The Young Turks - White House Is Losing Their Minds And Hilary Clinton Makes Big 2020 Announcement

Episode Date: March 6, 2019

Trump and his White House are losing it over the myriad of investigations House Democrats are launching.. Hilary Clinton spoke about her stance for the 2020 election. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five-star rating. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Jake Uger, John Iderola with you guys. I will be doing the show today with the 2013 version of John Iderola without facial hair. Okay, it's good to see 14-year-old John back. I'm regrowing it as fast as I can. Okay. Can I briefly mention? So the videos that I've put out since then, the comments have been 98% about that.

And I will say, it's not, people are not split. Yes. But anyway, more importantly, it has given me, I think, a little bit of a taste of what women have to deal with all the time. Oh, that's interesting. The obsession with any change in clothing or facial hair, how you look, how you present yourself, why don't you do this, I prefer that, go back to this, like, and I could just regrow the hair and then no one will look at me again for a while.

Well, that sounds good. Yeah, that sounds good. But I get that very sparingly, whenever I put on good clothes, people like, whoa, look at this. Okay. Well, what I don't get, what doesn't seem fair is you're clean shaving right now? Give him. No, because look, I think that the fans are right, the audience is always more savvy.

You need facial hair to not be a boy. Preferably, like, that's a good start. If I could have hair totally covering my face, that would be two thumbs up, but I'm gonna get back to something like that. And me, if I had facial hair, I would look far more swarthy. So, you know, it's, let's just keep it real as to what's happening. By the way, I know we're never gonna talk about politics, so don't worry about it. The Daily Caller had a write up about how I, on one show, I don't remember what show, I made

a few comments about my frustration with my hair, so God knows what they're gonna write now. Oh yeah, Dale Coro is going nuts right now about your facial hair. I don't want to hear anything about any further hair on John's body for the rest of time. You will in the post game. No, but seriously, Conservatives wrote a hit piece on John talking about his hair. By the way, let's be super clear. Totally joking.

Yeah, you were joking, yeah. Anyway. All right, so now, amazing showhead for you guys. Fire and Fury coming up soon. The Hillary staffers have decided that they're going to hit Bernie harder while crying about being hit by Bernie supporters. So that's a nice little piece of irony. I will be coming in too strong on that one.

So do not grow anywhere, that's coming. So we have amazing stories throughout the day, but that's the one I am. I'm keeping it real that you should not miss. It's coming up a little bit. All right, and then I just want to tell you what we're doing on the conversation, which is in the third hour of the Young Turks today, and what we're doing tomorrow on the conversation. So today we're gonna have discussions of the Chicago mayoral race, which is coming up. And I need to get caught up on that, so I'm thrilled to have an expert on that, and who's

the progressive and how's the race going so far, et cetera. And number two is a reporter talking about Hicken snoozer. Or is a fracken looper. Anyway, I love that story. I'm endlessly amused by Hickenlooper. If Klobuchar is not going to go out first, it'll only be because Hickenlooper took a hyperloop to the exit. It's a hyperloper, actually. That's right.

Exactly right. But tomorrow on the conversation, which is, again, the third hour of the Young Turks now, Neurotenden, head of, I blanked for a second. Oh, it's the, Senator American Progress. It's right on there. Oh, I don't know why I didn't see it there, but I know what it is, because I remember Campus Progress and all that. You know why I blanked for a second, because it's arguably the biggest think tank on the left

and a huge supporter of Hillary Clinton, but they have a wonderful blog called Think Progress They have an interesting... They do. They have an interesting proposal call on Medicare for some that we're going to discuss, but because of CPAC, I was like, wait, no, is this Senate for American Progress? So, and I got into my head. Anyway, Nero is really good to come on, so we should have a healthy discussion about their proposal on Medicare for some.

It should be very interesting, so don't miss that, okay? Yes, and in advance of it, I'm sure she will love that characterization of it. Yeah, I think that they're, I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way. No, I think people are calling it that. I don't know the Senate for America Progress is calling it that, but I think people are calling it that. So it's not a great nickname. All right, anyway, but look, it's going to be a real discussion. And so like I said, she's wonderful to come on and talk about it.

That is true. All right, let's do today's news. Okay, let's do it. This week, House Democrats launched a wide-ranging investigation, a possible financial financial crimes by Donald Trump. That being, of course, driven by the testimony last week of Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who directly implicated the president in multiple crimes and brought evidence that he had done so. So they've sent out requests for information from, I believe, 81 different people who were in Trump's inner circle, working for the Trump

organization, people who are thus far innocent, some who have already been indicted and pled guilty and, you know, all of that. So it's a wide-ranging thing. And in response to this new threat to his presidency, Donald Trump and the White House have responded exactly how you'd expect that they would. So first, in terms of what is going to be looked into, the Judiciary Committee Chairman Gerald Nadler, who you're going to hear more about, issued the first round of document requests as part of that sweeping investigation. They want to look into obstruction of justice, public corruption, and abuses of power. The three tenets of the art of the deal, I think. I haven't actually read the book. But after this came out, Sarah Huckabee Sanders put out a statement saying

Chairman Nadler and his fellow Democrats have embarked on this fishing expedition because they're terrified that their two-year false narrative of Russia collusion is crumbling. Their intimidation and abuse of American citizens is shameful. Half of that wording and all of that had already been being used by Fox News. The other part, the calling it a fishing expedition, all the Fox News Hosts are doing that now. So no coordination between the White House and Fox News on that. But she went on to say the Democrats are more interested in pathetic political games and catering to a radical leftist base than I'm producing results for our citizens.

The Democrats are not after the truth, they are after the president. Okay, this is an awesome development because they're going to also look into his businesses. Yes, finally, that's where the mother load is, that's why they're so triggered right now. We'll get the Trump's tweets in a second. But I'm amused by Sarah Hockby Sanders framing. They're going after average American citizens. No, they're not. They're going after 81 of the most powerful people in the country that are all connected to Donald

Trump's corruption. Yeah. What part of them is average American citizen? What are you talking about? And then she says that they're playing, quote, pathetic political games, John read it to you. But I bring your attention to these two phrases, because imagine if Hillary Clinton has had responded to the Benghazi investigations this way. Pathetic political games while trying to appeal to a radical leftist base.

So the right wing is a lot to say that about the left all day long and nobody ever raises a shadowy eyebrow over it, okay? But if the left were to say it about the right, oh, they're just doing the Benghazi investigation to appease the radical right wing base. It's a pathetic attempt at political posturing. People are like, you Benghazi, what do you mean? Begazi, this is so disrespectful. And then look at this, this is how you lose elections.

You insult right-wing voters that way. It's unacceptable. And it wouldn't just be the right wing that would get triggered and act like babies. Almost all of cable news would join them. And they would just pile on on those points. If Hillary Clinton had put out, and I think we're fair to say that I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but if she had put out 1% of the tweets that the- Donald Trump did on any of these issues when she was being investigated on Benghazi, the press

would have unilaterally, not unilaterally, wholly every one of them would have flipped out and say, how dare you? These are legitimate investigations by the House, and you must admit. Okay, and she did, she calmly answered questions for 11 straight hours, right? Trump, on the other hand, and everybody's like, well, yeah, that's normal. Yeah, totally. So that's an interesting hypothetical. What if she had done this exact same thing?

So why don't we test that with a tweet or two? So imagine, totally different world, 2016, Hillary wins. She's getting investigated for emails or something. And she tweets this, presidential harassment from President Hillary Clinton. No, no, if she is. Can you imagine? If she had done it when she was Secretary of State and, you know, Secretary of State harassment, right? They would be like, oh, there she goes, playing the female card.

It's how come people died in Bikaze, okay? You can't believe the disrespect to you're up. And they'd have like three heart attacks in responding. And like I said, everybody on cable news was treated as perfectly legitimate. She was a monster. It should be beat down forever being questioned by what the Republicans later admitted were political stunts. to try to reduce her chance of winning the presidency. Yeah.

Okay. Now in this case, it's legitimate investigations of about a thousand corrupt things that Donald Trump has done. And I'm gonna say that- By the way, we already know he's done. We've already seen, like nobody-the Republicans aren't even saying he didn't do the hush money payments and all of that. They just accept that he did it, but we don't care. We've already seen it.

We already know, like this isn't a, like this is a fishing expedition, but the fish is in your boat as you go out to do the expedition. Like, we already have the trout. What more trout do you want? So, and this is so that you could prove it, right, and prove it more definitively and get it in the court of public opinion, et cetera, et cetera. But it's not like it's very speculative, it's not like Benghazi where after nine investigations the Republicans concluded, no one did anything illegal, and they had nothing on Hillary Clinton

or Obama. Now, on the other hand, with Trump, you have the campaign finance violations, that's clear, You've got the financial fraud, Ezra O'Connor proved in his testimony, that's clear. You got the insurance fraud. And that's not even getting into Russia, and that's not even getting into his past business dealings where you've got fraud on top of fraud stacked on top of fraud. We partly know, because he already shut down the Trump Foundation, which was fraudulent to begin with.

He already shut down Trump University, which was fraudulent to begin with, and he has paid settlements for all that. And what does he do? Harassment, right? And everybody's like, oh, okay, let's have a legitimate debate over it. No, there's no debate. No. Of course they should do this.

They should have, I mean, it's okay. They're doing it quick enough. I don't want to needlessly go after the Democrats. Yes, this is exactly what they should do. Okay, so let's see if you still think it when you find out that this is the greatest overreach in the history of our country, he says. The Dems are obstructing justice. What? What?

That doesn't even make sense. Projection is supposed to be at least a little bit hidden. Yeah. Dems are obstructing justice and married to Melania. No, and we'll not get anything done. A big fat fishing expedition desperately in search of a crime. You notice he's using the exact same term too, when in fact the real crime is what the Dems are doing and have done.

Again, projection. It's always the case that it's his political opponents who've committed the crimes. He goes more specific about what sort of crimes they've committed in this next one, saying, now that they realize the only collusion with Russia was done by crooked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, Nadler Schiff and the Dem heads of the committees have gone stone cold crazy, 81 letter sent to innocent people to harass them. They won't get anything done for our capital country. So again, if you have not been following this, his theory that much of his base believes is

that Hillary Clinton is the one that colluded with Russia so that she would lose the election. And they believe him and believe that he is not only right, but that he has literally never lied about anything touching this issue. And my favorite case of projection is the phrase they used in that last two. They have gone stone cold crazy. Hillary worked with the Russians to lose the election. You see how they're stone called crazy? This is for that you're crazy.

What are you doing? You see there's stone cold crazy. Dude, we can see you. We have eyes. We can hear you. We have ears. I mean, if there's one crazy person in Washington, there's not much of a debate as to who it is.

Few congressmen. So, look, they should get to it as quickly as possible, and they are, and they're being careful and that's good, and they shouldn't jump to conclusions, although the conclusions are obvious, they should gather the evidence and present it to the American people, and then they should do their constitutional duty. Yeah. Yeah, and imagine, imagine if, like, we knew that he'd been doing that inflation, deflation and all that and gaming the system with the insurance companies and paying off mistresses

right before the election and not technically a crime, but Jared Kushner are big issues about that. And the White House just announced today that they're not going to be giving any information about that to Elijah Cummings about why they pushed for him to get it, even though it was over the recommendation of the CIA and the chief White House lawyer. I mean, all of those things. Imagine if like Roe Con and AOC asked all those great questions, and then they left Michael Cohen's testimony saying, you know what, it's not really worth it. Let's not look into it.

Consequence for the president, if you broke the law, that's not our thing, okay? Can you imagine if that's what they did? Now, I understand the right wing obviously doesn't have her best interest at heart or anything like that, but thank God there are people who are actually holding the most powerful people in the country accountable. Now with that, why don't we turn to a nice relaxing story? This is bedtime story time for Jake. It's going to start off on, though. Hillary Clinton announced her plans for 2020 today.

Don't worry, she's not running. She says she's not running, at least. She says, I'm not running, but I'm going to keep working on and speaking. and standing up for what I believe. Now, you can take that to the bank because never in my experience has anyone lied about what they're running or not running for. No, I'm kidding, but I feel like, I feel like this is true. No, no, she's not running.

I mean, it would have been crazy to begin with, but she can't say, it's too late to play games about I'm not running, just kidding, I am. There's so many people have already announced. Yeah, and you would have to get your staff ready, she hasn't done any of that. No, no, there's no reason not to believe her on this. So that's great news, because look, unfortunately, and this is shocking, and you never see it in Washington, but polling indicates that Hillary Clinton is still more unpopular than Donald Trump, which is, I know, it's insane.

It's shocking, and it's, and she shouldn't be. Trump is a monster, and yes, she played the same old Washington games, but she's not anywhere near that category. But it is what it is, and so her running again after losing to Trump, which seemed to impossible, and being that unpopular still to this day, would make no sense. It's the right decision, bless her heart. Yeah, and it's, I would assume it's, in my experience anyway, it's fairly rare that people go all the way, lose the presidential election, and then run again.

People are usually pretty hesitant to support a person again when we've already been through this. Like, there's no reason to believe necessarily they would do better. Yeah. It's not unknown, but it's rare. Yeah, I mean, look, the one thing that she would get to hang her hat on, and it's super fair, is she won the popular vote. Yeah, that's true.

Right? And so I would have, if I was Al Gore, I would have run again in 2004 because that was a situation where Bush was very unpopular. Gore had not only won the popular vote, but when they did a recount after the election, because the Supreme Court wouldn't allow it to happen during the election, it turns that Gore had won the Electoral College. So that was your actual president, and so I think he should have run again. But it is a rare situation this day in American politics.

In the old days it used to happen, but what had happened to Adley Stevenson? I mean, he was the Buffalo Bills of his era, and he kept losing. So it's not like there's a great track record of, it's happened from time to time. Nixon did it, right? So losing and then running again. But in this day and age, I think it's a terrible idea. And look, I'm trying to give Hillary Clinton credit here, and if she stays active and supports whoever the Democratic nominee would be, that's great, if it's helpful, you know, and so in some

way she can be helpful. If it turns out that the nominee is an establishment candidate, they should be very helpful in raising money and doing those usual rounds. No, I'm serious. And you want it, because then it is what it is. The die is cast, you might as well get big donor money to make sure Trump loses. If the candidate is a progressive like Bernie Sanders, who doesn't need the big donor money and doesn't want it, she could still help in uniting the party.

And that would be wonderful. And that's what he did for her. I know her staffers are still bitter over, but he did 39 different campaign stops for her and rallies for her. And he, you know, he went all in to the point where his own supporters, some of his supporters were really bad at him for supporting Hillary Clinton so much, but he didn't. She could repay that favor if she was so inclined. So I think it's the right decision by her.

Look guys, her staffers keep picking at Bernie Sanders, and that's our next story. And they keep restarting that fight. And I'm not going to back out of that fight. I'm going to engage in that fight and double down on it. So I give no quarter, right? But if Hillary Clinton is not engaged in that fight, she lost the election, then let her be, right? And so look, and I remember election night.

The very last video I did, I think, was when I got home and after a very, very long day. And it was about how Hillary Clinton must have felt. And I said, my heart goes out to her. She was gonna be the first female president. And she won as it turned out by about three million votes in the popular. If we had any decent democracy, she would have been the president. Now, she didn't, she didn't win. But as she went into the day thinking she was gonna win, and then for her to lose to

Donald Trump of all people. Yeah. I mean, just put aside all of his buffoonishness and no one should ever lose to there. reality show clown, et cetera, but the fact that he was so horrible to women, and for him to beat the person who was going to be the first female president, it had to be soul crushing. So my heart went out to her and it still goes out to her. If they would just stop picking at the wounds, I mean, because Bernie's still in the fight, and so they're still trying to hurt him, right?

And they're still trying to make sure he doesn't win. And I don't know how much of that to ascribe to Hillary Clinton and how much the bitter staffers, right? But for today, I'm going to ascribe it to the staffers and not Hillary Clinton because we don't have any information that she's directing it. So I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt. So since she's not relevant in politics in that sense anymore, give her a break and leave her beat, okay, and thank her for some of the good service she did.

Because her record was not just bad. We didn't like the corporate part of it, we didn't like the big donor, we didn't like the establishment part, but earlier in her career, she fought for women's rights in a wonderful way. Later in her career, she fought for women's rights in some ways that were controversial. She was a secretary of state that was too hawkish for my taste, but also pushed for human rights in different occasions. So if this is in a sense, the conclusion of Hillary Clinton's career, as she announces she

will no longer run, then we thank her for her service. Yeah. Yeah. the election, I felt the same way because we're progressives and we have empathy for people, whether we agree with them on everything or even most things. And what's interesting is we might end up having information that alludes to the fact that maybe she's telling David Brock or whoever to go out and say this stuff. But right now we don't.

And the thing is, if you take her to word, she doesn't want to constantly relitigate the 2016 election. Bernie has already said that he doesn't want to relitigate the election. She's implying that she's going to support whoever ends up being the candidate. Bernie Sanders has already stated he's going to support who ends up being the candidate if it's not him. So it really just comes down to people who have some sort of incentive. So if you're a former staff or working for Hillary Clinton, maybe you think, hey, if I'm

really aggressive against Bernie Sanders, maybe I get a job working with, you know, whoever, name one of the other candidates. It's possible. I mean, they still have careers. They're not done just because she's not running. They still want to be considered an important person. So while we don't have evidence of her attacking him necessarily, we do have evidence of all of them.

So we'll turn to that. Yeah, let's take a break, John, because now, as polite as I was just to Hillary Clinton, and because you know me, I never say anything I don't believe. So that's genuine. Her staff, on the other hand, I'm going to nuke. And so I want to take a break because I'm going to spend a long time nuking them. Okay. Okay.

So when we come back, fire and fury. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-B-The-Republic or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-E-The Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows.

But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, You must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime.

So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. All right, back on the Young Turks. I want to thank our sponsor, aspiration.com slash t-y-t is where you go to sign up with Aspiration because, and I like their slogan, do well, do good. Because you make more money with them, by the way, no ATM fees anywhere. No fees if you don't want them. They let you charge your own fees.

It's unbelievable. Not for ATMs, but for your bank account overall. And they're looking to build a better world, keep your money clean. It's just got a great peace of mind if you've got your money there. And they've got all the services for less. And by the way, if you can't figure out why is it like some sort of like, what is it? Like how can they have everything for less? They don't have physical chain stores, right, like the other banks do.

So they save an enormous amount of money which they then pass on to you. And so that's why they could do all that. So aspiration.com slash t-y-t. Okay, now let me read some comments for you guys. Rachel says, I love John Idorola without the beard, I think he looks better that way. Let him do his own body with his own body what he wants. You're wrong, but thank you. That's very nice of you.

You're objectively wrong. But thank you though. Very nice of you. And let me just say, I do this once a year. It's like, it's like Puncta Tani Phil. It's like I shave, I look and I'm like, nope, that was a bad call. Once a year. You gotta try it every year.

One year you might go, whoa, look at that. Yeah, maybe it's an old man. I look 60 again. Chris Duran writes in, presidential harassment, isn't that 90% of Donald Trump's domestic policy? Indeed. Last one here, T.J. Philip writes in on Twitter. They rigged the Democratic primary. They used the pipe piper strategy.

They decided to attack Bernie after he said he didn't want to talk about her emails and instead focus on policies. I don't feel bad for them one bit, and I will continue to remind of it, remind them of it forever. TJ, I hear you, but again, I would say for the moment being, reserve that for the staff, which we're gonna do right now. You don't feel bad about that at all. But I wanna thank you for reminding me of the Pied Piper strategy.

Bill Clinton encouraged Donald Trump to run because he would cause chaos in the Republican Party and he would weaken the other Republicans. And if he made it into the general, it'd be so easy to win. Well, yeah, I know, I've never found that to be particularly persuasive. So first of all, Donald Trump didn't need any encouragement to run. He's been thinking about running since the late 80s. He's wanted to run his whole life. He was always going to run.

And I think that objectively, the vast majority, everybody predicted early on that he wouldn't win now. But back then, the vast majority of people thought that he was clearly going to be easier to beat. So I don't know, I mean, yeah, it looks really bad in hindsight, but. Yeah, I'm not saying that he's, Clinton's the sole reason that Trump won, everybody takes credit for Trump winning, running, Stone does, Michael Cohen does, et cetera. But it does show you not a lot of great political argument, right?

Yeah, and I would also argue in terms of, like in hindsight, it looks like, oh my God, Bill Clinton wanted family separation. He wanted Kavanaugh and the Supreme, okay, well, Donald Trump, I mean, Donald Trump's always been crazy, but he's crazy in a lot of ways that we didn't necessarily know about in early 2015. We knew he was a racist, not some of the other stuff. Yeah, I hear you. All right, so let's finally get to the staff. Okay, let's do that. So some of the former staff of Hillary Clinton have been working with various media outlets to just hammer Bernie Sanders. Sanders constantly.

And in this particular case, I'm just going to say it's Politico. Politico has got hit pieces against Bernie Sanders just constantly. They seem to have an open call for if you work for Hillary Clinton and you hate Bernie Sanders, just talk to us, we'll print it. And so they've been doing that. Okay, you know, I'm gonna start with a curveball right off the bat. I'm actually gonna defend Politico on this, which is shocking. But I will nuke Hillary Clinton's staff in a second, so that'll be fun.

But in this case, Politico, instead of like searching for, you know, but I'm gonna do. stuff about Bernie Sanders to write negatively, et cetera, and being like an open shot for that, seems to actually be reporting that, look, this is Hillary Clinton's staff doing it, so you should be aware of that, and that's an interesting phenomenon. Whereas the others, they were framing it like, hey, this is what everybody thinks, right? Yeah, that's true. Okay, that's better. That's a big, big difference.

If you're reporting what one side is doing, that's journalism. If you're pretending one side is reality, that's bias. Yeah, that's what they do to be 90% of the time, in my opinion. But I don't think in this case. Yeah, but I also think a media outlet gets to choose what they spend their time on. Like, I could send a bunch of reporters to Joe Crowley's friends and say, hey, what do you think about AOC? I have a feeling some of it's negative.

Is it necessarily what needs to be taking up the time of your reporters? I disagree. But fine, let's just turn to what they found and see if some of it frustrates you as it frustrated me this morning. So, quote, when Sanders pulled in $1 million in the first three and a half hours of his campaign, Adam Parklmenko, the former director of grassroots engagement for the 2016 Clinton campaign, tweeted, quote, only half were named Vladimir. Oh, because the idea is that the massive influx of money he got from his gigantic grassroots following had to be from Vladimir Putin.

Do they really believe that? I mean, it's self-parody at this point. It really is. Look, I'm outraged by a lot of things they said. I'm going to lay into them, but that's not one of them. That's so comical. I mean, if you think that the nearly quarter of a billion dollars that Bernie Sanders raised from millions upon millions of Americans is, like, from Vladimir Putin, you're deranged.

I mean, that's a conspiracy theory, I don't think I've even heard. If that's what people in Washington are thinking, they're full-blown mental. Yeah, and it's also incredibly frustrating because as a person who I believe totally rationally is worried about foreign intervention in our elections, is worried about what's happening to the Russian people has concerns about what Vladimir Putin actually does on a day-to-day basis. This just confirms everyone who believes, oh, Vladimir Putin's a stand-up guy, he's never done anything wrong, would never interfere in our election. Like, it adds ammunition to that irrationality.

And so I don't want to see that on any side. That's right, because it makes the people who think that Russia didn't do anything go, you see that? It's a political trick, and they use it against all their opponents. So even though it's funny because of how over-the-top stupid it is, it has. actually does hurt the cause overall of truth and actually holding Trump accountable. Because then it makes people go, oh, I guess this is just politics. And you guys never even meant it, right? So when there is actual issues with Donald Trump and the Russians, anyway,

okay, let's get on the real stuff. Because if you believe that stuff, you're Trump level crazy and I don't know how to communicate to you. Yes, I will just say, I don't think the Russian government wants a Democratic socialist to become president of the United States. I'm just going to go out of a them and say that. Anyway, let's turn to a guy you probably haven't heard of him, David Brock. So he said, I would say, and for all I know, the Sanders people might take this as a compliment. Among a lot of the major donors in the party, there's concern that he could emerge. There are some very dyed-in-the-wall Democrats that wouldn't at all be enthusiastic about supporting him in a general election.

So let me break that down into two components. The first part, I don't mind at all. He's right. I take it as a compliment. And he's also So factually correct, the donors that control the Democratic Party are borderline love the corruption. They wouldn't frame it that way, they would say, no, we are donating for good causes like, you know, helping civil rights, which is true, and also for protecting our tax cuts. Yeah. That's a really good cause because I give away like one or two percent of that to charity,

so I'm such a good person, right? So no, I'm not interested, no, thank you. I don't, I wouldn't want their money corrupting any politician, because then the politician would serve them instead of the American people. So Brock is entirely right, those donors will not support Bernie Sanders at all, and to which I say good riddance. And it would only hurt his chances of winning the general election and defeating Donald Trump.

The second part of his comment is also true, but dangerous and totally unacceptable. So now they constantly say, well, if Bernie Sanders, and they ask him this almost in every interview, If you lose though, are you gonna support the candidate, are you gonna support the candidate? Right? Now, wait out, we just got started. Why are we having a discussion about if he loses what he's gonna do? And last time he's supported the candidate 100%. So why is this even an issue?

It's just a talking point by democratic donors, consultants, lobbyists, the corrupt people in Washington to try to hurt Bernie Sanders on something that is not factual. And if you say, oh well, hey, 12% of Bernie Sanders supporters wound up voting for someone who wasn't Hillary Clinton. Yeah, but 9% of those guys were Republicans in the first place that he was going to bring over to help win in the general election. So three quarters were not even Democratic voters to begin with, you could say, oh, he shouldn't have gotten any Republicans to vote for him.

That's not a great general election strategy, okay? And number two, 25% of Hillary Clinton voters voted against Barack Obama in the general election and voted for John McCain, 25%, more than twice of Bernie Sanders. And nobody ever did this talking point against her. Why? Because they are corrupt. It's they have an agenda that they're driving towards. So I wanna reverse it.

I wanna ask every other person running, hey, if Bernie Sanders wins, will you support him? Say right now, will you support him? And it's not, in our case, it's not even a trick. Because these sons of bitches aren't gonna do it. Because they would rather have a Republican in office and continue the corruption than to have Bernie Sanders or a progressive in office where they would end the power of money in politics. I guarantee you, a lot of the establishment is gonna pull up stakes and do the most hypocritical

thing you have ever seen in your life, support a third party candidate, or maybe even secretly not support Donald Trump, but pull out of the race and go, well, Donald Trump did give me tax cuts, that will be okay, we survived the last four years, we might not survive Bernie. By that they mean my money might not survive Bernie, so they are very likely to betray the Democratic Party, the thing that they claimed that they cared about all the time. One last thing about that, remember what Hillary Clinton supporters called themselves after they lost the primary to Obama? They called themselves Puma.

You know what Puma stands for? Party unity, my ass. They never believed in party unity. It's just one giant trick. Yeah, and so not only do I think that you're right that that's how some will respond, but in advance, David Brock wants the thing out there to be, it's really risky to have Bernie because he's probably going to lose a bunch of people in the general. So we really can't take a chance on having him as the nominee.

And by the way, no, this is a real thing that people in Washington think. And I'm gonna reveal now a new rule on the egg turks. It's called the equal and opposite rule, okay? Whatever people in Washington think, the equal and opposite of it is true for the rest of the country. So they think, well, you don't wanna lose the general election. That's why you don't want to lose the corrupt billionaires that are supporting our party. No, equal and opposite.

The rest of the country thinks, if you lose the country, corrupt billionaires that are supporting your party, you have a much greater chance of winning the election, because then I might trust you. Yeah. So Brock went on to say that Sanders would be hard-pressed to unite the different wings of the Democratic Party, and his ability to raise vast sums of money through small donations could ultimately result in him staying in the race past the point when he can win, which is, quote, not necessarily good for the eventual nominee, and therefore could be helpful for President Trump.

So I think that David Brock has studied judo, where you attempt to use the greatest strength against the person. So the idea that he generates so much popular enthusiasm, so many people back him, that's really dangerous. That makes him a danger in the primary. I don't know if we can have that. They say it with a straight face. And they say, well, look, he could stay in the election past the time and it would be hurtful.

Wait, so you're speculating about a year and a half from now. What might happen a year and a half from now? Okay, then let me speculate about what might happen a year and a half from now. I think that some of your candidates will stay in the election because your donors will tell them, no, hang on for dear life, I don't care how much he's clearly, clearly going to win. We can't be Bernie Sanders. That's what they scream to you every single day. That's why you give these quotes wide out in the public.

And like I said, a lot of your donors and a lot of those Democratic establishment people are not going to support Bernie Sanders in the general election. And that is why what Brock is saying is not only projection, it's a warning. The reason he's saying it in public is because he's saying, if you foolish voters pick Bernie Sanders, despite all of the donors telling you not to, then our donors will take the ball and go home and they won't support you. Ha-ha. Bernie won't need him. Okay, how about it, Haas. And think about how dishonest this is, that he says he would be hard-pressed to unite the different wings of the Democratic Party in an interview whose goal is to drive apart the different wings of the Democratic Party.

And this is a guy who's like, I just care about unity and that's why I developed a sophisticated bot network to attack anyone who supports a candidate other than the one I support in the last primary. David Brock admitted to running a bot network, kind of like the Russians. Yeah. David Brock interfered in our elections. Okay, now this guy claiming he's for part of unity. Hilarious.

Yeah, okay, well, let's turn to some other people. So after Sanders' first rally, this is last one. weekend, former Clinton campaign aide Zerlina Maxwell claimed on MSNBC that Sanders, quote, did not mention race or gender until 23 minutes into his speech. She later walked back her comments somewhat after critics, including former Sanders campaign staffer Walid Shahid, noted that Sanders talked about racism and sexism, much early an event, literally minutes into it. Talked about it throughout the speech, by the way.

Much of the content of the people introducing was also focused on that, about his personal history engaged in the civil rights movement, all of that, as soon as it's filtered through MSNBC analyst and former Clinton campaignates, he doesn't care about it, he doesn't talk about it. And of course, there is an objective to that. And by the way, when it was pointed out, she lashed out of the people to point out. So Sean King pointed out the times in the speech before that that he mentioned it. And she attacked Sean King for pointing out time stamps in a video. Please tell me that you think Sean King is not sufficiently sensitive to civil rights. Try that line, see how that plays out for you.

But yeah, this is, everybody's looking for shortcuts. That's all the human of mind is. And in this primary, the shortcut is we do not need to engage. We don't need to wrestle with Bernie Sanders on the issues if we can scare you into thinking that he's racist. And so in any way that that's possible, I'm not saying that she's consciously doing that, But I'm saying the narrative is and was before he even launched his campaign, real questionable on these issues.

Should he even be allowed to run, really? Yeah. You want to do speculation? Can I do speculation? I know you're allowed to do it. You're allowed to do it on Politico. Political never asked us for our opinion, right? They're like progressives.

No, I'm not really interested, okay? Oh, establish for yes again, again, again, again, again, again, even in a case like this, where I said it's at least legitimate in this case, they at least hear what they have to I say. Here's my piece of speculation. All these people who are in Washington want jobs, and Bernie Sanders won't hire them because they're corrupt, and so it's not that they're worried that he's racist or sexist, which is preposterous given his track record on civil rights and why so many African Americans

support him now, why he's deeply popular, three to one favorability ratio among African Americas, number one in the field and most favorable with African Americans, fought for civil rights, chained himself to African American women, and did it before he was anywhere near decades before he got into politics, I can go on and on. My speculation is that you're not really worried about any of those issues about whether he's race or sex. He's got a 40-year track record of fighting for women's rights. I could show you the speeches.

They exist because they were on the floor of the House, the Senate, et cetera. My guess is he's concerned you're more concerned that he's not going to hire you. Oh, wait, am I not allowed to do speculation? Let me guess, you're offended. They are, yeah. Okay. They see, and this goes to the core of the exact issue here. They constantly punch progressives in the face politically.

And then if you just say, hey, could you stop punching us? They go, how could you? I'm so, my fist is offended that your face is not welcoming it. I'm so offended. You're not allowed to say anything. I'm allowed to go after you in every despicable way. in every major paper, but if you dare fight back one inch, I'm gonna scream. Yeah.

Okay, well, if you need a safe space, have at it, Haas. This is all politics, you wanna talk, we can talk. So I know that you've got some others that you wanna mention particular things, but before you do that, I just want as context, in the background, understand that all, the political piece that this is all in, the one a week ago about how he wasted a bunch of money flying on private planes, not mentioning course, that he was flying to do Clinton campaign rallies and all that. The political piece also about in Mickey Kahn's, so this anti-progressive sort of strain in the media. Before that, a good week before that, Bernie Sanders emailed his supporters

and said, as we engage with our opponents in the Democratic primary, we will forcefully present our views and defend ourselves against misrepresentations. But let us do our very best to engage respectfully with our Democratic opponents, talking about the issues we were fighting for, not about personalities or past grievances. I want to be clear that I condemn bullying and harassment of any kind and in any space. So he said that, I agree with it, and he was, as you point out, punched in the face multiple times as soon as those words had left his mouth. No, I don't accept the double standard.

So they say, well, when I talk to Politico and say what a monster Bernie Sanders is, that's not bullying. That's not harassment. When I go on MSNBC and say, the ship has sailed on Bernie Sanders appealing to African Americans, based on nothing, I made it up, it's a smear. That's totally okay. That's not bullying. That's not harassment.

When we all snicker on a panel with Jake Tapper about Bernie has no chance of winning. He's just ruining things for people. That's not bullying. That's not harassment. Because we're just the mainstream media. It's all completely acceptable. When you get upset about that and go, hey, could you stop smearing him nonstop? Harassment!

Harassment! Why? Because the elites in their infinite sense of entitlement, think they're allowed to do anything to you. But you are never, ever allowed to challenge them. Now, are the most progressive people in the country actually going and harassing them in real life physically? No. We're not the all right.

Like doxing, giving out people as a, are you insane? No, they say Bernie Sanders is too much in favor of peace. Okay, then what do you do? So you can't have it both ways. The guy's too liberal, too liberal, doesn't want to be involved in anything with physical violence, okay, but he's harassing me by making his case. By running? Yes, so what is Bernie Sanders supposed to be like, hi, I'm running for president, but

I don't want to harass anyone, so I just, I'm not going to say anything the entire race. Okay, and my supporters, my supporters, I'm going to unilaterally disarm. You guys can hit us in every way you want in the media, the media, and they own the media, they own all of the media, right? So, and by that I mean the anchors on television, you know 98% of the motive for Hillary You know that. They won't allow any progressives on here. Radical.

No, hey, we need to be safe, safe on air. Safe means establishment, right? But you guys are not allowed to say anything even online. We're allowed to say everything all over the press. New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC. We're allowed to go after you guys in every imaginable way. You, shh, shh, shh, yeah, it's called unilateral disarmament. I'm not interested in it, and it is also meant to protect the elites.

It's a trick, it's a trick. So guys, do I agree with Bernie Sanders that you should keep it civil in terms of never threatening anybody? Of course, you should never do that, right? And don't go over the top with curses, et cetera, yada, yada. But they keep poking us and poking us and poking us. And then when we go, hey, can you stop that? Their fake outrage is vomitous.

It's disgusting. So I can go on and on, I'll just end on a couple of things here. I did enjoy Jeff Weaver's line about David Brock. He said, it's not a secret that people who would hang out with David Brock would be putting their class interests ahead of the party and the country. Exactly right. And then Zach Petaconis, who was already quoted in an earlier political article, also attacking Bernie Sanders, he was the director of rapid response for Clinton.

Just didn't think to get out there and do some rapid response in Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania, sat at home with a very non-rapid response. But after losing the election, like a loser, he comes out and says, oh hey, you know what, I've decided that Bernie Sanders is not sufficiently progressive. You're joking, right? I mean, that's a joke. Because the whole time you were yelling at him, not pragmatic, not realistic, we have to be less progressive. Then he says, so what on what issues is he less progressive?

It says gun control. That's actually fair. During the election in 2016, we said Hillary Clinton had a better position than Bernie Sanders did on gun control if you're for gun control. You can say marginally better, but better, okay? Immigration. What? I don't know with that.

What are you talking about? They just don't need facts. They just, they just, it's Trump like, it's alternative facts. There's Bernie talking about anchor babies again. What are you making up? You're insane. Okay, last one that was my favorite. Same sex marriage.

You supported a candidate who discovered that gay people should have equal rights in the year 2013. In the year 2013. He's been fighting for that for about 40 years. So Johnny come lately over here, comes wakes up and tells us that Bernie Sanders is not liberal enough on same-sex marriage. Hillary Clinton in 2012 thought, no, do not let gay people get married. That is a violation of the sanctity of marriage.

In 2012, she thought that. And you worked for her in a very rapid way. You couldn't wait to get into that campaign. Right now, you're probably dying to get on to another establishment candidate's campaign who is willing to cut whatever deals and whatever political thing is expedient for you. And you have the audacity to question whether Bernie Sanders is progressive enough on these issues. Look, it's not about Hillary Clinton, she's retired. But these staffers, they will never let it go.

Why? I want you to understand why. It's not just that it's personal and they're bitter because they were losers and they want to blame losing to Donald Trump on someone else when it was clearly their fault. Bernie didn't run the campaign. Zach, all the other guys, you guys did. You guys ran it and we lost to Donald Trump because of you. So they're bitter about that and it's personal.

But the second part is, like I said earlier, it's their livelihood. Oh, please, somebody in the establishment hire me. Bernie Sand is not going to hire a bunch of corrupt clowns in Washington who say, no, you're You're not progressive enough, you're too progressive. Okay, oh, but come on, Bernie, be realistic. We all have to take the lobbyist money. I mean, I wanna be a consultant. I'm gonna be such a great consultant.

You see, what a great job I did in being a consultant in 2016? Oh, I'm gonna be a great consultant, right? Okay, I'm gonna make so much money for it being a consultant and a lobbyist, right? Yeah, Bernie's not gonna hire you. So move, move to a different city, get another job because you kind of suck at this one. And so sad day for you, we're gonna end corruption. We're going to get you a one-way ticket out of Washington, D.C. Small note, it's going to be very interesting to see, like this list of people and

probably an expanded list will end up in other political pieces, which campaigns they end up working for. Yeah, of course. Here's one they're not going to be working for, Bernie Sanders. Yeah. Okay, we got to take a break. We got more great news for you when we're talking. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control

of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices.

But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EX, P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash TYT. Check it out today. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent. media become a member at t yt.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second.

All right, back on Young Turks. Look, I'm not going to say the person's name. We mentioned in the last segment because this is just the comment in in our member section. I don't know if it's really right and I'll go investigate it afterwards and let you guys know the reality of it. But Byrne Revolution says, yeah, she had the stones to say Sean King is not an ally to black people, L.O.L. Yeah, I saw that tweet. She did? Yeah. For all I know, I haven't fallen.

Maybe they resolved it amicable, whatever, but I did originally see that, yeah. Yeah. Okay. I mean, it's like saying Shaq's not a basketball player. Okay. If you think so, but I don't, I don't like what- I can't say whether he is or not. I'm kidding. I know.

Tom Brady's not really a quarterback. You know, he doesn't know anything about quarterbacking. Sean King is not an ally to black people. Okay, so here, you know what, make sure you guys get this on the record. This is an official prediction. I've actually made this prediction years ago. I don't know if we'll be able to find it when it comes time. Have fun, Jared.

So, yeah. So I'll make it one official one more time. At some point in the campaign, they will accuse Bernie Sanders of anti-Semitism. And they will definitely accuse his supporters of anti-Semitism. Now you think, well, Jake, that's impossible. Bernie Sanders is Jewish, and all of his supporters would be supporting the first Jewish American president. No, they'll do it.

It's a guarantee, guarantee. I feel like that happened last time. I think that happened. I don't know, but it's like, they don't care about truth, they don't care about facts. They don't, they're like, yeah, Sean King's not an ally of black people, and Bernie Sanders is anti-Semitic. I just said it, I don't care, I'll smear them with anything, anything. Yeah, I think in terms of predictions, it might be fun to do a game.

We'd have to remember to look into it in a year and a half. Assuming Bernie becomes the candidate, what is the hashtag that all of the people that hate Bernie that are going to boycott him in the general election? What hashtag will they use to signal their unity with each other? Yeah, I mean, they might go back to Puma. Maybe. But we'll see if they get creative. All right.

Last two tweets real quick. John's series of numbers writes in, Jan, can you remind voters to register as Democrats for The primaries because I couldn't vote for Bernie last time in New York State because I was registered independent. That's right. Look, ignored by the Democratic Party or otherwise, it doesn't matter. You gotta vote in the primaries. It's everything.

So go register as a Democrat, especially in New York where you have to register like three years in advance. Yeah, I know, the problem is they just missed it. I know, right? It's a long time, like, go now. Go now, no joke, no joke, go register in New York now. You'll run out of time before you know what hits you last one. I think Santa writes, a friendly reminder that Politico's founder was a top Reagan aide.

Of course. Okay. Yeah. But they're too liberal according to the right wing. Hilarious. Basically bright part. Yeah, okay. Up the center left.

I don't know. Okay, more news. In the last week, a massive group of right wing politicians and climate deniers and industry representatives and lobbyists all gathered in D.C. to talk about how dangerous the Green New Deal is. But more interestingly than that, why they're scared about the discussion about the Green New Deal. That is the fun part. But first, I want you to understand who was invited to this gathering to talk about climate change

and what can, should, or must be done to deal with it. So it did not include any witnesses that represent the vast majority of climate scientists who say climate change is primarily caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. Nor did it include representatives from U.S. government agencies that have drawn the same conclusions such as NASA or NOAA. No independent scholars or researchers who specialize in energy systems are on the list. It was just, it was some right-wing politicians or climate deniers. It was people from the CEI, the Heritage Foundation, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the American Energy Alliance. Gee, I wonder, I wonder where their dog is in this fight.

So they were talking about it. They had their equivalent of experts. And so let's talk about Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who said, one of the dangers of the Green New Deal is that, quote, by expanding the political spectrum of what's in the debate, it's moving the debate left, and it's creating a very large space for a certain class of people, many of them in the Republican Party, to start talking about how we need to have moderate solutions or reasonable solutions, and references were made to things like a carbon tax and cap and trade. Now, what's interesting about that is, when we talk about why you need to go big and go bold

with your proposals to shift the bounds of the debate, like, not only are we making that case, and not only the past few months have been a demonstration of that a number of different issues, including the Green New Deal, but the right is afraid that we're going to do that. And so that should provide more evidence for what we've been pushing for. So I love this, because it's a great admission that they're worried that the Green New Deal is going to work, even if it doesn't pass in its entirety, that it's, they're worried that it's going to push not just Democrats, but even Republicans to support policies that would actually curb global warming and climate change.

So I have to say it, and it's super obvious to everyone that doesn't live in Washington, D.C. Progressives were right, and the establishment was wrong, yet again. We told you that if you're bold and you have bold proposals to fit. big problems, that it will push the conversation to the left, which in this case is getting a little closer to the center, right? It's still massively right wing overall the conversation. But the establishment said, no, no, we don't want to offend Republicans, and so we should only do tiny incremental, only fight for tiny incremental change, because maybe, maybe they'll

let us have that, and we'll move the ball a couple of yards. But your strategy was wrong, our strategy was right. Now the Republicans are in a panic that they've got to go further left. Is there a better testament to how right progressives were? So why don't we turn to an example of that, if you guys get video four ready. So we're gonna have Mark Morano, he's the Director of Communications for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which is, that's not even really Orwellian, that's just bizarre, that name.

But anyway, he's worried about Republicans shifting on this position, as you'll see. I myself have called it one big bowl of crazy, but it's a very dangerous plan because each Democratic presidential candidate is taking it as a litmus test. It has shifted the Democratic Party into serious, unscientific, nutty territory. The danger, I think, the greatest danger we face right now from the Green New Deal, and I think it was Myron, who alluded to it, Myron Ebell, the CEI, is very simply a Republican Party coming up with the Green New Deal light. And I think he's absolutely right. We need to oppose it and oppose it firmly. We don't need to come up with the light version of the plan.

But this needs to be opposed, fully, vigorously, scientifically, ideologically, and economically in energy. So he did make a mistake there. They are going to have to come up with a new name for it, though, because there's already a number of centrist Democrats that are trying to come up with Green New Deal light. But the Republicans will come up with something. Don't worry about that. Yeah.

So there's two components of this story. One is, told you. Now look at them in a panic. That's the fossil fuel industry going, Republicans don't go to the left. Oh, no, they're going to the left. Oh no, they're going to the left. Why Alexandra Acosta-Cortez, Ed Markey, Bernie Sanders, who introduced this idea a long, long time ago, et cetera, et cetera.

Okay, second part of it is how funny they are. So first of all, the names, as John alluded to, committee for a constructive tomorrow. It's actually a committee for no tomorrow. Like, well, let's not have tomorrow, constructive tomorrow. 99% of the world scientists say, if we don't act, we don't act. Within 12 years, the planet's gonna melt, okay? It's not a hyperbole, but it's a oversimplification, but yes, the climate change will get so bad, it'll have catastrophic consequences for the planet.

And he's like, oh yeah, the science is on our side, the other side is nutty. So wait, let me get this right. The scientist says 99% of the world scientists all colluded from India, China, Russia, US, everywhere. They all got it together and colluded to make up the temperature readings in the world. and to make up the reasons for it. All the scientists in the world are lying. That side is not nutty.

The side that thinks that there's a worldwide conspiracy of scientists is the part is not nutty. But the scientists themselves are nutty, crazy, believe in science, we're eating the temperature, figuring out where it came from, nutty. They're just doing it for the money, as Bill and I once said. Obviously, they're living high on the hog these scientists. I once saw one driving a Toyota Corolla and it made me sick. Meanwhile, they really believe it.

These guys work for the most profitable companies in the world. They work for the fossil fuels, the oil companies, the ExxonMobiles that fund their research. Gee, I wonder who's working for the money, I can't quite tell. I like Myron Bell's title too, director of global warming. In his case, it's to make global warming happen. He is the director of global warming. So I think that they just put a fun twist on. The last person I want to talk about is Mandy Gunasekara.

Sorry, don't know how to pronounce your name, you probably don't know how to pronounce mine or even. Okay, so she says that doing the Green New Deal would be doing, quote, Karl Marx's Christmas list. Okay, that sounds good. Yeah, because Karl Marx knew climate change was going to happen. If he did, he was actually smarter than I realized. Okay.

So we need more solar subsidies. Okay, but that's not even the funny part. Here comes the funny part. So she was part of Trump's administration, of course, at the EPA, okay? And she says, no, it's okay, we don't have to do anything because the United States current standing and leadership on environmental issues today. Oh, we're leading. She says, we're doing it better than anyone else in the world.

We're fighting climate change better than anyone else in the world. Now, you want to get to the funny part here? She is the one who was called, quote, the chief architect of the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. So we are now a worldwide pariah because we're the only ones not in the Paris Agreement. Well, does Syria join yet? Did North Korea join? Yeah, I think it's three out.

Okay. One other, a couple other dictator friends of Donald Trump and us are not with the rest of the world consensus. We're at the very bottom, okay? She's like, no, we're number one in fighting climate change, we're number one. I told Donald Trump to withdraw from that deal. That's what made us number one. By not fighting it at all, we're fighting it even better.

She also orchestrated the repeal of the Obama era clean power plan. By the way, this is all in our bio. And why does she put it in our bio while pretending to be caring about the issue? That's her ad for ExxonMobil to hire her. In fact, she's now at a pack funded by fossil fuel industry and the Koch brothers. What a shocker. But she's not doing it for the money, the scientists are. Last one, she's the person who handed the snowball to Jim Inhoff.

No, I didn't notice that actually. We're number one in fighting climate change. Senator Inhoff, here's a snowball. Say it's snowing outside and we don't have climate change problem at all. I just, I want to read just two quick quotes from politicians who were there, because it wasn't just lobbyists, some were politicians, and I want you to understand that as, as AOC and other progressive environmentalists are pushing, you know, what is specifically going to be in the plan, I want you to understand the level of intellectualism that is going to come and counter

you. So, Representative Bob Bishop said, if this goes through, this will be outlawed, holding up a hamburger. I can no longer eat this type of thing. And then he started eating the hamburger. because this is a sitting elected congressman who knows how BS that argument is about the banning cows and all that. But just lie. Just lie. And Representative Paul Gozar said, as the son of a geologist, our climate has always changed. And if you doubt me, go dig up some fossils. It'll tell you an awful lot about how our climate has changed. First of all, you don't need to be the son of a geologist to know that. You should know that from school. Like, you don't necessarily have to learn everything from your father. But he's so close to understanding what's going on.

You can actually dig of fossils and you can understand how the earth has changed. And when we go back and when we look to see when the atmosphere contained as many parts per million of carbon as it does right now, we know what the rest of the world looked like in terms of ocean levels and amount of sea ice and all of that. You can do that. You could do the research you're implying there. And it is a horror story. But of course, he uses that as an invasion from actually doing anything.

And let's just be really clear, as long as people like Paul Gozar and Rob Bishop have power, the default position on this in D.C. is it's too expensive to save our civilization. That's what it is. Like maybe that sounds radical, but they really believe, no, we want the profits. It just sounds complicated. I don't really understand it. If that ends our civilization, if that creates tens of millions of climate refugees, if that floods, God knows how many cities and forces people to flee into the inland of the country, the company's got to make money. Now, I got to end on fun Paul Gosar Fax. He was one of the guys who was confused in the Michael Cohen hearings and did gotchas that

weren't gotchas and then got confused and befuddled. What would you call yourself? Was that him? Yeah, I think so. Yeah. And so that was hilarious. But more of a standout piece was when almost everyone in Paul Gosar's family ran an ad during his election saying, please do not elect our brother.

He's mentally unstable. Okay, these are the guys calling all the world scientists nutty. I'm not kidding. You can look up the ad. Brothers, sisters, brother after brother, sister after sister, going, whatever you do, do not vote for our brother. Cuckoo for Cocoa Pops. The standout line was when his dad said, as the father of the son of the father of the geologist.

Yeah, that was a great ad. And I love the example that he used. You see, you can just study that it's always been climate change in our planet, like when the dinosaurs went extinct and became fossils. Oh wait, that makes the opposite point. God, they're so unbelievably stupid. Okay. Van cow.

All right, we gotta go. All right, we got a whole great second hour coming up for you guys. Brad Ehrlich and Ida Rodriguez is in the house, so you guys love that. We'll come right back. 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