>> In a pathetic display of political theater, Donald Trump offered a posthumous presidential
pardon to Susan B Anthony.
Not because he actually values Susan B Anthony, but because he wants to use the event as a
cover for his real agenda, pushing conspiracy theories about mail-in voting.
So let's take a look at the first video.
>> The Democrats want to make it a political issue, it's not a political issue it's really
about a correct vote.
You have to get voting voting right, you can't have millions and millions of ballots sent
all over the place.
Sent to people that are dead, sent to dogs, cats, sent everywhere, this is a serious situation.
This isn't games and you have to get it right.
I just want to get it right.
Win, lose, or draw, I think we're gonna win, win, lose, or draw, we have to get it right
>> Trump has literally never cared about getting anything right.
But he then starts floating an idea, if the election doesn't go the way that he wants
it to go.
>> You can't take millions of ballots, send them haphazardly all over the country or all
over a state, and expect to come out properly.
And if you look at the last ten elections where they did this universal and by the way
absentee is great.
It's been working for a long time like in Florida.
Absentee you request, and it comes in and then you send it back.
Absentee is great.
But universal is going to be a disaster the likes of which our country has never seen.
It'll end up being a rigged election or they will never come out with an outcome.
They'll have to do it again.
And nobody wants that.
And I don't want that.
>> They'll have to do it again.
So if the election doesn't come out the way that he intends it to come out, well, maybe
we're gonna have to hold the election again.
And look, we've already talked about, Cenk, how voter fraud through mail-in voting is
minuscule, almost non-existent.
Does not in any way impact the outcome of elections.
But I just want to give you some polling, recent polling, that CNN shared.
So CNN did a poll with SSRS and they asked, how comfortable are you that votes will be
counted and cast accurately?
And here's the results.
Very confident, only 22% of respondents felt that way.
Only 34% of respondents said they were somewhat confident.
24% of respondents said not too confident, and 18% said not confident at all.
And I think some of this messaging coming from Donald Trump, unfortunately, is working
on some of the electorate which is devastating.
We need people to believe in the validity of the election and the outcome.
But Trump is doing anything and everything to make people question it because he knows
that he's likely to lose, because he's trailing Biden in the double digits, nationally.
>> No, no, no, guys, there is no we'll have to do it again.
No, there's no such thing.
The election must be held.
It's in the United States Constitution.
There is no redo on a presidential election.
It's preposterously unconstitutional.
So all these right wingers who pretend to care about the Constitution, really where's
the part, which amendment says we redo the election if Donald Trump doesn't like the
results or any party doesn't like the results?
Or the President wants to stay in office, even though he lost, there are no redos in
presidential elections.
So even suggesting it is deeply un-American.
Well, I don't know, I don't know, if I lose, I don't know.
I'll make up something about voter fraud and then maybe we'll redo the election.
No, we're not gonna redo it.
No, we're gonna drag your ass out of there if we have to.
The Secret Service is the first step once you lose, on January 20th, when the new president
comes in, if you're fat, orange ass isn't out of that seat.
The Secret Service should grab you by the lapel or that giant tie and drag you out of
the White House.
If they don't do it, the military should.
If the military doesn't then the United States people should surround the White House and
make sure Donald Trump leaves if he loses.
And so guys, this is what I can't stand when people cannot understand the severity of an
issue, and they treat it as normal.
That's why Bernie Sanders had the best speech last night.
It actually doesn't have anything to do with our progressive politics versus the establishment
and Democratic, no, it doesn't have anything to do with that.
It's just that he accurately assessed the number one problem with Donald Trump.
He would undermine our democracy in a minute.
He says it all the time.
This is the second time he has clearly said that he might not leave if he loses.
That's not a thing in America.
That's a thing in third world countries, in dictatorships, and authoritarian governments.
He's undermining the very, very core of America.
And I just don't know if people understand the severity of it.
I don't know if progressives understand the severity of it or not.
Some people are still playing patty cakes with well, Biden's mediocre, I know Biden's
mediocre.
The other guy says we might redo elections if he doesn't win.
What part of this is hard?
There's no issue at all on who you should vote for, not close.
Well, we'll vote for green party so we could vote for purple party next time.
There is no next time if you don't get Trump out of office, there is no next time.
It's not hyperbolic.
He just said it.
You saw it on tape.
How dense do you have to be?
The establishment at the end, because it's their own power is beginning to understand
the severity of the situation.
But they are so late and even still now they think like, well, no, he wouldn't do that.
He wouldn't do that.
What part of Donald Trump- >> He absolutely would.
>> Yeah, what part of Donald Trump leads you to believe that he wouldn't cross a line?
A line that isn't even in his head, that's in your head.
No, you're nuts, of course he would.
Make sure he loses, and then drag his ass out in an official, professional way.
So these folks who are underestimating the threat, please don't.
You've got to go out and vote.
I'm so nervous that something's gonna happen to Biden between now and the election.
Just get us to November 3rd, for God's sake, get us to November 3rd, November 4th.
Last thing I'm gonna say is about this non-existent voter fraud.
Our job is to give you the facts.
So in the last 20 years cases of mail-in voter fraud is 0.000064%.
Okay, nearly non-existent.
Okay now, not sending in ballots to people so they can't vote because of coronavirus
that's real and that could affect millions of people.
And that's what Donald Trump is trying to do.
And so for God's sake, there is no difference between absentee and mail-in voting.
Now when he says universal, he's not bright enough to be able to clearly explain himself.
So I'll do it for him, there's no difference between absentee and mail-in.
There is a difference between requesting a mail-in ballot and the state sending you a
mail-in ballot automatically.
That's what he's calling universal.
He can't speak English, so I'm helping him out.
He's wrong about the distinction.
There is no distinction between absentee and mail-in.
Every time he says that, and the right wing idiots copy him.
They just don't know anything.
They're just so frustratingly stupid.
But if you were to say, hey, don't send mail-in ballots automatically, let people request
one.
That is also BS, but at least there's a real distinction there.
Those are two separate things.
They're both perfectly okay.
We just showed you how many cases of fraud there are, almost none, right?
But at least those are two different things.
I'm trying to help a brother out.
When he goes absentee is great, mail-in is a problem, universal.
What the hell does that mean you moron?
>> But I've come around on this Cenk, not in his favor in any way, shape or form, but
more importantly, just this idea that his supporters are too, I guess, ignorant to know
that there really is no difference between mail-in voting and absentee ballots.
I think that they know.
I think that there is a portion of this country that's fully aware that Trump is trying to
rig the election and his supporters are okay with that.
They are okay with giving a massive middle finger to our democracy, or democratic process,
just so they can reelect a man who does not value their lives.
And has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths in our own country because of his incompetence
in response to coronavirus.
That's what's happening.
I think that there is a portion of Republican voters who support Trump who know and acknowledge
he's trying to rig the election and they're okay with it.
>> Yeah, and I'll tell you why and I'm glad you made that point.
I don't know what the percentages are, but some are clearly very, very stupid.
They couldn't tell the difference between absentee and mail-in voting if their life
depended on it.
But yes, you're right.
A very healthy percentage do know.
And they think, look, guys, we're just never gonna win another national election.
The racist vote is now too small.
We did the Southern strategy for decades.
That was purposely racist.
And that was way before Trump, the Republican Party at its very, very core is racist.
And that was the whole point of the Southern strategy.
Let's get the white racists to vote for us instead of Democrats.
But now we're out of time and we're out of people.
And we're not gonna win any more national elections.
So would I rather have the Democrats win fair and square or would I rather cheat, end democracy,
shred the Constitution, and have us rule over all the other people in this country for the
rest of time.
A lot of conservatives say yes, with no hesitation at all.
Lose our power, why would we do that?
No, let's trash America instead.
Let's light it on fire.
Let's shred the Constitution and keep power.
That is what a right wing authoritarian thinks.
And now unfortunately, a giant chunk of the right wing in this country do believe that.
>> All right, well, let's end the show with a Tucker Carlson doxxing story.
And this is, it's just so depressing that this is something that anyone would do.
But in July let's do this Tucker Carlson story.
In July Tucker Carlson did this weird paranoid segment about two New York Times journalists
who were working on a story that he claimed would lead to him getting doxxed, right?
This is a common accusation by people in positions of power when they know something negative
is about to be published about them or when something's about to be published about them
and they're just paranoid freaks like Tucker Carlson is.
And so he was never doxxed by New York Times reporters ever.
But in doing that segment, what he essentially did was draw all of this negative attention
toward New York Times journalists, who were then the target of people who were threatening
them in their own homes or at least trying to break into their homes.
One of those journalists is Triston, and I don't want to say his name wrong, Tristen
Spinski.
And let me give you the details of what happened.
So Carlson said on Fox News, so how would Murray Carpenter, that was one of the reporters
and his photographer Tristan Spinski feel if we told you where they live, if we put
pictures of their homes on air.
Now again, The New York Times, these reporters, they never did anything like that.
But this is what Tucker Carlson said in the segment.
And his fans did take this seriously.
And now, we have some transcripts of the 911 call that Spinski and his family members did
when they were targeted by Tucker Carlson's fans.
So this was reported by Eric Whipple in the Washington Post.
And he writes that the 911 transcript adds contour to the story, as it depicts the victims
of Carlson's dangerous speculation trying to make sense of a sudden spurt of hostility
at their doorstep on an otherwise quiet summer night.
The call arrived at the Lincoln County facility at 9:57 pm, just about an hour after Carlson's
segment.
Now Spinski, his wife, and his brother-in-law were in his home when these Carlson fans showed
up.
And it's not like they were just protesting outside of his house.
They were trying to get into his house, based on what we know through the 911 transcript.
So the transcript read that Tristan Spinski said the following.
There's definitely people on our property.
We can feel our house when someone is trying to get into it downstairs.
It was significant.
They went upstairs and locked the door for safety and called 911.
As for Spinski himself, he has stepped back from his work since his unexpected mention
on Tucker Carlson tonight.
He surely won't be participating in any project on Carlson.
He said, quote, I'm apolitical in my work and this has politicized my role in some ways.
I can't photog a story that I'm part of, if that makes sense.
He believes there's a conflict of interest there.
But I really think at the heart of his decision to no longer do this story or whatever he
was working on, is Tucker Carlson's threats, really.
>> Okay, so here comes nuance and clarity.
So first of all, I don't think Tucker Carlson is making it up in terms of New York Times
thinking about a story.
Likely they reached out to him for comment before they were going to run a story and
that's how he knows about it.
Or he knows somebody at the paper, etc.
Now do we know what the story was about?
No, do we think that they were gonna dox someone?
No preposterous, The New York Times is not gonna dox him.
Could it be a story about, who knows, make it up like taxes about his house so they were
gonna tangentially mention his house.
Or maybe the story and something to do with his house.
I don't know, but that doesn't mean they're gonna dox you.
That's not what the New York Times does.
That's what fascist like Tucker Carlson does.
So they purposely target you to try to intimidate you.
And what makes me absolutely sick to my stomach is that it worked.
He got a bunch of goons and it's called stochastic terrorism.
What it is, is I say something and if someone happens to act on it, and that guy happens
to get hurt, well, I didn't direct Bob to do it.
But if you're Tucker Carlson you know you have crazy right winger fans who can't wait
to do violence on your behalf.
All you have to do is unleash them.
So you give the guy's names, they're gonna find their houses, it's super easy to find
houses.
And they're gonna go there and they're gonna literally rattle their cage.
And then SpinskiI mean, look, I empathize with him because he's scared for his life.
But no, no backing out of the story is how fascists win.
I mean, I don't know if the New York Times is, what kind of story they were planning.
They haven't run anything yet.
If they were planning on running the story and they got intimidated by Tucker Carlson,
they're the world's worst cowards.
I'm talking about the editors, run the goddamn story, whatever it was.
Now, I want to be super clear, whether you're right wing or left wing, do not go to people's
houses.
And this is not just the right wing.
The right wing is more prone to violence, but the left wing does sometimes go to people's
houses.
I'm done with it.
Look, guys, somebody's gonna get really hurt.
It's not a good idea.
It's a terrible idea.
Stop going to people's houses.
>> Yeah, I just wanna go back to what you mentioned about Spinski and how he shouldn't
give up on this story based on what Tucker Carlson is doing.
It's hard.
I mean, I know from personal experience, right?
I mean, I had something very similar happen, I believe it was in 2008.
Based on a nonsense story that we covered that upset this crazy, right wing mob.
And it's not just that you fear for your life, right?
It's that your family is angry at you because they feel that you're putting their lives
in jeopardy.
And honestly, that's the worst part.
So I'm just giving that perspective as well.
Because Spinski might be like me where it's like, no, I'm gonna, I'm defiant.
I'm gonna keep going.
I'm gonna keep doing my thing.
But I remember when I was going through it, the worst part about it was one of my parents
turned to me and looked at me and said, you just don't know how to shut your mouth.
But I don't blame them because they were scared.
It was