. Yeah, spare me, okay, there's a street with your name on it. Go, go peddle your go wares. Well, we're not done with Ramoswamy quite yet. When we come back for the next segment, we'll talk a little bit about what he has to say

about Mike Pence and his handling of January 6th. He says that he would have done things a little differently. What does he mean by that? Come back and we'll tell you. They became American heroes by hitting the join button below and becoming young Turks members and making this show possible. And dog named Kat, gifted a young tourist membership and Don Whitehead gifted five. We love you guys. We appreciate you. Casper. Well, we have one more Ramoswamy related story to get to, so let's do it.

The candidates on stage Wednesday night said Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6th. Do you agree? I would have done it very differently. that there was a historic opportunity that he missed to reunite this country in that window. What I would have said is this is a moment for a true national consensus where there's two elements of what's required for a functioning democracy in America. One is secure elections, and the second is a peaceful transfer of power. When those things come into conflict, that's an opportunity for heroism.

GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramoswamy believes that former vice president, Mike Pence squandered an opportunity for heroism on January 6th by basically coming back and ensuring that he certified the election after the January 6th Capitol riots. Now, with that said, why don't we take a look at what Ramoswami claims he would do differently and try not to lose your mind over how ridiculous this is. Let's watch. Here's what I would have said. We need single day voting on election day. We need paper ballots and we need government issued ID matching the voter file. And if we achieve that, then we have achieved victory.

And we should not have any further complaint about election integrity. So what would you have driven it through the Senate? So what would you have done with Mike Pence? You would have not certified the election? So in my capacity as president of the Senate, I would have led through that level of reform. Then on that condition, certified the election results, served it up to the president. President Trump then to sign that into law. And on January 7th, declared the re-election campaign pursuant to a free and fair election.

That was a missed opportunity, but that's the kind of spirit we're going to need to unite this country rather than sweeping those concerns under the rug. That was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, a presidential candidate say. And that's saying something because lots of presidential candidates have said all sorts of insane things on the campaign trail. I don't understand. I thought Republicans didn't believe in federalizing our elections, right? I thought they believe that each state should have its own rules in regard to how they conduct elections. But on top of that, the idea, like the naivete here, that Donald Trump would say, okay, you know what, here are the reforms, I'm gonna sign them through executive order. And then I'm good, I'm good, then I'm gonna back off and accept that I lost the election.

Not only that, look, he's being, he's purposely being a jackass. None of that makes any sense. First, let me just knock down the his specific proposals. So two out of three were same day voting and you need government issued ID. Well, that would eliminate all mail-in voting. For no reason at all, the Democrats are never going to agree to that. By the way, earlier, before lunatic Trump, the Republicans would have never agreed to that. Because a lot of their voters are senior citizens who need to mail in their votes, right?

Okay, but what's amazing is that he's not even having a conversation about Democrats or Congress. he thinks that this could just happen with Donald Trump executing an executive order, just signing his signature on a piece of paper. Look, you're an outsider. You have an extra responsibility to know what the hell you're talking about. And you're unfortunately hurting other outsiders by being a clown. And so, like, you can't get the Democrats to agree to any of this. So you obviously couldn't have passed it as a bill.

The Democrats controlled the House and the Senate at the time. You can't do it through executive order. and you can't nationalize these elections. So none of that makes any sense. But you were going to do all of that, and that was going to be your compromise by January 6th. No, no. No.

He was going to get those concessions, I guess, on some sort of document that Donald Trump would sign on January 6th. And then after he signs it, then they certify the election on January 7th. Also, what's left out of this conversation is the powers that the vice president has and does not have. He did not have the ability to avoid certifying the election. Yeah, so those jackass ideas were just appetizers for the main meal.

The main meal is that's I would have held up the certification until I got these demands. You don't have that authority. It's a ceremonial role. Get it through your thick, thick head, okay? And he knows that because he wrote it in his book, he's a giant liar. He already knows that the president or the vice president doesn't have that authority. The vice president goes, it's like the guy who opens the office. envelope at the Oscars.

The voting already happened, you moron. It can't be like, oh, well, Avatar won, but I didn't like that movie. So I'm going to demand same day voting, and then maybe I'll let Avatar win. That's not how it works, okay? So just, but he's getting more attention. The more clownish he is, the more attention he gets. So he goes home and chuckles anyway. Now, earlier this month, by the way, the Vecromaswami,

reportedly sidestepped questions asked by Politico about whether he would have certified the election results. He told political quote, I would have never let it get to that point. I would have never put myself or been part of an administration if I was in a serious position of leadership to ever have allowed us to have gotten to that doorstep. Oh please tell me what you would have done with Donald Trump. Please actually but just don't it don't embarrass yourself like you did earlier. No no no no no I would love that. Tell me how you would have forced Donald Trump to accept those results. I would not have been part of this. So would you have quit? And would you have resigned saying, oh, it turns out the president is a giant cheater. We know we didn't win,

but he's pretending that he won. By the way, Vivek wrote that already in his book. So he knows it's true. So you want to say it again, bitch? Say it again. Say it on TV. Oh, no, you're trying to kiss up to Trump voters and MAGA guys. And you just, and you haven't found a place on Donald Trump's body to appease yet. So, so all of a sudden, oh, the great. wonderful Donald Trump, loser, total careerist opportunist, slimy loser, Vivek Ramoswami. Now, Chuck Todd, who I've definitely had issues with, did a pretty good job in referencing Ramoswami's book and what he said about Donald Trump and the 2020 presidential election in the book versus what Ramoswami is now saying publicly on the campaign trail.

And so there were multiple examples of this, but I want to show you my favorite example. Let's take a look. You're referring to Republicans. We use stolen election theories as a backdoor to embracing our own victim identity path, pursuing an easy path to power. Throughout this entire book, you mock the entire January 6th aspect. You absolutely criticize Donald Trump for being a sore loser. You write about it in a way of making your point that we've become a nation of victims.

And right now on TV, you're doing the exact opposite. I'm not. Chuck actually want to be very clear. I preached to conservative audiences last, I was in Iowa over the last two days. And what do I tell them, we're not going to be victims. We're going to be victorious. Whether I'm talking to the left or the right, I say the same thing. I've also been very clear, Chuck, and I want to be clear today, that I would have made very different judgments than Donald Trump did that day and on many of the matters in his path out of office.

But there's a difference between a bad judgment and a crime. And what I've been clear about is when we criminalize those bad judgments, that's an abuse of the justice system. It undermines trust not only in our elections, but in our justice system. By the way, he also earlier in that interview argued that it was not a free and fair election because of the censorship of the New York Post-Hunter Biden story. I don't really think that made that much of a difference. I think voters were more concerned about Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic and how much he essentially bungled the response to it. But I do agree that it was wrong for that New York Post piece on Hunter Biden's laptop getting censored in social media platforms. They should not have done that despite the lies that were told about where it actually came from.

Nonetheless, Jank, was that convincing his defense of what he wrote this book? So first of all, by the way, on the Hunter Biden thing, that was totally unclear about any effect that it had. But the Anthony Wiener laptop thing that James Comey came up with with the last second of the election in 2016, there was excellent evidence that that caused Hillary Clinton the election. And so is anybody on the right wing complaining about that election interference? Of course not. Of course not. Okay. So we'll call that even and move on.

Look, last thing here, Vivek, so is Donald Trump a sore loser? Answer the question. Super easy question. I mean, you alluded to it in your book. Now you're flopping around like a fish out there. Flip flopping, flip flopping, flip flopping. I love mega, but let me be really clear. No, you haven't been clear at all, brother.

You haven't been clear at all. Is Donald Trump a sore loser? Answer, answer the goddamn question. He will never answer that. All he'll give you is slime coming out of his mouth in both directions. When we come back from the break, we'll give you a surprising update on the polling in regard to the Republican candidates and how Republican voters feel about them following the first primary debate. I was surprised by a lot of the results. So I want you to be surprised when you come back.

I'll see you that. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com at t-y-t. I'm your host, Janke Huger, and I'll see you soon.