The Young Turks - What Do They Want?!

Episode Date: September 29, 2021

Roughly two dozen progressives in the House of Representatives have reiterated their pledge to vote down the bipartisan infrastructure deal unless a budget agreement is reached. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema claim that they’re negotiating the reconciliation bill in good faith, but they are not being clear on what they want. One hundred and thirty-one federal judges broke the law by hearing cases where they had a financial interest. A network of right-wing health care providers is making millions off of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Hosts: Ana Kasparian  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. What's up, The Young Turks, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we're watching The Young Turks. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have a bonanza. A giant show ahead for you. I'm really, really looking forward to it because, guess who's back? John Ida Rola, Wednesdays with John, ice cream parties with John, everyone loves it, I love it, you love it, the American people love it.

So I'm really, really looking forward to getting his thoughts on the new Amazon robot, which will surveil your every move. Does John plan on getting that robot? My prediction is yes, but we'll see, he might surprise me. So that's coming up in the second hour. In this hour, of course, we have so many updates regarding the budget reconciliation bill and some interesting developments in regard to how the media is covering corporate Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema.

Seems like there's a little bit of a change in tone toward these corporate Dems. So we'll get to that in a little bit. And later in the show, probably one of my favorite stories, it's one of my favorite topics to discuss, corrupt judges. Oftentimes when we talk about federal judges who are appointed, confirmed through the Senate, we don't really think about the possible corrupt motives behind these decisions that judges pass down. But it turns out that just like members of Congress, they're also allowed to invest in individual stocks. They're supposed to recuse themselves in cases having to do with the companies that they're invested in. Are they doing that?

Well, the new investigation shows, no, they are not. So I'll get to that later in the first hour. But before we get to any of that, as always, just want to encourage you to like and share the stream. Tell your friends, tell your neighbors, tell Randy Gonzalez, tell whoever you can about the program because we want to get the message out there. With that said, let's get to our first story. Senator Bernie Sanders has made it clear that since corporate Democrats in the Senate refuse to go through with their part of the deal on the budget reconciliation bill, he wants House Democrats, specifically progressives, to stand their ground and vote no on the

corporate handout bill, also known as the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Here he is talking to The Hill about why he believes these progressive lawmakers should block that legislation. Are you making in progress there? I'm not, you know, the answer is that is what is very troubling for me. The answer, I think, I'm not the middle of all those negotiations, but senators, cinema and mansion, as I understand it, and the White House today. From what I can hear from the reports is no. It goes on and on and on. We're talking and we're talking and nothing is happening.

And I think that's why it's important that we defeat the infrastructure bill in the house and that if these guys want to see the infrastructure bill passed, they're going to have to deal with your concern. And is that part of your worry, if the talks aren't really not progressing with the infrastructure bill still in limbo, once the infrastructure bills pass, then there'll be no motivation for them to talk. That's about it, yes. Now the vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill is quickly approaching. will likely happen tomorrow. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that she would not bring a piece of legislation up to the House floor for a vote unless she knew she had the votes to ensure that that legislation passes.

So we'll see how it all plays out tomorrow because progressives remain firm on their threats to block that bill. You know, later there were some tweets by Senator Sanders and other progressive members of Congress. I wanna read this to you so I can also provide a little more context into what's going on here. Now he writes, no infrastructure bill should pass without a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. That is the agreement that we made or was made and that is the agreement that must be kept. Physical infrastructure is important, but the needs of working families and combating climate change is more important. And I wanna be clear about something. Remember, this agenda was all supposed to come in the form of one massive piece of legislation.

It was supposed to include the physical infrastructure, along with the social safety net programs that would certainly help, you know, create more of an equal system here in the United States. Right now, we see a lot of the redistribution of wealth going to the very top. And so the whole plan with the reconciliation bill is to ensure passage of all the provisions that were stripped out of that essentially corporate handout bill. I keep calling it that because the reason why corporations favor the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the reason why it's a bipartisan bill with Republican support in the Senate in the first place is because corporate donors love it. There is an effort to privatize public infrastructure. There's an effort to ensure that these corporations get these massive government contracts. They see dollar signs when they look at that bipartisan infrastructure bill, which is why progressives actually don't like that bill. And it shouldn't be a problem to defeat that bill if corporate Democrats fail to follow through with their part of the deal, which is to ensure passage for the.

the reconciliation bill that includes all the provisions that actually matter, provisions that expand Medicare, lowers the Medicare eligibility age, provides two years of free community college, paid mandatory family leave. I mean, these are honestly, common sense policies that are already offered to people living in other developed countries. But here in the United States, one of the richest countries in the world, we don't offer those things. And the fact that we're not willing to ensure passage of that reconciliation bill tells you everything you need to know about our political system and the corporate interests that have captured it. Now, Bernie Sanders isn't the only one who is urging progressive members of the House to block the bipartisan

infrastructure bill. Senator Elizabeth Warren also joined forces with Bernie Sanders saying the following, the agreement from the beginning was that all the pieces would move together. And that one piece wouldn't be broken off and moved ahead of the others, both leader Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House and the Senate all said that's the deal. I want to make sure we hold to that deal. I don't want to see that deal broken. So there seems to be this unified front among progressive lawmakers. And I really do love to see it. You know, similar statement was put out by Senator Ed Markey who says hashtag hold the line, pass both bills. And there are also, of course, many progressives in the House who say, yeah, yeah, that was the plan. That was

the plan from the beginning. And we are going to stand our ground. Here is a somewhat lengthy compilation of all the various progressive members of the House who have spoken pretty openly, candidly about what they intend to do once Nancy Pelosi brings that bipartisan bill up for a vote in the House. Let's watch. If we are serious about addressing the climate crisis, if we're serious about addressing the wrong neglected needs of working families, we have to pass the reconciliation bill. My fear is that if the dual track agreement is broken and we only pass the infrastructure bill in the house, I suspect we will never get to reconciliation. Senator Bernie Sanders has said over and over again, the infrastructure bipartisan legislation would not have passed with his support and the support of so many other Democrats in the Senate if an agreement wasn't reached that we will be able to pass these two bills together. All of the folks at the White House know we're being reasonable and literally one senator, one senator, Kirsten Sinema, is holding up the will of the entire Democratic Party.

What has she said that she wants, as far as you know? That's the question. The president keeps begging her. Tell us what you want. Put a proposal forward. You see the progressives. Look at what we've compromised on. We went from $6 trillion to $3.5 trillion.

Then they said we need to pass a bill in the Senate first. We said, even if you come up with an agreement, that's fine. Then they said, go blow $3.5 trillion. We said, okay, we're willing to negotiate. Frontload the benefits. Let's talk about the years. We are willing to compromise. How do you compromise, John, when cinema is not saying anything?

It is sickening to me that there are people who will just push aside those that need these deep housing investments. What we're talking about is saving lives right now. We need that prescription drug reform and to say, oh, you know what, you can continue to have to worry about whether you're going to pay your rent or get the life-saving. medications that you need because you know what? My donors are the ones who have me here. You know, it's sick need. Now that they are negating on that promise and that deal, we have to hold the line and we have to hold them accountable

for breaking the deal that they made with us. Now there was a meeting among progressive lawmakers just last night and there is some important. There are two dozen at minimum. two dozen progressive lawmakers in the House who have pledged to vote no on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. And I to see what Speaker Nancy Pelosi has up her sleeve, because is there a possibility that she has enough Republican votes in the House to make up for the progressives who

refuse to vote yes on that bill? I honestly think it's unlikely, especially when you consider that the Republican Party overall is still very much captured by Donald Trump. And Donald Trump does not want to provide the Biden administration any type of win, especially when he's considering running against Biden in 2024. But I could be wrong. Who knows? Remember, the bipartisan infrastructure bill is favored by corporate interests, which means it's favored by corporate donors, which is why you have 19 Republican senators who voted in favor of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. So who knows what's likely to happen in the House tomorrow. But the only opportunity that we have,

the only leverage progressives have is this bipartisan bill and the threats that they're still making regarding voting no on that bill unless they get what they want in the reconciliation bill. And understand that they've already made significant concessions to corporate Democrats in the Senate. The bill was initially supposed to spend far more money, Okay, something along the lines of five to six trillion dollars, and they negotiated, they made some concessions, and the agreement along with people like Senators Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema was, all right, we'll whittle the number down to $3.5 trillion, as long as we get an agreement from you guys that you will vote in favor of the budget reconciliation bill once the full bill

is up for a vote in the Senate. Remember, both Mansion and Cinema voted yes on the framework of the reconciliation bill, right? So the dollar amount, $3.5 trillion, they both voted yes on that already, and then they backtracked. So we all know why they backtracked. We all know about the corporate interests at play. We know about Kirsten Cinema taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry in order to defeat this bill. We know about the personal financial investments that Joe Manchin is worried about. Remember, the reconciliation bill deals with climate change. He don't like that. He loves fossil fuels. He makes more money off fossil fuels than he does from his Senate salary. Half a million dollars last year alone

from dirty coal. That is what's motivating Joe Manchin. That's what fuels this honestly disgusting political system. That legalized bribery is really front and center. It's slapping Americans in the face as we speak. And I'm really happy to see that some reporters are finally starting to cover it fairly because treating Mansion and Cinema as if they're good faith actors or that they're negotiating in good faith is ridiculous. That's not journalism. That's withholding critical information from viewers, from readers, from listeners about what the real motivations are and what the real factors are at play behind the scenes as these corporate Democrats attempt to defeat an incredibly important piece of legislation.

And also an incredibly popular piece of legislation. All right, well, let's move on to what Mansion and Cinema are asking for. Because a lot of people seem confused. There's not a lot of specificity coming from these corporate Democrats in the Senate. Senators Kirsten Cinema and Joe Mansion are so captured by corporate interests and their own financial motives, to be honest with you, that they haven't even felt the need. need to offer any specificity in regard to the budget reconciliation bill and why they're against it. We've gotten some vague statements from them, but that's about it. For instance, there was

the issue involving Joe Manchin. He claims that the price tag is too much. He's really uncomfortable spending $3.5 trillion. But what about some specificity? What would he be comfortable spending. I don't know. Let's watch. Senator, so have you been clear with the White House about how much you're willing to spend on this human infrastructure? We're just working. We're all we're all still talking, working together. Is the White House clear on what you want? I think they're pretty much understanding where I am. And so you don't care how much this bill is. You just need to, you just need to explain to you. Well, I do care about the bill. I care about the size of bill. Sure I do. Everybody

is still too high for you. It's pretty high. Sure I do. Sure. I care about the size of the bill is pretty high. Okay. So Mansion and Cinema have been having one-on-one meetings with President Joe Biden. And again, no specificity. Okay, these failed meetings need to end. Right now, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, as we speak our meeting with President Joe Biden. What I would personally like to see from Joe Biden is a little strength. Instead of continuing these one-on-one meetings with bad faith actors who are so captured by corporate interests, how about using your bully pulpit to apply pressure to these lawmakers? How about that?

Because think about that video that you just watched with Mansion. He doesn't even think he needs to offer you or his constituents, any specific reasoning. He doesn't even think he needs to come at you with a specific number that he'd be comfortable with. You know why? Because his intention is to defeat the bill. That was his intention from the very beginning. Because it's not just his corporate donors who are at risk, right? It's also his personal financial interests. Okay, he is invested in the hotel industry.

He is invested in dirty coal, makes half a million dollars a year off dirty coal. The budget reconciliation bill is the most robust effort, certainly by this government, to respond to the climate crisis. He's looking out for his own profits in addition to the profits of his corporate donors. Make no mistake about it. And so people don't trust him. If progresses vote in favor of passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which I think we should just refer to as a corporate handout bill, Do you think they'd have any leverage over Joe Manchin? Do you think Joe Manchin would negotiate for a reconciliation bill in good faith?

He doesn't want to pass it at all. In fact, he was confronted about the fact that he's not really trustworthy by Garrett Hake from NBC. Let's take a look at that video. Well, we have the most important piece of legislation we've ever had in the last 30 years which is the bipartisan interest. He does so much in so many ways. and clean energy, everything we talked about. Why wouldn't you take that as a green one and move on? And negotiate.

You're saying, progressives don't trust you, sir. They don't trust you that you're going to be with them on the reconciliation bill. I don't trust that I'm negotiating good faith. I trust in a good faith. We just have a different position. That's all. And you have to work through that. That's negotiation.

If you don't sit down negotiate, it's my way or the highway is up to down. No, they don't trust him. And they shouldn't trust him. And I'm actually very pleased to know that progressive lawmakers don't. Trust Mansion. And I'll tell you why AOC specifically doesn't trust Mansion in just a minute. But first, a little more regarding the wishy-washiness coming from the likes of Mansion and Cinema in the Senate. Neither Mansion nor Cinema were willing to provide Biden with specific objections to the reconciliation proposal, which would invest up to $3.5 trillion over the next decade in climate

action, child care, housing, and other Democratic priorities. To be honest, I feel a little uncomfortable referring to them as Democratic priorities, considering the, you know, at this point, dozens of corporate Democrats, both in the House and the Senate, who have come out against it. Is it really a Democratic priority when Democrats have control of Congress? They have control of the executive branch and they can't get a common sense piece of legislation passed? Let me give you more. During a private meeting with the president, Kirsten Sintam made clear she's still not on board with the party's 3.5 trillion social spending plan and is hesitant to engage on some specifics until the bipartisan infrastructure

package passes the house. So I don't know. I mean, maybe spend a little less time focusing on what your outfit is and a little more time reflecting on what it is about the reconciliation package that you would like to change. But the fact of the matter is she doesn't care for the reconciliation package because she's paid by corporate donors not to care. She was at a fundraiser with corporate interests just last night. Okay, 45 minutes, business community shows up, writes her a check, and they'll be on their way. That's what she's concerned about. She's not worried about carrying out the best interests of her constituents who overwhelmingly support the budget reconciliation bill. Doesn't care about that at all. Cinema has

with both the price tag and some of the tax increases, gee, I wonder why, devised to pay for it. After returning from his White House meeting, Manchin said that he did not give Biden a top line number and made no commitments from my standpoint. So honestly, Biden needs to stop wasting his time. If he genuinely wants to get that budget reconciliation bill passed, it's time to play hardball. haven't seen hardball from him, AOC was asked by Garrett Hake of NBC News today as well, what would you like to see from Joe Biden? And her answer was correct. I would like to see Joe Biden apply pressure. I'm paraphrasing what she said, but essentially use your bully pulpit to apply pressure. These closed door meetings, these closed door talks, they're going nowhere.

They're going nowhere. They won't even give Biden a number that they're comfortable with because they don't plan on passing it. They don't plan on voting in favor of it. They think that they can bully the progressives in the house to just pass the bipartisan corporate handout bill. And progressives are saying no. So there is some likelihood that we don't get either piece of legislation. We don't get the bipartisan bill and we don't get the reconciliation bill.

But to be honest with you, the worst case scenario would be to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill giving corporations the handouts that they desperately want. while failing to pass the reconciliation bill. So progressives really do need to hold their ground. Now, Ryan Grimm also shared this piece of information with us. Move on surveyed 300,000 of its Amazon members, I'm sorry, move on surveyed 300,000 of its Arizona members. And 89% said they'd be less likely to support her if she keeps up the obstruction of Biden's agenda. That's Kirsten Cinema, okay?

her own constituents are so in favor of the budget reconciliation bill, that they're committed to defeating her when she's up for re-election in several years, unfortunately. Now, when the nonpartisan, non-profit work money surveyed more than 50,000 of its 2 million members nationwide, it found that 81% of respondents said they supported the reconciliation bill. That includes 90% of liberals who took the survey. 1% of moderates and 66% of conservatives. Even the majority of conservative voters favor the budget reconciliation bill. And then you go to states like West Virginia where we kept hearing over and over again.

Well, poor Joe Manchin, I mean, he's in a red state, what could he do? Well, turns out West Virginians want to pass this bill. According to the survey, 80% of more than 800 people surveyed in West Virginia believe Manchin should vote to pass the bill. That includes 77% of conservatives who responded to the survey. So again, what's really at play here? Why is it that these lawmakers refuse to pass a wildly popular piece of legislation? Well, most Americans favor lower drug prices, right?

I mean, who wants to pay more for drug prices? Who wants to pay two to three times more for the same prescription drugs that are offered in other developed countries? But there's no powerful grassroots group devoted to the issue. And there is a major lobbying group on the other side, pharma, which represents the drug industry. It has helped persuade a few Democrats to oppose a reduction in drug prices, including, by the way, Kirsten Cinema, who ran on lowering drug prices, who ran on increasing the federal

minimum wage. But then there was a shift, there was a change in her politics. It's outlined in this next video. Like Mansion, Cinema, also not really clarifying in a bargaining position what amount of spending she thinks is right. She's holding the line against raising taxes in private conversations with Democrats. She's fundraising off that stas. And a fact check here, some of these very tax reforms would basically roll back Trump's tax cuts, which just brings them closer to the level that cinema herself used to support.

We're verifying how Democratic Congresswoman and U.S. Senate candidate curiously, in Cinema voted on the cuts. Last November, she joined all her fellow Democrats in opposing them. But when the House of Representatives voted last week to make the tax cuts for individuals permanent, Cinema switched sides, joining Republicans to vote yes. Cinema voted yes, despite her warning a year ago, about the government borrowing more and more money to pay for the tax cuts. So what happened? Could it be that corporate interests are at play?

Could it be that Kirsten Cinema is listening to her corporate donors, far more than she's listening to her own constituents? Another example of interest group politics are tax increases on wealthy, on the wealthy in corporations. Tax rates on the affluent are near their lowest levels in decades. To keep them there, groups representing the interests of the wealthy have enlisted some of the most effective lobbyists in Washington. Former members of Congress. Oh, it's so sweet, right? Nothing better than taking advice and money from failed members of Congress, people who got voted out of their positions of power.

Great job, cinema, listening to these goons who failed. They're failures. But they're making a lot of money working as failures, as lobbyists, right? So these lobbyists, by the way, let's name them, including Heidi Hyde Camp of North Dakota, and Senator, I'm sorry, a former North Dakota senator and Nick Rahal, a former West Virginia congressman. They've been trying to persuade other Democrats to water down or remove the tax increases altogether. One of our members made a great point. This is from Jay Hufford who says the reconciliation bill should also please most, but not all, of big business.

That $3.5 trillion bill gets spent somewhere. There's two sides to every financial transaction. But this is the important part, guys. They prefer a precarious labor force to profits. The reconciliation bill would materially improve Americans' lives. It would improve the lives of workers. And maybe all of a sudden, they're not desperate to stay at a job they hate. Maybe all of a sudden they have some choices.

Maybe all of a sudden they get to take a little bit of paid time off to take care of their newborn baby. Corporations don't want that. They love a desperate workforce, which is why they lobbied so hard to get states to end the coronavirus-related unemployment benefits early. And guess what? A lot of red states agreed with them and did what they wanted. But they also shoot themselves in the foot because since they refused to. to pay their fair share of taxes since we don't offer childcare in America. Women haven't been able to go back to work. They gotta stay home, they gotta take care of the kids, kids keep getting quarantined.

And so all these corporations who thought that they could game the system and make people so desperate that they would show up to work are now realizing, oh damn, people aren't coming back to work yet, we still have a labor shortage. I mean, the self-destructive nature of this system is so evident. And think about how sick it is that these companies are fighting so hard to keep workers desperate. That's what this is really about. Thank you for that comment. I really appreciate that. All right, we've got to take a break.

We'll be right back with more news, including that story about judges, their corruption, and massive conflicts of interest. to TYT, Anna Casparian here with you, and this next story is a doozy. It's a continuation of something that I want to really continue focusing on, which is the very clear conflicts of interest at play within Congress. And it goes beyond corporate donors, it has to do with personal profit motives. And in this case, we're talking about judges who are literally breaking the law, and they have been in some cases for decades. So let's get into it.

All right, let me move over a little bit maybe. All right, let's get to it. So, district judges are supposed to hand down rulings based on the law, which makes it kind of curious that it turns out that they don't really understand how the law pertains to them in regard to personal investments in the stock market and how they should be recuse. themselves. So a new Wall Street Journal investigation finds that district judges throughout the country have been investing in individual stocks, which is legal, but failing to recuse themselves in cases involving the very companies they're personally invested in. Now, this is not a new problem. I researched this to see if this was an issue maybe a few years ago. Is this something that's been ongoing. And I found New York Times articles dating back to 1999, finding the same issue at play.

And again, this is against the law. Federal judges are supposed to recuse themselves if a case comes before them involving a company that they're personally invested in. Now let me give you the details of this Wall Street Journal report and got to give them credit where creditors do. This was a fantastic piece of reporting. Judges have improperly failed to to disqualify themselves from 685 court cases around the nation since 2010. The jurists were appointed by nearly every president from LBJ, Lyndon Johnson, to Donald Trump.

About two thirds of federal district judges disclosed holdings of individual stocks and nearly one of every five who did heard at least one case involving those stocks. So unsurprisingly, if you're not just, You have some financial interests at play, might have an impact on the rulings you pass down, right? Well, the Wall Street Journal found that when judges participated in such cases, about two-thirds of their rulings, meaning the vast majority of those rulings on motions that were contested came down,

oh, wow, in favor of their or their family's financial interests. So let me be clear about something, because the law pertaining to district judges, to federal judges, is actually far more strict than what we see with members of Congress who are also allowed to invest in individual stocks, but do not have to recuse themselves when deciding on legislation that impacts the companies that they're making decisions on. It's different for judges. So for judges, sure, they're allowed to invest in individual stocks, but they must recuse themselves. same goes for their family members. So if they have children or if their spouse is invested in

individual stocks, they must still recuse themselves from hearing cases involving the companies they're invested in. So alerted to the violations, 56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves. That means new judges might be assigned potentially upending rulings. So what I loved about this story was that here you have judges. They make decisions based on the law, they make decisions based on the Constitution. So they should be experts on what the law is or what it, especially when it has to do with them. But when the Wall Street Journal reached out to them, they're like, oh my God, I didn't know I was doing anything wrong.

Really? Really? You didn't know you were doing any? You didn't think that there was a conflict of interest there? Considering the fact that you're personally invested in companies that you're now hearing lawsuits about and making decisions on? Okay, not buying it at all, not by a long shot. So what exactly is the law? Nothing bars judges from owning stocks. But federal law since 1974 has prohibited judges from hearing cases that involve a party in which they, their spouses or their minor children have a legal or equitable interest, however small. The law and the judicial conference of the U.S., which is the federal court's policymaking body, require judges to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.

Doesn't seem like they've cared too much about avoiding the appearance of a conflict. Certainly not. So again, what's incredible is how these judges pretend like they don't know what the law is or what their obligations are. The journal identified 36 conflicts by one judge in Colorado, are Brooke Jackson. The cases involved or included, Apple, Chevron, Eli Lilly, pharmaceutical company, Facebook,

General Motor or General Electric, Home Depot, Honeywell, wow, this guy, I mean, expansive, expansive stock portfolio, good for him, Johnson and Johnson, JPM Morgan, Pfizer and Wells Fargo. And when he was reached by phone, Judge Jackson said he had no idea which stocks he owns because a money manager handles them. Okay, stop right there. Come back to me. I'm so sick of that argument. Okay, you hear it from members of the company. It's money, okay? It's money. It's their money. They know what's happening with their money. It's the only thing people care about in the

system, okay? They know what's happening with their money. This guard, like, by the way, I know nothing about stocks, nothing, okay? I don't know how to personally invest. I don't know, like, it terrifies me. Guess what? I have someone, I hired someone for the first time in my life this year to deal with it. And you know what I did? I check that account every day. I know I shouldn't, I know I'm not supposed to, but you know why? It's because it's money. It's about your future. It's about your savings. You want to know what's going on. I don't believe for a second that a member of Congress doesn't check on how their stock portfolio is doing. Okay, because it's being managed by a third party. Get out of here. Same with these judges.

What a garbage excuse. Let me give you more, though. He said that because he doesn't know, he couldn't have a conflict of interest. Oh, how convenient. Told he was required to know under the law, he said, that's news to me. No, Homeboy is a federal judge. Okay, he's a, he's a federal judge. This news to me, I didn't know what the law was. Convenient that you didn't know what the law was when it had to do with your obligations as a federal judge. And so I guess later he realized, oh, maybe that wasn't the right quote to give to the

Wall Street Journal as they're doing this investigative report. So later, he told the judge, I never really paid much attention to it. I have preferred to stay unknowledgeable about it. Later, he wrote a 21 page letter to the Wall Street Journal, apologizing, and stating that he's going to take action, he's going to provide the clerk with a list of his investments to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest in any of the cases he hears in the future. But he broke the law, and he's not the only one. Okay, dozens of these judges have done this, have been doing this.

And I don't know, I mean, if you break the law as an ordinary American, do you get to just tell, you know, prosecutors, do you tell the cops, do you tell judges? Like, oh, I didn't know it was against the law to strangle my partner. But I guess I'm okay, I guess I don't have to face any consequences for it because I just didn't know it was against the law, how convenient, I didn't know, I didn't know. No, like ignorance of the law, which I'm not even buying in this case with these judges, is not a defense. It's just not. So I want to know what are the consequences for these judges?

Because all these cases are going to be, basically you have to go through the system again. Because there's this massive conflict of interest that is not fair, certainly to the plaintiffs or whoever is not part of the corporation that these judges. judges are actually invested in. So again, he wrote this 21 page letter apologizing to them, saying that he's taking action. He also said that he would have if he had known. If he had known, he would have recused himself from 36 cases. Later, he said, I'm embarrassed that I did not properly understand and apply the stock ownership rule. Being informed of what could be viewed, What could be viewed as an ethical violation, it's illegal, okay? Ethics is one thing, the law is another. This is illegal. Even a technical one is no fun. And by the way, this has been going on and on. The more things change, the more they stay the same, because here's a headline from the New York Times in September of 1999. Judges ruled on firms in their portfolios.

The law has been in place since the 1970s. So when there are no consequences, when there is this two-tier justice system that tells certain people you get to break the law and there are no consequences for you, they're gonna keep breaking the law. And that's what's happening with these judges. In fact, in 2014, the Center for Public Integrity found that 59% of all

59% of all federal appellate judges reported owning stock despite the risk that the companies in which they have a financial stake could come before them. By comparison, the proportion of American families who directly own stock is much lower, just 15% as of 2010. That number's actually gone down since then, by the way. Following a Washington Post investigation in 2006, the courts even added a computerized screening process to help judges avoid such conflicts. Get the problems continue. Guess what? Because they aren't held accountable for it, right? The self policing is not going to happen.

We're talking about money here. We're talking about their own profit motives, their own financial interests. Unless there are clear consequences for this, they're going to keep doing it, and they have kept doing it. And by the way, the situation is even worse when you look at members of Congress because the laws aren't even as stringent for members of Congress. They can invest in individual stocks as we've talked about before. They do not have to recuse themselves on voting for legislation that would impact the very companies they're invested in. In fact, there's some pretty clear evidence that there's insider trading going on by

members of Congress. They get these classified briefings and then, oh, would you look at that? suddenly before the entire country knows about the severity of COVID, all these Senate lawmakers are selling certain stocks, buying certain stocks that have to do with at home or remote work. Oh, so weird. How could that be? Could it be that they had a closed door briefing on COVID and then made some decisions about their portfolio?

No, but I bet not. I bet that they have money managers and they never, ever know what the money. manager invest their money in because that's how people think, right? People are just like, oh, I don't know, here's millions of dollars. I'm not going to ever check on it or see what I'm invested in. And by the way, part of the problem is what district judges make. Okay, they don't make that much money considering their federal judges. Federal district judges draw an annual salary of $218,600, which isn't much more than a first-year attorney at a top-tier law firm. Some judges said that their salary level makes stock investments an attractive option.

Listen, if it was up to me, I would increase their salaries significantly, okay? And I would ban them from owning individual stocks. Like, I don't know, oh, I'm going to hope that they recuse themselves. No, you want to invest in mutual funds, fine. No individual stocks, period. Period. Period. Do you want to be a public servant or not? Because that's what a government job is supposed to be. And in this case, these games, the law breaking by judges, people who are supposed to enforce the law is so egregious, so disgusting. And really it just embodies a lot of what's wrong in our political system.

Corruption, profit motive. We see it over and over again in every. every branch of government, and I'm sick of it. We gotta take a break, we'll be right back. What's up, everyone, welcome back. Let's talk a little bit about the COVID grifters, because this is the story I've been waiting for. I knew that there were people making money off

slanging ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. And now the Intercept has obtained some documents from a hacker, and we've got more detail into it. So, hack documents that were provided to The Intercept indicate that healthcare providers have actually pocketed millions of dollars selling things like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin in an effort to, first of all, just make money. And while they do it, they spread disinformation about something that actually protects people from the coronavirus, which is the vaccine.

So there's always been something fishy at play. Why is it that there's this aggressive push by right wingers, by conspiracy theorists, by some physicians even, to take things like ivermectin when it hasn't been proven to either treat COVID or serve as a prophylactic, a preventative measure to COVID? And why would anyone push for that when we have a proven method to prevent people from getting hospitalized or from dying due to coronavirus? And of course, that's the vaccine. Like, what's really going on? Well, the data indicate patients spent at least $15 million and potentially much more on consultations and medications combined. So as I said, the Intercept has obtained

hundreds of thousands of records from two different organizations, okay? So one of them is CadenceHealth.us. The other is RAVQU. Now RAVQU actually fulfills or fills the prescriptions for things like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. And cadencehealth.us is part of the telemedicine industry. So those two parts of this puzzle are really, really important. And then there's the third part, right? And I would argue the most important part, which is the group of physicians that offer these prescriptions in the first place. So the hack data includes information on 281,000 patients created in the Cadence Health database between July 16th and September 12th of 2021, 90% of whom were referred from America's frontline doctors.

In just those two months, patients paid an estimated $6.7 million on consultations alone. Now, America's frontline doctors, cooks, funded by the Tea Party. They started out as a group that was just meant to defend the way Donald Trump was handling coronavirus. The first effort that they were involved in was to convince the public that reopening the country prematurely, was a great idea. Later, they really made a splash in the press when they started promoting hydroxychloroquine. One of the physicians involved in this was the woman who had this insane rant about devil's semen. She also had this to say about hydroxychloroquine, which again has not been proven as a safe, effective treatment for COVID.

Let's watch. This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and zinc, and. Zetromax. I know if you want to talk about a mask, hello, you don't need mask. There is a cure. I know they don't want to open schools. No, you don't need people to be locked down. There is prevention and there is a cure. Yeah, hydroxychloroquine was so dangerous. It had such an impact on the hearts of patients who participate in clinical trials that in places like Brazil, they literally had to stop the clinical trial.

And it certainly did not serve as a preventative measure to COVID. We have close to 700,000 Americans dead as a result of this pandemic. And hydroxychloroquine was one of the first, you know, drugs that was promoted as a treatment or a preventative measure. And obviously, that is not worked out. Same with Ivermectin, which we'll get to in just a second. Now the hacker also provide records, provided records of 340,000 prescriptions that Ravku has filled between November 3rd of 2020 and September 11th of 2021, amounting to an estimated $8.5 million in drug costs. 46% of the prescriptions are for hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, and another 30% are for zinc and azithromeson, two other in a effective medications that the speak with an MD physicians, who America's frontline doctors

claims it trains, prescribe in their COVID-19 consultations. So think about what's happening here. Their strategy comes in two parts. Part number one is so speculation or suspicion about the coronavirus vaccine, get people to think that the vaccine is unsafe, it's not good for you, it doesn't actually protect you from coronavirus. And then part number two is, but we've got a better solution. Now, there's no data indicating that Ivermectin is going to help treat your coronavirus. There's no data indicating that hydroxychloroquine is a safe and effective treatment for coronavirus. But it doesn't matter because what these people do is they prey on how much American

distrust our institutions and, to be fair, pharmaceutical companies. I get it. I get the lack of trust in our institutions. But unfortunately, their lack of trust in our institutions is also being exploited by people who are looking to make a quick buck, and to be sure they've made tens of millions of dollars off of this, and people have died as a result. Each of the 340,000 prescriptions filled by Ravku between November 3rd of 3rd of 3, 2020 and September 11th of 2021 lists a price.

Adding up the prices of each type of medication shows that the online pharmacy apparently charged people a total of $4.7 million for ivermectin, $2.4 million for azithromicin, 1.2 million for hydroxychloroquine, $175,000 for zinc and $52,000 for vitamin C. It appears that the vast majority of these medicines were paid, get this, out of poverty,

rather than through insurance. Insurance unlikely to authorize coverage of these prescription drugs for coronavirus because it hasn't been proven that they're effective in treating coronavirus. But you know what's free at the point of service? The vaccine. And it also prevents people from getting hospitalized, prevents people from dying from coronavirus, which is why 99% of people who are currently hospitalized with coronavirus are not vaccinated. And by the way, some of the physicians, not some of them, probably all of them, likely knew that what they were prescribing was ineffective.

In fact, there was one physician who ensured that there was a, you know, disclaimer for the patients he was prescribing these drugs to. So the disclaimer said, I, and then included the physician's name, a lot of this stuff was redacted, which The Intercept, of course, should have done and did do, have a complete understanding of the recent release from the World Health Organization, FDA, CDC, and NIH on March 5th, 2021 as it pertains to the use and prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. I understand that these two medications have been deemed highly not recommended by the forementioned medical governing bodies but are not illegal to prescribe. I have explained. that I will not be held legally or medically responsible for an adverse reaction

by this patient should they choose to take them and have explained. They will not be able to hold me medically neglectful, pursue any form of malpractice, nor any criminal and civilly, and civil suits. I mean, this physician, you know, bro, you're gonna have a disclaimer, like just check your spelling, proofread a little bit, little bit. And then later, of course, a similar disclaimer started to show up for all patients. Because they're worried about getting sued and they should be because these physicians are wrongly prescribing drugs that they know, they know happen to be ineffective in treating COVID.

But they're making money, right? This entire system that they've got set up from the physicians to the telemedicine platform to Ravku, fills the prescriptions, they're all making a quick buck off of this. Who cares if hundreds of thousands of people have died from COVID? Who cares? Profits over human lives. We see it happen over and over and over again. And so when Donald Trump loosened telemedicine regulations in the beginning of the pandemic, it made a lot of sense because people might want to see a doctor from the comfort of their own home, especially when we're in the middle of a pandemic having to do with a highly contagious virus. But the second those regulations were loosened, you've got the bad actors

just coming in and taking full advantage. And the way that these scammers are able to get the press attention that they need in order to market these ineffective drugs is they appeal to those who are kind of primed already to fall for conspiracy theories, people like Joe Rogan. In fact, Dr. Simone Gold, who's the founder of America's frontline doctors, absolute whack job, thanked Joe Rogan after he published a video of himself saying that he's taking Ivermectin. Popular American comedian, podcaster, and UFC commentator, Joe Rogan announces he has COVID-19, credits Ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, which by the way are the actual effective treatment he was getting at the time, and says, you know, an other medicine for his quick recovery.

A wonderful heartfelt thank you to modern medicine for putting, pulling me out of this so quickly. Well, monoclonal antibodies certainly have shown a lot of promise. That other stuff, though, which he took simultaneously, just garbage. But he did a great job promoting something that's ineffective and likely rob people of their money and in some cases likely their lives as well. So good job. all right that does it for the first hour john idarola joins me for second hour don't miss it we'll see you then 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 dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon