The Young Turks - Bad Takes

Starting point is 00:00:00 You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. What is up, everyone, welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. We have a spicy show today, full of spicy takes. I don't know how you guys are going to respond to it, but I got to do what I got to do. I have a spicy show. I'm I'm always bringing the salt, always bringing the spice. And in today's show, we've got a lot planned, including an update to a BLM story that I covered a few months ago. It had to do with accusations of misusing funds and donations that were given to the national chapter. We'll talk a little bit about the update on that story and more.

Starting point is 00:01:23 I'm sure you've seen a little bit of it online if you've been online and has to do with housing and all sorts of crazy. craziness. So we'll get to that a little later in the first hour. We'll also talk a little bit about the mass shooting that took place over the past weekend in Sacramento, California. It's a story I've been following, but it was something that I felt uncomfortable covering until we learned more about the shooting, who the alleged perpetrators were. And I'm really glad that I waited because we have some more details about the suspects involved, the individuals who have been arrested. And so I'll fill you guys in on that, including what the policy proposals are in response to that mass shooting. Remember, we're talking about a state that has some of the strictest

Starting point is 00:02:06 gun laws in the country. So we'll discuss. In the second hour, John Iderola will be joining me to, I want to say have a little bit of fun. But some of the stories are actually pretty enraging, including the Supreme Court's decision to essentially re-implement a Trump-era regulation that essentially makes our water less safe to consume. And they did this not through the typical means. They did it through a very, very shady way to essentially re-implement these types of policies without the public really hearing about it or really understanding their reasoning behind the decision. So we've got that story and more, don't miss it.

Starting point is 00:02:48 The second hour is going to be lit, especially since John's going to be joining me. But before we get to all of that, just want to encourage you to like and share the stream. It's a very easy way to help support the show. And if you're not a member, you can also become one by clicking on that join button if you're watching us on YouTube or you can go to t.yt.com slash join. We're gonna have a fun bonus episode as always, even though I'm still home. Hopefully I'll be back in the office tomorrow. With that said though, let's get to our first story. Why shouldn't the images of the atrocities from Boucha compel a worldwide unified coalition kinetic response?

Starting point is 00:03:27 You mean a military war? Tell me more about what you mean. Or a military response led by the United States and the international partners? As in bringing military troops on the ground from the United States and NATO. Jen Saki's tone seems to indicate she thinks this reporter's question is insane. because guess what? It's absolutely insane. Well, the president's described outrageous things. You've called them atrocities. You've said perhaps we should brace ourselves for worse.

Starting point is 00:03:56 Why not? I think what the president's objective is and his responsibility is to make decisions that are in the interest of the United States and the national security of the United States and the American people. And that is not to go to war with Russia. It is to do everything in our power to hold them accountable, to support efforts through international systems to do exactly that and to provide military assistance, security assistance and support to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government.

Starting point is 00:04:27 Can I just say kinetic response is a funny way of wording what the CBS reporter in that video was asking for, that is CBS News Radio reporter Stephen Portnoy. And much like other legacy media outlets, media reporters, he is continuing on with this theme of beating the war drums, of calling for honestly a serious escalation of the war that's currently taking place in Ukraine following Vladimir Putin's decision to invade that sovereign country. And while it is accurate to completely acknowledge the war crimes that have been committed in Ukraine by Russian troops, it would be a severe escalation of war that would get other, many other, you know, innocent civilians killed. So again, what pornois is asking for there is like, why not, why not, why not send

Starting point is 00:05:25 our troops? Why not engage in a direct military conflict, meaning direct war with Russia that is led by someone who really presents himself as an irrational actor and happens to also have nuclear weapons. It is incredible how incessant this line of questioning is. We've talked about this before. Portnoy is just another example, a more recent example. But it doesn't just stop there. We also have NBC news reporter Peter Alexander, who also decided to press Gen Saki about, you know, what's up with the United States not pushing for regime change in Russia? What's up with that? Watch. Given these awful videos and pictures we're seeing of the atrocities that took place in Butcha right now, is the U.S. policy still one of no regime change in Russia? And if so,

Starting point is 00:06:19 why should someone like Vladimir Putin be viewed by the U.S. as someone who should be allowed to stay in power? Well, I think our policy is no, we are not calling for regime change. And that has not been our policy and continues not to be our policy. But again, Peter, our view is that he is a war criminal and he is somebody who should, should be looked at by the international system who evaluates war crimes. I guess the question people say, then why not to be the worker, but why should it be allowed to stay in power? Well, our policy is not to call for regime change. We're not calling for regime change. But again, he is somebody who's committed atrocities against the people in his country. He's a pariah in the world.

Starting point is 00:06:54 And every step we've taken has made that clear to the global community. Okay, now, look, I'm fine with how Jen Saki answered that question. But let me make it even simpler for him. him, okay? Calling for regime change is not the job of the United States, even though the United States, of course, has orchestrated coups in the past, certainly in Latin American countries, certainly in places like Iran. However, believe it or not, calling for regime change in Russia, making that official U.S. foreign policy also escalates the war. It escalates the war, again, with a man who is clearly unhinged in certain ways and has absolutely no problem committing war crimes, killing innocent civilians. And he has threatened to use his nuclear weapons

Starting point is 00:07:48 on multiple occasions, both directly and through his Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitri Peskov, which we've shown you video of several times. So these reporters really do blow my mind in that No, they really, their line of questioning just makes it very clear that they think that we need to send troops to Ukraine, that we need to engage in a direct war with Russia, another nuclear power, that we need to escalate it. After covering our failed wars in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, I mean, it is incredible, right? But it does remind me of something that Noam Chomsky talks about quite a bit. Because when we talk about manufacturing consent, when we talk about the media just being littered with journalists, reporters, talking heads, pundits, whatever, who clearly want to escalate war, do interventions abroad, is it because they are, you know, meeting in these dimly lit rooms with their cigars and they're being told what to say? No, this is who they are. The fact that these are their values, their beliefs is precisely what makes them, honestly, attractive hires for legacy news outlets, right? It's conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom in the United States, especially in the media for a long, long time has been, no, it's the, like we go in and we save people. That's what we do, right? Even though there's case study after case study after case study of the United States going in and, and just doing nothing more than destabilizing a country or a region in the world.

Starting point is 00:09:28 And so there's the like the US exceptionalism that's kind of baked into the line of questioning. There's the fact that it's actually incredibly dangerous to escalate the war with Vladimir Putin. And then there's just the overall broader implications of having media that without fail, regardless of how much our efforts in various countries have failed. They will always call for escalation, and they're befuddled. I mean, when you pay attention to the way they respond to Jen Saki's follow-up questions, they're befuddled. It's like, wait a minute, you guys are acknowledging Putin's heinous war crimes.

Starting point is 00:10:09 So why wouldn't you want to get more people killed by escalating this war with a direct military conflict with Russia? I mean, they don't phrase it that way. they don't even think about it that way, but essentially that is what they're asking. And so Biden's unwillingness to do things like implement a no-fly zone or to send troops into Ukraine is actually a smart measured response because he understands, and I'm shocked to say this, but he seems to understand what's at stake. But these reporters, regardless of how many times Jen Saki answers the same question, they just don't get it. They don't get it. And of course, I have to mention, I mean, we've committed atrocious war crimes ourselves.

Starting point is 00:10:52 Our military has. I'm not saying that that justifies in any way what Russia is doing. And I think it's important to acknowledge what Putin and the Russian troops are doing, the war crimes that they're committing in Ukraine. We shouldn't deny that. We shouldn't gloss over it. We shouldn't minimize it. But I would just like the reporters to take a second, take a beat in thinking about what we've done abroad and whether or not we've, you know, spent any time cleaning house within our own government before we decide to be the arbiters of what can and can't be done or which leader can or can't lead in a place like Russia. Like it's not our decision, it's the decision

Starting point is 00:11:34 of the people of Russia, who are we to demand regime change, okay? Don't like Putin, but There are a lot of nefarious figures across the globe who hate the U.S. government might not like Biden. How would we feel if some random sovereign country decided we want regime change in the United States, we're gonna orchestrate a coup? And I should be careful with that line of questioning, because some of you might actually be into it. Not a good thing, we don't want that, right? The U.S. shouldn't want to do the same thing. All right, one final thing I wanted to go back to a story that we covered earlier this week, because it reminded me, this story that we're talking about right now, it reminded me of this interview that Vladimir Zelensky

Starting point is 00:12:17 had on Face the Nation just this past weekend. And I just want you to pay close attention to the framing of the question in this next clip. Looking and listening to what Vladimir Putin has said, he's called Ukraine not a real country. He said it's controlled by little Nazis. He's called you a drug-addled thug. Is he someone you can negotiate with? But as a president, I have to do it. Any war has to end. Just end.

Starting point is 00:12:51 So Zelensky, I think you answered that question correctly. We have to shorten it down for time purposes. But the framing of the question is what I actually want to have a discussion about, because her framing isn't meant to ask for an optimistic update on the peace negotiations. And that's really the issue that I've had with some of these press briefings. The line of questioning keeps pressuring the Biden administration to escalate the war, which I think would be a major mistake. And I'm very happy they haven't gone in that direction. And I've been wondering, well, does anyone ask any questions about, hey, how are the peace

Starting point is 00:13:29 negotiations going? You know, is there any pressure to essentially get the U.S. government to assist in the peace negotiations in any way they can? And when they do ask questions about the peace negotiations, they tend to sound like what you just saw in that Face the Nation clip. Oh, Putin is such a terrible guy. He's done all these awful things, all true. But then the question is, can you really see yourself negotiating with this guy? And the fact of the matter is, Zelensky answered correctly because he really has no choice. You could either get, persuade the United States and Western allies to escalate the war, which means more innocent civilians die, or you can be willing to do one of the hardest things imaginable as a leader.

Starting point is 00:14:17 Sit down and have negotiations with someone you absolutely despise, someone who has done terrible things to you and your people. That's what a real leader is able to do. But Brennan in that clip, more interested in outlining all the terrible things that Putin has done. And then really making a statement rather than asking a question when she brings up whether or not these negotiations can happen. The negotiations have to happen. That's really the only answer if you want to save as many lives as possible. That's my take.

Starting point is 00:14:51 Some might disagree with it. But I do think it would be a massive escalation of war if the United States got involved. with a direct military conflict with Russia. All right, with that said, why don't we move on to some domestic politics? Because there's a lot going on with, believe it or not, Congress and COVID-related funding. Senate Republicans have decided to block the progress of a COVID-related funding bill. In fact, they're holding that bill hostage in an effort to preserve Trump-era immigration policies, notably Title 42.

Starting point is 00:15:47 So Title 42, we've talked about it on this show repeatedly, but I'll remind you, or if you haven't watched those episodes, I'll tell you what it's about. Essentially, it was Trump's way of preventing immigrants and asylum seekers from entering the country during the coronavirus pandemic. Now, of course, Trump never took the coronavirus pandemic very seriously, but he did like citing it as his emergency order to prevent people from coming in or crossing our borders. Now, Biden came in. He didn't repeal that law. He kept it in place, despite the fact there was a lot of pressure, among, you know, immigration activists, among progressives to do something about that terrible policy, which of course did nothing to slow the spread or stop the spread of COVID in America. He didn't really want to do anything about it until now.

Starting point is 00:16:37 And Republicans are using this, they're exploiting it really as a campaigning opportunity and as a way of blocking COVID funding, which is desperately needed to ensure that people can get tested, they can get treated, they can get their vaccines for free. Without the COVID funding, you're on the hook for quite a bit of money if you want to get tested for COVID to the tune of $125 each time. And that's according to Quest Diagnostics, which does COVID testing. Now, Senate Republicans on Tuesday threatened to tank a new $10 billion coronavirus relief package unless Democrats allow a vote on an amendment to preserve Title 42, a Trump era border expulsion program that the Biden administration is moving to end after months of

Starting point is 00:17:26 sustained pressure from immigrant rights groups. In fact, here is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explaining exactly what his demands are. Let's watch. Is there going to be an amendment on Title 42 in order to get this COVID bill across the finish line? Yeah, I think there'll have to be an amendment on Title 42 in order to move the bill. There are several other amendments that we're going to want to offer. And so we'll need to enter into some kind of agreement to process these amendments in order to go forward with the bill. And keep in mind that the amendment that Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans want to implement, and by the way, not just Senate Republicans, there are Democrats involved as well. Well, that amendment is,

Starting point is 00:18:15 what's holding COVID funding hostage. And that amendment has nothing to do with public health. Okay, they are basically holding up incredibly important funding that would benefit their own right wing voters. It would ensure that their right wing voters get coverage if they need to get monoclonal antibody treatment because they got sick with COVID. They're willing to block that funding. They're willing to put their own constituents, their own supporters in financial ruin in order to ensure that this ridiculous policy at the border stays in place. Fact of the matter is asylum seekers should be processed, okay? That's not to say that

Starting point is 00:19:05 every single person who claims asylum should be let in the country. We have immigration judges for that. We've reported on this show earlier that Biden proposed a plan. that would essentially allow for other individuals within the, you know, immigration system to process these claims because we are short on immigration judges, and that's why we have this massive backlog. He has a plan in place. But if you listen to the lies coming from people like Mitch McConnell, he would have you think otherwise. Let's watch. On Friday, the Biden administration announced an unbelievably bad decision. They're going to further cave to the far left that wants open borders.

Starting point is 00:19:50 They're going to cancel Title 42 this spring with no real border security plan to replace it. Wait, but what happened to Trump's big, beautiful wall? I mean, I thought that he built a wall. He appropriated tens of billions of dollars for it. What happened? This is such an absurd decision, such an unforced gap, that even some of our Senate Democratic colleagues have come out swinging. Our colleague from West Virginia correctly described this as a frightening decision

Starting point is 00:20:21 to abandon an essential tool when we're already facing an unprecedented increase in immigrants. Abandon an essential tool. The essential tool is to protect. like people aren't seeking asylum at the border and just immediately expel anyone who's trying to come in. That is the important rule that Mitch McConnell is talking about. Because look, we know, we know that they don't believe in asylum seekers being allowed into the country. We know that they don't care about refugees. We know that. I mean, they've shown themselves to be pretty callous when it comes to individuals fleeing countries that we, through our foreign policy, have destabilized.

Starting point is 00:21:05 that we through some of our domestic policy have destabilized, you know, a result of our drug war, for instance, emboldening all sorts of cartels and criminal gangs in countries where we're seeing people flee and come to the United States for safety. We know that Mitch McConnell doesn't care about those people. We get it. But fact of the matter is the people coming to the border seeking asylum have rights, whether you want to believe it or not, and they should be processed. Now, I think there's a moral obligation also to process them, but morality is arbitrary.

Starting point is 00:21:42 The new BMO ViPorter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks, more points, more flights, more of all the things you want in a travel rewards card, and then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter MasterCard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit bemo.com slash the iPorter to learn more. My morality might be different from other people.

Starting point is 00:22:14 I just happen to believe that if you destabilize countries, if you have policies, implement policies that lead to criminal gangs exploding in countries, maybe you have a little bit of a responsibility to address that issue, not just the root causes, which I think is a real fix. But in the short term, to at least hear these individuals out, hear what they've been going through or whether or not they have a real asylum claim that should be considered. But McConnell doesn't want to do that. Okay, fair enough.

Starting point is 00:22:47 He did cite some Democratic colleagues because you can imagine in this self-interested, narcissistic, congressional climate, you are going to have some corporate Democrats who are going to side with people like Mitch McConnell. They're also Democrats who are terrified of this issue being used against them in campaigning. So last week, the CDC announced that Title 42 would no longer be in effect as of May 23rd, outraging anti-immigrant Republicans and drawing objections from Democratic lawmakers including Joe Manchin, Mark Kelly, Catherine Cortez Mastro. Those are the three. Shockingly, Kirsten Cinema hasn't voiced her opposition to the repeal of Title 42. But who knows? Pause, it's possible. We'll see what happens.

Starting point is 00:23:41 But the point is, the COVID funding will not pass unless Republicans and some Democrats in the Senate get what they want with the continued implementation of Title 42. But then you go over to the House and you got a problem there because the The Hispanic caucus in the House is not willing to vote for any legislation that includes the Title 42 amendment. So they're also willing to hold up the COVID funding, which is certainly concerning because people are still getting COVID. A lot of Americans are still unvaccinated because of all the disinformation they've been consuming on right wing media and Joe Rogan's podcast, unfortunately. So when they get really sick and they need monoclonal

Starting point is 00:24:27 antibodies to stay alive, they might get it, but there's no government subsidy for that treatment that costs literally thousands of dollars. Now, again, the House Hispanic caucus has said, no, there's dozens of them in that caucus. And they've said, no, we're not going to vote for a COVID funding bill that includes an amendment that continues or preserves Title 42. So what we have at the end of the day is more of the same in Congress. Inaction, unwillingness to make hard decisions, unwillingness to fight, honestly, when it comes to Senate Democrats. And they would need 60 votes in the Senate to pass this bill. Remember, they still have that legislative filibuster in place. So far the legislation has been blocked by Republicans in the Senate. We'll see where it goes.

Starting point is 00:25:18 But if I had to put my money on it, it's very likely that there will be no funding for COVID-related issues, including testing, vaccinations, and treatments. So look forward to that. All right, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll give you the details on the mass shooting that happened in Sacramento, California over the weekend, and more. Come right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Just want to read one super chat from LJ. Wombology, always really great to hear from you. The comment is I dig the little interstitial dings and commentary in the middle of the videos. Those are pretty fun. Also the White House press course super stupid. Yeah, I agree with that last part. The other thing I want to just mention is

Starting point is 00:26:23 that was an idea that was shared with us by Brett Ehrlich, always full of great ideas. So I'm glad you guys are enjoying it. Something we've been, you know, experimenting with recently, and I hope you all like it. Okay, but with that said, why don't we get to our next story and Brace for Impact, a lot of spicy takes in this next one. Three suspects have been arrested in connection to a mass shooting that took place in Sacramento, California over the past weekend. Now, before we get to the suspects who have been arrested, here are the details of the shooting. The shooting took place just after 2 a.m. Pacific time Sunday and left six people dead, 12 wounded, and a chaotic crime scene littered with more than 100

Starting point is 00:27:11 shell casings. Police have said the investigation is highly complex and involves many witnesses, numerous videos, and significant physical evidence. In fact, there are videos of the scene, you know, uploaded online, scenes of the shooting, the aftermath of the shooting. You see cars just immediately speeding away and it appears that the people speeding away might be the suspects, but don't judge anything based on what you see in like videos posted online because some people might have been scared, maybe they were running away or driving away quickly when they heard the gunshots. It was chaos. And it is unfortunately far too common in this country. And the reason why this is getting a lot of attention is because this mass shooting

Starting point is 00:28:00 happened in a state that takes gun control far more seriously. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. But for right wingers who like to bring that up as a gotcha, gun control doesn't work. Let me just remind everybody that we live in a country and California is not a private island somewhere that doesn't like share borders with other states. California is part of the United States and if you want actual common sense gun reform to have an impact, it would need to be done through federal legislation.

Starting point is 00:28:36 Of which, by the way, Biden brought up and was like, oh, wow, another mass shooting. Someone should do something about this. I'm not even kidding. I'm paraphrasing what he said, but it was essentially that message. Oh, what a shame. Another mass shooting. Someone should really check out what the solutions are here. Now, this is where things get a little spicy. And I just want you guys to try to follow the argument that I'm making because while, you know, Some think that we just need gun control in the state of California. I actually disagree in in terms of whether or not that would have an impact on mass shootings like this. I'm not saying I disagree with gun reform or gun control.

Starting point is 00:29:15 I want gun control, but it needs to be done on a federal level. Otherwise, you just go to another state and easily purchase a gun with no problem. Now, video posted online appears to show some sort of altercation before the shooting took place. Police are investigating it to see whether or not the altercation was in any way connected to the shooting. But here is one of the videos that were posted. And I want to show it to you because it not only shows you the altercation that they're investigating, it also shows you how terrifying that scene is as the mass shooting begins. Now police suspect that there were multiple shooters, but again, they're still investigating this.

Starting point is 00:30:14 And while there have been suspects arrested, these are people who have been charged. They still need to go through trial. No one's been convicted yet, obviously the shooting just took place. But with all those caveats, let's get to the suspects here. Dondre Martin 26 and Smiley Martin 27 were taken into custody Monday and Tuesday. The brothers are believed to be responsible for firing into the downtown Sacramento crowd, according to Sacramento police officer Chad Lewis. Chad Lewis also, you know, shared some details and here they are, Dondre Martin and Smiley Martin, they are related, they happen to be brothers.

Starting point is 00:30:52 Now, Chad Lewis, the Sacramento police officer also said that Dondre has been charged with felony possession of a firearm and assault with a firearm indicating that they believe that he was one of the shooters. The firearm, Lewis says, was modified from its original condition with a component that made it capable of firing automatic gunfire and would classify it as a machine gun by California law. So again, felony possession of a firearm, meaning that he had an illegal weapon. So gun laws in this case didn't stop him from obtaining this illegal weapon or modifying his weapon. So it was automatic or a machine gun. Now let's get to Smiley, because this is where things get interesting. And I think we need to be honest about what's going on

Starting point is 00:31:42 here. So Smiley Martin was found at the scene of the shooting early Sunday with serious injuries from gunfire and taken to a local hospital, the Sacramento Police Department said in a news release. Once Smiley Martin's medical care is complete, he will be. be booked at the Sacramento County main jail on charges of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and possession of a machine gun, police said. Now, why was he prohibited from possessing a firearm? Well, it turns out that he was one of the people who was able to take advantage of the early release program that Gavin Newsom announced early last year in 2021. Now, when we talk about criminal justice reform, when we talk about rehabilitative justice,

Starting point is 00:32:31 that means more than just releasing people from prison. That means reforming our prisons into something that actually, you know, carries out rehabilitation rather than just serving as a place of torture, of inmate rape, you know, nothing's been done on that front at all. But Gavin Newsom did announce that he's implementing a policy of early release for some of these inmates, to the tune of, by the way, 76,000. Okay. Thinking behind that was, okay, this makes sense, right? Because we have a ton of nonviolent offenders who are locked away. These are people who do not pose a threat to society.

Starting point is 00:33:14 And it makes all the sense in the world to get them out of prison and to put them in program where they can be rehabilitated, where they can get some help, whatever it is, support basically, like actual restorative justice. But that is not what's happening in California. And I get it, I get that people like automatically want to jump on me because they think that I want people to be locked up in prison forever. But no, my problem with California is that there's no rehabilitation. And the people who are being released early from prison aren't just nonviolent individuals.

Starting point is 00:33:48 They're people who have committed very serious and violent crimes. So let's get back to Smiley Martin has a criminal record stretching to 2013. And last year was the subject of a plea by Sacramento County District Attorney and Marie Schubert's office that he would not win early release from prison where he was serving a 10 year sentence for domestic violence and assault with great bodily injury. Domestic violence, look, I gotta be honest with you guys. As a woman, I'm not really interested in treating people who carry out vicious domestic violence with kid gloves. Doesn't mean I want them in prison forever, but just releasing them early with no real rehabilitative plan, with no monitoring is insane. I mean, this guy was able to possess freaking machine gun. How did authorities not know about it?

Starting point is 00:34:50 Did he not have someone that he was checking in with? Was he getting counseling? Like, okay, he was released early. What happened after that? I want to know because simply releasing people early, not restorative or rehabilitative justice, but let me give you more. So this is from the letter that the district attorney's office had sent to the parole board, urging them to avoid releasing him nearly six years early. Remember, he got a 10-year prison sentence.

Starting point is 00:35:39 Inmate Martin's criminal conduct is violent and lengthy. Deputy District Attorney Danielle Abelagard wrote in a two-page letter to the board of parole hearings on April 23rd, 2021, opposing his release. The letter obtained by the Sacramento B, though, through a public records request, details offenses including robbery, possession of a firearm, and also giving false information to police. Now here's where we get the details on what he did in the domestic violence case that got him a 10-year sentence. He beat up his girlfriend, he forced himself into her home. He located her hiding in her bedroom closet and hit her repeatedly with a closed fist on the face, head and body, causing visible injuries.

Starting point is 00:36:29 He then dragged her out of the home by her hair to an awaiting car. After he put her in the car, he assaulted her with a belt. He was also trafficking her, by the way. And as you can see, the dude's violent. So imagine saying no as he's trying to pimp you. During the investigation, information was gathered that the, again, I'm reading verbatim from the letter that the district attorney's office sent. During the investigation, information was gathered that the victim had been working as a prostitute and that inmate Martin had been assisting and encouraging her to be one, text messages and social media conversations revealed that he would tell her what kind of, of sex buyer she should date, how much money to charge, how to accept payment, and what form of payment she should accept. Let me note that he was sentenced to 10 years in January of 2018,

Starting point is 00:37:27 and he was released early, as I've said repeatedly, February of 2022, meaning, you know, little over a month ago, he was released. And then now he's implicated. in a mass shooting. He was found in possession of illegal weapons, including a machine gun. And the district attorney's office also pleaded and said in their letter, if he's released early, he will continue to break the law. And guess what? He did. Allegedly, he hasn't been convicted yet. But they did find the weapons. That's a bit of an issue. So look, I just want to be clear with the audience. And you can take it or leave it. You can love me or hate me. It's totally fine. I think it's important for us to share our ideas, even if it's uncomfortable, even if we

Starting point is 00:38:16 disagree. I want you to know what reform means to me. Reform to me is not giving Gavin Newsome and some of these district attorneys in California a pat on the back because they managed to get tens of thousands of people released early from prison. And then that's it. That's not restorative justice to me. Releasing violent criminals without a plan in place to ensure that you're keeping the public safe, not restorative justice to me. I have no problem with releasing people early if you do have a plan in place. If there is the appropriate monitoring, if there is a rehabilitative plan in place to ensure that the person who committed the crime is getting the help that they need to be a member of society that doesn't put others in jeopardy, you know, but we don't have

Starting point is 00:39:09 any of that. No prison reform whatsoever, none, zero percent. This guy, I don't even know, did he have like a parole officer? Did he have anyone? I don't, how was he able to do all of this, obtain the kind of weapons that he had? What kind of rehabilitative program did they enter him into? Was it court mandated? And when I say court mandated, I mean mandatory, meaning he has to do. it and if he doesn't do it, he's back behind bars. What happened here? I have a real problem with the left like just glossing over these cases as if it's no big deal. It is a big deal. And I think there is a difference between violent crime and nonviolent crime. What has California done so far to reform policing in the state? Forget federal laws.

Starting point is 00:39:57 I mean, the federal government has failed miserably when it comes to reform. Now to be fair to Gavin Newsom, he did sign into law some version of doing away with qualified immunity to ensure that if cops are carrying out, you know, the kind of brutality that we've seen in one video after the next, there is an increased possibility of them being held accountable. But I do want to also remind you, there are still cops who are caught on video in states like California doing all sorts of terrible things to suspects, like punching 14 year olds in the face as they're trying to arrest them. In fact, that reminds me. One of the cops in California did just that and has been rehired by the same department that had previously let him go for the incident that we're talking

Starting point is 00:40:49 about here. What happened to real police reform? None of that. None of that. What are the robust rehabilitative programs. None of that. I haven't seen any of that. I mean, and then when it comes to police reform, I mean, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department still has, you know, just that pesky little problem of gang affiliations. Anyone doing anything about that? Anyone? Anyone? No? Oh, okay, let's just release tens of thousands of people from prison and then, you know, brand it as criminal justice reform and call it a day. And by the way, Gavin Newsome did that, without allowing for any public comment, without, you know, he did it unilaterally. And I don't think the Californians signed up for that.

Starting point is 00:41:36 Californians want criminal justice reform. But I don't think anyone was really down with early release for tens of thousands of people, many of whom have committed violent crimes with no real program in place to make sure that they're getting the rehabilitation they need and also to ensure that the public safety is intact. It's a failure. And I want the left to start acknowledging that because the window to do something effective and substantive about criminal justice reform is closing real quickly. And it's because we keep seeing stories like this over and over and over again. One final thing I want to read to you. So when I talk about the early release program, again, I'm definitely

Starting point is 00:42:24 open to it, I'm 100% open to it when it comes to nonviolent inmates. When it comes to people who have committed violent crimes, I want to know what the detailed program is. And we haven't seen much of that. More than 63,000 inmates convicted of violent crimes will be eligible for good behavior credits that shorten their sentences by one third instead of one fifth that had been in place since 2017. That includes nearly 20,000 inmates who are serving life sentences, life sentences with the possibility of parole. You don't get a life sentence unless you've done something pretty bad. And so again, you can have a problem with life sentences.

Starting point is 00:43:05 I certainly do. I don't think anyone should serve the rest of their lives in prison unless there's proof that they're a severe danger to society. But just releasing them with no plan in place, the pendulum is going to swing in the mass incarceration extreme again and left is asleep at the wheel or giddily encouraging what we're seeing in California. And I don't agree with it. I think it's wrong. Sorry. Not not in favor of, you know, encouraging domestic violence and sex trafficking. Anyway, we got to take a break. Let me know what you think. I'm really excited to hear your comments on this and we'll be back. Welcome back to the show, everyone, if you've been enjoying the spicy takes, they continue in this next story, because there's something that's been brewing for quite some time, the story that we've covered, but it has kind of exploded.

Starting point is 00:44:23 over the last 24 hours. So let's discuss. New reporting in New York Magazine, intelligence or to be specific, indicates that there are more issues brewing in regard to the BLM funding and where it's being spent. Now, I want to make a quick distinction because I think a lot of people like to just conflate the national chapter of Black Lives matter with some of the local chapters. And what we're having a conversation about right now is specifically about the national chapter, which of course is led by people like Patrice Cullors, who has been essentially called out by some of the local activists and has been written about in this New York Magazine piece. And again, it has to do with the funding that the national

Starting point is 00:45:17 chapter was able to secure through donations. And the lack of transparency associated with with where that money goes, and more importantly, where some of that money has been spent. So one of the things that's come up is the fact that Patrice Cullors has purchased homes, okay? I'm not really in the camp of let's go after people because they bought a home, but in this case, there are some issues because the money appears to have come from the BLM donations and And the whole purpose of the home seems pretty unclear. Now, in a video that's been taken down on YouTube since, you have Alicia Garza, Garza, who's one of the leaders of Black Lives Matter, chiming in, like they're all sitting

Starting point is 00:46:10 around, they're talking about the controversy that's been brewing about this home. And she says, y'all don't know anything about what it takes to live in a box here. But let's talk about the house that's being referred to as a box. None of the women acknowledge that the house was far from a box with more than 6,500 square feet, more than half a dozen bedrooms and bathrooms, several fireplaces, a soundstage, a pool, and bungalow, and parking for more than 20 cars, according to real estate listings. The California property was purchased for nearly $6 million in cash in October of 2020 with money that had been donated to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Fund. So I keep referring to it as the national chapter, but this is really like the international chapter of Black Lives Matter.

Starting point is 00:47:04 This is the organization that received all this money in the form of donations. and it was a lot of money. So let's get into those details. In October of 2020, the organization received an infusion of $66.5 million from its fiscal sponsor, an intermediary commonly used by fledgling nonprofits to process donations. Now, let's pause for a second. That money flowed in because of the George Floyd story. Because of the fact that George Floyd was murdered, people were furious about it,

Starting point is 00:47:39 as they should have been and they wanted to take action. And one of the ways people felt they were taking action was by donating money to the Black Lives Matter, you know, fund. And so they get this infusion of money more than $66 million. And then some of this timing when it comes to the home purchase is concerning, right? Because two weeks later, a man named Diane Pascal purchased the seven bedroom house that would become known as campus, According to California business registration documents, Pascal is the financial manager for Janaya and Patrice consulting, an LLC run by colors and her spouse, Janaya Khan. Janaya Khan, by the way, has since said that she has separated from colors.

Starting point is 00:48:27 I just want to note that just to, I guess, give you all the details. But local activists, of course, are not happy about this because if you look at what's happening on a local level, a lot of these activists are dealing with, you know, the aftermath of the arrests that they've received for being part of the BLM protests. They might need help with some of the legal funds and all of that. And they feel like they've been completely abandoned by the Black Lives Matter global network of, you know, group. Now, the group formally released a batch of financial information in February of 2021. We talked about this when we initially covered the story when it said it had taken in more than $90 million in 2020 and still had $60 million on hand. The house was not mentioned,

Starting point is 00:49:19 though. Soon after the report, local activists went public with complaints that they felt unsupported by the Black Lives Matter Global Network Fund despite their pleas for help. And one of those activists, and I think it's important to hear the actual activists out, the people who are doing the work. Tori Russell happens to be one of them. And in March of last year, he actually put out a video demanding, I'm sorry, yeah, March 2nd of last year, he put out a video along with Michael Brown Sr. And he basically was calling out what's been going on with the lack of transparency, with the way this money's been spent, and he also had a demand. So I don't want to put words in his mouth, why don't we watch the video, and then I'll fill in some blanks.

Starting point is 00:50:09 The movement that is catapulted into the limelight has forgotten about Ferguson and the freedom fighters. Freedom fighters like King D.C.s. Edward Crawford and Diane Jones have literally given their lives to the stroke. What have rarely spoken about and families are not taking care of. Brother Ali, Joshua Williams, and many other political prisoners from the Ferguson movement are incarcerated or have been and still has received no assistance from Black Lives Matter. What kind of movement are we building where we're saying Black Lives Matter, but the Freedom Fighters and the families are being left behind? Where is our restitution? Where is our organizing?

Starting point is 00:50:50 Where is our building of a movement? We have groups like the Lost Voices and the Freedom Fighters here. and then thousands of other youth activists in their 20s and 30s have been out in the streets protesting for months and months and years for years. Still forgot. We're asking that Black Lives Matter leadership, funds, $20 million for Ferguson, organizations, and community foundations to do the work. We're not begging for a handout.

Starting point is 00:51:23 We're coming for what we deserve. Now I want to give you the statement in response to the reporting that we're talking about here. Okay, New York Magazine did this report and Patrice Cullors has responded to it by saying this. Yesterday's article in New York Magazine is a despicable abuse of a platform that's intended to provide truthful information to the public. Journalism is supposed to mitigate harm and inform our communities. The fact that a reputable publication would allow a reporter with a proven and very public bias against me and other black leaders, she hasn't provided any evidence of that. I don't know what the bias is. To write a piece filled with misinformation, innuendo, and incendiary opinions is disheartening and unacceptable. But we just heard from an activist in Minnesota, and that is the person is not a reporter,

Starting point is 00:52:23 does not seem to have like some terrible bias against Patrice colors. It's someone who wants accountability, someone who wants to know why there's this disconnect between the, you know, overarching Black Lives Matter foundation and what the local activists are are experiencing. And Tori Russell has since been struggling to raise $1.2 million for a community center. It's one of his goals. They shouldn't be walking around no black people, he says, no black communities. He said of the organizers leaders, they should be somewhere in shame. Now again, that's Tori Russell's words, not mine. And his frustration is shared by other activists that are mentioned in the context of the New York magazine piece that Sean Campbell has written.

Starting point is 00:53:10 The other thing I wanted to mention is some of the mothers who have lost their sons to police violence also have spoken out, including Lisa Simpson and Samaria Khan, I'm sorry, Samaria Rice, who both of course lost their sons due to police brutality. They asked Black Lives Matter to stop using their son's names while fundraising. Let me give you an exact quote, we never hired them to be the representatives in the fight for justice for our dead. loved ones murdered by the police. The mothers wrote, the activists have, have events in our cities and have not given us anything substantial for our loved ones, images and names on their flyers. And there are also some legal issues that the foundation is dealing with. BLMGNF was awarded tax exempt status, for instance, from the IRS in December of 2020. Two months after the house's purchase, but the distinction means that the group would have to disclose information about

Starting point is 00:54:14 donors and expenditures in an annual filing known as a 990. But they have not submitted those forms for either to 2020 or 2021. And then when you look at the state level, they're having issues with that as well. California's attorney general told the group in February of of 2022, that it was considered delinquent. Remember, they have to, you know, file these, you know, financial disclosures. But BLM has since retained the high profile Democratic lawyer Mark Elias and maneuvered to get more time to formally submit data from 2020 by switching from calendar year to fiscal year tracking. In the meantime, contributions to the group have been essentially shut down. Amazon Smile suspended the organization from its platform in February

Starting point is 00:55:03 of 2022, and BLM GNF has removed donation links from its own website. And apparently, this is the part that concerns me the most because the report in New York magazine also includes review of some internal documents over at BLM. And the internal documents make clear that they were trying to figure out a PR strategy for explaining the house. So one of the the things that they thought of was, okay, why don't we refer to this as the place where we create our activism content? This is like the hub where we can come together. People can come together and work on their organizing, put out their videos. The other idea that they had, which of course kind of conflicts with the initial idea of using the space to produce videos, is they thought,

Starting point is 00:55:56 well, why don't we keep it as or market it as like a safe space for people who need a place to to stay, who need a place of refuge, I guess, because they're being targeted by the alt right, they're being targeted by people online, whatever it is. But again, those two possibilities conflicted. And honestly, it's a little unclear what the house is being used for. So look, it is possible that the house is being used for something that makes sense that actually it falls in line with what BLM is trying to do. The problem is we need to hear about that from its former now leaders because Patrice Cullors has stepped down. By the way, Patrice Cullors is more than welcome on our show. We have reached out to her several times asking her to come on to share her side of the

Starting point is 00:56:42 story, but we have not heard back on that. So final thing I want to mention is the alleged retaliation against journalists or reporters who share this story. Conversations on the BLM Security Hub chat show efforts to monitor social media for negative mentions of BLMGNF, with members using their influence with the platforms to have such remarks removed. It's currently not possible, for instance, to share the New York Post article on Colors' home purchases on Facebook because the site's parent company, Meta, has labeled the content abusive. At other points, Shalomia Bowers and his associates direct a private investigator to look into BLM, GNF detractors and journalists, including me, writes Sean Campbell. So, I mean, that is, it's a form of intimidation. It's a way

Starting point is 00:57:42 of trying to prevent reporters and journalists from sharing this story, which I think is wrong. because while I believe in what BLM is, you know, supposed to be doing and carrying out, there again is this disconnect between the leadership that has been receiving the funding and what the local activists on the ground have been experiencing. And really for any organization to run smoothly, you need to have a system of accountability in place. You need transparency. And unfortunately, those two things were really missing from this whole equation. So again, just want to invite Patrice Colors or any other Black Lives Matter leadership on the show. If there's a part of this story that's not being shared, they should

Starting point is 00:58:29 share it. We should know. We should have a better understanding of this. But for now, things do not look good. And some of these investigations are ongoing. We'll see what happens. All right, that does it for the first hour. We're going to take a brief break. And when we come back, John Iderola will join me to give you an update on that super creepy woman who was found to have had five fetuses stored in her home in Virginia. We'll give you that detail and more. Stick around. more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.

Your Ad Here

The Young Turks - Bad Takes

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.