The Young Turks - Highway to Hell

Episode Date: March 16, 2022

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Wednesday peace talks were sounding more realistic but more time was needed, as Russian air strikes killed five people in the capital Kyiv and the refugee tally from Moscow’s invasion reached 3 million. A man was charged with attempted murder in what police have described as a “brutal hate crime” against an Asian woman in New York state last week, with video of the incident showing the woman being punched over 100 times. Jeanine Pirro went ballistic on her Fox News co-host Geraldo Rivera for suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin manipulated Donald Trump to further Russian objectives. The White House says it is running out of money to cover COVID tests and vaccines. ***  The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET.  Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://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 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 #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews 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. Welcome, everyone. You're watching TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. And on today's show, we have a lot prepared for you, including San Francisco's district attorney, Chase, Budin he is facing a recall effort. The people of the voters of San Francisco have signed petitions to trigger this recall election which will take place on January 7th and Budin argues well I'm a progressive reformist and these are reforms that make the elite uncomfortable. We'll talk about his record, we'll talk

about what he's done in the San Francisco district attorney's office and get into some of those details. Later in the show we're also going to discuss the disagreement among some conservative talk show hosts like Ben Shapiro and Candice Owens on the issue of Russia invading Ukraine. What's really fascinating about all of that is how Ben Shapiro manages to pivot from saying he disagrees with a conservative to blaming everything on the left. It was a really fascinating video. We'll get to that later. And of course, in the second hour, John Iderall will be joining me for a lot of fun. And also some coverage. in regard to what the workers over at Disney are doing to hold their employer accountable

for refusing to stop donating money to Florida politicians who have supported the so-called don't say gay bill. Before we get to all of that though, why don't we start with some updates on Ukraine because Vladimir Zelensky did address Congress today. The president Biden, you are the leader of the nation, of your great nation. I wish you to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace. That was Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, who addressed Congress early this morning. And of course, his speech was meant to essentially ask the United States government to provide more assistance, more aid as they continue their fierce results.

resistance against the Russian troops. Now, of course, there's no question. This is something that he's been asking for almost from the very beginning. Ukraine would like the United States to implement a no-fly zone, something that Biden luckily has resisted. I'll tell you what Biden has agreed to in just a moment. But I think it's important to hear the heart of what this speech was really about, what Zelensky was really calling for. Terrible morning of December 71941 when your sky was black from the planes attacking you. Just remember it. Remember September the 11th.

A terrible day in 2001 when evil tried to turn your cities, independent territories in battlefields. When innocent people were attacked. attacked from air. Yes, just like no one else expected it. You could not stop it. Our country experience the same every day. Russian troops have already fired nearly 1,000 missiles at Ukraine. Countless bombs. They use drones to kill us with precision. This is a terror that Europe has not seen has not seen for 80 years and we are asking for a reply for an answer to this terror from the whole world is this a lot to ask for to create a no fly zone zone over ukraine to save people is this too much to ask humanitarian no fly zone something that ukraine and that russia

would not be able to terrorize our free cities so in the In the speech, Zelensky, you know, I think used a pretty smart tactic. He received a standing ovation by the time the speech was over. He made sure to point to parts of United States history where innocent people were victimized. He mentioned 9-11. He mentioned, you know, what happened in Pearl Harbor. And so his argument here is, just remember what that felt like. And is it too much to ask for the U.S. to implement a no-fly zone?

And listen, the answer is, yes, it is. And we've talked about why it's a bad idea to implement a no-fly zone. And honestly, how counterproductive it is to implement a no-fly zone in the search for peace or in the quest for peace. Because it would not lead to more peace, it's very likely that it would escalate the situation significantly. And what it would mean is that the United States would engage in a direct conflict with Russia. Doesn't mean that we're gonna send, you know, more military weaponry to Ukraine. And they're gonna, no, it means our troops would go to Ukraine and they would shoot down Russian planes. And when you're talking about a nuclear power, escalating the situation is terrifying.

There's, you know, mutually assured destruction that can take place when you're dealing with, first of all, someone like Vladimir Putin, who has shown himself to be pretty much a lunatic in regard to how he's acting, how he's, I mean, he doesn't seem to have many limitations in what he's willing to do, the way he's been willing to bomb hospitals. Just today, Russian troops decided to bomb a theater in Mariupil that was being used as a bomb shelter for Ukrainian civilians. That report is still ongoing, and we don't know the details in regard to how many civilians might have died as a result of that attack. So the idea of further inflaming the situation by implementing a no-fly zone would actually be counterproductive. But I understand why Zelensky is calling for one. Now,

shockingly, even Republican senators have good responses in rejecting the idea of a no-fly zone. So I want to give, believe it or not, Senator Roy Blut a little bit of credit for how he handled a question from CNN's Manu Raju on this issue. Let's watch. And anytime you put American pilots and American planes in the sky with Russian pilots and planes in the sky, you're really taking a chance that we may engage at a level that I don't think we're prepared to. And I think he's right about that. So Roy Blunt, even a broken clock, he's right in turning this down. Now for the White House, what we've heard from Joe Biden is that he is in fact willing to continue assisting Ukraine with more humanitarian aid, with more military aid.

He has also agreed to provide Ukraine with drones. There's still an ongoing debate in Congress in regard to fighter jets and whether or not the United States is, you know, attempt to find ways to get fighter jets to Ukraine. But senators like Mark Warner are against it. he argues that that would also escalate the situation. And considering this bit of good news that came out today, I think that might be accurate. Okay, so listen, things are, of course, subject to change. Just when you think that maybe things are going in the right direction, maybe Putin is backing off a little bit, all of a sudden you'll read another story about a theater

being bombed or a hospital being bombed. So I just want to proceed with caution as I give you this update, but it's a story that really wasn't covered much by the corporate media. It was published by Reuters, and it's a really important angle to the story in regard to their peace talks. So the peace talks are still ongoing. I know it doesn't seem like it because we're seeing this war being carried out. However, the peace talks have happened on three consecutive days. That's the first time this has happened. And there have been some. positive results according to both sides. This isn't just Ukraine saying there have been positive

results. It's not just Russia saying it. It seems like they're getting closer to negotiation. And it also seems as though Biden, I'm sorry, Putin is being kind of backed up into a corner because of how he grossly miscalculated this invasion and the outcome of the invasion. So I want to read a few excerpts from this Reuters piece. They write that the meetings can And they report, the meetings continue, and I am informed the positions during the negotiations already sound more realistic, Zelensky said, in a video address overnight. Later on Wednesday, meaning today, he said Ukrainians must fight to defend our state, our life, our Ukrainian life.

But he also, this is important, emphasize negotiations for a just but fair peace for Ukraine, real security guarantees that will work. So I want to pause for a second and give you guys a little bit, a little context about these security commitments. Now, back in the 1990s, I believe it was the Budapest agreement, you have the United States, Russia, Ukraine, and I believe the UK coming together to make an agreement about Ukraine's nuclear arsenal. Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal in return for security commitments. The United States signed on to that, Russia signed on to that for what it's worth. So there was the agreement they gave up their nuclear arsenal. The people of Ukraine understandably believe that that was a huge mistake.

They believe that had they maintained those chemical weapons, those, I'm sorry, nuclear weapons, They wouldn't be invaded by Russia. So first of all, that's a terrible lesson to learn from all of this. I hate the idea that countries that might be willing to give up their nuclear arsenal, now look at situations like what's happening in Ukraine and reconsider. If we really care about nuclear disarmament, this is not a good case study. So this is part of the reason why the United States is invested in helping Ukraine protect itself. It agreed to those security commitments.

So I wanted to give you that context, that little bit of history, so you know what's really going on, and you understand the rhetoric coming from Ukrainian officials when they really emphasize the importance of a security commitment that actually means something. But let me give you more. So Zelensky said on Tuesday that Ukraine could accept international security guarantees that stopped short of its longstanding aim to join NATO. He said neutral status, and by the way, Russian official said that neutral status is now being seriously discussed. By the way, it was seriously discussed before they invaded. Along, of course, with security guarantees, Russia's Lavrov said on Wednesday, there are

absolutely specific formulations, which in my view are close to agreement. So look, we've told you before, I'll say it again, right before, a few days before, Putin decided to invade Ukraine. Zelensky pretty much gave up his efforts to join NATO. And NATO representatives also said they were giving up, you know, it was ultimately up to Zelensky, but they can understand if they want to just drop it because it seems to be provoking Russia, right? Seems to be provoking Putin. Putin invaded anyway. Putin was going to invade no matter what. This is something that he wanted to do. He did it. Didn't matter what Zelensky had to say about NATO to begin with. You can be critical of NATO.

as we've been on this show, but you've got to state the reality of what happened prior to the invasion. Now, the way that Russian officials are messaging this, though, I'm totally fine with. Because the way that it comes across to me is that Putin, who's battered by this war and the resistance by the Ukrainians, is trying to find an out. So let's just give it to him. If he wants to present this as a win for the Russian people by saying, would you look at that? Zelensky agreed to avoid joining NATO, we won, fine. If that means he's going to withdraw, fine. Why would he want to do that?

Well, I mean, think about it. He's already pled for China to provide aid because of the fact that he miscalculated this war. There are also other economic issues. We've talked about the sanctions in great detail. Before I get to how those sanctions have impacted Russia and the Kremlin, let me give you more details about the negotiation. So Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's chief negotiator, told state TV, quote, Ukraine is offering an Austrian or Swedish version of a neutral demilitarized state,

but at the same time, a state with its own army and navy. Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, said the idea could really be seen as a compromise. Look, I don't know why this story is being ignored by corporate media. This is important, okay? Instead of focusing all of our energy on how are we going to fighter jets, let's get fighter, are you going to get fighter jets? I mean, you watch a Jen Saki press conference and every reporter asks the same question about fighter jets.

It's fine to ask about that. But hey, maybe a question about how these peace negotiations are doing. Maybe a question or two about that. Also, Ukraine's chief negotiator said guarantees were being discussed to provide a rigid agreement with a number of guarantor states undertaking. clear legal obligations to actively prevent attacks on Ukraine. And now going back to the sanctions, another reason why I think Putin is looking for an out here. The sanctions are really hurting Russia. I mean, Russia has been cut off from the

financial, the global financial system, essentially. And so Russia was due to pay $117 million in interest on dollar denominated sovereign bonds, but could be forced to pay and rubles instead because of these sanctions, amounting to its first default on foreign debt since the Bolshevik revolution. So Putin's hurt, and I think it would be a terrible idea to escalate the war when it seems like Putin might be looking for an out, and it seems as though these negotiations are finally starting to come together. We'll see what happens, of course, things are likely to change, but I do want to make sure

that we keep an eye on the negotiations. They're just as important as the debates regarding how much aid we're going to provide Ukraine. We got to take a break when we come back. The district attorney for San Francisco will join me to talk about the recall effort against him and more. Don't miss it. Welcome back to TYT, Anna Casparian with you. Let's get to our interview, a conversation I've been looking forward to having for quite some time. There's currently a recall effort underway in San Francisco against the district attorney, Chesa Boudin, who has been described by his opponents as soft on crime.

Those leading the effort needed to gather enough signatures, about 53,000, I believe, in order to trigger a recall election. And it appears that they have gathered more than 80,000 signatures. So this recall election is set to take place on June 7th. And I think it's important to talk about what Chesa Boudin's office looks like, what he has done as district attorney, and kind of cut through. some of the narratives that we're seeing both online and in the news. And so I'd like to join, I'd like to have Chesa Boudin join us right now. He is, again, the district attorney of San Francisco. He believes that he is doing the appropriate reform.

And I want to give him an opportunity to talk about that. Chesa, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you, Anna. Great to be with you and always an honor to represent and serve the people of the city and County of San Francisco. So I have to be honest, there are certainly concerning elements of your time as the District Attorney of San Francisco, things that I've come across, learned about, read into. And I want you to kind of talk about it in detail.

But before we get to all the negative coverage you're getting, I do want to give you credit for some of the positive reforms that you've brought about in San Francisco. I think that these are reforms that tend to get buried in negative press coverage. So for instance, you created the economic crimes against workers unit, I believe in 2020, if I'm not mistaken, which is fantastic. You also called on the state bar. I love this to prohibit police unions from donating to prosecutors. Where did that go?

Did you accomplish that? It's still pending in front of the state bar. It's a critical issue about ensuring the independence and the integrity of district attorneys' investigations into law enforcement officers who use excessive force or otherwise commit crimes on duty. We know there's been a longstanding and often really problematic relationship between district attorneys and police unions that has undermined public confidence in the integrity of independent investigations. And one of the things I ran on in 2019 and one of the things that I've continued to work on in the two years I've been in office is to ensure that when officers in San Francisco use excessive force or are otherwise suspects in any kind of a criminal investigation, that the public knows my office is independently investigating that conduct and we'll do what the facts in the law show, not what the police unions are donating to a campaign in order to get us to do or more often. not do. In fact, you have prohibited hiring cops who are currently under investigation in, you know, a different police department. This has been a common practice where there's some sort of misconduct and the police officer decides, all right, well, let me just jump ship and

go to a different department and then he or she gets hired in a completely different department without it being a problem at all. I like the fact that you've prohibited that. I think it's important to make sure that misconduct is something that's taken seriously and that officers who engage in it are held accountable. So why do you feel that you are being targeted for recall? What do you think is behind this? Well, let's be really clear about the chronology. Anna, they registered the domain website for the recall the week I was sworn into office. They literally started Twitter feeds and recall efforts before I'd implemented a single policy. And I've been dealing with recalls or attempted recalls for more than half the time I've been

in office. This has far less to do with any specific policy that I've implemented and far more to do with the fact that the Republican Party and major national Republican donors who are bankrolling this effort were unhappy with the outcome of the 2019 election and are determined to undermine the free and fair democratic process that occurred here in San Francisco, determined to roll back the clock and to undo the kinds of reforms that I've made that I promised voters I would make that you've been describing. Things like our worker protection unit that you mentioned, things like meaningful police accountability,

things like reducing juvenile incarceration or creating an independent innocence commission to ensure that people who were wrongfully convicted are not languishing behind bars. Those are policies that are consistent with San Francisco values. And I'm proud of my record in implementing them. So let's talk about how San Francisco voters feel. There was actually a poll released today that doesn't look good. It was conducted by a market research firm, EMC research. And they found that 68% of likely primary voters say they will vote yes to recall Boudin.

That number includes 64% of registered Democrats. In fact, a total of 74% have an unfavorable opinion of you, with 59% of voters overall having a strongly unfavorable opinion. 61% agree that you are responsible for rising crime rates in San Francisco, especially burglaries and thefts. Considering the fact that the majority, a clear majority of Democratic voters in San Francisco agree that you're soft on crime policies are a problem, you know, how do you respond to that? How do you persuade them otherwise?

Well, there's a lot there to unpack, Anna. So let's start with the basics. This poll was paid for by the recall and it was released by the recall weeks, if not months after the actual survey was done precisely because they wanted to get folks like you talking about it. We have seen polls that are more recent that put us neck and neck. I feel good about the progress we're making and the direction we're going in the campaign. But here's the other thing to recognize. We know that people all across the country are increasingly concerned about public safety issues in crime. That's not unique to San Francisco. And my policies are anything but soft on crime. I want to be clear. Under my leadership, conviction rates for homicide cases have

increased. Charging rates for drug sales and for sexual assaults have increased. And we are being creative, proactive, and innovative in the ways in which we hold people who commit crimes in San Francisco accountable. More importantly, empirical evidence, data, hard numbers show that overall San Francisco is safer on a relative basis than neighboring cities like Oakland or places like Sacramento, where they do have tough on crime, so-called prosecutors. We are doing what's smart on crime. We're being proactive about holding people who commit crimes accountable. And San Francisco has lower violent crime rates and lower property crime rates than any time in the last five years. No question, the pandemic has been tremendously difficult for all of us.

It has put local government and local businesses and local communities to the test in ways none of us could have predicted when I ran for office in 2019. And there's a tremendous amount of outrage and frustration from our voters. And my office and I are working as hard as we can to ensure that everybody in San Francisco is safe and feel safe. So, Chesa, I did look into the methodology of that poll because I'm always suspicious of polls, especially. And I knew that it was a very likely commissioned by the individuals trying to recall you. But we have to be fair and honest. The poll was conducted in the first week of March. So it wasn't conducted months and months ago.

But, you know. That's not what I read in the paper. They didn't share the poll results with me in it. But I read in the paper that it was done in February. Again, I don't know. But I know the same kind of approach to polls would have suggested that Larry Elder was going to be governor of the state of California. And thankfully, the polls that had him beating Governor Newsom were way off. Fair enough.

So let's move on to some of the decisions you made as soon as you were sworn in. You know, the first thing that really raised eyebrows was your decision to immediately fire seven prosecutors within your office. Since then, dozens of lawyers working for the prosecutor's office have also decided to resign, many of whom did so quietly. A few of whom did not do so quietly and decided to join the recall. against you. We'll get to that later. But the argument is that they were then replaced with career defense attorneys, individuals who aren't necessarily trained in being prosecutors. And what is your response to that? Well, it omits key facts, including that I've hired nearly a dozen people who used to be employed by the office left under prior administrations. And then we're eager

to come back and join my administration. We've got people from all walks of life, different genders and racial backgrounds and language groups who were prosecutors in this office left and now came back to work under me and my administration. I am proud of the folks we've recruited to come to our office, including, yes, some former defense attorneys who have a really good history of litigation, of understanding how to anticipate the kinds of arguments that we'll see in cases, but also of folks who came from other district attorneys offices all around the state. The truth is we've been overwhelmed by the quality and the quantity of applications we've received.

And I'm proud of the folks that we've hired new energy, new ideas, and folks who are really eager to serve and help protect the people in the city of county of San Francisco. So I want to get to some of the statistics that you published. You know, I really think it's great that you're transparent in regard to your prosecutorial work. You publish data about it. And it was recently analyzed by the San Francisco Chronicle in a piece written by Susie Nielsen. And she writes that based on the data that you shared, Boudin has sent a greater percentage of defendants in robbery, assault, and drug cases to diversion programs

than his predecessor, who was Gascone, who, by the way, is facing his own recall effort here in California. Budin's office has also more frequently charged defendants with crimes that are less serious than those sought by police officers after robbery and assault arrests. They find that the district attorney's office files charges and cases brought by police, finding that Budin's charging rates were in fact higher than Gascon's in narcotics and homicide cases, but lower for lesser offenses such as petty theft. Overall, Budin's charging rate was 48%. And it was actually lower than Gascon's 54% in his last two years in the same office.

office. And so the results are a little mixed. What is your response to that? Especially when it comes to, honestly, what I would argue are violent crimes that end up getting sent to these diversion programs. Like, I think it's insane that assault or robbery is not considered a violent crime. Well, robbery is considered a violent crime under California law. And assault is depending on the particulars, the details it can be a violent crime or a nonviolent crime, depending on the facts. But really, what's at issue here is me and my office following through on what we promised voters we would do and on what state law requires. So let me be clear about what I mean when I say that. First of all, my commitment to voters in San Francisco was to expand

access to diversion precisely because it is a more effective way to hold low-level offenders accountable, a more effective way to break the cycle of recidivism or re-arrest that have so defined America's failed approach to criminal justice. And that's not something that's specific to San Francisco or California. That failure, those horrific rearrest rates are something that we see from coast to coast from north to south. So when I ran in 2019, I said to voters, we're going to ensure that people who are committing crimes because of their addiction or their homelessness or their mental illness are required, court mandated to engage with services that can ensure public safety in the future. And we're going to double down our effort.

to hold those accused of the most serious crimes like murder and sexual assault accountable. That's exactly what those numbers show. But there's another two factors that are really critical changes that have happened in the last two years. The first one is new state laws, not my policies or out of San Francisco County, but state laws that were signed into law by the governor, which created and expanded diversion programs. That's beyond the scope of any one county or elected district attorney. When those programs exist, judges will often send people to them. Many of them didn't exist two years ago.

And the other thing that's critical to remember is you're evaluating my record when I've been in office for two years, one of which was entirely defined by the COVID-19 pandemic and court shutdowns. So you are absolutely right. In 2020, we made difficult decisions not to charge lower level cases precisely because our courtrooms were closed. We had limited bandwidth and we needed to prioritize holding people accountable who committed serious and violent crimes. You know, one thing that I want clear, and fair enough, I think your point about the pandemic is a relevant and substantive one. But there's one point that I need a little bit more clarification on because according to the San Francisco Chronicles analysis,

they also show that your office is sending a larger share of defendants in robberies to these diversion programs. Is that true? I mean, they're basing it off of the data that you've published. And if that is the case, is there any evidence showing that these individuals are not repeat offenders? Absolutely. First of all, robberies can look a lot of different ways. And in California, some of the cases we see that get booked into custody as robberies are essentially shoplifting cases where a loss prevention officer may have felt fear or where some level of force was used in tug of war, for example, over a bag of stolen items. That's a very different robbery from an armed robbery with a firearm where someone is

physically injured in the process. Now, under California law, all of those may qualify as robberies. So to look at what we're sending to diversion, no, we are not sending large numbers of cases that are violent armed robbery to diversion. Absolutely not. But we do have state laws that make certain categories of offense and offenders eligible for diversion. And we know, for example, from our make it right program, which is a program that's been in place for several years in our juvenile courts, that when we give victims the option of whether they want to see the person who robbed them prosecuted using traditional tools or whether they want to see them go through

a restorative diversion program. The overwhelming majority of victims have asked that we go through the restorative diversion path. And critically, we see far fewer rearrest rates or rates of repeat offenders when young people successfully complete that program. Then we see with the same cohort that people sit charged with the same crimes who go through a traditional prosecution. We did that research in partnership with outside independent researchers. We did a blind AB study where we randomly assigned people to control groups over a multi-year period. And we were so impressed by the effect that these diversion and restorative programs had on reducing re-arrest rates that we've significantly expanded them. And the data you're citing is a reflection of exactly what our longitudinal study

showed, that these programs are far more effective at reducing recidivism, at protecting public safety and critically at leaving victims feeling satisfied and empowered than our more traditional approaches to many of these cases are. Then how do you explain the significant uptick in crime? I mean, it's pretty difficult to ignore. You might make the argument that your policies aren't contributing to it, but how can you show clearly that that's really the case? Like what data can you point to?

And how are you using that to inform your decisions? moving forward when it comes to either using diversion programs or approving someone for no cash bail. Well, first of all, overall crime has gone down in the two years since I've been in office in San Francisco. So when we look at data, it's not about ignoring data. It's about looking at data, as you say. And I hope you'll take a look at what the San Francisco Police Department crime dashboard shows. If you compare reported crime in 2019, the year before I took office, with reported crime in 2020 or 2021, you'll see that overall reported crime is lower in every year that I've been in office than it was in the year prior to me taking office. Now, look,

those statistics don't mean anything if you or someone you care about have been a victim of crime. And I know that there are still far too many crimes committed in San Francisco. But it is not my job or the job of the San Francisco District Attorney's Office to make arrests. We rely on the San Francisco Police Department to respond to 911 calls, to investigate, to make arrests where appropriate and to bring us their investigation. And what I can tell you is that when police bring us investigations, we file charges, we hold people accountable and we do it in ways. As you pointed out earlier, Anna, that are transparent, that are consistent with San Francisco

values, and that are applying new state laws that are aimed at ensuring we're as effective and as humane and as efficient as possible at breaking the cycle of recidivism that has so defined counties like Sacramento where you've got traditional tough on crime prosecutors and where. And this is important, Anna, in the last two years, we've seen crime rates skyrocket in those jurisdictions. In fact, across the state of California, if you compare crime rates in the last two years from red counties to blue counties, red counties are doing far worse in terms of murder, armed robbery, and pretty much every single category of crime. We've got work to do in San Francisco, but let's be clear, we are doing far better than Oakland, a city across the bay,

their murder rate four times the one we have in San Francisco. I have more of a philosophical question to something that you had alluded to earlier. You know, you mentioned the necessity for diversion programs, and I think that's definitely the case, especially when you're dealing with individuals who might be addicted to drugs. You know, fentanyl's been a problem. Meth has been, it has been a problem, and it's continuing to be a problem. And, you know, there's this idea that, hey, instead of prosecuting them, instead of making them criminals as a result of their addiction, let's offer them treatment.

But we're now dealing in dealing with this weird situation where there's really nothing compelling them to get treatment, right? There's nothing to force them into treatment. They're not being prosecuted if they're doing drugs out in the open. And I think, listen, I get that progressives want to deny that open drug use out in the public is not a thing. It is a thing. We all see it. It happens in front of a CVS as I'm walking in, people literally injecting heroin or whatever it is into their veins. It's unacceptable. And cops aren't going to come arrest them. I don't want cops to arrest them. But there's

really nothing to compel them to get treatment. You can't. So what do you propose be done in a situation like that? And I'm so glad you asked that because you're absolutely right. It's a humanitarian crisis. It's a public health disaster of epic proportions. We see it every day. It's devastating communities, it's devastating families, and we need to do something about it. And the number one thing we have to do. And I've been saying this since day one of my campaign in 2019, and every day I've been in office, we must have more treatment beds for those who want them. You know, your question is how can we compel people. But what about those who don't want them? That's the problem. Those who don't know. No, well, here's the threshold issue is that,

you know, you say, well, how can we compel people to get treatment? I can tell you stories for days of young women who are addicted and who are trying to get help and who show up every day outside of drug treatment center at 8 a.m. and ask for a bed and there's no beds for them. It is easier in San Francisco to get high than it is to get help. And until we change that, until we make it easier for people who want to help, when they want help, to get it, we will never be able to force our way into a solution. I have judges who call me all the time and say, district attorney, There are no treatment beds available. I've got someone sitting in the jail.

They are drug addicted. They are eligible for treatment. I want them to go into treatment and there's no treatment beds for them. If we can't solve that problem, it doesn't matter if you want to compel people to go into treatment or if you want to ask them to do it voluntarily. We must have treatment beds. We must have a public health response. When and if we do, then all these other tools become available.

Compelled treatment becomes available. Conservatorship becomes an option. The kinds of things that we know we need to do, we're simply not doing because of a lack of investment in infrastructure. And let's be clear, Anna, the criminal justice system, the system that has become known as mass incarceration in this country took decades and hundreds of billions of dollars of investment to build. We must take seriously the reality that we have to also invest in mental health care, in drug treatment, in housing. If we are serious about public safety, and it is my number one priority, then we must recognize that in a place like San Francisco, 75% of the people police take to our county jail are drug addicted, mentally ill, or both, and they are not getting the treatment they need in our jails. Yeah, I mean, our prison system is definitely not rehabilitating people, that's for sure.

So I want to move on to cash bail. I think it's a super important issue. And I feel like it might be one of those issues. where we put the cart before the horse, because of the fact that crime is classified in very strange ways in this state. So before we get to those details, I want to go to a video featuring an interview that you did on Democracy Now. This is where you were talking about what your goals were in regard to no cash bail. Let's take a look at that. We'll discuss.

Some of the specific policies to your question, Amy, include ending money bail. And that's a fight that I've been involved in in the course. courts for going on five years now through litigation, I'm excited on day one to be able to put in place a policy that prohibits my staff from ever putting a price tag on freedom. And any of the problem with money bail for folks who aren't familiar with it is that when someone gets arrested under the money bail system, they can buy their way out immediately if they have resources. And that's without regard to their risk or to their community ties. So someone who's really dangerous, but has access to wealth, can be out of jail and back on the streets

within a matter of hours. While another person charged with the less serious crime with weaker evidence against them and stronger ties to the community would languish behind bars simply because of their poverty. I like the way you frame the argument there. And that is how I genuinely believe no cash bail was going to work. It was going to ensure that, you know, low level offenders, nonviolent, you know, stuff. doesn't land someone behind bars, you know, before they get to see a trial date.

So I like the idea of no cash bail for nonviolent offenders. However, there is a problem with the way crime is classified in California, where you have, what I would argue are violent crimes being classified as non-serious or nonviolent crimes, things like arson, certain assaults. I mean, this list is insanely long. Taking a hostage, how is taking a hostage not considered a serious? violent crime and so you'll see repeat offenders who have you know these issues getting released with no bail and then this data I want to be clear does not

come from when you were already in office this is from the few years prior but I think that it is telling because more than half of people this is a graphic six guys more than half of people charged with crimes and released from jail before their trials in San Francisco were accused of committing a new crime while free And a similar share failed to appear in court in recent years, according to this new study. Again, this is from data before Boudin, want to be clear. According to this study done by the California Policy Lab based at UC Berkeley and UCLA, additionally one in six defendants allegedly went on to commit a new violent offense.

And so are you at all concerned about that? And does that data make you rethink this approach? Well, it's actually the opposite, Anna. It's the frustration that San Francisco voters had with that data, which as you say, predates my administration and my bail reform policies. It's the frustration with seeing people who have access to money buy their way out of jail and continue to commit crimes that led to my election and that led me to implement a policy that is grounded in public safety, in victims' rights, and an equal protection under law.

We have a system under my leadership where we ask the court to hold in custody people, who we believe present a public safety risk or a flight risk. We don't care how wealthy or how poor they are. If you're a repeat offender, if you're committing violent crimes, if you're playing with weapons, we are going to ask the court to hold you in jail, pending trial. If on the other hand, you're someone who has no criminal history, strong family ties, or otherwise a basis for us to think that the evidence against you may be weak or that you're not a public safety risk, it shouldn't matter that you're poor.

You shouldn't be stuck in jail simply because of your poverty. In other words, we have a system where, as in every county in California, the judges make the ultimate decision about who gets released or who gets held in custody pending trial. But when it comes to what we ask the court to do, it is based 100% in public safety and protecting victims and has nothing to do with wealth or wealth-based discrimination. We should not live in a society where people are presumed innocent and sitting in jail simply. because of their poverty, nor should we live in a society where people who we know have a history of repeat offenses are out of jail simply because they have access to enough money to buy their freedom. My policy makes it clear. It's a risk-based system, not a wealth-based system. And final question for you, you know, since you were sworn in, you have reduced San Francisco's

jail population by 40%. That was one of your stated goals. You wanted to end mass incarceration. And a question that I've always had is, is there anything in place to help these individuals transition into society? You know, even if they're, you know, low level drug offenders, you know, I know that you prioritized elderly prisoners who might have medical conditions. You yourself had mentioned that we lack services in the state that were severely underresourced. So was there anything in place to ensure that these people transitioned back into society and had the support they needed to avoid or prevent having to commit another crime, maybe out of desperation in the future? Absolutely. And just to be clear, Anna, that decline that you mentioned didn't happen overnight. It's not like we released a huge number of people at once. What happened was we saw a historic decline in reported crimes, a historic decline in arrests being brought to us by police during the pandemic. And as people completed their sentences or went off to state prison or were otherwise released, we saw a gradual steady decline in the jail population. And here's how we did it, because you're exactly right. Reentry is critical. And it's an area that state prison and county jails all across the country don't pay nearly enough attention to. We have to make sure that when people are released from jail, they have somewhere to go.

They have structures, supervision, supports in place to make sure they don't reoffend. We identified in the heart of the pandemic people who really never should have been in jail in the first place. I want to just tell you one story, one example of how we worked to prevent a COVID-19 outbreak in our county jail. We found a young woman who had never been convicted of a crime before was serving a sentence for her first ever misdemeanor property crime conviction. She was drug addicted, she was pregnant, and the jail medical staff told us it was a high risk pregnancy. Well, with a high risk pregnancy in COVID-19, the last place you want to be is in a jail cell. And we worked with the court, we worked with our reentry partners, jail medical staff, to get this young woman's sentence commuted to time served, and to get her transported directly to a prenatal residential facility.

I am so proud to tell you that she stayed the course with the treatment. She gave birth to a healthy baby. She was sober. She graduated from the program. She has not been arrested again. And she continues to take care of her child. That's the kind of success story that reflects San Francisco values. It builds public safety.

It's an appropriate prioritization of public health and of limited law enforcement resources. Yeah, that is a fantastic story. I'm really happy to hear that. Is there like a system in place? Are you working with certain organizations to make that transition smooth? Especially when, you know, people were first getting released in 2020 when businesses were shuttered during lockdowns. And there aren't really many opportunities out there. Yeah, a huge problem.

The number of homeless shelter beds, the number of drug treatment beds, all the kinds of services that folks in this community of justice involved individuals need were drastically reduced during the pandemic. We work every day with sentencing planners on my staff, with social workers at the public defender's office, with organizations like San Francisco's pretrial diversion project or the Young Women's Freedom Center or adult probation or parole. We're working with every single agency and partner organization we can to find individual case-specific tailored reentry programs for people being released. We want people who get out of jail, whether it's with a criminal conviction, whether it's pending trial, whether it's not. probation or parole, we want them to never come back into the system. And the failure, the systemic failures across this country that have led to recidivism rates above two-thirds are exactly why we need reforms. We cannot simply warehouse people, kick the can down the road and expect that after a month, a year, or a decade behind bars, their mental illness will magically disappear. We need meaningful

treatment. We need meaningful community partnerships. We need criminal justice reform. All right. Chesa Boudin, attorney for San Francisco. Thank you so much for being so generous with your time and allowing me to grill you. You handled it really well. So. Well, I love what I do and I'm always happy to talk about it. And thank you, Anna. Have a good one. You too. All right, everyone, we got to take a break. We're super late. We'll be right back. Ice cream. Everyone, all right, we've got a lot of comments. I want to start off with our members.

Trista actually had some feedback in regard to the interview I just did with Chesa Budin. Trista's comment is as follows. With all due respect to the DA Budin, pacifying criminals is the wrong answer. It is not fair to victims who suffer violence. theft and assault. We have one of the largest city budgets in the country, including billions for homelessness and poverty reduction. Many good people are taking advantage of the assistance, but bad, hardened criminals are not. They're taking advantage of D.A. Budin's second chance, eighth chance, hundredth chance policies. Look, the one thing

that I will say is that this is, it might have been sparked with the right wing trying to do this recall. But to say that it's just the right. wing is not accurate. I mean, I see a lot of frustration in the state. I see it in L.A. with the DA that we're dealing with, Gascon, I see it with the voters in San Francisco. So Trista, just know that a lot of people share your frustration. Look, I share your frustration. I gotta be honest with you. Like, I've talked about this on the show. I'm getting more and more comfortable discussing it, even though some progressives are uncomfortable with it because they understandably do not want to stigmatize people. But listen, after the fourth time getting assaulted,

like we need, we need better solutions, right? The pendulum shouldn't swing to one extreme or the other. We do need to have common sense policies. We should not criminalize people who are nonviolent. However, the way certain crimes are classified in the state just makes no sense to me. Things that are considered nonviolent or non-serious, but actually are violent and are serious, It just blows my mind. Anyway, Trista, thank you for your feedback. We also have Al who wrote in and says, I'm on Zelensky's side, but maybe he should try and think of something else to ask for as opposed to continually asking for a no-fly

zone that will almost involve NATO. Actually, I should have said this, but I totally forgot. He said, look, if you guys aren't going to implement a no-fly zone, at least get us, you know, the fighter jets that we're asking for. And so we'll see what happens with that. But, you know, he says that he's willing to forego the no-fly zone in return or in exchange for fighter jets. All right, let's go to our Twitch community. We have Green New Deal Dragon who says, after we get peace, we should still push for the Putin versus Musk cage match.

No holds barred. I love it. Let's get back to the show. Welcome back to the show. Welcome back to the show. Let's get right to our next story. And believe it or not, Janine Piro, still around, still saying stupid things. So we're gonna have to debunker. So Fox News had a fascinating conversation recently.

They had all your favorite people, okay? We're dealing with the Janine Piro's, the Heraldos, there we go. So Jeanine Piro had a bit of a meltdown after Geraldo Rivera decided to question just how effective Trump's leadership was, especially in regards to Vladimir Putin. What I love about this is how triggered she gets over something that, I mean, is posed as a question, but should really just be a statement. Let's watch. Biden is responsible for the decline of the West. What we are seeing right now is a, but I can't say the word, is a wuss. Is a wuss. All right, very nice, very nice. Okay, well, why is Biden a wuss? Is it because he's not escalating the war by implementing No Fly Zone? Is that why he's considered a wuss? Or is there something more to it? Well, she then goes on to say that Trump wasn't a wuss, that Trump was really this strong man

leader that we needed to hold the world's authoritarian's and dictators accountable. Let's watch. Putin's a killer. A lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers why you think our country's so innocent. Just before Trump's inauguration. How do you know that Putin wasn't playing Trump? How do you know when you see that he wasn't playing Trump. He didn't invade was Trump. I love Trump. It's not about loving Trump. It's about the fact that Trump had everybody against the wall. How do you know that Putin didn't think Trump would give him in Ukraine anyway? I don't give a damn what Putin thinks. I only care what Putin did.

And he was a bo-wuss when Trump was president. And that's the end of it. Okay. So Janine Piro, very triggered by what Geraldo Rivera said there. And I love Harald Ravaro say, like, I love Trump, I love Trump, I love Trump. Okay, just relax, buddy, it's going to be okay. No, but her statement, Trump had everyone up against the wall. What are you talking about? He bragged about falling in love with Kim Jong-un. He bragged about sending letters to him, exchanging letters like their pen pals. He cleared the way for Turkish troops to go into Syria and slaughter the Kurds who are assisting us in rooting out ISIS. And by the way, I mean, he can't, he can't help himself.

He keeps saying positive things about Putin even after this invasion. Here's a headline from Newsweek, recent headline. Trump says, a lot of love behind Putin wanting to make his country larger. That's an actual headline from Newsweek. And I thought, look, maybe that's hyperbole. He didn't say that. There's no way he said that. I mean, at this point, as we're watching all this footage of hospitals being bombed, as we, you know, watch all of these Ukrainian refugees, like, flee the country, more than two million at this point, as we see the destruction of one city after the next, there's no way he said that. But he did, he did say that. And guess who he said it too? He said it to Janine Piro over the the weekend. Trump discussed the conflict during an appearance on Fox News host, Janine Piro's radio show on Sunday, on Sunday, meaning just a few days ago, not too long ago.

But Janine Piro listened to that and thought, no, he's not a wuss. He would definitely, definitely have Putin's back up against the wall. Okay. And let me give you his exact quote. You say, what's the purpose of this? This is Trump questioning, why would Putin do this? They had a country. You could see it was a country where there was a lot of love. And we're doing it because, you know, somebody wants to make his country larger or he wants to put it back the way it was. Interesting choice of words there.

Can we put that graphic back up? because he decided to include himself in the equation, okay? It was a country where there was a lot of love and we're doing it because, we're doing it because, I don't know, just be a little more careful if you want to seem like you're not siding with Putin. It seems like you're in on it. The wording is amazing. The quote by itself, even if he didn't use the word where is bad enough.

But yeah, he decided to put himself in that equation, which is fascinating. And listen, I gave you examples of how he cowtows to all sorts of authoritarians across the globe. I mean, he loved Rodrigo Duterte from the Philippines, Narendra Modi and India. The list goes on and on. But look, let's focus specifically on his relationship with Vladimir Putin. He was transparent about how he loved being Putin's bitch. I'm not even kidding. Just watch. Putin's a killer.

A lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers while you think our country's so innocent. Just before Trump's inauguration, the president said he was open to lifting Russian sanctions. He goes a step further proposing a cyber unit with Russia, the country that had just attacked the U.S. And I quote, an impenetrable cyber security unit so that election hacking and many other negative things will be guarded. I was in Russia. I was in Moscow recently. And I spoke indirectly and directly with President Putin, who could not have been nicer.

After Putin kicked out U.S. diplomats to retaliate against sanctions, the president thanked him. I want to thank him because we're trying to cut down on payroll. I'm very thankful that he let go of a large number of people. We'll save a lot of money. Putin of Russia, 100%. Joe has lost it. In his best day, he wasn't a smart man. Everybody knows that.

Would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016, and would you warn him to never do it again? My people came to me, Dan Coates, came to me, and some others, they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be. Listen, I don't know why Putin didn't invade Ukraine when Trump was in charge. I'm pretty happy. that he didn't make that decision when Trump had the power to enable him, embolden him, and provide cover for him. But remember, when Muhammad bin Salman, the Saudi Crown Prince, ordered the slaughter, this memberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, when that assassination was carried out,

what was Donald Trump's first reaction or response to it? It was to provide cover, to make excuses, to deny that MBS was behind that assassination plot. Donald Trump is the definition of a weak, pathetic wuss. And for Janine Piro or anyone, I don't care what their political affiliation is, for anyone to argue that that man who complained about alleged bone spurs to avoid the Vietnam draft, to argue that that guy is a strong guy, Not buying it. You can make fun of Joe Biden for being sleepy. You can criticize him. I criticize him on the show all the time.

But it's real sad when you look at that pathetic guy, Donald Trump, and think, wow, that's a strong leader. The guy who ran away, hid in a bunker because he was afraid of BLM protesters. That's your hero? Sad. We got to take a break when John Idaolla joins us. We'll talk about a financier who had his own analysis of Zelensky's speech this morning. Apparently, he wanted to serve as the fashion police of the day. We'll give you those details and more when we come back.

That's what I do. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.