The Young Turks - Calling for Catastrophe

Episode Date: February 1, 2024

You’re vital to our work. Support as a member: https://go.tyt.com/signup. ‘He’s Such A Wuss!’ Jeanine Pirro Flames Biden After He Says He Doesn’t Want Another ‘World War’. Powerful Iran-backed militia in Iraq to suspend military ops against US forces in region. Iran threatens to respond to any US strikes as Biden weighs how to react to a base attack in Jordan. Cenk Uygur joins the show with an update on his 2024 presidential campaign. 5 asylum-seekers arrested for assault on police officers in Times Square. San Francisco’s “Pro-Drug Culture”: The city’s addiction crisis has worsened quickly — and culture is a big factor.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Woo! It's up! Ice cream. Welcome to TYTY, I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and we have a fantastic show ahead for you all today. We are going to get into some updates on the situation in the Middle East, the possibility of a yet expanding Middle East war.

So we'll give you all of the updates, including some statements coming from the Biden administration in regard to how they plan to retaliate against the Iran-backed militant group that carried out a drone strike that killed three U.S. service members in Jordan. So we'll get to that. Later in the show, we'll also give you some updates out of a Senate hearing today, featuring tech CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg, who at one point was pressured into apologizing to families who have been victimized by child abuse on social media platforms. A lot of details to get into in regard to that story and possible legislation that could rein in tech companies and what kind of material they expose young kids to. We're also going to have an interview with a presidential candidate.

You might have heard of him, I don't know, a little known candidate with an unlikely presidential bid. Jank Uger will be joining us to give us an update on his run in the Democratic primary. But before we get to all of that, just want to encourage you all to help support the show. You can do it totally free by liking and sharing this stream if you're watching us on YouTube. You can also do it just a little bit of money, just a little bit of money every month by becoming a member, you can go to t.com slash join to become a member, or you can click that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. Members help to keep us independent of corporate influence and helps to also keep us afloat during a pretty awful, you know, time in digital

media, especially a lot of people getting laid off, a lot of companies going under. And if it weren't for you all, we wouldn't be able to do what we do. We wouldn't be able to speak as freely as we do, and we always appreciate that you guys give us the platform that we are so privileged to have. But with all of that said, let's start off with the updates on the United States, basically getting goaded into a potential war with Iran. It didn't start a world war. If we go after, everyone is saying and what Biden is, I don't want a world war, I don't want to make a big of war. He's such a wuss on the world stage. He signals everything that he's afraid of.

Isn't it always wonderful to hear these elite media figures sitting in their fancy studios talk about how, oh, it's not a big deal. So who cares? Who cares if we're risking a potential World War III? Biden is such a wuss for not engaging in a hot war with Iran. That is what this segment on Fox News is about. Like the most irresponsible brain dead commentary that honestly, is reminiscent of what we heard in the lead up to the United States launching a preemptive

war in Iraq in 2003. I mean, absolute dribble, absolute garbage, absolute pretend strongman BS. Now, let's understand why and how a war with Iran would, why it would be a disaster and how a war with Iran would play out for the United States. That's what I want to talk about in this segment. But first, let's also discuss what led to this commentary on Fox News to begin with. So over the weekend, as we've reported on this show before, you have an Iran-backed militant group carry out a drone strike against U.S. troops who were based in a pretty secretive base in Jordan. As a result, three of our U.S. service members died. About 40 of them were also injured as a result of that drone strike.

So understandably, the United States is upset about this, and the Biden administration has already made clear that they plan to retaliate. But in doing so, the Biden administration also made clear that they do not want to engage in a hot war with Iran. They don't want World War III, which is a good thing. That's something that should be applauded. They plan to retaliate, but they want to do so in a way that doesn't drag the United States and more of our service members in a hot war with a country that has a military capability

that we really shouldn't be underestimating. Not only would that destabilize the region, it would certainly use up quite a bit of our resources, it would jeopardize the lives of U.S. soldiers, and it would just be a complete utter mess. No one wants this, except for apparently Janine Piro, who's sitting comfortably in her news studio, pretending as if she has half a brain to comment on these topics to begin with. Now, the Iran-backed militant group called Katayib Hezbollah has taken responsibility for the drone strike that killed three U.S. service members. While they are an Iranian proxy, there is absolutely no indication that Iran ordered Katayib Hezbollah to carry out the drone strike.

And I think it's really important to keep that in mind. Iran does provide weaponry to their proxy groups, these Iran-backed militant groups. And Qatayeb Hezbollah happens to be one of them. That doesn't mean that Iran is calling the shots and ordering these attacks to happen in the first place. They might, in some cases, but there needs to be evidence of that before the United States decides to, you know, engage in a hot war with Iran. Now, with that said, Katahib Hezbollah also tried to distance Iran from their almost daily attacks in Iraq and Syria since October 17th, saying they have carried out the attacks at their own will and without any interference from other. On the contrary, our brothers in the axis, especially in the Islamic Republic, do not know how we work jihad, and they often object to the pressure and escalation against the American

occupation forces in Iraq and Syria, the group added in the statement. Now let's talk a little bit about President Joe Biden's response to the attack on our service members in Jordan. Now, Biden has decided that he will respond to Kathaib Hezbollah to their attack. It probably will not be a one-off. It won't be a, you know, one air strike type situation, according to administration officials and Pentagon officials. And the Pentagon has also signaled that it is preparing to retaliate.

Let's watch. I don't think we could be any more clear that we have called on the Iranian proxy groups to stop their attacks. They have not. And so we will respond in a time and manner of our choosing. President Biden blames Iran for arming the radical militants who carried out the deadly attack. He told reporters yesterday he's already decided how the U.S. will respond, adding the White House wants to avoid a broader war in the Middle East. ABC's Martha Raditz reports a strike inside Iran is less likely than a strike in other regional countries where militants are operating.

And that is exactly what set Janine Piro off. That's what led to Janine Piro off. That's what led to Janine Piro referring to Joe Biden as a wuss. You know, wanting to be measured in the response to ensure that this doesn't lead to an expanded regional war, one in which the United States is very much enmeshed in. Like, she's against that. She wants to heat things up even more. She wants a broader regional war. She wants the United States to essentially, again, risk the lives of our service members

to engage in a war that would really have no end in sight, again, considering the military capability of Iran. Their military is far larger than the military in Iraq, and just think about what a disaster Iraq was. Now, unfortunately, Piro had other things to say. So let's go to the next clip. There's no administration has gone into Iran, okay? Apparently Jimmy Carter tried it, and that was a disaster with the hostages. But, you know, if we just go after the Houthi, and this one and that it's not going to make a damn bit of difference. The truth is that we either have to drop bridges or go after their munitions or send some cruise missiles in there. I don't know what the answer is. But he may have to get permission from Congress on this. And that's where

Congress is going to start negotiating for Ukraine and for Israel. But the bottom line is, you know, when Trump killed Soleimani, that was the end of it. They didn't respond. They knew Trump was serious. There were two service members who were hit by a missile attack and died after so much. There was a missile attack, but it didn't start a world war. I mean, I don't know what the response should be. Maybe we send some cruise missiles. Maybe we send some cruise missiles. Like, Homegirl doesn't even know how Iran retaliated against the United States following the assassination of Qasem Soleimani.

But she feels the need to opine on how Biden is a wussy for refusing to, again, inflame the situation further by doing a strike on Iranian soil, which would be a complete and utter disaster. I don't know, maybe we use some cruise missiles or something. She's so embarrassing. And by the way, the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the general, the head, head of the Iranian military at the time led to other innocent people getting killed because Iran increased its air defenses in response to that assassination. They wanted to protect their

airspace. They wanted to take a more defensive approach. And as a result, after a U.S. drone strike killed a top general in 2020, Iranian air defenses mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian passenger plane killing all 176 people on board. So it compounded the situation. Trump comes in, he rips up the Iran nuclear deal, which gave the international community, certainly Western powers, oversight capacity in Iran to ensure that they're no longer developing nuclear weapons, or there's no indication that they're developing nuclear weapons. What do you think happens when the president of the United States reneges on that deal, rips up the Iran nuclear deal?

It provides a pathway for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. How exactly did that lead to peace? So it starts with that, essentially deteriorating our relations with Iran. And then of course, there are the sanctions, which makes matters even worse. And now you fast forward to what we're experiencing today, where you have Iran and Arab countries in the region, absolutely furious over what is happening to the Palestinians in Gaza. These Iran-backed militant groups have been stepping up their attacks against the United States for supporting Israel. Israel in its war on Gaza. And rather than, let's, you know, war should really be the last option.

I mean, I feel like reasonable people should save that as the final option. Okay, before it even got to this point, there was another option that the Biden administration could have tried out. It might not have worked, right? All of these Iran-backed militant groups might be lying. All of these Arab countries might be lying. Iran might be lying. Maybe they don't care about the Palestinians at all.

And they're just using this war as an excuse to step up their attacks against the United States. That could be possible. But if they keep saying over and over again that the attacks are motivated by the fact that the United States continues to support Israel, regardless of what Israel is doing to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, can we maybe try a diplomatic approach, maybe pressure Israel to engage in targeted attacks instead of what they've been doing for several months now. I mean, if not to calm tensions in the Middle East, maybe for human rights to ensure that civilians, including women and children, aren't getting slaughtered by the aerial bombardments and the military operations being carried out by the IDF in the Gaza Strip. Can we try

that first? But no, we can't try that first. Instead, the U.S. is going to continue supporting what Israel is doing. It will continue to inflame various Arab countries and, yes, Iran-backed militant groups. And I don't know where this ends. I'm happy to see that Biden is a little more measured than what the naysayers are saying. I'm glad that he's more measured than what Senator Lindsey Graham or what Senator John Cornyn was advocating for earlier this week. They want a hot war with Iran. But where does this end? Because the Iran-backed militant groups are very likely going to continue striking. They're going to continue attacking the United States in that region if this war in Gaza continues going the way it's been going.

That's just the fact of the matter. That is what's been happening. So we have other options, but instead it just keeps escalating, escalating, escalating, escalating. So here's a broader view of what's been going on in that region. So any additional American strikes could further inflame a region already roiled by Israel's ongoing war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip, violence has erupted across the Middle East with Iran striking targets in Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria, and the United States carrying out airstrikes targeting Yemen's Houthi rebels over their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Some observers fear a new round of strikes targeting Iran could tip the region into a wider

war. And they're right to be concerned about that. But again, so far it appears that the Biden administration hasn't lost its head and they want to be measured in how they retaliate against what Katayib Hezbollah did. Now warnings first came from Amir Saeed Irovani, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations in New York. Basically, if there is an attack by the United States on Iranian soil, there will be consequences. The Islamic Republic would decisively respond to any attack on the country, its interests, and nationals under any pretext. Iran's ambassador to the United Nations said, he described any possible Iranian retaliation as a strong response without elaborating.

But Iran's government has also taken note of the U.S. threats and of retaliation against it. And even though that was some strong language there, I will admit that. They also make clear, this is General Hossein Salami. Yes, his last name is Salami, which makes it a little bit harder to take the statement seriously. I got to be honest, but nonetheless, General Hossein Salami, who's the Revolutionary Guard commander, says, we are not after war, but we have no fear of war. So let's find a way to tone things down.

We don't want a broader regional war. What can we do to enhance diplomatic conversations, a potential ceasefire? Israel, of course, has been going back and forth with Hamas over releasing the hostages. Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire. Israel continues to refuse. We'll see how this all plays out. But in the meantime, the United States obviously has more power than the Biden administration is willing to admit. Considering how much in military funding we provide to Israel, how much of our military weaponry we ship over to Israel to support their war efforts in Gaza, I would venture to say the United States has more power than their leading us to believe in pressuring Israel to rein in what they're doing in Gaza.

At the very least, rain it in. But, you know, the finger wagging from the Biden administration is not enough. There needs to be actual moves made behind the rhetoric of wanting Israel to protect civilian lives. Those consequences should include refusing to send any more military aid. But we haven't seen the Biden administration show any willingness to do that. So as a result, I believe the tensions will continue to flare. I think the situation will continue to devolve in the Middle East. And at the end of the day, the individuals who will pay for it are typically, as always,

innocent civilians and the taxpaying citizens who end up funding these wars that go on for years on end. Anyway, we have to take a break. When we come back, Jank Uger will join me for an interview on his presidential run. Don't miss it. Welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and joining us now is Jank Uger, who's currently running in the Democratic primary for president of the United States. It's been a while since we've talked and I'm sure there's lots of updates. So it seems less and less likely that your primary run is going to go anywhere. So what are your plans?

Are you going to stay in the race? So I think that your analysis is fair. And so let me explain what's happened since and then I talk about what's the most important, which is what we're going to do next, right? So in terms of what's happened, two main things. One is unfortunately our case in South Carolina was not expedited. That sounds like a minor thing, but it isn't. So when a case is not expedited, that means that it will not be decided before the election in South Carolina, which then likely

means that the court will rule it moot afterwards. So they put you in a catch 22 you can't get out of. So they're like, we're not going to hear your case until it's irrelevant. And then we'll declare it irrelevant. So is that another injustice? Of course it is. But that's normal. Do they give a reason? No, they did not give a reason. And so. So do we have enough money to sue in another state? I'm gonna be honest with you guys, no, we don't. I wish I had a lot more money. We raised way more money for the congressional run.

And I get why, because people thought I could win that one, but they think I can't win this one. I totally get it, right? So then the second thing happened is New Hampshire. And so New Hampshire, we were not allowed on the ballot, we weren't competing. So I didn't, like the results are obvious, and that's not an issue, we didn't even try there, that's okay.

So I wasn't worried about that, but I will tell you, the day after, or that night, when I saw a Vermin Supreme being interviewed and he's got the boot on his head. And I know he's a performance artist and he doesn't mean anything, any harm. He's trying to actually send a decent message out, et cetera. But I thought that brother made it onto the ballot. That's this country saying he's okay. He at least could lead us. You don't even have a boot on your head.

You're no good naturalized citizen. We don't trust you. We potentially trust vermin, but we don't trust you. You're not even allowed in the race. And that bummed me out, okay? But then they came to silver lining because you know, man, I'm an eternal optimist. And I always try to look for, okay, yes, but what are we going to do next? That's positive.

That gives people hope, right? So I realized, oh my God, I'm on the presidential ballot in seven different states. And, you know, I was mad that they stopped including me in the polls, right? Like Quinnipiac had me in a poll, I got to 2%. It was actually the first poll they did with me in it. That's the equivalent of 1.6 million Democratic voters saying, yeah, I want that guy to be president of the United States. And that's humbling and wonderful, et cetera. So I thought, yeah, but even if they're not including me in the polls now, so what?

The election is the ultimate poll. And I'm on the ballot in Vermont. I'm on the ballot in Texas, Oklahoma, and a whole bunch of Super Tuesday state. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to turn my campaign into a message campaign. Now I'm super realistic about it, both in terms of the potential for winning, which is tiny at this point, right? And but and also even the idea of getting a message out, that's also very difficult, right? For example, they tried to write in ceasefire in New Hampshire. And it got a lot of votes and I got a lot of votes and then they didn't report it.

They just said 10,000 votes that were written in, but we're not going to tell you who they were. they were total total okay okay so it's possible that I came in third it's possible ceasefire came in third right but it's unreported but I'm like you can't not reported on the states that I'm in so now I'm gonna try to do something auditions as I always do which is to try to win Vermont okay like I'm not wrong realistic Texas a giant state in in five weeks we are not going to be able to get our message out effectively enough especially with mainstream media stonewalling me that I'm gonna win tech that's crazy on the other hand

Vermont is smaller than a congressional district. It's the home of progressives. Does Vermont want to send a message and the war and the occupation? Now, if I won, no one would dispute that that would be stunning, and the message will have been delivered, right? And so at that point, Biden's got to be thinking, well, how much longer do I want to go with the war if I just heard this resounding message, stop the war, stop the occupation?

So that's point one. There's a second point too, but that alone would be worth it. There's actually two more points as to why I'm continuing. But again, if people say, hey, you know, your chances are totally unrealistic now. So I don't want to give my hard-earned money, $25, $5,000, whatever it is. I totally get it, guys. I'm the only candidate that I'll ever say that, right? But if you want to help send that message and you want to take advantage of this unique opportunity

where one of us is on the ballot in seven different states, and we could use that as an opportunity to send a message, that would be amazing. When is the last primary for the state that you're on the ballot for? So it's later in the process. I'm not looking past Super Tuesday. So like let's go to Super Tuesday. And Anna, it's not just about winning Vermont. Any delegate is a delegate for peace.

And any state where you get about 15%. Now in Michigan, you have to do a write-in. So that's very difficult. On the other hand, Michigan is filled with voters who agree with me. Right. So if I got to 15% of Michigan or any other state, I get delegates. Do you want to talk a little bit about what you experienced when you visited Dearborn recently? Yeah, yeah.

So, of course, I met with Muslim and Arab leaders, but more importantly, just citizens, right? And they're livid. They're done with Biden. There is, my sense was nothing on earth could move them to vote for Joe Biden. Yeah, the Washington Post actually came out with a piece today. That's fascinating. And I want to talk about it on the show tomorrow. But there is a growing movement among Arabs and Muslims in Michigan where it's now an organized movement to vote against Biden.

Well, good opportunity for them. Right in Jank Huger. Yeah, I mean, that's a possibility. That's your first vote against Biden. And by the way, that's the beauty of doing this within the primaries because it doesn't hurt against Trump in the general election at all, at all. Like the idea that they always say, oh, you're taking votes away from Biden, not in the primary. Right. Right.

In primary, you're just sending a message, especially given the fact that it is enormously likely that Biden's going to win, then you don't have to worry about it at all. All you're doing is sending a message saying, I don't like this war, I don't want to fund it, I don't want to fund the occupation. Let's be decent and humane and moral and stand up for what's right, especially as Democratic voters and especially in Michigan. Right. So help me, look, I do town halls every Wednesday. I'm going to do one later today, right, tonight. And I get supporters and stuff. And I go, let's go, let's figure this out together.

And they come up with good suggestions too. And let's go figure out a way to get our message out in Michigan to write me in and to vote for me in Vermont, Texas, Oklahoma, and other states on on Super Tuesday that I'm on the ballot. Okay, great. So tell us a little bit about another town hall that you're going to be having soon. So that's the one tonight. Oh, that is tonight. Yeah, so, so look, we can put up the QR code there. I think you guys have it. There it is. And it's always on under events on jankforamerica.com.

So go to events on jankforamerica.com. You always see my upcoming town hall. Okay. And wherever I'm going, I'm going to be going to Vermont soon. I'm going to speak at Bennington and other colleges, et cetera. Okay. So, but one of the things I want to explain is that every delegate that I get is a delegate, for peace. And so we get to go to the convention. Imagine if I have delegates. Now, that's again, guys, I'm the most realistic guys. I'm not telling you, oh, we get 10 delegates or 200 delegates. That's it. We're going to stop the war. But it does get pressed attention. Here is, and it does two things. One, it would be the first time a naturalized citizen got a delegate for president. That would be

historic and amazing. And you could make that happen. And we definitely still need funds to make that happen. If you're interested in that, jank for America.com. But then I get to go to the DNC and go, here's my delegates that are for peace and make our stand. They want peace and several of them are actually members of Justice Democrats or they got elected through the Justice Democrats platform and obviously you're the co-founder of Justice Democrats and you did a lot of work to help support them in their electoral efforts. Curious if anyone has come out in support of what you're doing, either rhetorically, behind the scenes or publicly?

No, none. Interesting. Why do you think that is? Well, look, to be fair to them, they probably think it's unrealistic, and I get that. And then to be unfair to them, they think opposing Biden is heresy and that they would be yelled at in Washington. And I know they get yelled at for good reasons. Like, you know, they do a lot of them fight for the Palestinians in Congress. And I deeply appreciate that, right?

But they have a line. And the line is you cannot cross the establishment. If you do, the media will be very mean to you. So the idea of supporting a message candidate to end the war in Gaza, I don't think it's even occurred to them. That's interesting. So what was the objective of justice Democrats in the first place? The challenge establishment.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know. Okay, that's fair. All right. Now, look, there's other things we can do. Okay, so I'm going to tell you one small one than one big one. So given this opportunity, I'm never going to get to have again or being on a presidential ballot, what I think is, well, why not tell everybody all the things that we care about and all the amazing things that would happen if you elected a strong progressive?

So I'm going to talk to people about ending corruption and ending how the politicians are hooked on donor money. For our audience, that might be obvious. But when you get into other forms of media, nobody ever talks about that, ever, ever, right? They don't talk about it in right way media. They don't talk about it in mainstream media. They don't talk about it even more. We're mostly in the online media, right? We're the one show that's obsessed with it. Some other shows mention it from time and time, but no one ever does a campaign.

So look, and then all the progressive policies we have paid family leave minimum wage, you've heard me talk about a lot, why not take this opportunity to say, yes, I'm also in favor of this. Wouldn't it be amazing if we had a Democratic candidate that fought for all of this? Okay, but this, the third one is also huge,

which is, and this is, I get that it's funny, guys, I get that I don't have the power to do this, okay? But I have appointed myself the Trump czar of the Democratic Party. That'll be great. Okay. So now, what does that mean? Well, look, why did I get in the race in the first place? Number one objective was to push by now so we could actually beat Trump.

And you're a most honest politician you'll ever meet, right? We didn't do that. We couldn't do it. We couldn't get the governors into the race to push him out. And we couldn't get him to leave on his own accord so that we could actually beat Donald Trump. So we're going to limp into this general election with a wounded antelope and there's nothing I could do about it. I tried and tried. And guys, part of what I'm doing here is get caught trying, right? So I'm leading by example here. And even if, oh, my God, you didn't do well here and you didn't do well there and ha ha, you only got 2%, etc, I'll take all of it.

I'll take it. And you can hit me on it. I don't mind. As long as we're trying to do something positive in the world. And I can't, and overall for progressives and for the country and for Democratic voters, we've got to get to 2028. If we get to 2028, then I think we're going to be in good shape. And we've got to build towards that. But if you want to get to 2028, you can't have Donald Trump win. What do you mean by we have to get to 2028? What does that mean?

That means that once this campaign is over, we have to find a candidate and build around them. It takes a long, long time. I now have tremendous personal experience in running a presidential campaign and knowing what it takes, what the challenges are for a normal candidate, et cetera, and how do we build towards that? So we have, because we have to give people hope. So when you look at Biden and Trump and you look, well, okay, for example, on Gaza, well, Biden would keep killing them and Trump would keep killing them. There's no hope.

Biden would continue the corruption. Trump would continue the corruption. There's no hope. Biden won't do paid family leave. Trump won't do paid family. You see what I'm saying? So that means we need our own candidate and hopefully someone who's got less hurdles than me. And we have to prepare well in advance to win in 2028.

Because there's the guys, I love you, but I don't want to give you, but I never want to give you false hope. There's, there's, even if Biden wins, the idea that he's magically going to do all these progressive policies is a pipe tree. No, no, it's over. It's pipe tree, right? The window for progressive policies has been squandered. Like, let's just be realistic about that. Yes, so we have to rebuild. We have to rebuild.

And that sucks, but I'm honest with you and I'm real with you. We got to rebuild towards 2028. But what I'm worried about and why I got in the race in the first place, because I'm worried if Trump wins, there is no 2028. So it's not like, oh yeah, you think Biden's going to be an angel? No, do you think Biden's going to be 2,000 times better than Trump? I don't know, right? But I do know that if Biden wins, or even if Nikki Haley wins, and I despise Nikki Haley.

We're going to have an election in 2028. The only person I'm not sure we're going to have an election. election in 2028 is the one that tried to stop democracy earlier. And that's Donald Trump. So I bought spoileddonny.com. You love the URLs. I do. And it redirects to my site. I bought Trump thebetrayer.com. And that redirects to my site. And so what am I going to do here? I'm going to lead by examples I do, which is to show Biden and other Democrats how you fight Trump. You don't fight him by constantly saying racist, sexist, xenophobe, etc. Everybody already knows that.

Okay, and for a lot of voters, unfortunately, that's not the bug, that's the feature. But for a lot of voters that are half of MAGA or Republicans and almost all independents, they don't, like they're voting for them despite that, right? And so for those folks, they already got the message. What you have to give them is two other messages. One is Donald Trump is incredibly weak. He's an insecure little baby, and the minute you trigger him, he does something stupid, and we cannot afford that when he's president of the United States.

And this little baby got $413 million handed to him by his daddy, and then he blew it all. He went bankrupt six different times. So I'm going to point out in a thousand different ways, what a loser this guy is. Total imbecile, clown of the earth, okay? We cannot risk this guy again. And that's, by the way, also why he tried to end democracy. I'm not the election. I don't want it is an election. You kicked my toy away, right? So I'm gonna kick his ass on that. And on the second point on the betrayer, it's not about betraying

America, although he did that too. It's about he betrays the people who trusted him the most. So the Jeff Sessions and everyone who's ever worked for him, everyone who's ever invested in him, anybody who went to Trump University, Trump charity, what did he do? He betrayed every single person who's ever trusted him. So what I'm going to tell independence and half of Republicans is, guys, what do you think he's going to do to you? You trust him more than anyone else. You're the mark. He's a con man.

He tries to gain your confidence and then betray it. That's his M.O. And if people really understand that, it's one thing to say, yeah, he hates other people, but I ain't other people. It's another thing to think, oh, he's going to betray me. Maybe that changes the dynamic. Look, I'm not the guy who comes in and goes, that's it. Now that I'm the Trump czar, Trump's done. We win automatically.

But is it better to have one person in the Democratic race who's trying to take Trump's head off politically and rhetorically than having zero? Yeah, right? Biden doesn't know how to fight him at all and barely even does. Anytime he gives one speech a year against Trump, we were like, whoa, look at Biden giving one speech against Trump. No, I'm going to go after him 100%. So when it comes to the voting, that's about sending a message to the Democratic Party. And as I'm running, I'm going to pummel Trump to the best of my abilities. All right, everyone learn more about what Jank is doing over at jankforamerica.com.

Jank, thank you for giving us these updates. And we'll talk to you again soon. Thank you. It's a golden opportunity. I don't know when we're going to be on the ballot next. Let's go get them. Let's send a message together. Thank you, Anna.

No problem. All right. We'll be right back. What's up, everyone, welcome back to TYT. All right, this next segment has some stories that are unfortunate to say the least. They deal with the migrant crisis and how it's impacting New York. And then a little later, we'll talk about an argument recently made in the New York Times about how San Francisco's approach to drug addiction is actually leading to a culture that increases the likelihood of addiction. So we'll get to that a little later.

But first, I want to start with this. You are watching surveillance footage showing five asylum seekers who viciously attacked police officers in New York's Times Square as the cop. were attempting to detain another man. Now the assault happened last Saturday when police attempted to disperse a disorderly group of people. ABC News reports that when officers attempted to place an individual in custody, the suspects began to kick and punch the officers and then they fled the scene. And you know, you can see all of that taking place in the surveillance footage that we just showed you. Now luckily no one was seriously injured and the police were treated on the scene

for minor injuries, including one person who had, you know, some cuts to his face. The suspects luckily were later arrested. The suspects were identified Wednesday as Yormon Revereuron, 24 years old. Darwin, Andres, Gomez Ischiel, 19 years old. Wilson Hares, 21. Kelvin Arocha, 19. And then Joan Boada, 22. years old. So they face some charges, including assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, and gang assault. Now, it is being widely reported now by local news outlets in New York that the individuals who carried out these assaults are actually asylum seekers. The assault took place in front of a migrant shelter. And there have been increasing scuffles with migrants between

one another for the most part, but this is the first time that we're seeing surveillance footage of them literally attacking cops and being kind of brazen and emboldened enough to do something like that. One of them already had a criminal record. Reveron has two pending cases in Manhattan for assault and robbery. He allegedly attacked a lost prevention officer at a Macy's department store during an alleged robbery and also allegedly punched and bit a Nordstrom Rack employee in November. I don't want to get ahead of myself here because I have a whole argument that I'm about to make.

But let me just say this. Considering the lack of resources for migrants, considering the fact that you have a situation in which there isn't enough shelter and you have migrants sleeping outside, can we deport the migrants who are engaging in this kind of behavior and this kind of crime? like one of them has already gotten arrested twice for assaulting employees at retail stores. And then you have the surveillance footage of them kicking cops in the head as the cops are

trying to detain another guy. Why, what are we doing? So they get arrested and then they're let out. No bail. Because it's New York City, of course. Okay, this is, listen, I know we have a giant left-wing audience, and I love you guys. Please don't give into some knee-jerk reaction to provide cover for these people. These are not people you need to provide cover for. These are people who are in the country claiming asylum. They don't have a right to be here. It is a privilege to be able to take advantage of our asylum program and be able to,

claim asylum, claim that you're here because of whatever reason, I don't know exactly which reason they gave for their asylum claim, and you get to have your case adjudicated in front of a judge. But if you're causing all sorts of chaos, and if you're assaulting police officers, like the idea that we're not even having a conversation about immediately deporting them is ridiculous, but then not only that, they get arrested and immediately released without bail, because of bail reform in New York. That's insane, right? And my I crazy? I don't know. I feel like I've lost my mind at this point. I feel like I'm going to get like an onslaught of ridiculous harassment because I think people seeking asylum

and taking up finite resources that could be given to another asylum seeker who isn't causing problems. It's ridiculous. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office says that an investigation into the incident is ongoing. We now have additional video surveillance that was not available at the time of arraignment and are continuing to speak to witnesses in order to determine the specific role of each defendant. And by the way, I want to be clear about something. If you are part of the left and you don't speak out against incidents like that, what it does is it allows for the right to paint a picture of what all asylum seekers are like, what all migrants are like. And as we know, based on studies that have been conducted

previously, there's no indication that immigrant communities have a higher rate of crime. Okay, anyone who claims that they do, it's just unfounded. There's no evidence of that. But if the left starts providing cover for migrants who do commit crime and feel emboldened enough to literally assault police officers as they're trying to detain someone else, that sends a really bad message about what the left wants to represent. And it also allows for, in my opinion, the defamation of migrants who are here who have legitimate asylum claims and should not be treated any differently from ordinary people, especially considering how vulnerable they are and how they're here either for safety or for opportunity.

So they should not paint a picture of asylum seekers. But for those who cause these kinds of problems, there should be consequences and they should be deported immediately. So at least 41 people have been arrested at the Roosevelt Hotel since May. The Roosevelt Hotel in New York City has been used for migrant shelters. And apparently they've had 41 people who have been arrested. Most of those cases involve domestic violence. An asylum seeker was accused of bashing an employee in the head with a no parking sign in June

after the worker basically kicked him out of the building for being unruly. The worker ended up with a six inch gash on his head. and Mayor Eric Adams made an unannounced visit to the hotel within days to basically survey the situation. A 30-year-old migrant at the Manhattan Hotel turned shelter was also arrested for alleged child endangerment. His alleged victim was an 11-year-old daughter, and that's according to police reports on the matter. And the Manhattan District Attorney's Office later declined to prosecute because prosecuting people is tough. You need to actually prove your case. And if it's not an open and shut case, they just drop it.

So a spokesperson for the Manhattan DA's office says, after thorough investigation and review of the facts, the people declined to prosecute this matter. If a crime cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is our ethical duty not to charge it. It seems like they believe it's their ethical duty not to charge anyone with anything. So we'll see how it plays out for the people who were caught

in that surveillance footage beating the crap out of those cops. But anyone who thinks like, who cares? We don't like cops. So let them do whatever they want. You're ridiculous. Okay, you're ridiculous. Not all of us have the resources, as Cory Bush did, to hire private security and feel safe. Ordinary citizens have their tax money sent to local police departments for protection to keep the community safe. So if you have a situation in which police are getting the message that they can be assaulted like that, and then Right after their book, they're just released without bail, I don't know, I feel like it's going to harm recruitment efforts in a situation where we already have a shortage of police officers. So when you call the cops because you need them and they're unable to come because there is that shortage, don't complain about it if you provided cover for the kind of behavior we saw in that surveillance footage.

But aside from that, if these guys are comfortable enough to openly, publicly and broad daylight beat the crap out of police officers, what do you think they're willing to do to ordinary people? people. We already know one of them had no problem beating up or assaulting retail workers. So what kind of other damage are they going to do to other members of that community? Now, we got to speak out against this stuff and we have to speak out against it loudly. We have to be clear that they're not representative of immigrants and migrants. We also have to be clear that we on the left denounce and condemn this kind of behavior and want consequences for it. And if you don't, just think about what kind of message that sends to the general public about what the priorities and actual values of the left happen to be. All right, let's move on.

I wanted to talk a little bit about, honestly, a city that has stood out from the rest in this terrible, tragic time where we're experiencing an increased number of overdose deaths. They're happening across the country, but San Francisco really does stand out. So let's discuss. There's evidence of drug use everywhere. There's one that's been used, two, three, these are pulled out a needle. As we were filming, a woman approached us. Hey, do you guys know where we can get any free tents at around here? Oh, free tins? Beth and her partner Jay have been in San Francisco for a year.

So are you doing fentanyl like today or? Every day. Every day, yeah. Really? What's it like living here? Lawless. Yeah. Completely lawless.

She's saying, are you. At a time when the country is still struggling, struggling with an increasing number of overdose deaths. Unfortunately, the situation is even worse in the city of San Francisco. And the real question is, what is it that San Francisco is doing that makes that particular city experience a disproportionate number of overdose deaths year after year? Now, the numbers are pretty jarring. Let's take a look at this graph that was reported by the New York Times. And what they note is that, well, you can see that blue, line at San Francisco. It compares San Francisco to the national average of drug overdose

deaths last year in 2023. And what they found was that in 2018, San Francisco's overdose death rate roughly matched the national average. But last year, the death rate was more than double the national average. San Francisco was number four for overdose deaths among US counties with more than 500,000 people. So German Lopez, who's one of the reporters at the New New York Times argues in a new piece that San Francisco's liberal mindset toward addiction, which emphasizes harm reduction and kind of moves away from recovery and rehabilitation, might be to blame for San Francisco's disproportionate rate of overdose deaths. Now, to be clear, Lopez does not at all advocate for a tough on crime, drug war approach,

quite the opposite. In fact, he does what I was hoping I would see in a piece like this. He compared the harm reduction approach that we've, you know, started doing in certain cities like San Francisco to the decriminalization effort in Portugal. And this is something that I've actually talked on the show about before, because while we wanted to model the harm reduction policies here in the United States to that of Portugal, we actually didn't get it quite right. There are certain cultural differences that have been used there that we are not using here. And that's really what German Lopez is trying to focus on in this piece. And I think it's really, really worth a read.

I'm going to highlight the relevant parts in this coverage right now. But I definitely think you should all read it. We'll include a link in the description box so you can read it for yourselves. So he begins by talking about some changes in state law. And one of the big changes that he references is a ballot measure from 2014 that California voters passed. It was known as Prop 47, and what it did is it reduced drug possession to a misdemeanor rather than a felony. It was all an effort to kind of decriminalize drug use. Now in San Francisco, law enforcement has basically responded by scaling back efforts against

drugs, deemphasizing incarceration, which I think makes sense. And effectively allowing public drug use, which I do not think makes sense. So let me explain what I mean. Activists in San Francisco now refer to body autonomy, arguing that people have the right to put whatever they choose into their veins and lungs, writes German Lopez. They no longer want to hate the sin. They say it's no one's business, but the drug users.

But when the drugs are being consumed openly and publicly, whether it's on public transportation or on the sidewalk, it doesn't merely impact the life of the drug user. It impacts everyone in that community. And what's really interesting is if you compare what the policies in San Francisco are to hard drugs like meth or fentanyl, compare that to, well, what we've done throughout the country in response to. tobacco use. You can't smoke cigarettes wherever you want. And with these policies making it more and more difficult to smoke cigarettes and with a public campaign urging people and pushing people away from cigarettes, we've succeeded in severely decreasing the number of people who smoke cigarettes. But that's not what's happening, culturally speaking, in places like San Francisco. And that's what Lopez is talking about. So we provide specific examples of

of what he feels is the wrong direction, culturally speaking, in response to the opioid epidemic and the overdose epidemic that we're seeing. In early 2020, an advocacy group put up a billboard downtown to promote the use of naloxone, an overdose anecdote. It showed happy young people seeming to enjoy a hide together. No overdose, the billboard said, use with people and take turns. Here, drug use wasn't dangerous as long as users had someone to check on them while high. So when you start taking the taboo away from something, it subconsciously messages to people in general that like doing this and doing it openly is totally fine, right? It almost like minimizes the harm that you're doing to yourself and to the community by using these types of drugs. And again, there's a shift away from, you know, pushing.

pushing people toward rehabilitation and instead helping them maintain their drug addiction without getting clean with the intention to keep them alive, of course. And that is important. But when you don't have the second half of kind of nudging them toward rehabilitation, I think that you do have a recipe for disaster and we are experiencing that. For instance, this guy named Michael Disipola, who's the director of health access at the program glide, said that his organization wants people to use drugs more safely, abstinence is not always the correct goal, he argued.

When one client declared that he wanted to quit drugs, Disipola explained that Glide suggested more realistic goals. Okay, let's just, if someone is seeking to get clean, if they want to be sober, every effort should be made to help that individual reach that goal. Discouraging them from doing that is insane, right? I mean, that is insane, right? What makes this even worse is the allergy these groups have, like toward nudging addicts to treatment and recovery. In San Francisco harm reduction programs such as Glyde do not require staff to guide people toward treatment. They argue that such pushy, could scare away clients who are not interested in quitting drugs.

The situation has been bad in San Francisco for years now. Obviously, these policies and this mindset did not bode well for people in San Francisco and the people struggling with addiction in San Francisco. And even though they have failed in their approach year after year, they're still spewing this nonsense. Oh, we don't want to be pushy. You know, in Portugal, even though they decriminalized drugs, they're pretty damn. pushy. They push people toward treatment and recovery. That is the big difference between

what we've done in the United States versus what they do in Portugal. Portugal's decriminalization model worked because of that second half that we have completely ignored. Because we don't want to be pushy. We don't want to shame people. Now let's get deeper into that conversation about the United States versus Portugal. So Portugal has widely adopted some harm reduction measures, such as needle exchanges. But the government made getting people into treatment, it's top priority. It's number one priority, particularly through something known as dissuasion commissions. We don't have dissuasion commissions. We don't want to be too pushy. But in Portugal, that is what they have. So when people are cited for drugs,

because it is regulated to some extent, you can't just do what's been happening on the streets of San Francisco. You can't just publicly use fentanyl, you can't smoke meth. Like, if you're seen doing that, you will be cited. So when people are cited for drugs, they, they They are sent to so called dissuasion commissions. The commissions talk with people using techniques like motivational interviewing to persuade them to stop using drugs and seek help. But the commissions also have the threat of penalties, including community service and the revocation of a professional license to more forcefully push someone into treatment if persuasion

fails. There's a little bit of muscle involved, according to the architect of Portugal's system. That is what he said. And again, if you want to celebrate Portugal's model and you want to implement Portugal's model here in the United States, well then you need to implement their actual model here in the United States. That's not what's happening in some cities, including San Francisco. So let's talk about treatment versus harm prevention or harm reduction.

Portugal invested in addiction treatment and created a system that tries to push people to seek help for addiction. De-criminalization by itself means nothing if you have nothing else to offer. Again, that was another statement from the architect of Portugal's drug decriminalization program. And I think he's absolutely right about that. Rehabilitation treatment centers, all of that stuff, really, really expensive. And unfortunately, we have a fragmented system here where people who seek to get clean, people who want to be sober, are not able to do so because they don't have the necessary resources

to afford the rehabilitative treatments that are offered or available. So San Francisco, California and the federal government fund addiction treatment, but the system, as I mentioned, is fragmented. Some providers offer medications for opioid addiction. Others reject medications as just replacing one drug for another so they don't offer that. Some treatment is effectively free or paid for by insurance, but other services do charge, and they charge patients a lot, thousands of dollars. in some cases. As a result, patients frequently struggle to find a treatment option that both works

for them and one that they can afford. So San Francisco also has trouble nudging people into treatment. In some cases, the city offers drug users the option of treatment as an alternative to jail or prison. But this is available only when an addict is charged with more serious crimes, like robbery that carry jail or prison time. Drug use alone is not enough. One program started by the city last year, offers people treatment after they are charged with drug use or sales, but if the users refuse treatment, they are typically released anyway. And so when they are given that option, that is a good opportunity to nudge them toward recovery, right? But it's not going to work if you don't make the recovery mandatory after they choose recovery over time behind

bars. And that's the other issue that's been coming up over and over again. But it is an interesting peace and when you see how badly the city of San Francisco has failed, you know, their citizens, their local community, they need to recalibrate and figure out what it is they need to tweak to get people the help they need. Because what they're doing now is leading to more and more deaths, more and more pain, more and more suffering. And this ain't the Portugal model that some would have you believe it is. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, John Iderola will join me for the second hour.