The Young Turks - You Got Played
Episode Date: September 6, 2023Trump’s co-defendants are already starting to turn against him. Could the 14th Amendment keep Trump off the ballot in 2024? Alabama Court Tosses Electoral Map Disenfranchising Black voters. Proud Bo...y Enrique Tarrio sentenced to 22 years in prison for role in Capitol insurrection. "I’ve been doing this longer than anyone!" Biden jokes about his age as rumors swirl that he’ll drop out of the presidential race. HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur) & Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
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.
Colgate Total is more than just your favorite toothpaste.
It's dedicated to advancing oral health.
The new Colgate Total Active Prevention System features a reformulated toothpaste, innovative toothbrush, and a refreshing anti-bacterial mouthwash.
All designed to work together to fight the root cause of common oral health issues, such as gingivitis,
plaque and tartar.
Use the full routine twice daily and be dentist ready.
Shop the Colgate Total Active Prevention System now at walmart.ca.
All right, welcome the Young Turks, Jane Cougar and Casparan with you guys. A couple stories do have me animated a little bit later in the program, including Matt Walsh.
telling a single woman what they need to do because he believes in freedom.
So yeah, there's a couple of stories I'm going to unload on today.
So if that's a look forward to you, if that's the kind of thing you like.
All right, Anna, take it away.
All right, well, we've got some updates on the multiple indictments that Donald Trump is facing.
Turns out that his co-conspirators are paving their own path for their defense.
Let's talk a little bit about that.
Some of former President Donald Trump's co-conspirators have already begun turning on him.
According to new reporting by Politico, some are using the defense that they were just hapless pawns who were unwittingly manipulated by Donald Trump.
They were just following orders.
Now, three GOP activists who were indicted alongside Donald Trump in Georgia for trying to interfere with the 2020 presidential election,
basically asserted that their actions were all taken at Trump's behest.
They're not adults who get to make decisions on their own.
They're not adults who get to investigate what they're being asked to do.
They just take orders from an individual and they carry them out,
regardless of whether or not there's any criminality involved.
Now, according to Politico, David Schaefer, Kathleen Latham,
and Sean still recently said in court filings that nearly all of the charges they face
were the result of instructions from Trump and his lawyers.
The three GOP activists all poised as pro-Trump presidential electors,
meaning the phony electors, signing documents claiming they were Georgia's legitimate electors,
even though Biden won the state.
In legal filings seeking to transfer their prosecutions into federal court,
they all indicated that they took that step at Trump's direction.
Now, we're going to get into Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
He pleaded not guilty today in the state of Georgia in the same case.
But his legal defense appears to be forming as well.
And we'll get into those details in just a moment.
But first, Jank, your thoughts.
Yeah, as you'll see from Mark Meadows, he basically personifies what Anna said in the beginning,
which is, well, I thought Trump would yell at me, literally, as you'll see in a minute.
He said that in court.
Yeah, it's the saddest, the most pathetic thing I've seen.
Now, having said that, who organizes conspiracy?
Is that a hard question?
So like all these people are going to court and saying it wasn't me, it was Trump's idea.
Well, that's obviously true.
So it was like a rando staffer at the White House who's like, hey guys, you guys want to steal the election?
And he's somehow convinced Trump and everyone else?
No, of course it was Trump's idea.
Everything, anything else, suggesting anything else would be absurd.
But yet Republican voters like, I don't know, I don't know.
Who's idea? It wasn't whosoever idea. It was the seal election. It was probably a genius idea. Anyways, now these guys want to split apart from the Trump case, and that has a lot of ramifications. Will it help Trump, not help Trump? A lot to talk through here. Exactly. I mean, yeah, I can't wait to get into that discussion because there are potential downsides, especially if they're planning on blaming Trump for everything. However, let's get into Mark Meadows because there was something that happened last week that's worth getting into. So, obviously,
Obviously, in the Georgia case, the phone call that Donald Trump made to Secretary of State
Brad Raffensberger is going to play a pivotal role.
It's an important piece of evidence.
Now, Mark Meadows is the one who connected that phone call, and that's part of the reason
why he is facing this indictment for his role.
Now, the argument by his attorney was, well, I mean, Mark Meadows was his chief of staff.
He simply connected the call at the behest of the President of the United States.
So already you see that defense forming, oh, he's just an.
innocent individual who was taking orders and following through with those orders.
But then there were, let me give you an exact statement from Meadows's lawyer.
He said, quote, there's a lot of statements by Mr. Trump and Mr. Meadows speaking roles.
There were quite a lot of statements by Mr. Trump, Mr. Meadows' speaking roles, were quite
limited.
And this is the statement from the lawyer after they had actually played that call in court.
So this happened last week.
So again, this was an attempt to essentially focus on Trump and say that all Meadows did here
was connect the call.
But what about the situation with the fake electors?
So the lawyer even had an exchange with Raffensberger in the courtroom, by the way.
Raffensberger confirmed that Meadows' role in that phone call was limited.
He didn't make a request that you change the vote totals, Mr. Meadows himself.
Francisco, that's the lawyer, continued.
And at that point, Raffensberger replies correct.
Okay, now let's move on to the slate of electors.
Meadows made clear in his own testimony at last week's hearing that Trump viewed the false electors as a significant part of his strategy to remain in power.
He said he sent an email pushing the campaign to assemble those slates because he feared a tongue lashing from Trump.
And so this is how the exchange played out between Mark Meadows and the prosecutor.
So Meadows said, what I didn't want to happen was for the campaign to prevail in court action,
meaning in the lawsuits, okay, and not have the fake electors lined up, lined up.
And the prosecutor, Anna Cross says why?
And Meadows responds, because I knew I'd be yelled at by the president of the United States.
No, I didn't want to be yelled at.
I was willing to undermine democracy because I did not want to be yelled at by the president of the United States.
That is an incredible statement from a member of the Republican Party, a party that has,
even till this day, positioned itself as a group of strong men that are better on things
like national security than the Democratic Party is.
It's amazing.
There's like a little scolded boy.
And he's part of the House Freedom.
He was part of the House Freedom Caucus, which is the most right wing, most conservative.
Oh, we're got tough man, alpha males.
He's going to yell at me.
And look, you're the chief of staff.
You're massively responsible.
You're the one who put together the fake elector plot.
And it was a fake elector plot.
Like if you said the beginning of that statement that Anna read to you,
where look, we got our electors, our slate of electors ready in case we needed them.
Nobody's going to have an issue with that, okay?
We invented a new slate of electors that were totally fake, had them signed documents that were not true.
and then did that after we knew we lost the election.
Yeah, that's a different situation, brother.
And if you did that because you didn't want a quote-unquote disgusting tongue lashing from Trump,
which I grant you is nobody would want, including his wife.
But that's not a real reason to have committed a crime.
So I didn't want to rob the bank,
but my friend bullied me into it is not a great defense.
At first, Meadows was planning on exercising the defense of presidential immunity, basically,
that these actions were taken as he was the chief of staff for Donald Trump.
But that defense is unlikely to work, considering the fact that the actions that Meadows took part in
did not have to do with official White House duties, but rather the Trump campaign itself.
So the campaigning really is separate from White House duties as Trump's chief of staff.
Now let's move on to the other element of this, right?
So there are so many other co-conspirators.
What are they hatching up?
What are they planning on doing in regard to their defense?
So remember, in the case of the Georgia indictments, the initial plan of action by the district
attorney Fannie Willis was to essentially try them all at the same time.
However, two of Trump's legal advisors, Sidney Powell and that cheesebro guy, what was his
first name again?
Wayne Groh?
No, Kenneth, Cheesebro, anyway.
Kenneth, Cheesebro and Sidney Powell, they both want to essentially separate themselves from
that big trial and be tried separate from Donald Trump.
Which is an interesting tactic, which could backfire considering the fact that one of the
things that's clear in what pretty much all the co-conspirators seem to be doing is essentially
shifting the blame onto Trump and just essentially trying to make people think like they were just
following orders. Now, it would be difficult for Cheeseboro and Sidney Powell to make that argument,
because remember, they're the legal advisors. They're the ones advising Donald Trump. So maybe they've
decided, separate us because we can't use that same defense that let's say Mark Meadows plans on
using in this case. What do you think? Yeah, so there's a lot of nuance here. So most people
think that having those guys go first would be a problem for the prosecutors for a couple
reasons. Number one, they need to move faster and it's a big giant case and they'd have to get
it quicker than they anticipated because those guys want speedy trials as soon as possible.
Number two is you'd have to lay out your whole case for just those guys, which then allows
the defense for Trump and the others to get ready better because they then will get to see
the entire prosecution case. In fact, some have speculated that one or both of them are
going first to help Trump so that they'll lay out their case in front of them, even
though it might endanger them more.
On the other hand, if they decide to take a plea deal, and then they testify in Trump's
trial, that would be massively damaging to Trump.
And if they're convicted ahead of time, ahead of Trump's trial, that would also be damaging.
Now these are all legal issues, some are clearer than others.
Meadows is trying to have a removed federal court, that would definitely help Trump and Meadows.
And it's, there is a case for it.
That's, you know, the Republicans make a lot of wacky legal arguments.
That's not among them.
I could, remove to federal courts is a perfectly fine argument to make.
They probably lose it.
But it's understandable and would certainly help them a lot because then Trump can
pardon all of them.
Can you elaborate on that a little further?
So you say that they actually have an argument, explain why that is?
Because Meadows is saying like, you're bringing this case to me in Georgia, but I'm the chief
of staff for the federal government.
And I was, it did all of these things in service of my role in the federal government.
So if you're going to say I did something wrong in that role, you need to bring me to a federal court.
I ain't got nothing new with Georgia.
Now Georgia, on the other hand, says, of course you do.
You committed this crime in Georgia.
You asked to rig this election specifically in Georgia.
I'm not worried about what you did in Wisconsin or Montana.
I'm worried about what you did here.
So it's a good case.
It's an interesting case.
And if there wasn't this much pressure, I'd say it's a close case between in that argument, right?
But with all the pressure, my guess is that they'll keep it in Atlanta.
The other thing is this is a conservative opinion, okay, and Anthony Scalia wrote the definitive
basically case on this statement on this.
And he said, if the judge can, he should keep all the cases together, okay, rather than apart.
Why? Because, well, then the prosecutor has to retry the case. There's 19 defendants here,
potentially 19 times over. The witnesses have to come 19 times over. They have to get 19 juries.
So what do conservatives want to do? They generally want to help prosecutors.
So the conservative position was let the prosecutor try them all at once.
They could tell one big cohesive story and then the jury can make up their mind.
It doesn't waste as many resources. It's fair, et cetera.
Will conservative justices stick with a conservative legal position?
I think they're liars.
I don't think they care about conservative legal principles at all.
If it goes to the Supreme Court or something along those lines,
conservative justice should say keep all the cases together,
whether Cheeseboro and Trump wanted or not.
But will they rule that way?
Who knows?
They make political decisions all the time.
They do make political decisions all the time.
Although there have been some surprising decisions from the Supreme Court,
even as it pertains to the overturning of the 2020 presidential election.
So I, you know, I get the instinct to be skeptical of the Supreme Court, but I really don't
know how they would decide.
No, I don't either.
Yeah.
And so, but look, I think there's one other element to it, which is not legal, but political.
I kind of want those guys to win on their petition to start earlier.
Why?
Because Atlanta's going to be televised.
And so I want people seeing the evidence.
Like, guys, I get super frustrated with the Republican voters, but I see every single day in social media, they have never heard reality, ever.
They have no idea what's going on.
Like on the national secrets case, they're like, what national secrets?
There must be no national secrets because we haven't heard about them.
If they were important, we would have heard.
Yeah.
No, they're top secret.
That's why you didn't hear.
So that phone call that Donald Trump had with the biographer for Mark Meadows's book.
and a publicist for said writer and book, the ghost writer, right?
Yeah.
I mean, they haven't heard that call, which is amazing to me, based on what you're saying, right?
In the call, Trump is bragging about the classified document he has in regard to foreign policy toward Iran.
The number of Republican voters that have heard of fake electors is really small.
Like if the number of people who Republican voters who believe that there were fake electors is near zero, is my guess.
And the reality is there's documents that say we're going to use fake electors.
There's a document called fraudulent electors, right?
And how many Republicans know that?
Almost none, because right wing media would never, ever tell them the truth.
Never.
So they lie to them 24-7.
So these Republican voters are totally confused.
They're like, I don't get it, don't it?
Doesn't everybody have their electors?
He was just trying to, but didn't they ask for recounts before?
This isn't about asking for a recount.
This is about stealing an election with fake electors, but Republicans don't know that.
So if Cheeseboro and Cindy Powell go first and on television, you see the overwhelming evidence on fake electors, it might swing primary voters.
And that's more important to me than any other part of the trial, to be honest.
All right, let's move on to an interesting proposal in regard to using the Constitution to disqualify Trump from running for president.
I believe he's barred from serving again based on language in the U.S. Constitution.
They say the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause expressly forbids anyone from serving who's engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the government.
There's a new legal theory gaining some traction against Donald Trump and how his actions in regard to January 6th could actually keep him off the 2024 presidential ballot.
And let me be clear, it's not just left-wing scholars who are making this argument.
there are conservative scholars making this argument as well, which makes this whole situation
even more fascinating. So what they're referencing is section three of the 14th amendment, also
known as the disqualification clause. And that actually was part of the constitution or was an
amendment in the constitution in response to the confederacy and essentially an effort to prevent
a member of the confederacy from running for public office for president of the United
States. So here's the exact language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. No person shall be a
senator or representative in Congress or elector of president and vice president or hold any office,
civil or military under the United States or under any state who, having previously taken an
oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States or as a member of any
state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the constitution
of the United States shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same
or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each
house, remove such disability. So that last part is definitely important. If this type of argument
ends up working. If it stands, Congress could overturn it through a two-thirds vote,
which is honestly nearly impossible in today's political climate. But nonetheless,
Jank, what do you think about this legal theory? So look, first of all, it's super interesting
that conservatives are bringing it forward. It was two Federalist Society lawyers that originally
brought it forward. And then it's a celebrated conservative and a celebrated liberal law
professors that then made a giant op-ed out of it, et cetera. So, but in terms of the actual
theory itself, it's actually rock solid, that doesn't mean it's going to win, but here's
why it's rock solid. Several people have literally been convicted of insurrection, Stuart Rhodes,
some of the proud boys. So those guys did an insurrection according to the courts and according
to a jury. They were convicted. Did Trump aid and abet them by, for example, saying proud
boys stand by during the national debates? You can make that up.
argument. Did he aid and to bet them in different ways? So for example, not telling them to
stop because according to witnesses, Trump said he enjoyed what they were doing. Did he aid
and abet them in other ways? So, and second of all, it turns out this January 6th was an
insurrection and it has been legally adjudicated to be an insurrection. Who led the
insurrection? Was it Stuart Rhodes, Randobob, Walter Mondale? No, it was obviously Donald Trump.
So the reason they had this in here is because they didn't want the Confederate traitors to come back in and take over the government.
Well, I don't want this traitor who did this instruction to come back and take over the government because he doesn't believe in the American government.
He doesn't believe in democracy.
It makes perfect sense to apply this.
To me, that isn't the question.
The question is the politics of it.
So it can make all the sense in the world.
But if to, you know, for whatever reason, the group think of the establishment goes, oh, no, I don't think you could do that, then they won't. And but right now it started on a good footing because it's right wingers that are bringing it up within the establishment. So people are taking it seriously. If progressors have brought it up, no one would take it seriously. So that's a positive step forward. Would the Republicans lose it? Yes. Yes. They would. I mean, they would go apoplectic if he was disqualified.
So, oh, and I will tell you this, there's one thing the conservatives are right about.
You cannot do this state by state.
If you do it's like, because technically, you can call for different states to disqualify him.
But then we're going to have a hot mass in our hands.
Remember, shoe always on the other foot.
Republicans will turn around and go, I don't like the Bernie's hair.
He's disqualified.
I think he's an insurrectionist because he's a communist.
Okay.
Yeah.
And then we're going to have a mess.
We can't do that.
So yeah, I mean, there are a few states that are already looking into this, including New Hampshire, Arizona, and
Michigan, look, there is the legal argument and what the Constitution entails.
And then you're right, there's the politics of it.
And what the consequences of actually moving forward with this legal argument would be, right?
I think the consequences might outweigh allowing him to just run for president.
I hear you, but I do.
But I, so I thought about that too, Anna, as I was considering this.
And then I ultimately decided against it. Why? So again, I want to say the right wingers are right.
You can't have Hawaiian Vermont disqualified Trump and then he can't be president, whatever, right?
We can't, but more importantly, swing states. Like Minnesota's largely Democratic, but he could theoretically win Minnesota.
If they disqualify him, that's terribly unfair, right? So you've got to either do it at the national level or not.
Now, having said that, why do I think it makes sense? Well, I mean, what did Hitler do? Okay, so, okay,
He's a Hitler analogy, everybody panicked.
Okay, fine.
But I'm just saying he tried to subvert democracy in Germany,
and then they didn't stop him enough.
They didn't forbid him from running again,
and because they thought they were being fair.
But did he believe in democracy?
Of course not.
He wanted to destroy democracy,
and he had already shown it.
So they should have disqualified him from running.
And Trump already did a goddamn rebellion against America.
He said, I don't care that I lost.
that say he knows he freaking lost, of course he lost and I don't care if he's so
painfully stupid that he doesn't understand that he that he lost but he definitely
did he doesn't have any goddamn evidence at all and then he says who cares he
doesn't stop the riots he lets him go for three four hours he says he doesn't mind
that his vice president might have been murdered Jesus this guy's a despicable
fascist an actual fascist so should we go well let's be fair to the Republicans
and let them run because they might have their feelings hurt.
I considered it because I know how angry they're gonna be.
They're gonna be super angry, right?
But no, don't let fascists run in a democracy because they don't believe in a democracy.
But it doesn't go based on, hey, someone online called them a fascist.
No, did you do an insurrection against the United States of America?
It has already been adjudicated as an insurrection.
So who let it?
Right, so look, for me, it's not, it's not about,
like, oh, Republican voters are going to be upset by it. I think we're headed closer and closer
to actual violence. And with some, honestly, I hear conservative hosts on conservative shows
fanning the flames of civil war, all of that stuff. That concerns me more, right? Like the
political fallout and what it could potentially lead to in the country is what concerns me more
than just simply hurting people's feelings by disqualifying Donald Trump through this specific
section of the Constitution.
So yes and no, on the one hand, them threatening civil wars giving in to the Gestapo saying,
hey, we're gonna kill you guys if you don't agree with us.
So make sure you let our fascist leader run again.
Well, hey, brother, you gotta do what you gotta do and we gotta do what we gotta do.
Okay, so I'm not moved by that.
But I am, like, one of the things that pisses me off about the
the establishment and the Democrats. So the Democrats never admit that there is an establishment
and that people don't like it and that it is biased, okay? We're unique in that we say that
and we say Trump is bad because both of those things are true. How is it relevant here?
If you're going to use the 14th Amendment, why didn't you start two and a half years ago?
And I'll tell you why they didn't start two and a half years ago for the same exact reason
that none of these trials started two and a half years ago. Because the establishment didn't
want to use any of these things against another elite against the president, right?
former president. But they thought in their infinite stupidity that Trump wouldn't run again or that
the Republican voters would realize how radical he is. And golly, gee, they would go with a
corporate Republican, right? Well, you were all dumb. You were all wrong as you always are in
Washington. And then you waited and waited and waited. And now it looks like he's going to
win the Republican primary. And now you're panicked and going to the 14th Amendment. And so it
looks biased. When you had a perfectly good case, you should have pursued right from the get
go. But you didn't pursue it when he did the insurrection. You're pursuing it when he's
running for office. So that's what enrages the right. And the timing is political. But he did
do it. Both of those things are true. And we can't get either side to acknowledge things that
are obviously true. All right, we're going to take a break. When we come back, there is a crazy
story out of the state of Alabama, which has decided to just ignore federal courts and
their decisions in regard to redrawing districts. What does that mean? What does the future hold
for the state that refuses to listen to the federal judges? We've got that story and more coming
up. Don't miss it. Nobody played the game better than I did.
All right, back on TYT, Jankana and Jesse with you guys.
Jesse, thanks for sign up.
We appreciate you.
Go ahead.
All right.
Big story out of Alabama today.
A federal court had told Alabama they had to go redraw their districts to include two majority
black districts.
Alabama came back in, did not complete the homework assignment, basically, according to this
federal court today.
The judges said, we are deeply troubled that the state enacted a map that the state readily
admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires.
That's right. A panel of three federal judges, which, by the way, includes two Donald Trump
appointees, has struck down Alabama's congressional map for the second time. Now, the panel
found that both the initial map and the state's unwillingness to essentially change the map
at the court's decision, violated the Voting Rights Act by intentionally diluting black voters.
Here's how.
The same three-judge panel that had found that Alabama had likely violated the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 by drawing only one district where blacks had the opportunity to elect a candidate of
choice. Alabama has seven districts, 27% of the population is African American, and state
legislators only had drawn one district where they could have elected a candidate of their
choice, and they had in that one particular district. So this special panel had said, go back,
redraw it, the state appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court in June, John,
had affirmed that three-judge panel saying, yes, Alabama, you have failed here, you have not
abided by the Voting Rights Act sent it back. Alabama dug in even deeper saying, no, we don't
need to create a second black opportunity or black majority district here.
Which is absolutely unbelievable. The state essentially said, no, we're just going to ignore
the federal judges and what they are ordering us to do. And I was curious to see how this
was going to play out. So in their decision, the U.S. Circuit judges said the following. We are not aware
of any other case in which a state legislature faced with a federal court order declaring
that its electoral plan unlawfully dilutes minority votes and requiring a plan that provides
an additional opportunity district responded with a plan that the state concedes does not
provide that district. Further, they continue to argue that the law requires the creation
of an additional district that affords black Alabamians, like everyone else, a fair and reasonable
opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. The 2023 plan plainly fails to do so.
Again, I want to reiterate that this court, this panel of three judges includes two Trump
appointees, one Clinton appointee. So look, the silver lining in this story, realistically to me,
is the fact that you have two Trump appointees actually like upholding the law and the voting
rights act. Like to me, that is the big silver lining here. The question is, what will Alabama
state legislature do moving forward? I have some details on that, but before I get to it,
Jenk, I'm curious what you think. Yeah, so this is great news on two fronts and maybe three
fronts. The third front is that, hey, there's great news. That's like that's very rare.
And so I'll take it and it's fantastic.
Okay, the two substance of reasons.
One in and of itself, it's definitely the correct decision.
The way that it was gerrymandered in Alabama was preposterous.
It's actually also preposterous in many other states.
A lot of red states, but some blue states too.
And so Alabama is not alone in that.
Alabama is just alone in how clearly racial it was.
And that's why it triggers the constitution and the protections that
come with it. And the second reason why it's great news is what Anna said. It restores our faith in
the institutions a tiny bit. Definitely. So here are a bunch of conservative judges and justices
saying, no, there's two things here that you have to do. One is, no, you have to follow the
Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and the United States Constitution. It's not optional.
And it doesn't matter if you're really conservative and I'm really conservative. You still have
to follow it. And number two, just the very fact that it was not political.
And they said, you must follow the law and this is the law.
It doesn't matter if you disagree with it.
And it seems like a really low bar, but these is we're a little worried about clearing
that bar.
Thousand percent.
No, absolutely.
Like that was what stood out to me the most about this story.
Like, I don't blame anyone for lacking faith in our institutions.
I'm right there on that boat with you and decisions like this help to little by little
restore your faith in our institutions. So I hope that we keep going in this direction.
And you mentioned the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is relevant in this story as well.
I'll get to them in just a moment. But before I do, it's important to talk about the next step.
So what happens now? According to reporting from NPR, for the 2024 elections, the judges
have assigned court-appointed experts to draw three potential maps that each include two districts
where black voters have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidate.
So those redistricting proposals are due to the court by September 25th, and all sides of
this case will be able to challenge the proposals produced by the court's special master.
And the judges say that a hearing on this is tentatively set for October 3rd.
So we'll see how that plays out.
But what's really interesting, and here's where the Supreme Court plays a role.
Initially, the state legislatures in Alabama appealed this to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was like, no, we're going to go ahead and uphold what the district court has decided here.
Apparently, that wasn't enough to discourage the state legislature in Alabama because this is what they said following the latest update from the circuit court.
We intend to promptly seek review from the Supreme Court to ensure that the state can use.
use its lawful congressional districts in 2024 and beyond.
So they are planning on appealing this to the Supreme Court, which is already essentially
slapped them down.
So it seems like they're pushing for a losing argument here.
We'll see how it plays out.
But you can't just ignore the federal courts because you don't like what their decision is.
Yeah, one of our members, that's a really good question that I want to address.
But first, one other thing about this, I want to be clear, I don't like this system to begin with.
I don't think we should have the politicians drawing their own lines.
I think that's absurd.
I don't like the racial component of it.
Now, I want you to understand the historical context of it.
The racial component comes from unfortunately white people in the south going,
we're gonna try to deny the vote to black people as much as possible in the representation
as much as possible.
That's how it began, there's no question about it, that's a historical fact, okay?
And now some of the remedy to that was understandably, well, we've got to create some black districts
Because you guys squeeze out all the black voters, right?
So, but ultimately in the future, what you would want is something that is not based on race at all
and is based on logical lines where everybody competes, black, white, Republican Democrat to actually
win over the voters in those equally drawn districts, to the best of our abilities.
We don't have anything like that in this system.
So that we have to reform the entire system completely.
But this is the second best option where you're preventing at least cheating within this
court good system to begin with. Now the question was Moondragon asked, I actually asked Super
Chad, so what are the consequences of Alabama continues to defy this order? Well, see, that's
where it gets terrible. Because right now, if Alabama goes, okay, that's interesting, but I'm
just not doing it, okay? Well, this courts would eventually say no, then you're, we're taking
you out of this system and we're redrawing the lines. Okay, at some point, Alabama courts would
do that. The Supreme Court would back them and they would say these are the new lines and you must
enforce them. And then if local authorities said, we're not going to enforce them,
then you would send in the National Guard.
Jeez. And remember, we've already done that before in American politics and in Alabama.
So that's why Eisenhower had to send in the National Guard because the local authorities said,
I don't care about your stupid U.S. Constitution. How many times do I have to rebel against it?
No, I don't want to do the Constitution. So we had to send in the National Guard.
Now, if a Democrat's president, you send in the National Guard, it's super ugly and sad that it's come to that, but it gets straightened up.
If Trump is president, he doesn't send in the National Guard.
And Alabama then goes, we're not going to listen to any of the courts.
And then everybody goes, well, if Alabama's not listening to the courts, I'm not listening to the courts.
And then what you have is a complete destruction of our system.
And it's not an hyperbole to say that.
Apologies if this is a dumb question, but I genuinely don't know.
Is it only in the jurisdiction of the president of the United States to call in the National Guard,
or would the courts be able to do that?
No, it's the executive branch.
The president has to call it in.
If the Supreme Court says something that you must definitively do something,
and someone like Trump is president and says, I'm not going to,
you've destroyed our constitutional system, then the executive branch,
who at the end of the day controls what?
happens in this country, in any country, the guys with the guns. And that is the executive
branch. The executive branch controls the military, and it controls all of the armed forces,
okay? So the executive branch has to respect the legislative branch and judiciary. If they
don't, we're no longer a democracy, and the executive branch has taken over and basically turned
us into a dictatorship. That is why it cannot be Trump. It cannot be Trump, because Trump will do
that next time around, now he's learned, hey, being subtle about it, asking my guys to riot,
doing fake electors, it wasn't enough that we had considered martial law. This time, I would
be shocked if he didn't go to martial law. So today's a great day. You know, the conservative
justices and judges have done the right thing, and they should be greatly commended for trying
to uphold not the system as in the establishment and the corrupt parts of the system.
But the system, as in the United States Constitution and our democracy.
So thank you conservative judges for doing that.
But they're conservatives in the other branches have to also go along with those decisions.
Otherwise, we absolutely ruin this country.
All right, we're going to take a break.
When we come back, a lot of rumor swirling in regard to President Joe Biden
and whether he's going to drop out of the race.
Related to that story, we're going to get into the last.
latest Wall Street Journal poll showing how the vast majority of voters feel about Biden,
his age, and even his job performance. A lot to get into there. Don't miss it. We'll be right
back.
All right, back on TYT, Jankana with you guys, breaking news.
Yeah, big, big story.
So former proud boys chairman, it's a weird way to refer to him, but nonetheless,
former head of the proud boys, Enrique Atario was just sentenced to 22 years in prison
for seditious conspiracy and leading a failed plot to prevent the transfer of power
during the 2020 presidential election.
Now, the sentence from district judge Timothy Kelly, who is a donor,
Trump appointee is now the longest sentence given to anyone involved in the January 6 Capitol
riots. Keep in mind that Tario wasn't even there, although he played a big role in organizing
the rights that took place that day. Now, here is what the district judge Timothy Kelly said
in his decision. The jury didn't convict anyone for engaging in politics. They convicted
Mr. Tario and others of engaging in seditious conspiracy. I don't have any indication that he is remorse
for the actual things he is convicted of, which is seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to
obstruct the counting of electoral votes. The judge continues that Mr. Tario was the ultimate
leader of that conspiracy. I don't really think this is super debatable. Now, during that
months-long trial, prosecutors showed evidence that Tario helped to create a command structure
with the proud boys in the lead up to the January 6 Capitol riots and even dictated how members
of the organization would work when attending high profile rallies. Tario, again, was not
present in Washington, D.C. on January 6th, he was actually banned from being there because of his
previous activities, but ultimately expressed his support for the rioters online and was in fact
in touch with his co-defendants, Joseph Biggs and Ethan Nordian, who were there on the ground.
Now, Kelly sentenced those individuals to lengthy sentences as well.
Ethan, Nordian and Joseph Biggs, two of the far right organizations top lieutenants to 18 and 17 year prison sentences, respectively.
Zachary Rell, a local proud boys chapter leader, was also sentenced to 15 years behind bars,
while Dominic Pizzola, a low-level member, and the only defendant acquitted of the seditious conspiracy charge was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
So some pretty hefty sentences for their role in what happened on January 6th, something to keep in mind as the Trump indictments move forward in regard to his role in election interference.
Yeah. So there's another conviction on seditious conspiracy.
Earlier in the show, we're talking about the 14th Amendment possibility that Donald Trump could be disqualified from office for leading us an insurrection against the U.S. government.
If you do that, you cannot run for office again.
Well, he just got convicted of seditious conspiracy.
So who organized it overall?
Was it Enrique Atario and he did it without Donald Trump?
No, I think Donald Trump, at a minimum aid and abetted that,
and that's what the 14th Amendment says, and it was actually the leader of that movement.
So the 14th Amendment case is pretty solid against Trump, if anyone, you know,
actually dares to follow the Constitution.
Now, in terms of Tario, you know, his lawyer is saying, hey, he's not a terrorist because he's an American and he's not a foreigner and stuff.
He's just a misguided patriot.
Yeah, well, if a misguided patriot tries to murder the president, for example, whether it's Biden or Trump, I don't care that he's a terrorist.
I don't care that he's American or not.
Now, this is not murder, but this was sedition.
I mean, it could have.
Opposition against America? That's as significant a crime as you can get. I don't care that you were misguided. You should not have organized people to do violence and to try to intimidate American politicians and subvert democracy. Because you're an idiot and didn't know what you were doing, according to your lawyer, I don't think it helps your case at all.
In response to the sentence, Tario said the following, I've always tried to hold myself to a higher standard and I failed.
I held myself morally above others and this trial has shown me how wrong I was.
I spent the last year and a half trying to figure out how I ended up at this podium on November 3rd, 2020, something that I never expected happened.
My candidate lost.
I felt like something was personally stolen from me.
Every media channel that I turned to told me I was justified.
Well, that's an interesting comment, that last sentence.
I think that that's an incredibly interesting comment.
And I think that, listen, just because conservative media is feeding you a narrative,
by the way, conservative media, left with media, it doesn't matter.
I think everyone has an understanding of the difference between right and wrong.
right? And I would just ask anyone who thought that their actions were justified that day
to consider whether their loyalty to Donald Trump should overwhelm loyalty to our country
and to our democratic process. You get what I'm saying? I do. And of course that's true,
and that's why he's going to prison for 22 years. At the same time, he's not wrong that last
sentence, right? Every right wing media outlet was telling you that basically the election was
stolen from Trump. So if you're a right winger and those are that list that you trusted,
you really thought the election was stolen from Donald Trump. And how mad would you be
if Trump had stolen the election from Biden with his stupid fake elector plot, right? I would
have been livid, livid beyond imagination. And so that's how these folks were. But we never,
ever punish the powerful. We always punish the people underneath them. So Tario has no power
at all. He doesn't buy any ads. He doesn't have any money to spend in corporate.
media, et cetera. So it's easy to bury him for 22 years. I'm not saying that the decision is
wrong. I think he's perfectly right. He shouldn't have done it. And these are the consequences.
But they never apply the law to the powerful. So now they're doing it belatedly to Trump. Let's see
if it holds. But there's not going to be any accountability for right wing media. I mean, they
had Fox News got the accountability of an $800 million settlement. And that's not bad, right?
But legally, criminally, there's never any accountability for the right wing media just producing a factory of lies.
I mean, to be honest with you, had Trump not been indicted for his role, had the co-conspirators not been indicted,
this would have been very similar to the outcome of the 2008, like, economic collapse, right?
That was done as a result of Wall Street and just unbelievable greed, essentially, you know,
taking out all those mortgages that they knew were faulty, knew that they were going to default
and then packaging them up as securities and then betting against it.
Like, that is what crashed the economy.
And who ended up paying the consequences of that, of that behavior?
Was it the actual executives who were signing off on those, you know, those maneuvers?
Or was it, like, I think one person got prosecuted, like a low level individual in Wall
not someone, you know, in the higher up executive role.
But luckily in this case, we do have Donald Trump and his co-conspirators also indicted.
That's the right thing to do.
If you have Trump's minions facing incredibly lengthy sentences, it's only right that, you know,
the head of all of this faces consequences as well.
We'll see how that all plays out.
Yeah, and I was, of course, I didn't watch the whole trial.
So I don't know how much they discussed the fake elector plot and whether Rhodes, for example,
who's the head of the oath keepers, or Tario, who's ahead of proud boys, knew about it.
But to me, that's critical, because if you knew the whole point of the riot is to disrupt the
proceedings so that Pence can say, hey, let's send it back to the states, and then they're
going to unleash the fake electors and try to steal the election, that to me makes you a thousand
times more culpable.
If, for example, I'm going to say something controversial, if the right wing had rioted
and looted even, but they didn't do it at the Capitol, and it wasn't connected.
to a fake elector plot, then I would say that's bad, and they should get punishment for breaking
and entering all those other things. But that is a little bit of the, like a voice unheard.
And you know, the old line about how riots are about, you know, voices that are not heard. And so now
no one ever dares to apply that to the right wing. But they felt like their voice was not
being heard. Now, they were misled. They were 100% factually incorrect. But in their minds,
they thought, my God, I'm going to save the country, right? And so if they were super
frustrated and they did breaking and entry and they weren't trying to actually end our democracy,
I would have a completely different view of it, okay? But you can't excuse breaking into the
Capitol, threatening to murder government officials, including the Republican vice president,
And you're having a fake elector plot to completely destroy our democracy and replace it with what would be a fascist dictator at that point, Donald Trump.
No, that's what you get 22 years for.
And so he says he's remorseful now, but that's what they always say right before sentencing.
And then usually right afterwards they change their tune and go, Donald Trump, right?
That's what one of the other proud boys leaders did immediately after sentencing.
Yeah, look, I don't think what you're saying is controversial at all.
You don't want to set a precedent where rioters are sentenced to 22 years in prison.
This wasn't simply about rioting.
This went much further than that, which is why you see these lengthy sentences,
specifically for the individuals who organized what took place on that day.
All right, with that said, let's move on to something completely different.
Biden is in the news today for reasons that he probably doesn't love, has to do with his age.
Let's talk about it.
If at the end of this calendar year, Joe Biden announces that he's not going to seek a second term.
Based on all your reporting, how much of a surprise will that be to you?
I would say it would be a small, it would be a surprise to me.
But it wouldn't be a total surprise to me.
It wouldn't be a total shock.
It wouldn't be a total shock.
That was Franklin Lohr, the author of Biden's latest biography titled The Last Politician.
And it's telling that he states that it wouldn't be surprising or all that surprising if President Biden decided to drop out of his bid for re-election.
Now, rumors have been swirling that President Biden will eventually drop out of the presidential race following, you know, a lot of polling.
But lately, one of the worst polls for Biden coming from the Wall Street Journal showing that
the vast majority of Americans, including two-thirds of Democrats, feel that he is too old to run for
reelection. So I want to give you some of the results of that polling. It shows that 73% of
those surveyed and two-thirds of Democrats told pollsters that the 80-year-old Biden would
not be up for another four years in office. The poll also indicates that a rematch of the
2020 presidential election between Biden and former President Donald Trump would begin in a dead
heat. The two are actually tied at 46% in a hypothetical general election poll, something that
Jank and I have been concerned about and have been talking about on this show. And if you take a look
at the averages of the polling, the real clear politics average of polls testing another Trump
Biden race shows Biden with a 0.7% lead over Trump. Too close for coming.
And poll respondents say that they just don't feel the same way about Donald Trump's age.
So remember, Donald Trump isn't some whippersapper.
He's 77 years old, but just under 50% of voters expressed a similar concern over the 77 year old Trump.
And there are other concerning elements of this poll.
For instance, compared to Biden, more of the poll respondents felt that Trump is more mentally up to the job,
that he has a better vision for the future.
cares about people like them and has an impressive record as president.
I'll give you the numbers on that in just a moment.
But, Jank, Biden, not our best.
Yeah, we're not winning with this guy, maybe literally, unfortunately.
So look guys, poll out today as well, 51% of Americans think that Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for office again based on what he did on January 6th.
That is a majority of the country.
And Biden is tied with him.
Biden is tied with a guy that a majority of the country thinks is so important that he shouldn't
even be allowed to run for office.
And yet Democrats in Washington are like, we nailed this thing.
No one running his Biden, no one running his Biden.
He's got to say he's the only one that can beat Trump.
I disagree.
It's insanity.
I don't think that's what's going on with the Democratic Party.
I think the Democratic Party as we speak is scheming to have their preferred candidate
ready to go for when Biden announces that he's going to drop out of the race.
I think that is what's currently taking place.
I think the Democratic establishment, they love to play Kingmaker, and I think they're getting
Newsome ready for this.
So Anna, that's a great point.
Let me break down how I think this has proceeded so far.
So when the leader in the Democratic Party, the Democratic voters are a lot less authoritarian,
but Democratic Party leadership these days is more authoritarian than Republican leadership.
And when they say bow your heads, everybody bows their heads.
So Biden said, I'm running.
And everybody instantly bowed their heads.
Bernie and AOC came out there like, okay, we endorse it right away, right away.
No progressive should run.
No progressive should run.
Okay.
And so they all bowed their heads.
And Biden's like, okay, very good.
And I think he genuinely meant it.
Obama went and talked to him and couldn't even talk him out of it as he has in the past,
etc.
But now he's falling apart at the seams.
And we could all see it.
And even as thick as that bubble in Washington is, they now see it.
Okay, and they're like, oh boy.
So now, they've seen that for at least a month.
How do I know that?
You know when Gavin Newsom re-hit the TV circuit?
And you know when they randomly did this glowing profile of Gretchen Whitmer, okay?
Mainstream media is in a lot of ways Democratic Party leadership, okay?
Those publishers and editors, I mean, they have the same exact group think as Democratic Party leaders.
Okay, so that's, and by the way, a lot of times, including the person who wrote that article about Gretchen Wintmer,
they're former Democratic Party strategists, okay?
So they are getting those two ready in the bullpen and progressive knuckleheads in D.C.
And I'm being as polite as humanly possible.
You know what they're going to do?
They're going to do exactly what Anna said.
And you say, Biden's out, now it has to be Whitmer and Newsom, that's it, it's over, it's over.
Why? Because they don't want you guys to run.
And you schmucks are like, oh, okay, you're getting catfished into it.
So now in the last month, it has gone from Biden insisting that he's going to run to, no,
let's shift over and make sure that the voters have no choice and then we'll get all of corporate
media to scream at the voters that it has to be Newsom or Whitmer or both running as a team.
And we, and either way, progressives can't run against Biden.
And then they'll turn around right away and go, you can't run against Whitmer or Newsom.
Okay. And I just know.
Bernie AOC and the just Democrat is like, okay, it's Biden. Sure, none of us will run.
Yeah, congrats. You got played again.
Look, I don't even know which progressive lawmaker should run.
I don't either, but I do know them unilaterally surrendering 2,000 times over,
including this time, has not been a brilliant political strategy.
We sent you to fight the establishment, and you thought that was to lay down on their
door mat, okay?
So you guys endorsing Biden, especially if he pulls out, well, let's just say it's not
going to look like a bright move, okay?
So you told all progressives to stand down while Newson and Whitmer are getting ready.
And you can't see that they're getting ready?
All right, guys, look, can I just, can we say it now well before Biden has stepped down, okay?
Right now, as things stand, no one knows if Biden's going to step down or not.
Conjecture has just begun, okay?
So Biden, I'm sorry, Bernie and AOC and all the progressives who backed Biden,
if he steps down and then they pull a fast one on you and they put in Gavin Newsom and Greta Whitmer
and tell you now you can't on again, it's too late.
We got to go with these guys because it's too late.
Will you then admit you got played?
No, of course they won't.
No, that's not going to happen.
But you got played, right?
Because if Biden steps down, you 100% indisputably got played.
Okay, go ahead, go ahead.
Keep endorsing them.
So for now, Biden swears up and down that he's not going to drop out.
In fact, we have a quick video of him over the weekend.
Let's take a look.
I'll tell you what, someone said, you know, that Biden, he didn't get old, man.
I tell you what, well, guess what?
Guess what? I can, you know, the only thing that comes today is a little bit of wisdom.
I've been doing this longer than anybody, and guess what? I'm going to continue to do with your help.
The re-election strategy is starting to come into focus as well. President Biden wants to talk about Trump without naming Trump.
Guess what? The great real estate builder, the last guy here, he didn't build a damn thing.
Under my predecessor, infrastructure week became a punchline.
On my watch, infrastructure has been a decade and it's a headline.
Look, whether he names Trump or doesn't name Trump, doesn't matter.
The attacks against Trump clearly aren't working.
I just want to quickly go back to that Wall Street Journal poll.
This was, in my opinion, the more fascinating element of the poll and the respondents.
So by an 11 point margin, more voters see Trump.
rather than Biden as having a record of accomplishments as president.
Some 40% said Biden has such a record, well, 51% said so of Trump.
By an eight point margin, more voters said Trump had a vision for the future.
By 10 points more described Trump as mentally up to the presidency.
Some 46% said that is true of Trump compared with 36% who said so of Biden.
Not good, just all around bad news for Biden.
which is what's really adding to my feel that he's likely going to drop out of the race.
One other thing that I'll mention, because I think it's relevant in terms of like what is driving,
at least for me, like my prediction about all of this.
Like why is Newsom, like he had that lengthy sit down interview with Sean Hannity.
He's getting ready for a potential debate with Ron DeSantis.
Like why would he debate Ron DeSantis?
Right?
Unless he's planning on running for president.
Yeah. So the only question for Gavin Newsom is whether he's going to run for president 24 or 28.
But it is awfully early for 28. So no, he's warming up in the bullpen. There's no question about that.
You'd have to be brain dead not to realize that or a progressive in Washington thinking, oh my God, they're going to help us any second now.
All right. Important last things here. So in terms of are there American people right about their different mental states?
Yeah, kind of. I mean, Biden's falling apart of the seams. I read a headline about how Biden did that,
wisdom line about, oh my God, you know what you get with more ages and wisdom.
And it made it sound so positive. Then I watched a tape and I'm like, he could barely get the
line out. It was a disaster, right? I mean, that's what you're complimenting him for.
And then why aren't you naming Trump? Why? Is that some sort of like sin or something? He's
running against him. Why wouldn't you name him? This is pathetic. It's pathetic all around.
And yes, Trump is almost the same age as Biden, but they don't look it. Keep it real.
I loat Donald Trump, but he looks healthy. And Biden doesn't.
Okay, you keep telling the American people not to believe they're lying eyes, and it isn't working.
And then on the vision for a future, it's insane that so many more people think that Trump has a good plan for the future.
He has no plan for the future other than enriching himself.
But why do they think that?
You've got to challenge yourself when you see a poll like that.
Why?
And the reason is because Trump is saying something different than the establishment.
And Biden is saying status grows great.
you know, you're getting a weirder, and then you're getting status quo.
Well, people don't want to hear the status quo.
They'll hear anything else and go, that's a better vision for the future than staying as we are now.
But they never get that memo in D.C. because they're paid not to get that memo.
Last thing I'll ask you guys is, should we try to push them out?
Like, if we do, like, I can't support Newsome.
No, I'm keeping at 100. I can't. I just can't. I can't.
I got you, but that's a personal thing.
Newsom, I can't. I'd rather have Biden keeping it real.
Okay, I hear you, but that's a personal thing, okay?
But should Biden be pushed out in general, in general?
We don't have a petition yet, should we do a petition?
I don't have a poll on it, but we'll read the comments to the best of our abilities.
Like, the media will, and everyone in Washington will despise us if we do a super aggressive push to get this old man out of here.
Sorry, sorry, sorry, oh my God, I said old, everyone knows he's old, everyone.
get him out. That's my opinion. We'll read through the comments and we'll make a decision.
All right, we got to take a break. When we come back for the second hour of the show,
some updates on what red states are currently trying to do to prevent women from leaving their states
to get abortions. And later in the show, we'll also talk about the debacle that was
Burning Man over the weekend. Come right back.
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