The Young Turks - Divorced From Reality

Episode Date: April 11, 2024

Trump successfully rallies house GOP to kill controversial surveillance law. Leaving the state to get an abortion ""not the worst thing in the world""- Fox analyst. Squatters pushing New York City homeowners to financial limits. California spent $24 billion to tackle homelessness over the past five years, but it didn't consistently track whether the huge outlay of public money actually improved the situation according to the state audit. Tim Pool declares that Steven Crowder's wife should get none of the community property because he doesn't believe divorce should be allowed." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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! Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and this show is going to be a bonanza today, total bonanza. Story broke right before we went on air, well, not right before, maybe like 30 minutes before we went on air that I literally could not believe.

And it involves Donald Trump doing something that's both self-serving, but also incredibly good for the American people. So we're going to get to that at the top of the show. Hold brace for impact for that. I can't wait to share the details of it, especially if you were old enough to remember what it was like to deal with basically the Bush administration allowing for. for the spying of American people. It was awful and nothing was done about it.

Until today, we're gonna get to that. Now, I also wanna give you some updates on how Republican analysts and pundits are really coping and seething today after it's become abundantly clear that some of these state abortion bans will in fact be a factor in the general election. So we'll discuss who's kind of coping and seething right now

and what the political ramifications are likely to be, A little bit of prediction happening in that story. In the second hour, John Iderolo will be joining me to talk about the Biden administration, applying pressure to various print publications to essentially change their framing and their reporting. Even if I agree with the criticism of the framing, was it a good idea to have the federal government pressure journalists and editors to change the way they report the news? We're gonna talk about that, that'll be in the second hour.

And that's an important story to talk about, to say the least. In our bonus episode today for our members, since it's my 17 year anniversary here at TYT, I know how could I have been here for 17 years when I'm only like 25, that's so weird. You know, TYT, they talk a big talk about not wanting to pass any laws allowing for child labor, but they were employing me when I was a child. I'm kidding, I was 20 when I started working here, I'm 37 now. Bonus episode, we're gonna do an ask me anything with our members so you guys can ask me some questions. I'm going to provide some answers. I've already gotten a little sneak peek into the

questions that some of you have asked. And they're spicy. There's going to be a lot of spice in the bonus episode, t.yt.com slash join to become a member. Now, I wanted to get started with that story that I had mentioned earlier about Trump doing something self-serving, but also good for the American people. So let's talk about what that is. There's been a bit of a divide within the Republican Party. You You have the old guard, the traditional Republicans who loved some of the Bush era policies. Things like FISA, which was a program that allowed for the feds to spy on foreigners abroad, but also spy on American citizens as well because of some loopholes in how that law worked. Now I remember Democrats being real upset about it.

I remember the Democratic Party really criticizing the Bush administration over these FISA laws. Obama came in, did nothing about it. Biden's done nothing about it. Donald Trump, though, just succeeded in getting the Republican Party in the House to crush the extension of that law. Now let me give you the details. Apparently Trump had urged House Republicans, according to CNN, to reject the reauthorization of the law known as FISA ahead of the key procedural vote today, Wednesday, adding to headaches for GOP leaders who have struggled to build support for the legislation, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. House Speaker Mike Johnson might suck up to Trump, but he's really more representative of the

old guard, the traditional conservative Republicans who dominated the Republican Party prior to the MAGA era. So he wanted to reauthorize FISA, and so did his buddies in the House. But there's a growing group of Republicans, and Donald Trump happens to be one of them, who were not on board with the reauthorization of FISA. In fact, Trump wrote on social media, truth social, of course, kill FISA. The tally, by the way, ended up being 193 to 228 with 19 Republicans bucking house GOP leadership and voting with Democrats to sink the procedural vote and take down a rule. to govern debate on the reauthorization bill as well as several other bills.

And that's according to reporting by CNN. Among the Republicans who were against reauthorizing FISA were Republican Representative Matt Gates. He had said that he would vote against the procedural vote. Additionally, Representative Anna Paulina Luna wrote on X, quote, We are killing FISA in response to Trump's truth social post and Tennessee GOP representative Tim Burchett, who told CNN that he would be voting no on the rule. When told that he would kill it, that him voting no on the rule would kill it, he said, good. Now, let's get into the details of what FISA is, okay?

Because it has been a controversial law for quite some time now, and I'm shocked to hear that it's Republicans who manage to kill it. So the law as it stands allows U.S. intelligence or the U.S. intelligence community to collect the communications records of foreign persons based overseas, but, and this is where the contention lies, but it also allows the FBI to search the data that it collects on Americans in what critics have called a backdoor search. So it's essentially a law that allowed for the federal government to spy on American citizens. And they were also able to do so. without the, you know, necessary probable cause or warrants to do so. Critics say that loopholes allow the FBI to search the data. It collects on Americans as opposed to foreign adversaries without proper justification. And so one major sticking point is whether the FBI should be required to obtain a warrant before spying on Americans.

And we've been arguing here at TYT since the Bush era, that there absolutely should be a warrant. A judge, there should be probable cause and a judge should sign off on allowing the feds to spy on American citizens. This is a no-brainer. This is a no-brainer. American citizens should not be surveilled by the federal government without a warrant. There should be a reason, okay, a national security reason for why the FBI or anyone in the national, intelligence community should be spying on Americans. Now, why did Trump do this? Did Trump do this because he's genuinely concerned about Americans?

Is it because he doesn't want Americans to be surveilled? No, I would venture to say that he cares less about that. But Trump cares a lot about himself. We know that. And so FISA was used to spy on one of his own. He didn't like that. And because he didn't like that, He told the GOP to crush the reauthorization of FISA.

So FISA became a high profile political target of conservative Republicans after it became known that a different section of FISA was inappropriately used to surveil Trump 2016 campaign aide Carter Page. So that's the motivating factor here for Trump. He didn't like how FISA was used against him, which is why he wants the GOP. and he succeeded in getting the GOP to scrap the reauthorization of this surveillance law, surveillance law that's again been around for quite some time now. And I think a good sign is who's really upset about this bill being killed?

Bill Barr happens to be one of them. Bill Barr says, I think it's a travesty and reckless. We want the federal government to be able to spy on American citizens without a warrant, okay? This is a travesty. I disagree, I don't think this is a travesty. I think that if someone who is an American citizen poses a national security threat, if there is probable cause, if there is reason to believe that that American is engaged in nefarious activity, and there is some interest by the intelligence community to spy on that individual, they should be able to make their case before a judge and secure a warrant before surveillance is carried out. That's what I believe. And that is what the Democratic Party overall believed back during the Bush era when FISA

was being used to spy on Americans abroad. And when we heard news stories and read news stories about members of the intelligence community spying in on American citizens as they were, you know, having phone sex or engaging in intimate conversations with their loved ones. It was absolutely disgusting. And so the real test here for the Democratic Party is how they're going to respond. to respond to this. Because in my opinion, this is good news. This is definitely good news. FISA has been a problem for a long time. And are they going to switch to being in favor of FISA?

Are they going to switch to being in favor of surveilling American citizens? Because Trump is now against FISA? I don't know, we'll see. But I'm really hoping that their political ideology is actually grounded in principles rather than tribal partisan politics. Now, you might need a different version of this surveillance law in order to allow for the intelligence community to, you know, spy in on, you know, foreign threats to American national security. We need to look into that and see if there's some issues with, you know, having like this vacuum when it comes to FISA not being reauthorized. I care less about that. I care a lot more about Americans, you know, not being surveilled by our federal government. So we'll see how it all plays out.

But I think that overall, for now, based on what we know about Republicans crushing this reauthorization, it seems to be good news. And again, if the FBI wants to spy on Americans, they should get a warrant and they should be able to make their case for why it's important to be able to surveil them. Otherwise, I don't think it makes any sense to have the government keeping an eye on all of us through loopholes in the FISA law that should have been either repealed entirely or reformed many, many years ago. So just wanted to bring attention to that. Love seeing Bill Barr get real feisty and upset about it. They just love the idea of that increased federal government power, allowing for the feds to, you know, keep an eye on every single one of us without a warrant. It's absolutely absurd. I totally disagree with it. And I love the fact that because of his own selfishness in this case, I think most Americans have won from what Trump has done here.

With that said, let's move on to something that Trump did do that is absolutely awful, and he might really suffer some political consequences for it. And of course, it has to do with the ongoing discussion of reproductive rights and abortion in America. If you had to travel to another state to get an abortion, it's not the worst thing in the world. Hopefully, this is a very rare occurrence in your life. Once in your life, maybe it would do it. Buying a bus ticket to go somewhere to get it is not the worst thing in the world. If somebody needs one of it, they live in Arizona, it just means they'll have to

to go to the neighboring state. 154,000 people did that last year. It's not an unreasonable position that Trump had. That was Fox News analyst Mark Simone, whose shaggy head seems to indicate he finds simple things like haircuts, pretty inconvenient. But forcing women to spend time and money to travel out of state for reproductive health care? Nah, not inconvenient at all. These women really need to cut their whining. Simon and his, or Simone, I should say, Simone and his co-panelist, Larry Cudlow and Joe Concha, were basically reacting to the story we covered recently yesterday, the Arizona Supreme Court's decision that allows the state to revive a law banning abortion that dates back to 1864. The law predating Arizona's statehood

provides no exceptions for rape or incest and allows abortions only if, if the mother's life is in jeopardy. Arizona's highest court suggested doctors can be prosecuted under the 1864 law, though the opinion written by the court's majority didn't explicitly say that. The fortitude decision did explicitly say that physicians are now on notice,

that all abortions except those necessary to save a woman's life are illegal. Keep in mind that even in the case, where an abortion is necessary to save a mother's life, anti-abortion laws like these are so extreme that they have a chilling effect on doctors. They're so afraid of being prosecuted that they might not be willing to risk performing an abortion

if they know that religious zealots might pursue criminal charges against them, even in cases where the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk. Now, the law orders prosecution for a person who provides supplies or administers to a pregnant woman or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs, or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman unless it is necessary to save her life. A lot of clunky language there, but you get the point.

Arizona's Attorney General, Chris Mays, has tried to provide assurances to women and doctors, but that likely won't be enough. Arizona's Democratic Attorney General made this promise. As long as I am Attorney General of the state of Arizona, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law. But that may not be enough to convince physicians. Right now, I think folks are huddling with their own legal counsel to make some determinations about the type of risk they're facing.

The Arizona Supreme Court said enforcement of the law will not begin for at least two weeks because they sent the case back to the lower court to hear additional arguments about the law's constitutionality. But after that, the decision is very likely to take effect. If and when it does, it'll force women to travel to other states like California or New Mexico or Colorado to end their pregnancies. That potential reality is bad enough, but Simone's callous argument becomes even more absurd when you consider the absolute assault on abortion rights in the South. So look, take a look at this chart showing abortion restrictions throughout the country. The darker the red, the more extreme, the assault on reproductive rights.

The burgundy colored states have full abortion bans. Arizona will join those states soon, and Florida will match Georgia and South Carolina after their recently okayed six-week abortion ban goes into effect. So where exactly does Simone propose women in Alabama or Louisiana or Georgia go? He's got strong thoughts on what is and isn't convenient. So which state is convenient for women to travel to, Simone? Having to travel to obtain health care, reproductive health care, will obviously impact poor women the most, who might not be able to pay for the transportation or take the time

off to schlep thousands of miles away. The Federal Reserve reports that nearly half of Americans can't even afford a $400 emergency. But traveling out of state for health care is convenient? In addition to the cost of the abortion itself, which does tend to cost almost $600 for the majority of self-pay first trimester abortions, the Bridget Alliance, which provides logistical support for people seeking abortion care, estimates that the average cost of traveling for care has increased 41% since the first half of 2022, when it was just over $1,000.

The average spend for patients that need to fly just jump 17% to $994, while a hotel stay, usually three nights, is up 29% to $919, according to the group. Though inflation accounts for some of the increase, state-by-state abortion bans mean people live an average of 275 miles further from a clinic than they did just a year ago, according to Caitlin Myers, a researcher at Middlebury's college. In Texas, the average drive to a clinic increased to 499 miles in March from 43 miles just a year earlier, adding up to 131 extra dollars in gas for a round trip. That's a major obstacle for the approximately 50% of women ending a pregnancy who live at or below the poverty line, which is why draconian laws like Arizona

are a huge political liability for Republicans. Make no mistake about it. That's why you're seeing people like Trump and Carrie Lake kind of back off the abortion talk, really soften their message when it comes to abortion bans. Look, we saw how it played out in the midterms. But Simone says that shouldn't apply to Trump at all. He argues that the former president is the real pro-choice candidate. How?

Because he just wants states to decide whether or not women have reproductive. rights. I guess that's freedom. I guess that's choice. Let's hear his case. This will dominate the news for days because they think it'll hurt Donald Trump. Yeah, this issue does not hurt Donald Trump. He's not against abortion. That makes him the pro-choice candidate. Leave it up to the states. Let them choose, let them do what they want. This is tricky business. How does this play out? It hurts Trump for a few days and then people start to realize this is not the worst thing in the world. He may come out. He'll come out against us. I'm going to, Oh, no, maybe he won't.

Remember, his point was the legislature, Mark. He didn't mention the court. So this is tricky. State Supreme Court, does that qualify as a state decision? Yeah, that's what it is to be pro-choice. The states can decide. He's making this will of the people argument to twist the reality of how authoritarian these abortion bans really are and honestly how the voters feel about that.

Consider how Arizonaans, for instance, are feeling about. the re-implementation of a centuries old law. Only 7% of Arizona voters said they supported an outright abortion ban with no exceptions, according to a poll conducted last month by UGov and Samara Clare, a political science professor at the University of Arizona. Supporters of an effort to amend the state's constitution to include abortion rights have gathered enough signatures to basically include that initiative on the November ballot, and that's really good news.

news because the actual voters of Arizona will get to weigh in soon. This is obviously sure to galvanize Arizonans and voters across the country to head to the polls. And that's also good news. The revival of the 1864 law is such bad news for Republicans that Fox contributor Byron York claimed that it's part of this like scripted plan to hurt Trump and the GOP. It's ridiculous. And it seems like politically harmful to Republicans kind of across the board. Almost seems scripted.

Trump comes out yesterday, makes this big statement about leaving abortion to the states. He's really trying to create a tent that enough Republicans can stand under to elect him in November. So he does that yesterday. Today, Arizona comes out after the Biden campaign jumps all over Trump and said states are going to do radical things and Trump is going to be at fault. And then they do this with this 1864 law, it absolutely, absolutely seems scripted. And Trump is going to get stuck with this time after time after time throughout this campaign. I mean, be careful what you wish for, right? I've been getting that comment a lot lately.

And yeah, it stings when some of the policies that you thought you wanted ended up actually being not so great. But now all of a sudden you have Republicans trying to back away from something that they've been advocating for. for literally 50 years, the reversal of Roe and the pursuit of abortion bans has been a rallying cry for the Republican Party for decades. And now all of a sudden, once they decide, oh wow, maybe we should listen to the voters and it turns out that they don't want to completely ban abortions, all of a sudden they want to back off of it and pretend like they weren't the ones advocating for the bans

for decades. Look, was hurting Trump and the Republicans at large? is arguments from people like Ben Shapiro, who in the wake of Arizona's decision, told women to just not worry about the ruling because abortion is wrong. Arizona women should never have to fear the next court decision. Yeah, first of all, you shouldn't have to fear a court decision because you shouldn't go get an abortion. Just as a moral matter, you should not pursue abortion and believe that the court is the imposition to you. because abortion is immoral and wrong and sinful.

Keep making those arguments, Ben. You're doing the Democrats a huge favor. But the American people are not even remotely on Shapiro's side. Overall, about two thirds of Americans say abortion should generally be legal. Only about one in ten say it should always be illegal. Just one in ten. So I appreciate Ben Shapiro sharing his religious morality, his personal religious morality with the American people.

It's nice that he has that opinion. It's nice that he has that interpretation of religious morality. But we live in a pluralistic society where his version of religious morality does not necessarily apply to every single American. And so while it's important to maintain and protect. religious freedom in this country. And I say that as someone who's not religious, as someone who identifies as an atheist.

I still believe protecting religious liberty is important. But that also means protecting the freedom of those who choose not to dictate their lives based on a religious, you know, text or religious belief. And so if he believes that a zygote is the exact same thing as a living, breathing, viable human being outside the womb, he's free to believe that. It's just not true. And to force that ideology onto every single person in the country is absolutely absurd. We either live in a secular liberal democracy or we don't. I for one, like the secular liberal democracy we live in. I'd like to maintain that. And so having reasonable laws on the books

that allow for women to practice their reproductive rights is incredibly important. And obviously, there's a line. I think Roe v. Wade got it right. I think that having undue burdens implemented before fetal viability is a huge problem. And it actually causes far more damage than anything that the GOP claims is being caused by legalizing abortion rights. So we'll see how it plays out electorally. But one final thing I'll say about this story is, I hate that this has become a political tool by both parties. I mean, it's a rallying cry for Republicans, or it had been a rallying

cry until Republicans realize that, oh, it turns out our voters actually don't want to completely ban abortions. But on the Democratic side, you don't think Biden is super excited about this? This is a huge win for Biden. This is something that Biden is planning on campaigning on to defeat Donald Trump in the general election. It's just infuriating when you consider the fact that the party didn't fight as hard when it came to protecting reproductive rights for women on a federal level. When Obama had that super majority in his first term, he literally said that, you know, he's backing off of codifying abortion rights because it's just not a priority right now. That's what he said, while they had a super majority. And then later, after we got

word that the Supreme Court was going to reverse Roe v. Wade, you have the Democratic Party fighting tooth and nail to reelect Henry Quayar in Texas. A Democratic congressman, yes, but one who does not believe in protecting reproductive rights for women. I mean, I guess the Democratic Party had to do it. They had to endorse the guy. They had to really fight to ensure that he would win reelection, right? There was no other option. Otherwise, a Republican would have won. Except, No, he was being primaried by a progressive who wanted to maintain and protect reproductive rights in America. The Democratic Party fought hard to defeat her so they can reelect the anti-abortion

Henry Quay are in Texas. That's what happened. So please spare me the nonsense about how Democrats are so much better on this issue. Sure, rhetorically, they certainly are. On a state level, you do see them fighting to maintain reproductive rights. I will definitely give them credit for that. On a federal level, outside of fundraising, what the hell has Biden done to protect reproductive rights in America? Other than fearmongering in every general election about how you must elect the Democrat, because the Republican is going to nominate conservative Supreme Court justices who are going to dismantle our reproductive rights, what have Democrats done to protect our reproductive rights on a federal level?

Really ask yourself that. So yes, Democrats on a local level, they get some cookies. They've done some good things and they've maintained reproductive rights for women in blue states. On a federal level though, all these goons running around fundraising off of the pain and suffering of women in red states, I find it gross, put some action behind the rhetoric and do something. So there you have it, a lot of heat for both sides, but obviously Republicans are are the ones who got exactly what they've been fighting for. And so I love seeing them now scramble to try to back away from the thing that they've

had as part of their rallying crime, part of their campaigns for so many decades now. Again, lives are on the line. I think the issue of abortion is way more nuanced and complicated than people realize. People think that abortion is just about terminating a pregnancy. It has nothing to do with the health of the mother. It has nothing to do with the complications that might arise with the the fetus and developmental issues it may have, it's so much more complicated than people realize. And honestly, I'm really tired of hearing from a bunch of dudes who don't even know about how

a woman's anatomy works, you know, opine on this nuanced, difficult, and intimate issue. We got to take a break when we come back. We've got more news for you, including, let's see, what are we going to talk about? Updates on what lawmakers in New York want to do about the squatter problem there. We've got that and more. I am scary. I am threatening. I'm Darth Vader. Welcome back to the show, everyone. I wanted to read a quick comment from one of our members because I think this is a really great great way to put the whole, you know, the story

involving Trump torpedoing the FISA reauthorization. And so Zachariah Hooper says, so Trump did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Correct. That is the right way of interpreting what just happened. But I'll take it. I'll take it. I really will. Because I don't think that American citizens should be spied on by FBI agents who have not obtained a warrant, meaning that they have not proven probable cause before a judge in order to allow for them to spy on Americans. So great way of putting it, you condensed it. I need to do a better job condensing things. I feel like I'm rambling a little bit today.

But I'll do my best and let's get to our next story. This guy was at every, you know, March and rally and he was like big Antifa and communism. And he met someone there and the guy was like, hey, can I crash with you? And the guy was like, yeah, sure. So he brought him and his girlfriend and stayed on the couch. And after two weeks, the guy wouldn't let the homeowner into his own house. And he had to call the police. Get a fake lease.

So you draft up a fake lease. You use that lease to get the power and things turn in your name. You pay the bill. There's a bunch of different steps that you can do that just seems to indicate that you are the legal resident. And then they have to take you to court. But they always hold up like a dirty piece of paper. I have a lease. And it's just like a happy face.

and a house behind it. The gentleman over at the Rogan show, Rogan podcast, also talking about squatters. And look, the topic of squatters rights, which many are shocked to find is even a thing, is getting a lot of media attention lately. And while some think it's part of some shadowy right wing media plot to fearmonger about a made-up problem, the truth is that the violent and extreme nature of some of these cases are drawing everyone's attention. Make no mistake, there are outdated and old-timey laws protecting squatters all over the country, including in red states. For today, though, I want to focus on

some of the insane cases that have inspired New York's lawmakers to possibly take some action. One such insane case involves Nadia Vittles, who traveled from Spain to New York to check on her deceased mother's apartment, only to find that two squatters had been living there. Assembly member Will Barclay told CBS News that she went to the apartment, encountered two squatters who tragically beat her to death, and then stuffed her body in a duffel bag. Really horrific. That wasn't the only high profile case that got a lot of attention in recent weeks. Here's another. Show you some new video. It shows federal agents at this home in the Bronx Wednesday afternoon. There you see it on the security footage. Authorities walking several people out of the home in handcuffs.

This all started last Wednesday when police responded to a call about a man with a gun near the school, you mentioned. Police chased two Venezuelan migrants with illegal guns into their home, where they discovered they had been squatting in the basement. Here's a look at that basement. Inside, police say they found several more guns, cocaine and ketamine, all in the presence of a seven-year-old child. Five more men and one woman were arrested. Now, the suspect who prompted that 911 call that set all of this off, it's this guy on your screen. Hector DeSusselt Volalta. He was accused of shooting a man last year.

He was charged with attempted murder, but was later released. Later released. Why am I not surprised? He shot a guy. He was charged with attempted murder. Okay, anyway, we'll talk about that some other time. While violent cases, that extreme are luckily rare. What isn't uncommon is the unjust financial chaos New Yorkers are finding themselves in when victimized by squatters. John Socrin invested in a home that he planned to rent out for income during his retirement. But that plan fell apart when squatters took over the home and refused to leave. Even though this poor man is not earning a single dime of income from the property, he says he's draining his pension to keep the utilities on as the thieves live rent-free.

Now, why would he do that? Well, it turns out that under New York's current laws, the squatters have to be. have the same rights as legal tenants after squatting for 30 days. If the landlord, Sokran in this case, turns off the utilities, the same laws that protect legal tenants that are good, those are good laws, would kick in for the thieves, which is bad. And landlords face a $250 a day fine if utilities like power and water are shut off. As you might already know, evicting the squatters is extremely burdensome due to the lengthy and costly process. Homeowners bear the burden of initiating a court process

that can drag on for years. And squatters often qualify for free counsel through the legal aid society. Obviously, that's not the case for the homeowners who have no choice but to shell out thousands of dollars over multiple years to get the squatters out. That's what happened to Kim Emmett. Squatters broke into her property back in 2016, she says. She also says, I did not get rid of them until 2019, it took her three years to gain control of the property she owns. The way the incident went down was unbelievably brazen too. Emmett told CBS that the tenant she had actually rented the space to left a key in the door as they were unloading groceries. Well, if you're in New York, don't do that because literally in minutes, a squatter stole the keys, refused to leave and

moved in. Emmett says that he changed the locks. I couldn't even believe it. And so I called the police immediately. You know what he did? He took a can of paint and he wrote his name on the mailbox before the cops came in black ink. So when they came, he told them that he was always there. At that point, police tell the homeowner that it's a civil matter and must be dealt with through the courts. But it takes months to get a court date, which is a problem. Because after occupying the home for 30 days, the squatter has the same rights as a legal tenant. Obviously people looking to steal and live rent free are gaming the system through laws from literally like ages ago that don't really make sense in modern times. And this is

happening all across America. Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis signed bipartisan legislation updating their laws, seems to be the only state that felt compelled to act quickly. But New York City could be joining the Sunshine State soon because city council member Vicki Palladino wants to update laws in New York City. And as I mentioned earlier, current laws in New York stipulate that squatters can legally be considered tenants after living in a unit for 30 days or more. Paladino wants to change that threshold to 180 days in New York City. And look, I'm not really sure that's enough to solve the issue, but it is better than what what's being proposed by state lawmakers who are considering legislation that would raise the

threshold by just 15 days. And I also think added provisions like mandating notarized lease agreements could help too. That way police can decipher whether someone is a legal tenant or if squatters are just providing fraudulent documentation, they claim to be the lease. Most states, including California and New York, do not require notarized lease agreements. Either way, local governments need to do the one thing every one of all political persuasions believes the government should do, protect their constituents. The notion that lawmakers continue to stand by as Americans are being robbed of their homes and livelihoods is outrageous to say the least, and there's no excuse for it. And look, I agree with advocates who point to our very real housing crisis. But if you're

tempted to defend the squatters due to housing prices, just don't. Please don't. especially in New York, which has right to shelter laws. Advocating for theft is not a solution to our housing shortage. It literally solves nothing. The advocacy is better served in pressuring lawmakers to build more homes instead of protecting thieves. As for state and local governments that have failed to address squatters, allegations that government is useless shouldn't be used as a blueprint for being useless. We got to take a break when we come back, we've got more news for you, including an incredible audit that was just conducted in California to see how much money has been spent on the homeless crisis, whether the money has been well spent, and whether the programs have been successful.

We've got that and more coming up. Don't miss it. Welcome back to the show. I'm Anna Casparian and I want to thank all of our new members, including those who upgraded their membership, alias, alias upgraded to TYT Premium, thank you so much. Don Whitehead upgraded to TYT producer, Donovan Patrick, James Dodge, Laura Reed, and Free Fleming, are all new members. Fleming also said, I just joined so I can listen to Anna's spicy question and answer. That's as good a reason as any. It will be spicy. I did get, again, a sneak peek at the questions that some of the members wanted to ask. Some of them are a little bit

provocative, so I'm looking forward to giving you a provocative answer, I guess. All right, well, I wanted to kind of talk a little bit about an audit that I think is important for us all to know about. Because while it is true that it's important to ensure that people are paying their fair share of taxes and that that government programs are funded appropriately, it's also important to make sure that our money is being spent in a way that is effective, that there is oversight to ensure that our resources are not being wasted. And so in California, while there are high taxes, while people have even very very very

voted in ballot initiatives to increase their own taxes in order to provide more funding for programs to alleviate homelessness. Unfortunately, it does appear that there's been a tremendous amount of waste and a lack of oversight. Let's get to it. Clearly you have politics on your mind every day. Yeah, I mean, this is a manufactured issue, homelessness. It was created by a lack of investment. It was created by cutting programs. It was created by really by neglect on the part of policymakers of all parties, frankly. Yeah, it turns out that lack of investment isn't the issue exacerbating homelessness in California, despite what Jennifer Friedenbach, the executive director of the coalition on

homelessness said there. Now, contrary to popular opinion, and I myself held this opinion, that we're not spending enough money to help people, the truth is that Californians have spent $24 billion over the last five years on programs meant to alleviate homelessness. But where is the money going and are the costly programs actually effective? We don't know because no one is tracking a damn thing. That's according to a new report from the California State Auditors Office. Their investigation found that a council created specifically to oversee the implementation of homelessness programs. has not been doing its job.

Nine state agencies administered more than 30 programs aimed at preventing or reducing homelessness. Some of those programs did such a poor job tracking their outcomes that it's impossible to tell if they've been successful, according to the audit, which marks the first such large scale accounting of the state's homelessness spending. The California Interagency Council on Homelessness created in 2016 to oversee the state's of programs dedicated to the worsening crisis, has not ensured the accuracy of the information in a state data system and has not evaluated homelessness program success

according to the state auditor. The audit dove into five programs that received a combined $13.7 billion in funding, and found that only two of them are likely cost effective. The cost effective programs include the Department of Housing and Community Development's Home Key Program and the California Department of Social Services Cal Works Housing Support Program. The Homekey program helps cities and counties turn hotels and other buildings into homeless housing at an average cost of $144,000 per unit, which sounds like a lot, okay, but compare that to the $380,000 to $570,000. It would cost for new construction. But the audit couldn't determine whether the other three programs it studied, the state rental assistance program, the encampment resolution funding program, and the homelessness

housing assistance and prevention grant program were effective because the state hasn't collected enough data on outcomes. I'm going to pause here and just say, there are a lot of nonprofits operating in the state of California who are allegedly tasked with alleviating homelessness or providing services to homeless people living in California. There has been no oversight of how they're spending that money, whether what they're doing is effective. It is a huge problem and it is a huge racket.

And anyone who dared bring this issue up and anyone who dared ask, anyone who dared to ask for oversight of these nonprofit programs was immediately talked to. down was immediately smeared as someone who doesn't believe in helping homeless people, when in reality we're living in one of the most expensive states in the country, we want to help people, and we want to see programs that are actually effective. When we see the problem get worse year after year and we take a look at where the grants are going and we're noticing these non-profits are a little shady, I think it's fair to call them into question. Now going back to the programs that this audit looked into, the three programs that couldn't be proven to be cost effective received a total of $9.4 billion in taxpayer money since 2020.

Tragically, the problem keeps getting worse with homelessness in the state growing another 6% from 2022 to 2023. Since 2013, homelessness has grown by 53%. The estimated number of unhoused Californians has increased from about 151,000 in 2019 to more than 181,000 last year. And by the way, every year, California is spending about $50,000 per homeless person. They could literally just pay for their rent. And it would be a better program. More than two thirds of those people are living on the street or in places unfit for human

habitation, not in shelters. Republican Senator Roger Nielo, vice chair of the Senate Budget Committee, said in a statement, California is facing a concerning paradox. Despite an exorbitant amount of dollars spent, the state's homeless population is not slowing down. These audit results are a wake-up call for a shift toward solutions that prioritize self-sufficiency and cost-effectiveness. Now look, the whole self-sufficiency thing makes me a little skeptical, mostly because it usually means, especially from Republican lawmakers, that they just want to stop spending money on it, period, and let people figure it out for themselves.

And that's an impossible thing to do when we are dealing with a severe shortage of housing. So all that money that was spent on nonprofits should have been spent on building housing. And not toward, you know, basically funneling the money to private developers who inflate the cost of construction so they can pocket some of that money. The federal government should hire workers themselves to build the housing and they should have a lot of oversight on the construction cost to ensure that none of that money is being wasted. But that's not what they're doing. Instead, it's this gross, private, public partnership thing that isn't even really focusing on construction of housing. It's really just focusing on funneling money to nonprofits that do what with the money? What do they do with it?

A year ago, there was a story that broke in California in Los Angeles, specifically with one of these nonprofits that had collected millions of dollars in local grants. What they were providing were literally pipes, crack pipes, to people in Skid Row. How is that helping them with housing? It's just absolutely absurd. Now, Gavin Newsom has made the housing crisis and homelessness in California a top priority for himself as he eyes a future presidential run. But honestly, his failure and the insane lack of oversight of taxpayer money, money that we worked really hard for, should serve as a top reason. why the Democratic Party should avoid nominating him. He's a failure for California.

He would be a failure on a national level. He has wasted our resources. He hasn't cared enough to conduct the proper oversight of the money that's being used on these programs. And everyone has suffered in the end. Californians have suffered. Homeless people who have been living and dying on our streets have continued to suffer.

The problem has only gotten worse. And this is the kind of mismanagement that, you know, the Republican Party constantly accuses Democrats of engaging in. It's almost like Democrats in California took those accusations and said, you know what? Sure, we'll wear it, we'll do it, we'll show you how much we're willing to tax Californians while simultaneously wasting the resources that they've been willing to spend on fixing a severe problem that has caused a lot of pain and suffering in the state. It's disgusting, and I can't believe it took this long for an audit to take place.

But here you have it. And look, I don't know, I don't know who hurt Tim Poole, but someone hurt him. Someone hurt him real bad, and you're about to see why. I think she's entitled to nothing during these proceedings. And I think the problem is no fault divorce. And I think the, we're not dealing with a traditional at fault divorce. We're dealing with irreconcilable differences. And I think the real answer should have been that when problems arose, a judge told them both,

TFU, you are in a marriage. It is a sacred covenant. Tim Poole was talking about the tumultuous divorce that's taking place between Stephen and Hillary Crowder. He doesn't believe that Hillary Crowder should get a dime through this divorce process. Look, I don't want to dive into it. It is a tumultuous divorce. I feel kind of weird talking about other people's private lives. But I do want to have a broader discussion about Tim Poole's views on marriage and divorce because I think what he's advocating for is incredibly damaging, especially for a country that has a lower rate of people who are willing to get married in the first place. Now, Poole has some advice so you don't find yourself in a situation where you might want a divorce. So let's hear him out and we'll see if he makes any sense here.

marriage has become dating. It's it's dating dating with like strings attached in in the financial world after the fact. No, no, no, no, no. Don't get married if you don't get married, okay? If you if and if you don't want to get into a position where you have to file for a divorce and hire lawyers for these reasons, then don't get married. The thing is we don't really have like the magic eight ball like we don't have a way of predicting whether our marriage is to be great. It's going to work out. Sometimes you meet someone, you date someone, you love someone, you think it's the perfect person for you. Then you get married and things can change. Especially by the way, after having kids, a lot of marriages experience some strain after having

children. Their philosophy on child rearing might actually conflict. There are all sorts of issues that might arise. An individual within the marriage might end up being physically abusive. They might be emotionally or mentally abusive. You never know, it's not like people willy-nilly enter a marriage thinking, oh, it's not a big deal, I'll just get a quick divorce and it won't be a problem. No, getting a divorce is real difficult, okay? It is time consuming, it is costly, it is awful. And so look, are there some people who don't take marriages seriously and they just

enter a marriage without really considering whether the individual they're marrying is right for them? Sure, I guess. But Tim Poole seems to be against the idea of, you know, the no fault divorces or divorces where the couple cites irreconcilable differences. Now, obviously, life is way more complicated than that. And again, even if a couple, like the Crowders, follow the traditional conservative playbook, right? They waited until they were married to have sex.

They followed their, you know, Christian values all the way into their marriage. It didn't work out. And who are we to get involved and tell them, oh, you guys hate each other. We don't agree with the reason for why you want to split up. So we're gonna, we're gonna force you to stay together. How is that gonna be a positive environment for children to be raised in? That is not a good situation, a household where you have, two partners, two married individuals fighting each other constantly, that kind of instability

in the household is actually not good for the kids. But obviously it depends. If you have irreconcilable differences, it could be so severe that again, like the environment could be incredibly toxic for kids. Plus why is Timpool acting like there's this weird like prevalence of couples getting married and divorced like it's a fun walk in the park? That's actually not happening. So we've all heard that myth, right, that 50% of marriages end in divorce. That's not the case anymore, not even close. In fact, let's take a look at this graph because it shows you data from the CDC in regard to divorces in America, the divorce rate. And divorces actually decreased significantly from 2000 to 2021. In 2000, the crude

divorce rate was four per capita during that year. But by 2021, it had fall into 2.5 per 1,000, so per capita. And so if this was a growing problem, if you're starting to see like a significant spike in divorces, well, then maybe we can have a conversation about what it is. Is there something happening culturally? Is there something that can be done to help support families in staying together? Sure, but that's not what's happening right now. And the idea that we should have the federal government get involved and prevent people who don't want to be married anymore from divorcing, that's going to discourage people from getting married. I don't know if we want that either, because honestly, marriage is pretty fantastic. There are some tax benefits that come along with it.

So if you're thinking about the financial benefits of being married, that's pretty awesome. You also get to live in a dual income household. That's awesome. real awesome, right? It creates more financial stability for people. So if that's something that you're interested in, marriage is great. But putting that aside, marriage is freaking awesome. If you marry the right person, and look, you never know, things could fall apart.

I totally acknowledge that. And no judgment if it does, life happens. But if you are fortunate enough to meet someone who is right for you and you live your life with them, you share your life with them, you get to come home from work every night. to your best friend. It is such a wonderful thing. And we don't want to discourage people from seeking that. We don't want to discourage people from entering a marriage,

knowing that there are these new laws that would prevent them from getting divorced if things really start to fall apart. And if you take a look at the marriage rate, that's actually been suffering a little recently. So let's go to the next graphic here. So 60% of couples cited a partner's unfaferred. a partner's unfaithfulness as the top reason why their union ended. Nearly a quarter of divorces, 24% in total, cite domestic abuse as the cause of divorce.

So the idea that people are just flippantly getting a divorce, a divorce, and they don't see it as a big deal, like any little conflict, they just want to end things, that's actually not the case. People are divorcing for some very serious reasons, lack of commitment, you know, an abusive relationship. And I do want to go to the next video because in the next clip, I think that, you know, Poole ends up accusing conservatives of something that doesn't really make sense. But more importantly, he's challenged a little bit. And I agree with the challenging that takes place. So let's take a look at that. So there's an interesting phenomenon here

that for some reason has emerged in this particular case, where you're seeing a lot of these traditional conservatives actually come out as full on feminist as soon as it comes to the issue of divorce. I don't think it's feminist at all. If you want, if you want to incentivize traditional marriage, like you can't like put one party in a position where they get totally like ripped off in case of a divorce. You're correct. The traditional response to how you fix marriages, divorce is not allowed. Okay. But there's rare circumstances where like a guy is threatening to murder and beating his wife and his kids. And infidelity is one of these things. These, these are people who I don't think those accusations are on the table. They're,

they're mostly just angry with each other and yelling at each other. And they're not getting along, that's where a judge comes in and says, you are grown adults, you will behave appropriately, you have children, those children need functioning parents, you will treat this relationship properly, get therapy, and at the very least, if you don't like being around each other, you will be professional. And you chose this, this covenant. What are you advocating for for them to, like, live in the same house when they don't like each other? Like, yes, that's crazy. That is, in fact, crazy. And also, I just, I just love the line of even if you guys, like if you guys hate each other's guts and

because of new laws, you're forced to stay married and live together, just be professional about it. No, we get enough of the force to be professional at work all day. Okay, we don't need to do that at home too. If you're unhappy and you can't stand your partner, again, that conflict is super toxic for the children that Tim Poole is saying he's concerned about. Look, I don't want to be like overly critical of Tim Poole here, but Tim, Tim, who hurt Who hurt you, Tim? Who hurt you? This is not good policy. And I don't know what's fueling his promotion of these policies. Because if you want to increase the rate of marriage in America, which could potentially increase financial stability for people, which is a good thing,

this ain't the way to go. If I knew that it would be impossible for me to get a divorce if things start to fall apart in my marriage, I wouldn't get married. And look, to be fair to Tim, he does say that. It's totally fine. Don't get married. He says it throughout his argument in the, you know, episode that he hosted. But overall, I agree with Sean, the guest, who was on Tim Pool show. He creates content on YouTube under actual Justice Warrior, if you want to check out his content. But what he says there is totally true. It is insane to force a couple that can't stand each other to stay together and live in the same household. It's just not a good idea. It's not good for the kids. It's not good for the couple. And it just creates a super tumultuous,

toxic environment for everyone involved. We need to give people the freedom to walk away. And when they walk away, it's typically for some serious reasons. I want to go back to the graphic I read earlier. 60% of couples cited a partner's unfaithfulness as a reason that their union ended. Nearly a quarter of divorces, 24% in total cite domestic abuse as a cause of divorce. So these like No fault divorces, yes, they happen, it is true, but to say that they're the main reason why couples get divorced in America is just flat out wrong. Plus getting a divorce is difficult, as I mentioned earlier. It takes a lot of money and a lot of time.

Divorces take time, contested divorces usually take over a year to finalize. Although simple divorces can be completed in as little as three months, divorce comes at a big cost with couples spending an average of $7,000 to dissolve their unions. And as I mentioned earlier, it's not like we have more people getting married today. Less people are getting married today. We don't need to give them more reasons to avoid getting married. So the marriage rate has declined from 8.2 per capita in 2000 to six per capita in 2021. So I don't know again what's fueling Tim Poole's commentary there.

I think there seems to be this feeling that women are at fault here, that they're mindlessly getting married and then mindlessly demanding divorces. I don't think that's a real issue in America. I think the real issue in America is people who really have no business getting involved in the personal intimate lives of Americans, getting involved in the personal intimate lives of Americans. We've got real issues in America, there's no doubt about that. Let's focus on those things and maybe stay off of Americans and what they're up to in their

private lives. All right, we gotta take a break. When we come back, John Ida Rola will join me. I'm massively over time, I hope he's not mad at me. And we'll talk about some pressing issues, including the Biden administration pressuring publications to change the way they frame certain political stories. That and more coming up, don't miss it.