The Young Turks - Drugstore Cowboys

Episode Date: July 27, 2023

CNN witnesses three alleged thefts in 30 minutes while reporting on shoplifting. JUST IN: Rudy Giuliani concedes in court filing he made "false" statements about Georgia election workers. Hunter Biden to plead guilty to federal tax crimes. States lose federal water funds as lawmakers redirect money to pet projects. Study of elite college admissions data suggests being very rich is its own qualification. 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 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. 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. You know, I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to be. Welcome to TYTY, I'm your host, Anna Kasperian. And the show is bananas today.

Okay, we're going to talk about Hunter Biden's plea deal, fall it apart. It happened in real time. I'll explain exactly what took place in the courtroom and why the federal judge overseeing that case decided against accepting his plea deal. Later, we'll also discuss a pretty big story having to do with Rudy Giuliani confessing to lies about the 2020 presidential election and how it was allegedly stole. from Donald Trump, we'll give you the details on that as well. In the second hour of the show, John Iderola will be joining me to talk about, yes, some serious stories, but also we're gonna lighten things up. I'm gonna ask you a question, how much are you willing to pay for literally a brick wall?

It's a comment on how disastrous our housing crisis is in America. Don't miss that. And Lizzo does something incredible. I was skeptical of this story until I watched the video for myself, but she did something that honestly brought me to tears, and I can't wait to share that with you in the second hour of the show. But before we get to all of that, as always, I just want to encourage you to like and share the stream if you're watching us live. It's the easiest way to help support the show and get the TYT message out there. You can also support us and get exclusive members-only

content by becoming a member by going to TYT.com slash join, or you can just click on that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. Now, I wanted to start off with something that isn't necessarily a breaking news story or even a headline news story. It does have something to do with a CNN video that went viral yesterday. But there's a broader point to make here. So let's get into it. Let's talk about organized retail theft. You've seen the videos of brazen smash and grabs like these, often carried out in broad daylight. It's an absolute threat. A Chicago area Louis Vuitton rated by 14 hooded suspects, making off with over $100,000 worth of luxury items. A flash mob style heist at an Oakland area Nordstrom.

This New York jewelry store, windows smashed in with hammers. Federal authorities and retailers are now sounding the alarm about the growing danger of organized retail crime that is sweeping the country. For a while now, I've been attempting to slowly ease the political. political left into admitting and responding to the undeniable truth on the ground in major US cities. Organized retail theft is harming many communities and we need to be real about it. For one, I don't find it politically advantageous to deny what everyone can witness for themselves. But more importantly, the left loses credibility when its prominent voices claim they want to build a better society for ordinary people while

actively making unmerited justifications for crap that actually makes life worse. A prime example of the madness is San Francisco, where organized retail theft has gotten so bad that half the stores in its downtown area have shuttered. A recent CNN report revealed San Francisco's dysfunction with a local Walgreens hit with three thefts in just 30 minutes. Our Qionglau visited one Walgreens that's hit by shoplifters more than a dozen times a day. It happened three times while she was inside. In the 30 minutes we were at this Walgreens, we watched three people, including this man, steal. Did that guy pay?

Did that guy pay? He didn't pay. Now, that store has been dubbed the most robbed Walgreens in the country. And I'm sure local political leaders must be super proud to foster the kind of environment necessary to win that honor. I'll get to more on that in just a minute. But first, I want to get to the cover story that the left has fully bought into, that these thieves are desperate, that they're living in poverty and have no choice but to steal because they're. They need to feed their families. Now first off, the assumption that crimes must be committed by the poor is, you know, pretty

damn defamatory toward disadvantaged individuals. Secondly, that claim is, you know, without merit. But let's compare economic rough patches and how they impacted crime. Let's look at the data. Take a look at this pretty incredible chart using data from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice on crimes committed in New York City between. 2006 and 2022. Now you'll notice that there isn't a notable spike in major commercial retail crimes during or immediately after the 2008 economic collapse. In other words,

the economic desperation that Americans were experiencing during the last great recession did not translate to a significant uptick in retail crime. But the data on this chart makes clear that there was a massive spike in retail crime during the COVID pandemic. And perhaps, just perhaps, factors other than poverty and desperation account for it. Now look, to be fair, the one man that we saw in the earlier CNN video could potentially fall into the category of a lone thief who stole a little something because he was hungry. I don't know. But I'm not really interested in petty crimes. The real problem is the ongoing and unmitigated organized crime that we're all paying the price for.

The issue has now become so out of control that the federal government is getting involved. Federal authorities now warn it's become an absolute threat to public safety and public health declaring that violent gangs, dangerous international crime syndicates, and even groups with suspected ties to terrorism are increasingly dabbling in organized retail crime across the United States. Here's more on that. In April, three people were arrested in connection with an organized retail crime operation that allegedly targeted California Home Depot's, authorities recovering $75,000 worth of stolen goods.

And Homeland Security officials say the organizations have suspected ties to drug trafficking and terrorism financing. They're crime syndicates that could be tied to local gang networks that maybe have established networks either from the Chilean or Colombian threats or Romanian crews coming in from Eastern European that are comfortable in certain cities. According to the company, this one crew robbed various stores more than 20 times, allegedly stealing a total of $135,000 in merchandise. Now, Homeland Security officials are also concerned about other groups, including the Aryan Brotherhood and crime rings from Eastern Europe and South America, using organized retail theft

to raise funds for their criminal organizations. Raul Aguilar, who serves or oversees international organized crime cases for homeland security, says there are definitely ties between certain organized retail thieves and drug trafficking organizations, including some of the cartels identified by the United States government as a global threat. In addition, Aguilar also says that some of these networks are tied to the terrorist financing networks around the world. Another alleged repeat offender, this Delaware woman, Ayana Duramas, who authorities say has been on an organized retail crime spree for years.

In February, she was caught on surveillance, allegedly stealing two Nespresso machines worth nearly $2,000 from a New Jersey bedbath and beyond. And then, here she is again at a nearby Home Depot a week later, raising a hammer at a Home Depot employee who tried to stop her. Now all of this criminal activity comes at a cost to all of us, some of us, the most economically vulnerable, pay a bigger price. For instance, a Homeland Security Investigations report issued last year said estimates regarding organized retail crime found the average American family will pay more than $500 annually in additional costs due to the impact. That's not a small amount of money for the nearly half of American housing.

households who reported that they could not afford a $400 emergency, and that was data from the Federal Reserve prior to the pandemic and prior to the inflation driving up living costs even more today. Since stores are closing in response to the uptick in organized retail theft, workers are losing their jobs. Walgreens alone has shut down five stores in San Francisco due to theft since the retail crime epidemic began. Now keep in mind that those on a fixed income now have to spend more of their resources to travel even further in order to purchase groceries and other household needs. But those added financial costs we all have to pay to accommodate organized criminals

is nothing compared to what some retail workers are dealing with as they try to earn an honest living. coordinated groups are targeting stores millions of dollars worth of goods retailers say they're growing more violent putting shoppers and workers at risk sometimes with tragic consequences what goes through your mind when you realize that your dad was essentially killed over three power washers you can't imagine that any piece of equipment in home depot is worth alive when you saw the video of what happened to your dad, what was going through your mind? I wish it would have been me. That worker was 82-year-old Gary Razor, a retiree working at the Home Depot in Hillsborough, North Carolina. He sadly

died after being shoved to the ground by an alleged thief, who was then arrested, luckily, on a murder charge. The case against him is still pending. Now, there are other examples, like the following. at a home depot in Pleasanton, California in April, Blake Moes, a 26-year-old employee set to be married in August,

was fatally shot after he tried to stop a suspected thief. Two people have been arrested on murder charges in that case. Now, these two victims aren't even a fraction of the other, countless workers who have been assaulted as these thefts take place. Now, if you're LARPing as a socialist who pretends to value labor, maybe your act would be more believable if you show just an ounce of concern for the workers. But I don't know, that must be a bourgeois concern of mine. So what now? What are the possible solutions?

The National Retail Federation wants the federal government to enforce more regulations toward online sellers like Amazon, eBay, Craigslist, and Facebook Marketplace. These are places where the thieves sell the stolen goods, to which the federal government has taken some action on. For instance, the newly passed Inform Act now requires online retailers to verify certain information about their vendors and sellers in order to combat the sale of stolen goods. Online marketplaces that do not comply with this law could face more than $50,000 in fines for each violation. But retailers argue that this is not enough and would like Congress to allocate funds for a federal task force targeting organized retail crime. I'm not really sure if that's necessary. There are other proposals,

though, in Congress as well. The Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, which would establish a coordinated multi-agency response and create new tools to tackle evolving trends in organized retail theft was introduced by the House of Representatives in February. We'll see if that legislation goes anywhere. Now, on a more local level, there are about a dozen state task forces investigating the issue. Homeland Security investigators say they're assisting in those efforts. And over the past three years, the agency has tripled the number of cases. It's investigating, often using fraud-related and money laundering laws to open cases. But let's keep it real. Lacks state laws need to be revisited. Evidence suggests that there is a

small group of people committing these crimes over and over again. They should not get to take advantage of bail reform if they're recommitting the exact same crime. A perfect example of this is highlighted in New York City. Nearly a third of all shoplifting arrests in New York City last year involved just 327 people. Collectively, they were arrested and re-arrested more than 6,000 times. In other words, there are solutions that can, you know, focus on solving this problem without reverting back to mass incarceration. In fact, we should maybe consider these solutions if we want to avoid going back to the old model.

But look, I also want to address something broader. This data I've shared with you, along with the current crime-related trends that I've brought up multiple times on the show, has rubbed other left-wing shows the wrong way. In their view, stories like these serve as an obstacle to some of the proposals on the left that, quite frankly, I disagree with. I've never supported police or prison abolition, and I've yet to hear a convincing argument in favor of these policies. I have, however, supported the Nordic model for criminal justice and continue to do so. Over the past month, two different people on the left, one publicly and one privately, urge me to avoid focusing on like organized retail theft.

While the information I'm sharing is accurate, it allegedly hurts the left to share it. I want to be clear that while I agree with many left-wing policies, I'm not an activist and I'm certainly not a propagandist. My responsibility is to be truthful to my audience and to share nuances of all the complex issues we discuss every day. Accuracy, fairness, and nuance is what I want to do. to do. And if I wanted to be a propagandist, I sure is hell wouldn't be doing it for the salary

I'm currently making. We're going to take a break. I'll be right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone. I'm Anna Casparian. Let's talk a little bit about investigations having to do with prominent politicians or political figures, those associated with political figures. Let's get started with Rudy Giuliani. When when former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani claimed that two Georgia elections officials had rigged the 2020 presidential election, he was lying. Now, we all know he was lying, but has he ever admitted to it? Turns out today he did.

According to new reporting, Rudy Giuliani confessed to his lies in an overnight court filing in response to a defamation lawsuit filed in federal court by Georgia election workers. So Rudy Freeman and her daughter, Wondrea Shea Moss, are the two individuals who have filed the defamation lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani. And in his filing, he confessed to lying about them. Now, what was his lie? Well, he claimed that these two women essentially rigged the election after they pulled thousands of fraudulent ballots from a suitcase in their vote counting station and illegally fed them through voting machines. That was the claim by Rudy Giuliani. That claim was repeated by Donald Trump. And these women's lives were destroyed as a result of

that, they had to deal with all sorts of threats, all sorts of crazy people coming after them. And so let's back up a little bit, give you more context before we get to the Giuliani confession here. Now the suit accused Giuliani, the defamation lawsuit and others of promoting a video that purported to show Freeman and Moss, those are the two election workers, a mother and daughter, of manipulating ballots while working at the state farm arena for the Fulton County board of elections. Now last year, Freeman and Moss appeared as witnesses at a public hearing of the House Select Committee investigating January 6th, and they told their story of the lies told about them and what that led to in their personal lives. In fact, why don't we go to Moss

testifying in front of this committee just last year and hear what she had to go through? Those horrible things that they include threats? Yes, a lot of threats, wishing death upon me, telling me that, you know, I'll be in jail with my mother and saying things like, be glad it's 2020 and not 1920. We're a lot of these threats and vile comments racist in nature? A lot of them were racist, a lot of them were just hateful. Yes, sir. Now none of that is surprising, it shouldn't be surprising to you, because it wasn't just Giuliani spreading these lies about these women.

You also had Donald Trump spreading these lies about these women, making them a target for the Trump supporters who unfortunately genuinely believed the lies, genuinely believed that the election was stolen from Trump. So Trump invoked Freeman's name 18 times during a phone call with Brad Raffensberger. That was the Georgia Secretary of State on January 2nd, 2021. In that call, Trump, of course, asked Raffensberger to help him find 11,800 votes, which would be enough to swing the results in Georgia away from Biden. In fact, we've played that video for you all multiple times.

I'm going to go ahead and play it again. So look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have because we won the state. So that was pretty clear. Now let's fast forward to the filing by Rudy Giuliani, which of course happened overnight. What was the admission here? Well, in the two-page declaration, according to the New York Times, Giuliani acknowledged that he had, in fact, made these statements about Freeman and Moss

that led to the filing of the suit and that the remarks carry meaning that is defamatory per se. He also admitted that his statements were actionable and false, and that he no longer disputed the factual elements of liability the election workers had raised in their suit. But there is a catch because while he admitted guilt here, Giuliani wants to be cleared of any damages or having to pay any damages. Giuliani insisting that he still had legal defenses in the case, said that he continued to believe his accusations about Freeman and Moss were constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. He also refused to acknowledge that his statements had caused the women any damage, a key element required to collect a judgment in a defamation case.

So his argument here is, no, I was just sharing my opinion, just my opinion, man. And by the way, opinion is protected by the First Amendment, but you cannot declare something that is false about someone that could lead to their reputation being destroyed, that could lead to damages in their life, whether it's financial damages or otherwise. And that is what he did repeatedly. So we'll see how this plays out. But I just love how he's like, yeah, I lied about them. But I shouldn't have to face any consequences because even though I'm not.

I declared they did something that I didn't have any evidence for and they didn't actually do. And even though their lives were screwed over as a result of my lies, I don't want to have to pay any damages for it. That's really what this filing is about. Now, I'm going to pause and just mention that there are how many people now who participated in the riots on January 6th, who were prosecuted as a result of that, many were convicted and sentenced to prison time as a result of that. And what spurred January 6th were the lies that were told by Donald Trump and all the people surrounding him.

The Trump campaign continued repeating the lies, some right-wing media outlets, including Fox, repeated the lies. and this, of course, led to consequences for those who participated in the riots. And I got to say, it's kind of nice to see that some of the Trump officials, Trump campaign officials are willing to confess to the lies. And I hope that they suffer consequences for it. Because it's not right that ordinary people were lied to. It's not right that they engaged in that riot. I'm not justifying that at all. But the lies coming from the very top on the election, The 2020 election is what persuaded them to allegedly take our democracy back, allegedly

fight to hand the election over to the rightful winner. Those people were misled and they suffered the consequences of that. I think Rudy Giuliani and all the other goons in Trump's campaign should also suffer the consequences for spreading the lies in the first place. Now to continue, it appeared that the reason why Giuliani was finally compelled to confess that he lied about these women is because the case wasn't going so well for him to begin with. He was not cooperating with the discovery process, for instance. In the declaration, he acknowledged making his concessions to avoid unnecessary expenses in litigating what he believes to be unnecessary

disputes. Now, those two election officials who are at the heart of this defamation lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani had previously sued others who had defamed them. Now, the two women had originally sued other defendants, including one America news network, which certainly spread some election-related lies. But ultimately, they settled the case with everyone except Rudy Giuliani. They wanted to move forward with that. And for Giuliani, this is just one of many defamation lawsuits. Three weeks ago, a legal ethics committee in Washington said he should be disbarred for his

unparalleled attempts to help Trump overturn the 2020 election. I can't believe that that just happened three weeks ago. Why did it take so long to, you know, maybe consider disbarring this man? And Shane Moss are now celebrating Giuliani's admission. Their attorney released a statement saying that Giuliani's stipulation concedes what we have always known to be true. Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss honorably performed their civic duties in the 2020 presidential election in full compliance with the law and the allegations of election fraud he and former President Trump made against them have been false since day one. While certain issues, the attorney continues, including damages remain to be decided by the court, our clients are pleased with this major milestone in their

fight for justice and look forward to presenting what remains of this case at trial. And I really do hope that they move forward with this case. And I hope that they are paid the damages they deserve, considering how badly they were defamed by Rudy Giuliani and others in the Trump campaign. Now, there was another case worth discussing, and this one has to do with the opposite end of the political spectrum. Let's talk a little bit about Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, came to court this morning expecting to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and was planning to enter into a pretrial diversion agreement on a felony gun. possession charge. But in the end, there was no deal at all collapsed. The judge presiding

over the matter said this case needed more information before the judge would accept this proposed agreement. Hunter Biden is having a no good day. Very, very bad day. Just a tough go with things. Now, Hunter Biden was planning on taking a plea deal with the Justice Department today, But the deal was derailed by kind of Republicans, although that's not really all that true. And he ultimately ended up attempting to plead not guilty, but the judge wasn't even ready to accept the revised plea. Now, the story is a little complicated. I'm going to try to walk you through it. But ultimately, it's important to know that there was an investigation into Hunter Biden. And there's definitely some wrongdoing as it pertains to an illegal gun possession.

and his unwillingness to pay taxes in time. And he does suffer consequences for that. So the Trump-era Justice Department apparently started investigating Hunter Biden back in 2018. Clearly, this was when Donald Trump was still president of the United States. It was his Justice Department who launched this investigation. And it expanded to examine multiple potential issues related to Hunter Biden's behavior, including allegations that he violated money laundering and foreign lobbying laws with his multi, multi million dollar overseas business dealings.

Now, through that investigation so far, the only thing that has been proven, the only thing that we have evidence of is how he didn't pay his taxes, okay? And there are other issues, including illegal possession of firearms. So in outlining the charges, the special prosecutor in this case, the assistant, I'm sorry, the attorney investigating this, and that's Weiss, Weiss's office, said in an earlier statement that Hunter Biden received taxable income in excess of $1.5 million annually in calendar years 2017 and 2018, despite owing in excess of $100,000 in federal income taxes each year, he did not pay the income tax due for either year.

That's just a long-winded way of saying he didn't pay his taxes. That is what the investigation found. And as a result, he was prosecuted for that. So that's the heart of the criminal prosecution, but there's also a gun charge. So let's talk a little bit about that. Biden faced a separate gun charge for illegally owning a Colt Cobra 38 special handgun. Now, the Justice Department, however, said that he had reached a pre-trial agreement. Pay attention here, because this is the relevant part.

He had reached a pretrial agreement that most likely means that under certain conditions, the case may be wiped from his record. So that was part of the plea deal, right? Plead guilty to the tax-related charges and the gun charge can go away. Although there seemed to be a little bit of miscommunication on that, a little bit of misunderstanding. Now, the original plea deal included that prosecutors would recommend probation for the tax violations, while a separate felony gun charge would be dropped if Biden met certain conditions laid out in court. Thus, the plea deal that enraged the GOP.

This is where the Republicans come in. Let's hear what they have to say. The federal judge, Mary Ellen Norica, has told the court that she is deferring a decision on the plea agreement for the president's son. She said she cannot accept or reject it. She's asked the parties for additional information. She told them at one point, quote, you are telling me just to rubber stamp this deal that is form over substance. She had serious concerns not only about the agreement on misdemeanor tax charges, but also on this diversion program for the felony gun offense.

She said she believed there may be elements and provisions within that agreement that are unconstitutional in her view. Now, Norica, the judge in this case was appointed by Donald Trump. And so there are all sorts of accusations that the decision here might be politically motivated. Listen, I don't think that that is fair to say here because while the judge made clear that she's unwilling to accept a plea agreement because she is concerned about the constitutionality of that plea agreement, you know, there are other judges that have been appointed by Democrats who oversee cases pertaining to Republican wrongdoing. I think that it's unsavory to say the least to immediately brush off a judge's decision due to who they were appointed by. And even though for the time being, she has rejected this plea deal, she is giving the Hunter Biden's team and the prosecutors here 14 days to make their case about the constitutionality of this plea agreement before moving forward. So she hasn't flat out rejected it. She hasn't rejected it, but she hasn't accepted it either. She is waiting for more information from both parties in order to make a decision as to whether or,

or not, this plea agreement is constitutional. Now I do want to also just quickly talk about some of the other accusations from the Republican party here. And in order to understand that, we need to go to the next video. So let's take a look at that. Now before all this happened, Republicans had blasted this potential deal as merely a slap on the wrist and had accused the Department of Justice of interfering in this investigation. Meanwhile, two IRS whistleblowers also accused the Department of Justice of slow walking parts

of this investigation. U.S. Attorney Weiss, who we should note was nominated by then President Donald Trump in 2017, has denied allegations of political interference. So that is what the Republican Party has been alleging about this case. They are alleging that the Biden administration has meddled in the Hunter Biden prosecution, even though they have failed to provide any evidence of that. In fact, let's talk a little bit about U.S. attorney David Weiss, who has, been overseeing this investigation since 2018.

We're talking about an individual who was appointed by the Trump administration to launch this investigation into Hunter Biden. Trump did that. Trump chose this guy. And so what happened after President Biden got elected and maybe had some say in how this prosecution move forward? Well, let's go to graphic four here. U.S. attorney, David Weiss, has led the investigation.

He was appointed by Trump and Joe Biden kept him at his post so he could continue handling the probe. There is no public indication that Joe Biden or the White House ever tried to intervene in the probe. Now look, there could be future evidence that counters that. And I'm open to that evidence. We just have not seen it yet. And if people are uncomfortable with the idea that the son of the president of the United States might get some special treatment in that he might be granted a plea deal that allows him to skirt having to serve any time behind bars. I hear you. But I would just ask, especially to my friends on the other side of the political aisle, if you're going to make that case, how are you then going to

turn around and argue that Donald Trump, who is on tape admitting to take? Taking classified documents from the White House to his home in Marlau. How are you going to argue that that guy shouldn't face any consequences for it? How are you going to turn around and argue that the FBI should be defunded because of this classified documents investigation into Donald Trump? You can't claim that you want to hold those in positions of power accountable when it impacts Democrats and then turn around and say you do not want to do the same thing when it impacts someone on your side of the aisle. See, for me, you commit the crime, you should do the time. You should suffer the consequences. I don't care if you're a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, progressive, socialists.

I don't care. I think that the two-tier justice system is sick. And I, for one, am tired of watching elite individuals break the law over and over again without suffering the same consequences that ordinary people suffer from. So again, if you're concerned about Hunter Biden getting let off easy and you identify as a Republican, just give me a little bit of consistency here and stop making excuses and stop providing cover for the criminality on your side of the aisle. Now I'll continue. So I want to give you some more statements from the judge here because Judge Mary Ellen Norica said that she had concerns about the party's

seemingly linking the tax plea agreement to resolving a felony gun charge. During the proceedings, prosecutors confirmed that the investigation into Biden was in fact ongoing. And she asks, what if it is unconstitutional, meaning the plea deal? I'm trying to exercise due deliverance and consideration to make sure we don't make a misstep. And so as a result, the judge has given, again, both parties 14 days to provide additional information to help her decide whether or not she should accept that plea deal. We'll see how it plays out. Now, according to reporters who were there on the scene, as this all played out in real time, Hunter Biden looked frustrated, frazzled, almost irritated by how all this played out.

But he committed crimes here. And if ordinary people decided, you know what, I made millions of dollars I'm just not going to pay taxes and I'm going to be in possession of an illegal weapon, they're not going to get any special treatment at all. Now, I don't know if Biden's going to get special treatment. I don't know what the outcome of this is going to be. But again, I just want to reiterate, don't care if it's the son of the president. Don't care if he's someone who shares my political values and beliefs, although I doubt it. All I care about is making sure that we're consistent with our criminal justice system,

that we're consistent in prosecuting people regardless of what their socioeconomic status is or regardless of how connected they are. That includes Democrats and Republicans. Because if we're going to have trust in our institutions, if we're going to have trust in how punishment or consequences are doled out to individuals, we need to see that consistency and we can't allow our political ideology to get in the way of whether or not we believe someone should suffer the consequences for their actions. All right, I got to take a break.

When we come back, we're going to discuss the water wars. Remember how the Biden administration, with the help of Congress, of course, allocated a ton of money toward improving our infrastructure, including, you know, our drinking water or tap water. Well, you know, the earmark process is kind of taking some of those resources away from disadvantaged parts of the country and pouring it into wealthier parts of the country. I want to give you the details on that and more when we come back. I just want to say thanks to some of our live viewers, including independent conversation show, who says, Anna, don't ever back down. And if you have people on the left telling you not to cover anything, You still cover those stories to show them what real journalists do.

Thank you for that message. And Nicolette shares a personal story. My in-laws own a repair shop. They have been robbed on a near nightly basis. Cops who caught them didn't even book them, assuming they even showed up. This resulted in them pulling a gun on a robber just last week. Yeah, look, there's definitely issues with policing as well. But, you know, if you're in a part of the country where certain crimes aren't getting

prosecuted, cops just decide, well, what's the point in putting my life in danger and trying to arrest these people? I mean, a lot of that's going on as well. But anyway, thank you for sharing your personal stories with me and your comments. For now, let's move on to something completely different. The ongoing water wars, very, very serious problem here in the United States, especially as it pertains to our water-related infrastructure and how some communities are getting taken care of while others are being neglected. We're now learning that states are getting screwed by members of Congress who have redirected a whopping $2.3 billion in federal funds meant to address clean water needs toward politically

advantageous pet projects over the past two years. Now in many cases, these lawmakers cut into money that could have been made available to poorer, needier and oftentimes minority communities. So let's get into the details here. As a result of these diversions, 38 states, 38 states and territories have been shortchanged about $660 million in federal water aid, and that's according to data obtained and analyzed by the Washington Post, illustrating how the system often has rewarded politically well connected lawmakers in some of the wealthiest areas nationwide.

So let's back up a second, because this is a part of how government works that some people might not be fully aware of. And it gives you a sense of what the interpersonal, or what explains some of the interpersonal dynamics between members of Congress, why they behave the way they do. When you have a bill, like let's say Biden's infrastructure bill, which of course allocates a chunk of money towards certain projects. In this case, in what we're talking about right now, we're discussing infrastructure as it pertains to, you know, water, ensuring that we have clean, safe water for communities all across the country.

We've had issues with our water infrastructure for quite some time now. That money isn't just simply evenly distributed across all states, not even close. members of Congress compete with one another in order to get their pet projects in their districts funded through the money that was allocated through that legislation. And what ends up happening is certain communities, by the very nature of this process, get screwed and end up with little to no resources. Okay, so unfortunately the problem is expected to worsen in the coming fiscal year as House Republicans look to cut $1.7 billion to the overall funding that Washington sends two states

for their water needs. They want to slash federal water spending by more than half. I mean, think about how insane that is. At a time when, again, we're dealing with crumbling infrastructure. We're dealing with cities that have unsafe drinking water. Flint is still riddled with unsafe drinking water as we speak, but no, you've got an entire political party that is eyeing additional cuts to infrastructure and basically replacing lead pipes and things like that. So how does the redirection of these funds work exactly? So every year Congress appropriates money for two federal water funds that are overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. And then they end up distributing the grants to various states. Since 2022, the federal allocation has

totaled roughly $5.5 billion, amounting to a literal and figurative drop in the bucket for a nation with an estimated $625 billion backlog in projects just to provide cleaner, reliable drinking water. And lawmakers can reserve federal water aid for specific projects in their home communities using a legislative tool known as earmarks. Now, earmarks serve as legislative sweeteners to essentially incentivize lawmakers to pass major bills by allowing them to steer federal money, federal resources to projects in their districts. Only after earmarks are decided, does Washington divvy up and distribute a smaller pool of the remaining money among these states? That's how it works.

So in some cases, the result is that the system is a net cut in funding. Really depends on which state you're in, which part of the country you're in. So let's take a look at this graph that the Washington Post put together. And it addresses how each passing year, Democrats and Republicans have redirected an increasing amount of water spending to their own preferred projects, cutting into the money that states could use as they see fit. So you see that every passing year, the amount of money that goes toward earmarks seems to increase. So we're not even in 2024 yet, but obviously this addresses some of the future funding, some of the future allocations. And already for 2024, you see about

$880.5 million being earmarked out of the money that is awarded to the states. So let's get to some specific states and what the impact is. So in Illinois, for example, earmarks last year shortchanged the state $14.7 million in federal aid to improve clean water systems. Illinois has some of the greatest water needs in the country, including the second most lead pipes in the United States. A recent federal analysis shows. And over the past two fiscal years, another state, Pennsylvania, received about $36 million less than it would have received if lawmakers had not allowed earmarks. For Indiana, the cut totaled roughly $45 million.

In Texas, the reduction exceeds $65 million. And congressional earmarks also took away critical water money from, you know, Puerto Rico, which tends to get screwed over quite a bit by the system of government we have here, the way things work in the federal government. And this happened as as Puerto Rico was still working on rebuilding after the devastation of Hurricane Fiona in 2022. Let's give you some details on that. Over the past two fiscal years, Puerto Rico received roughly $26.6 million less than it would have without the earmarks. And that's according to the Council of Infrastructure financing authorities and the data that they shared with the Washington Post.

But look, the problem is exacerbated further. It is made worse by the fact that congressional earmarks really do appear to benefit wealthy communities over needier ones. In states such as Maryland, Massachusetts and Virginia, fewer than 20 percent of congressional water earmarks in the 2023 fiscal year went to communities that are considered disadvantaged. members of Congress decided where to send those dollars, not state officials, who might have directed them to areas in greater need. So I want to back up for a second to address one other problem that I see here.

After the Biden administration succeeded in passing legislation that funds infrastructure projects, he made clear that the earmarks need to be allocated to needier, disadvantaged communities. But the problem is the states all define disadvantaged communities in different ways. And there really wasn't an enforcement mechanism to ensure that that money, that those resources were getting to the parts of the country they were meant for. So it's one thing to just declare that you want the money to go in a certain direction. It's something entirely different to include enforcement mechanisms to ensure that that is taking place. Because look, the fact of the matter is, members of Congress are going to want to fight for their

pet projects and dip into those funds as much as possible for a whole host of reasons. It might help them with re-election. It might assist their corporate donors in a project that they really want. And at the heart of this issue is the problem we're facing in this country. with, again, crumbling infrastructure as it pertains to water. The fact that we have multiple parts of the country dealing with lead in their water is insane. And to see that this money is being redirected toward pet projects for federal members of Congress is also incredibly insane to me. Now, just a few more details on this.

An unpublished federal study aimed to explore whether earmarks had aligned with an executive order that Biden signed in 2021, that aims to deliver 40% of all federal benefit programs to cities and towns in greatest need, well, showed some pretty terrible results. In total, it found that earmarks in 18 states last year failed to meet that benchmark depriving disadvantaged communities of an estimated $79 million in water aid. And according to Eric Olson, who is a senior strategic director for health and food at the NRDC. The earmarks basically are taking the money away from low income communities that really need the funding most to fix their drinking water and putting it into wealthier communities

that are often white communities that don't need the money as much. The beneficiaries include the city of Bel Air, Texas, just outside Houston, which scored $2.4 million to replace its water lines last year. with an average household income exceeding $200,000 annually, Bel Air normally might have had to take a loan. Instead, it received a federal grant thanks to Democratic Representative Lizzie Fletcher. So this is a big problem, and I had lots of issues with the legislation that Biden pushed for. It was obviously watered down version of the legislation he ran on.

I had problems with the way that it was being marketed to the public as an incredible landmark piece of legislation that was going to help disadvantaged communities. And I just decided I'm going to sit back and wait and see how this whole process plays out. Because when push comes to shove, if the wealthier communities are pushing for, voting for, and supporting certain projects, their congressional lawmakers are going to fight to dip into those resources and get those special projects. funded. And this also gives you a sense into a sense of why members of Congress interact with one another the way they do. So when we talk about how Democrats, for instance, are usually unwilling to fight other members of their party on various issues, it could be because they don't want to get on someone's bad side when allocating this money toward their pet projects, toward their earmarks is a priority of theirs, something that they want to push for in order

to help their chances of getting reelected. So they don't want to get on anyone's bad side. They're literally playing politics to ensure that they can dip into these funds for their own projects. And it kind of gives you a sense of why those interpersonal relationships occur the way they do, especially on the Democratic side. But I think the system needs a little bit of an overhaul. And one band-aid, I guess, in the short term would be to ensure that there is an enforcement mechanism to get this money to the communities that need it the most. Because the fact that we're literally like funneling more government resources to parts of the country where wealthy people are probably not even paying their fair share of taxes, to be

quite honest with you, is ridiculous to me. But this is how the process currently works. These are the flaws in the system, and it's something that we should all know about and work hard to do something about moving forward. We've got to take a break. When we come back, John Ida Rola will join me for the second hour of the show. Don't miss it. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work. Listen ad-free.

Access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at Apple. at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.