Oct 16, 2023
Cenk & Ana DESTROY Vivek Ramaswamy's Defense of Donald Trump
Ramaswamy says that Trump is getting unfairly attacked by the U.S. judicial system.
- 13 minutes
Why exactly would likely Republican
voters decide to vote for
you over the former president?
>> Speaker 2: Yeah, look, I think that the
more he's being unjustly prosecuted and
really attacked using the levers
of the justice system,
the more I felt a sense of obligation
to stand up for what is right.
[00:00:19]
And I also believe in
judging based on results.
What are the results that I
ultimately judge to president by?
Did you keep us out of wars and
did the economy grow under your wash?
There's a lot of other things that matter
too, but those are two easy metrics.
And I said he was the best
president of the 21st century.
[00:00:35]
So what I said on the debate stage,
I stand by it.
George Bush.
Barack Obama.
Joe Biden.
Donald Trump.
It's not even close.
Which one was the best one of the century?
And so I respect him.
And probably more than any other GOP
presidential candidate, when I'm
president, I will respect his legacy and
honor it more than anybody else will
[00:00:53]
because I think it's the right thing to do
and I think it moves the country forward.
However, I have something
that he does not.
I am young.
I have fresh legs.
I think it's gonna take somebody coming
in from the outside to have the true
[00:01:09]
fresh perspective to lead the America
First movement to the next level.
I think I can unite this country
by reaching the next generation of
young Americans that have lost
all semblance of national pride.
And I can give you
statistics to back that up.
[00:01:25]
I mean, 60% of young Americans today say
they would sooner give up their right
to vote than to give up
their access to TikTok.
We have a 25% recruitment
deficit in the US military,
less than 16% of Gen z says
they're proud to be American.
[00:01:40]
And I think there is no question which
Republican candidate is really which
candidate, period, in this race is best
reaching young voters at a large scale.
We sit in college campuses
across this country and so, yes,
I think I will be able to reach that next
generation and inspire national pride in
[00:01:58]
that next generation better
than anybody else in this race.
>> Speaker 3: So, Vivek,
you're saying then by definition,
you're running against them.
You are better than the best President of
the 21st century and that the main reason
why you're better than Donald Trump is
because you're younger than Donald Trump.
[00:02:15]
Am I understanding that right?
>> Speaker 2: And
because as a function of being younger,
I'm gonna be able to reach the next
generation, reunite this country.
And I do think that reuniting this country
and reaching the next generation will be
part of what allows us to take the
America First agenda to the next level.
[00:02:32]
>> Speaker 3: I got you, but you said
you're better than Donald Trump, right?
>> Speaker 2: I wouldn't be running if
I didn't think I was the best candidate
for the job.
So yes, I believe I am the best
candidate for US president.
I think there are two America
first candidates in the race, and
I do think it has to be an America first
candidate that leads the country forward.
[00:02:51]
However, between it's the tried and
true, I admit, if you want tried and
true, you go with Donald Trump.
If you want the next generation with fresh
legs to lead us forward, you go with me.
And I think that that's gonna be
the successful formula that leads us to
success in this race.
>> Speaker 3: I'm gonna follow up
on something you said earlier.
[00:03:07]
You said that you would pardon
Donald Trump on these unjust charges.
So if you pardon him on taking
national secrets without permission,
not returning them,
lying to the FBI, et cetera,
does that mean that Joe Biden
is allowed to do the same thing?
That he could just take national secrets,
show them to anyone he likes,
[00:03:24]
even after he's president he could just
take the documents, bring them home,
show them to anyone he likes,
and maybe other people, too.
Anyone who's got access
to national secrets,
can they just show them to everyone?
Or is it just a special privilege that
Donald Trump gets to have because
you like him?
>> It is a whether you like the law or
not,
[00:03:41]
I believe in this thing called the law,
and the law does give a what's that I.
>> Speaker 4: Say I'd love to see it.
>> Speaker 3: Because Donald Trump
has broken about a dozen laws, and
you'd say you'd pardon him on every one of
those criminal actions, okay so prove it.
>> Speaker 2: I think part of the reason
why is that those laws that are alleged
[00:03:59]
to be broken,
I don't believe have been broken here.
If I did believe that and
believe it was definitive,
then I wouldn't adopt
the position that I do.
Every case brought against him levels
a novel legal theory never before used.
So for the particular case
that you asked about and
[00:04:15]
I believe in getting into details.
Details matter, if you're gonna
convict somebody criminally, yes,
the details doggone well matter.
So the Presidential Records Act
explicitly lays out the criteria for
what documents a prior president is and
is not able to access.
[00:04:32]
If you don't like the law, change the law.
But part of the reason is that
we already entrust the US.
President with making all kinds of
incredible judgments whether or
not to use nuclear weapons on down.
So, yes, that same president we do
entrust when leaving office with
[00:04:47]
access to those same records.
The judges have interpreted it.
And even in the Clinton sock drawer case
as it related to Bill Clinton revealing
undoubtedly classified
information afterwards,
a judge explicitly came down
on interpreting that statute.
So I'll leave detailed articles in
the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, but
[00:05:06]
why am I bothering talking about it as
opposed to legal scholars elsewhere?
Let them debate it.
My job is to unite this country.
And I do not think it sets a good
precedent when the President of
the United States and
the Justice Department under him,
uses police force to indict its political
opponents in the middle of an election,
[00:05:25]
and then issue gag orders to say that
that opponent during the presidential
election can't even talk about
that relevant set of issues.
I just don't think that's
a good precedent, and
I don't wanna see that in one direction or
the other.
That's wrong.
>> Speaker 1: Do you believe it's a good
precedent to implement a slate of
[00:05:42]
fake electors to overturn the results
of our democratic process and
go against the will of
the American voters?
>> Speaker 2: So look, I think that there
were serious issues that need to be
discussed relating to election integrity.
However, I would not have made those
same judgments that Donald Trump did.
[00:06:00]
This, though, belongs to the voters.
This is a judgment for the voters
of this country, not a judgment for
a justice system that lands people
in prison as its ultimate goal,
especially political opponents.
I just think that's bad for
the United States of America.
[00:06:15]
So leave it to the voters, trust the
voters to make the decision of who governs
instead of trying to take
it out of the voters hands.
And I don't think that should
be a controversial idea.
>> Speaker 3: Yeah,
it's definitely controversial because what
you're saying is.
>> Leaving it to the voters
is controversial.
[CROSSTALK]
>> Speaker 1: Laws, including going
[00:06:33]
against the will of the American voters
by implementing a slate of fake electors,
which were noted as such in memos
within the Trump campaign, they were
referred to as fake and fraudulent
electors by Trump's co conspirators.
[00:06:49]
That is part of the evidence.
Another piece of evidence that I think
is compelling, to say the least,
is that they had fake electors
in the state of New Mexico,
which had absolutely no pending
litigation in regard to election fraud.
>> [INAUDIBLE] legal system and
if you wanna go into the details of this,
[00:07:06]
the First Amendment absolutely protects
and courts have held this for a long time,
dating back to a case called Alvarez.
I think it was in 2012 that political
officials, including candidates for
election, unfortunately, like it or
not, have the First Amendment
right not to tell the truth.
[00:07:23]
That's just a fact.
It's not something that
we should [INAUDIBLE].
>> Speaker 3: So Donald Trump was lying,
so Donald Trump was lying.
>> Speaker 2: That's for
the courts to decide.
>> Speaker 4: So then he should be tried,
if it's for the courts to decide, and
we live in a country of Laws and
he's being charged with a very important
[00:07:39]
criminal act, why do you get to decide
instead of the court system and
say, just let him off,
who cares [INAUDIBLE]?
>> Speaker 2: Because nobody else has
been charged under the same set of facts
because.
>> Speaker 4: No one else tried to do
a coup against America with a fake
electorate scheme.
Do you know a second person
who's ever been accused of that?
[00:07:56]
>> Speaker 2: We've had contested
elections dating back to the late 1800s in
this country in a lot.
>> Speaker 4: Yeah, but no one ever did
fake electors and tried to do a coup,
Vivek.
So are you saying because this is really
important because good for the goose.
>> Speaker 3: Is good for the gander?
>> Speaker 4: So you're saying
Donald Joe Biden, on his way out,
[00:08:11]
can take any national secrets and
show them to anyone he likes?
Maybe you could even sell them.
Whatever.
He could just take them.
Who cares?
>> Speaker 2: And hold on, this sell him.
Okay, all right.
But if Donald Trump is
charged with selling them,
are we allowed to try him then?
Or do we just have to let him go
no matter what he's charged with?
[00:08:29]
>> Speaker 2: We're gonna be on for
most of an hour.
So I think it's just important for
you to understand something about me.
I care about the details.
Facts actually matter.
I don't care about
the details random jousting.
>> Speaker 1: You just implemented a law
having to do with political speech of
a President and extended it to
the actions of the President.
[00:08:46]
If the actions of the President are
criminal, he should be held by the way,
excuse me, I'm still speaking.
Can you please let me finish my statement,
okay?
If the actions of the President
happen to be illegal actions,
especially in the context of our
democratic process, you genuinely believe
[00:09:03]
that that individual should not be held
accountable for what he engaged in?
You think that the sitting President
of the United States could
attempt to steal elections, can attempt
to implement fake electors, and
go against the will of
the American people?
Is that what you're arguing here?
[00:09:19]
>> Speaker 2: And
I just wanna address you correctly.
What's your name?
>> Speaker 1: I mean,
you just came on my show.
You don't know my name?
My name's Anna.
>> Speaker 2: I don't actually.
I thought I was talking to Jenk.
What's your name?
>> Speaker 3: My name is Anna.
>> Speaker 2: Anna, good.
No, we're gonna be chatting for a while.
I just wanted to address you conversation.
>> She'll prepared for
the interview ahead of time.
>> So well, Anna,
you guys invited me on your show.
[00:09:37]
I'm making some time for you guys.
I'm happy to have the open debate.
Let's get some facts
actually straight here.
>> Speaker 1: I thought
you were detail oriented.
I don't know.
>> Speaker 2: I didn't mean
that as a personal affront.
And I promise you, and I'm looking forward
to getting into substance with you.
So the reality is you're making
an assertion that he broke the law, and
[00:09:56]
then everything that you're
doing is working backwards,
making a legal judgment on a complex
legal theory that has never been
brought against a defendant
in American history.
So that's a circular reasoning.
It's a circular loop.
>> Speaker 2: No, it's not like that.
[00:10:12]
That doesn't make any sense.
We're not making but Vivek,
you're going in circles.
Hold on, let's be clear.
So we're not making the assertion.
Prosecutors are making that assertion.
And you're saying do not let
the prosecutors do their job.
[00:10:29]
Foreclose that I don't wanna
discuss let me finish.
Can Joe Biden do a fake elector scheme and
just make up electors and
declare himself President,
as Donald Trump wanted to do?
And you admitted earlier he is lying.
[00:10:45]
Donald Trump was lying.
And so can Joe Biden lie and say,
I've got fake electors and
I'll even call them fake electors, and
then you're not allowed to prosecute
them because you just said that's it.
No one's allowed to
prosecute former Presidents.
Go ahead.
So is Joe Biden allowed to
do the same exact thing?
[00:11:02]
>> Speaker 2: Let me just
ask you guys a question,
because I think I'm getting a sense for
your command of the details here.
Which case would you like to talk about?
>> Speaker 4: Go ahead.
Fake electors.
Is Joe Biden allowed to do the same?
>> Speaker 2: One of you talking about
documents, and one of you is talking.
>> Because he broke so many laws,
but let's stick with fake elections.
[00:11:19]
Go ahead.
>> Speaker 2: Which one
would you like to discuss?
>> Speaker 4: Fake elections.
Go ahead.
>> Speaker 2: Yeah, so there is no
crime here that can be charged.
That's the answer.
There's no relevant crime.
Now, can voters take this into account
when determining who their next
[00:11:34]
President is?
Absolutely.
That's exactly how our process works.
But our Constitution has a process
that has been followed, and
it was followed here.
And the US President, absolutely.
Even if he's, the outgoing President,
has an opportunity to share his opinion,
[00:11:50]
even if those opinions are not true.
And if that's found in a court of law,
I don't have a view on that.
But that's what the allegations are.
>> Speaker 4: That's what
a court of law is Vivek.
But you're saying we're not
allowed to go to a court of law?
>> Speaker 2: I'm not saying
that you're not allowed to.
I'm saying that I would pardon him because
I think that these do not match the actual
[00:12:06]
law that the Supreme Court has held
applying to these set of facts.
And I think it's a bad judgment for
the US Justice Department to bring this
case because it divides the country.
And it sets an awful president that will
now be used going forward for years unless
we do something about it, unless it takes
a leader who actually unites this country.
[00:12:24]
This is the new president in
the United States of America.
The new president is the party in power
will look at who the opponent is and
throw the legal statute book at them.
That's not how it's supposed to work.
You're supposed to find a crime and then
decide whether or not you wanna prosecute
it according to the same standards
you use for every American.
[00:12:41]
That is not what's happening here.
And there is little doubt that if Donald
Trump were not running for President,
they would not have brought these charges.
So I think that if you ask me, does
this move towards uniting the country or
not, I think it does not.
I think it moves towards dividing the
country, which is why I have been clear,
[00:12:56]
even though I'm running
against Donald Trump.
I would pardon him if I'm elected
president because that will move this
nation forward.
And I do not think that we should
be guided by vengeance and
grievance against one man.
I do not think that that helps
the United States of America.
[00:13:13]
That's why I'm in this race, and
that's why I clearly answer your question.
You asked me why would I pardon.
That's why I would pardon.
>> Speaker 1: And just to be clear,
you have absolutely no problem with
the Trump campaign implementing fake
electors in the state of New Mexico,
which had no pending litigation
in regard to election fraud.
[00:13:30]
You're okay with that?
>> Speaker 2: There is
a difference between would I have
made the same judgment?
>> Speaker 1: Answer the question,
yes or no?
You don't that's illegal?
Okay, you don't value
our democratic process.
Great to hear it.
>> Speaker 2: I don't think anything
that's laid out has been
a violation of the law.
That's what I believe.
>> That's amazing.
[00:13:45]
Okay, all right.
Now Playing (Clips)
Episode
Podcast
The Young Turks: October 16, 2023
Hosts: Cenk UygurAna Kasparian
- 19 minutes
- 18 minutes
- 10 minutes
- 9 minutes
- 10 minutes
- 10 minutes
- 13 minutes
- 5 minutes
- 10 minutes
- 6 minutes
- 3 minutes
- 2 minutes