The Young Turks - Puppet 4 Iran - January 13, 2026

Episode Date: January 14, 2026

As protests rock Iran, the deposed shah’s son attempts to thrust himself back into relevance, seeking center stage amid the unrest. In Gaza, Israel continues demolitions two months after a declared “cease-fire,” deepening the humanitarian crisis and international outrage. The Clintons defy a subpoena to testify in the Epstein investigation. Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/TYT and use code TYT and get $50 in lineups when you play your first $5 lineup! Hosts: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/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. Trash Revolution. I'm so upset. Oh my God. The guy! Jake Ugar, Anna Kasparian with you guys.

So we've got important things to share with you guys today. If I might say so myself, I think that you guys are going to get to learn some things on this show that you wouldn't. watching almost any other show. I think the first two stories have really interesting developments in Iran and in Gaza that not a lot of others are going to cover. And it's a thing that you know them so you know what's actually happening rather than the pulp you're really seeing in the rest of the media. Then some surprising allies I would say, but I don't know if they're still surprising on the issue of ICE. Rogan Ways in and and others as well. So a big, big show ahead for you all. And then after the show, Anna's on Siena and with Abby Phillips tonight.

And then John Ida Rolla is on at past midnight on the east goes 9 o'clock Pacific here. So it's a double dose of TYT on CNN tonight. So that should be interesting. So Casper, how are you doing? I'm doing pretty well. We will be talking a little bit about the debate I had with Pearl Davis, who goes by just pearly things in the second hour. She apparently wants to or wanted to physically assault me. So we'll get into that. Apparently, when you lose a debate, it makes you so upset that you threaten violence. So we'll talk about that a little later. But I'm really looking forward to the first hour where we're going to talk a little bit about foreign policy. So why don't we get right to it?

Yep. Is it responsible to be sending citizens in Iran to their deaths? Do you bear some responsibility? As I said, as I said, this is a war and war has casualties. And Reza, are you communicating directly with President Trump or members of the Trump administration? Yes, we are. Reza, Pahlavi, the son of the Shah that was ousted in Iran during the Islamic Revolution. Quite honestly, Jake, sounds a lot like an Israeli.

You know, people died during war. What can we do? What can we do? No biggie. Now, he's angling to serve as a puppet leader on behalf of Israel and the United States. But what do the people of Iran want, which is the most important thing here? Do they want him to be their leader? Or do they want an actual democracy as opposed to, you know, Western powers installing a puppet leader to do their bidding?

I'm curious what you think. Yeah. So this is a really important story, guys. So there's two different issues here. One is what should the people of Iran do? The other is whether we should attack Iran. And that one is driven largely by Israel. And what you're gonna see in this story is amazing.

Again, the Israeli press telling us what's actually happening. So a lot of the Iranians you're seeing all over social media are not Iranians at all. They're Israelis with a completely different agenda than the Iranians on the street. So don't miss this story and all the facts. is about to give you. And then we'll analyze, yes, but what should we do here in America? Now, I had asserted that Pahlavi does not have popular support among the Iranians. And by the way, it appears that President Donald Trump has also asserted a similar claim. And of course, Israelis pretending to be Iranians lost their minds about that. But back in October, Haretz had mentioned this,

While Pahlavi enjoys some popularity among the Iranian expat community, meaning Iranians outside of Iran, it's far from clear that Iranians want him as a leader. And even the New York Times had to admit as much, writing that under the monarchy, the Iranian security services routinely arrested and tortured dissidents, a legacy that Pahlavi has either declined to address or sought to play down. In fact, he even dodged questions about his father's repressive reign and rule and the brutal secret police during an interview with the New York Times back in 2009. Now, what I'm specifically talking about was the internal security forces known as Savak. Okay, so the regime deployed this secret service and they did rain terror on the people of Iran.

The whole point was to monitor and eliminate political opposition. and according to the American Enterprise Institute, which is in no way some lefty organization, Savok had significant involvement with the CIA. CIA, of course, provided the funding and training for Savak. And they also went on and tortured political dissidents. I should also note that Savok had unlimited power. But Reza Polavi is attempting to launder his father's reign

and the violence that was carried out under his, oppressive rule. So when it comes to the current attempt to overthrow the Iranian regime, Rezapalavi told Haretz, many successful campaigns have been based on nonviolent civil resistance as a method for delivering change. In other words, without outside interference. But as you can imagine, that's not what he said during his interview with CBS. Let's take a quick look at that. And as you are urging people to protest and go to the streets, the death toll is rising in Iran. This violent crackdown continues just as it has in past attempted revolutions. I mean, is it responsible to be sending citizens in Iran to their deaths?

Do you bear some responsibility? As I said, as I said, this is a war, and war has casualties. In fact, in order to preserve and protect and minimize the death toll, minimize innocent victims yet again be killed by this regime, action is needed. The regime is going to try and brutalize its citizenry as it has always done. Now he also told Haretz that the key element is that none of these movements could have succeeded without some element of international support. And what he's referring to here is the involvement of the United States and it is the involvement of the

United States and Israel, of course. Now, Channel 14 News has reported something really fascinating here. They're reporting that foreign actors are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed. Now, when you hear these numbers of casualties in Iran, there's no doubt that actual genuine demonstrators are being targeted and killed. I don't know the exact numbers and I'm not going to be a moron and just regurgitate what I've seen from Western media. I mean, literally Laura Lumer today claimed that 20,000 people in Iran have been killed. Like, how does anyone take that insane woman, that lunatic seriously? But it's very obvious that there is foreign involvement going on on the ground. And it does make

clear that the United States is all over this uprising in Iran. And they're urging for regime change. Again, let's go to Reza Polavi and his interview with CBS. Reza, I heard you say this weekend that the U.S. should, quote, cut the snakes head off for good, end quote, make sure this regime goes down for good. Are you pushing President Trump to initiate regime change? Solidarity with Iranian people is ultimately supporting them in their ask. And their ask is that this regime has to go and we have to overcome. the obstacles by putting an end to it. And ultimately, as a result of that liberation, be able to finally be unshackled and free to establish a democratic alternative and come back to

the world of nations that can work together for a different future, of regional stability and peace and good relationship with our neighbors, with the Israelis, with our Arab neighbors. You hear him talk about the importance of democracy, which is laughable because he has already announced himself as the individual who would like to be inserted undemocratically as Iran's leader. Let's take a look at that. Why would you be the right person to lead such a transition? And why should people trust you to return the country of 90 million people and bring them towards a democracy? Well, it's interesting the way you characterize it, because if the people did not actually believe that I can be the person doing that for them,

or the person to be trusted. There wouldn't be the millions on the streets of Iran in the four corners of Iran chanting my name and asking my return. They do. And that should be indicative of the reality on the grounds. But why is it that I offer my service to Iran? I'm answering their call.

I've stepped in to lead this transition and I have a plan for that. I have a whole host of people who are helping us, lawyers, jurists, economic experts. So we're not just talking about a regime that needs to go. We're also talking about what's the alternative? So he is working with experts.

We could go ahead and speculate as to who those experts are. But going back to foreign interests arming some of the protesters, that explains the number of casualties in regard to Iran's security forces, because it's not just the protesters who are getting killed. Iran's security forces are also getting killed. And Channel 14 is, I guess, a surrogacy. that they're able to do this with the help of weapons that are provided by foreign interests. I've got a lot more to get to, Jank, but what are your thoughts?

By the way, Pahlavi has been living in the United States for 47 years. He has no ties to Iran. The idea that he would be a good transitional leader that would essentially be installed by the United States and Israel is ridiculous. Okay, so I know some expats from Iran here, and some of them actually do this. support Pahlavi and a lot of them are confused as to what to believe and what to do. They desperately want this regime to be gone so that Iran can be free. That makes sense, that's what we all want, right? So what they don't know is the facts we're about to give you guys

about what the Israeli press has reported. That basically this guy is totally working for Israel. He has promised Israel, don't worry, the Iranians will be good boys and girls under my leadership. I'll be a perfect sock puppet for you guys, and I will neuter the Iranian people on behalf of Israel. So, but a lot of them don't know that. They just, they're the victims of propaganda. In a lot of ways that Jewish Americans are the victims of propaganda here as well. But oh my God, they're gonna kill all the Jews unless you support Israel.

You gotta support Israel, remember, right? Et cetera. So what's the reality? Guys, Shah is a farcey word for king. It just means king, and king just, means dictator. You can call it. Anything you like, it doesn't matter. It's not a democracy. This guy is saying, you know, the dictator Ayatollah in charge is terrible. I agree. Because that's why you should put me in as a dictator. By the way, they were going with that line for a long,

long time. Oh, the Iranian people would love a new dictator. Wait a minute, he's the son of the former Shah who they hated so much they did a revolution against. So now you're telling me no, no, no, no, no. But they regret it. And they would love to have to be serving. loyally to this king instead. Nonsense. And then when I was on Pierce Morgan debating this this morning, Anna, and some lady who supports Pahlavi, obviously some sort of Israeli bot or troll or whatever, and she's like, I speak for all of the Iranian people. Who voted for you? Nobody voted for her. Nobody voted for Pahlavi. There's never been a poll, and he says, they're chanting my name in the streets. That's because Mossad is literally in the streets and bragging

about it. And so we're going to show that to you too. But I I just don't want you to get confused because there are plenty of confusing things. Like are it looks like maybe the Mossad guys, the riders, etc. are attacking the Iranian police in order to cause violence and have the Iranian police fight back against them and that that's what's leading to a much bigger body count. But honestly guys, it's super hard to tell from the outside. The one thing we know for sure is that the Iranian people are not like, please give us a new dictator, that's all we want and we want them controlled by Israel.

nonsense, all of that portion is 100% made up and almost exclusively what you're seeing in American media. That Harette's piece that I'm referencing in the story was written as Pahlavi was in Israel, visiting Israel. So he's very much a tool for the Israeli government. I mean, there's no question about that. It's obvious. And in regard to Mossad bragging about being on the ground, I mean, it's not just Mossad bragging about it on their own social media. You have Israeli papers like the Times of Israel. You even have the Miriam Adelson owned Israeli paper, Israel Hayom, talking about the Israeli influence on the ground, essentially manufacturing things and provoking what's going on. And I actually really feel terrible for the Iranian people because it's very reminiscent of what happened in Syria.

You have an organic uprising, organic protests that immediately get co-opted by Israel, by the United States, by foreign interests that don't give a damn about the Iranian people whatsoever. And I'm sorry, I don't care what the expats think. Like, I get it, Jank, they're your friends. Are they going to go live in Iran? Are they living in Iran right now? No, they're not. So the only people who matter in this equation in terms of what they prefer are the people of Iran. period. It could be that they have some sort of democratic process. And of course, this is in the

situation or scenario in which the regime has been overthrown, right? It could be that they have a democratic process in place and they vote Pahlivian. God bless. Okay, great. But that's not what's happening here. And that's the issue. Yeah, just real quick, because I really want to get to the Israeli press reports about them. There's different buckets, guys. There's the bucket of like, Should we care about Iran at all? What the expats think, what the Iranian people think, should we spend money and potentially American service members' lives to help in that cause? So that is a debatable issue and what Anna is saying, and ultimately I would say is, I love

the Iranian people, I hope they're free, but it's really not our business. And bombing them is not going to help them anyway, right? It's only going to be counterproductive. But there's one thing that is not debatable. That is that this Shah is a total puppet. And so what you're seeing all over American media, and Anna, it's not just Laura Lumer, I'm now seeing, because once Israel has a talking point, they spread it to all of their pundits and all of their politicians, which is hundreds of people in power in America, let alone the thousands

of bots and trolls that they have. And they're all going, oh, it's 18 to 20,000 to 12,000, 20,000, right? They're all making up these giant, giant numbers, and they're saying the Iranian people are calling for a new dictator, they can't wait. That's all garbage. That's all total Israeli propaganda. We're trying to discern for you what's real. Pause.

Anyone who has downplayed, minimized, or denied the mass slaughter that was carried out by, and continues to be carried out by the Israelis, now claiming that they're concerned about Iranian lives can go ahead and kick rocks. Okay? I mean, please look at yourselves in the mirror. And more importantly, understand. that not everyone's a complete nut or idiot that believes you're telling the truth about anything. How are you going to tell me you're worried about Iranian lives as tens of thousands of innocents, likely hundreds of thousands of innocence in Gaza were slaughtered by the Israeli government,

and they loved it. They couldn't get enough of it. Couldn't get enough of it. So please spare me your disgusting propaganda, especially the likes of that Laura Lumer. But I want to talk a little bit about the media manufacturing that's happening here. That's really important for people to know about. So let me reset for that. There are more reports indicating that, well, the media is being manipulated to manufacture support for Reza Palavi, who is the gentleman that you see in the images right beside me.

He is the son of the Shah that was ousted in Iran during the Islamic Revolution. Well, now it appears that the West, the United States and is, Israel in particular are angling to install him as Iran's puppet leader should the current Iranian regime fall. But here's what you should know. Back in October of last year, of course, Horat's published an incredible expose on how Israel is attempting to manufacture support for him. And this is a pretty large-scale digital influence campaign that operates out of Israel.

And it is funded by a private entity that uses money from the government. the Israeli government. Okay, so this is all sourced from the Israeli government. The campaign promotes Pahlavi's public image and amplifies calls for restoring the monarchy, which I don't know if you guys are aware, is the antithesis of a democracy. The campaign relies on avatars, fake online personas posing as Iranian citizens on social media. They were first discovered by social media researchers in Israel and abroad. The campaign included fake accounts on platforms such as X and Instagram and used artificial intelligence tools to help disseminate key narratives, craft its message, and generate content. And according to two sources who spoke to Heretz, there were also efforts to

essentially amplify the posts of Pahlavi's allies in Israel. There's one person in particular that, you know, this Israeli government officials post kept getting like, you know, emphasized. And as the dissident reports, during the current protests, which began as peaceful protests around Iran's mismanagement of the economy, but were taken over by a violent regime change element, Israeli and American officials have openly boasted that there are Mossad agents on the ground attempting to push the protests in a pro-regime change direction. So Israel's heritage minister, for instance, bragged about this. So this is Amichai Eliyahu's statement. When we attacked in Iran during Rising Lion, we were on its soil. I can assure you that we have some of our people operating there right now. And so this is why I feel awful for the Iranian people who are engaging organically

in this protest against the Iranian regime because, again, that movement is being co-opted and exploited by Israel for its own interests. And Israel does not care about the Iranian people. They don't care about democracy. They don't care about the freedom of the Iranian people. What they want is a puppet government to do its bidding. And that is not going to work out well for the Iranian people. And honestly, I don't know how this is going to be handled because I want the Iranian people to live in a country that is free, live under the type of leadership that they genuinely want. But every time they try to do this, immediately you see Israel's grubby little fingers all over it, trying to essentially move it or navigate it in a direction that serves Israel's interests as opposed to the interests of the Iranian people.

Yeah, so there's one thing again, not a dispute. Not only is it the Israeli heritage minister saying it, but Mossad has said it on their accounts, that they're in the streets next to the protesters. Mike Pompeo, the former Secretary of State for Trump, has said it publicly. What's amazing about it is that they, both the American and Israeli officials will say, yeah, we're manipulating the protests to support Israel and create regime change. And then when we report that, they go, oh, you're an anti-Semite. For quoting Mossad? It's a conspiracy theory.

Well, one put out by Mossad, right? In fact, when we first covered that statement by Mossad, I was like, are they? they not in the streets? Why would they want us to know that? It's kind of a weird thing that Israel itself is putting out, and it seemed like they wanted to create a like a fog of confusion around it. But it's not us saying it, it's literally the Israeli government saying it. Yes, we have agents in the streets provoking all of this. So that's just not in dispute. So now why does Israel want a Shah, a king, a monarch? And why does the Rezapolavi, the son, the former Shah want to be the new Shah.

Well, they're a perfect match because the Shah Jr. over here, Reza, has no power in Iran at all, has no power base, no one on the ground, period. So the only way that he could be go back into power is the new king, like his daddy was, was if he gets a foreign government to place him on top of the Iranian people. because he can't organically rise from the streets. By the way, if I'm wrong about this, Reza Pavlovak, great news. I mean, this is a moment of great tumult and a new revolution has started. So why don't you go join it?

I mean, lead your people. If they're your people and they're chanting your names all over the streets. Well, get in there, Reza. That's what courage is made of. And if you want to be a king, that's what kings do. They win in battle, right? So go to Tehran or any Iranian city. There's a million ways to get in Iran.

You could ask your Israeli buddies to bring you in there. No, they're not gonna do that. None of the royals are gonna go fight. There's, you're egging people on to go die on their behalf. And the only way they can come into power is through Israel and America. Now, why do the Israelis want a dictator instead of a democracy? Well, there's many reasons, but the number one reason is democracies, especially in the Middle East, are going to be very hard to control.

The people in those countries are furious with Israel for what they have done to the Palestinians, not alone the Iranians and the Lebanese and the Syrians, and the list goes on and on. So Israel is hated in the Middle East, a democracy would be a terrible outcome for Israel. So they're like, oh, you guys once had a puppet Shah, Shah, okay? Great, that's a great idea.

Yeah, we want a dictator as we've placed in so many other countries like Jordan and Egypt and UAE and Saudi Arabia. And all those dictators do exactly what we order them to do. And they keep the local Arab populations down so they don't mind when we slaughter the Palestinians and take their land. And that's what we'd like to do. And the new Shah Jr. is like, great deal. You're gonna murder my people and put me in as their dictator?

Fantastic. So don't buy into that crap, you just saw it from the Israeli press itself reporting no, the support is sock puppet accounts, bots, trolls, etc. The Israelis are totally running this fake support for the Shah. Don't get me wrong. It doesn't mean that the Iranian people are not furious with the regime and that they don't want change organically. I think they definitely do.

But they want a democracy. They want to free Iran. They don't want to go, oh, a dictator from Israel. We would love that. That's why we're risking our lives. And people say that with a straight face here in American media, it's preposterous. Most of the things you see in American media is nothing but Israeli. propaganda. They're not telling you the truth at all. It's amazing that we have to go to the

Israeli press to find out what the truth is. And they're like, oh, yeah, yeah, we're totally manipulating. It doesn't matter. American media won't be able to say anything about it. And I'm sure you didn't see it, but I interviewed Ryan Grimm the other day, last night actually. And Ryan and I were talking about, yeah, there's a phenomenon among reporters in DC. They know that if you do a story about Israel, even if it's 100% factual, you're playing Russian roulette with your career. That's that it is going to be attacked. You're going to be called an anti-Semite. And and there's going to be a campaign to fire you. So nobody wants to take that risk. So they're all like printing nonsense here. Oh yes. Oh, the Iranian people would love

a new dictator. Total lies. Yeah, it is total lies. And you shouldn't take those reports seriously, nor should you take any statement from anyone on social media who's a hardcore Israel supporter who provided cover for Israel's mass slaughter and now claims they have deep concerns about the Iranian people. It's complete and utter nonsense and they're trying to manipulate you. We got to take a break, Jank. So why don't we do that? And when we come back, we'll check in on Gaza and whether or not that alleged ceasefire is holding. We didn't blow up diplomacy. Yes, you did.

Yes, you did. Back on T.O.T. Let's go to Super Chat. Saad Mirage Vanguard with an excellent point that I wish I could have made in that last story. He says it's been claimed by the Iranian foreign minister that this is deadly violent protests has been orchestrated by foreign U.S. and Israeli use the drug term for Israel. Now, UN and amnesty claims those violent riders were tortured. But according to Iranian intelligence, these foreign forces,

rioters were actually part of the U.S. and Israel folks. What I sense is that both U.S. and Israel doing because no Muslim protester demolishes religious buildings like 50 mosques. So guys, who's doing what on the ground? I can't tell. And I don't know that he's right. I don't know who's right about it. They've cut off the internet. It's nearly impossible to tell who's shooting at who first, okay? But the excellent point is mosques have been attacked. Iranians are not going to attack their own mosque. That doesn't make any sense at all. So whoever's attacking the mosque is not Persian, it's not Iranian, is not Muslim.

So it's a very, very likely outside agitated. That is an excellent piece of evidence. In fact, they're morons for attacking mosques because it gives away your game. So excellent point. Timmy D's with a couple points as well. Ironically, since the internet has been shut down the violent writing has towindle, because foreign channels have been closed. So again, take all this with a grain of assault.

It's just folks online giving their opinion. Timmy also said Israel wants around to be like Jordan, Syria, Qatar, UAE, etc. They do accept Qatar. Qatar is not controlled by Israel. That is why you see so much anti-Katar propaganda in America, yet you see no anti-UAE propaganda. Is that interesting?

Both Gulf nations, but one is up Israel's ass and they get zero negative propaganda in America. propaganda in America. The other one is actually our biggest ally. America's biggest ally, biggest base, Qatar, and nonstop propaganda. Tucker Carlson, getting paid. At MedCan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health, from the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body check-up that provides a clear picture of your health today, and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer. The healthier you means more

moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan, live well for life. Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. By Qatar, Qatar, why? Because Qatar has not been to need to Israel. So that's why they have to lie about it in mass and do all the propaganda. Of course, as usual, all the anchors on cable news to say, of course, Qatar is evil, Israel's our special ally, they're wonderful, whatever. Okay. History speaks YT says, Iran, the media is telling the truth about the murder of unarmed protesters a major crime, but they are dishonestly failing to mention the arm wing of the protesters who managed to kill over 133 Iranian soldiers.

This raises questions that the media refuses to discuss. First, how did the protesters manage to kill so many soldiers and police? More than the U.S. soldiers died in the Gulf War or conquering Afghanistan in 01 and 2002. Second, how did the protesters get their arms? Third, while we rightly vilify Iran for this, how would our allies react are under such circumstances? Suppose Palestinian Israeli regime change protests killed 133 members of the IDF. Those are excellent questions. If there was a protest like that that killed 133 Israeli IDF guys, they would have murdered half of Palestine.

So, all right, we'll be back. All right, back on TYT, Jen can Anna with you guys. Also, Christina Eivig, thank you for joining through the join button on YouTube. We could also do it through t.com slash join. SEDA and Norse Dog Dad. Thank you for gifting a membership. I'm going to read two super quick YouTube member comments. Great tariffist here. Says Anna, you did a great job on putting a verbal can of whoop ass on Pearl. And Raymond Alfred wrote in, I just have to say this as a Republican, Anna, you destroyed Pearl in that debate.

Destroyed, he wrote. Thank you. I appreciate that. So we are going to talk about it in the second hour. I don't want to spend too much time on that because obviously there's a lot of really important news. but I really appreciate your comments about it. There were moments that I'm not proud of. And I'll also discuss that when we cover the debate in a little bit. Okay. All right.

Are we ready for the next story? Oh, yeah. All right, let's do it. The utter destruction of Gaza, unfortunately and tragically continues, despite the so-called ceasefire that went into effect back in October of 2025. Now a New York Times analysis is giving us new deal. on just how much demolition is taking place in the Gaza Strip. But before we get to that, Jank, your two cents.

Yeah, so New York Times is a great story about all the facts on the ground here, which we're about to give you so you can open your eyes as to what Israel's doing. But what's maddening is what they leave out. And that's what we're going to tell you on this show. So Anna, give them the facts. So the New York Times relied on satellite imagery to do their analysis. I want to be clear in noting that Israel is still, refusing access to international journalists so they can do reporting on the ground. And usually when that

happens, it's because they've got something to hide. But according to the satellite imagery from Planet Labs, Israel has demolished more than 2,500 buildings in Gaza since the ceasefire began. So these demolitions continue. So let's take a quick look at this graphic, which will kind of help you visualize what's going on here. Now, many of the structures were likely already damaged by IDF bombardment. In fact, a UN assessment found that as of October, more than 80% of Gaza's structures, all buildings, were damaged or destroyed. But they've also been erasing entire blocks as well as farmland and agricultural greenhouses. So most of the demolition is taking place in the half of the enclave that's now under Israeli control and they've already made clear that they have absolutely no intention of leaving.

And that's the yellow area in this graph. However, dozens of buildings have been destroyed beyond the yellow line in areas effectively under Hamas control where the Israeli military had agreed to halt its operations. Now, let's take a look at another image. I'm going to give you even more evidence for what we're saying here. So the in satellite images taken shortly after the so-called ceasefire went into effect, clusters of intact buildings can be seen in the Shajaya neighborhood of Gaza City. But images of the same area months later show that it's largely been reduced to rubble. So you see it right there. You can do the comparative analysis. And tons of buildings that were destroyed lay beyond the yellow line. In some cases,

as far as 900 feet past the yellow line. So what's Israel's excuse for doing this? Hamas, of course, right? So why are they doing all this destruction? They claim that it's part of their effort in demilitarizing Hamas and demolishing booby-trapped buildings while also allegedly destroying underground tunnels. They were in Gaza, reigning terror, for over two years, but they forgot to get to the tunnels. They're doing it now, allegedly.

In reality, it's about clearing that land for the resettlement of Israelis. That's the reality. That's the truth. The New York Times didn't mention that. But if you listen to and read Israeli media, they tell the truth. And that's what this is really about. Palestinians say that the IDF is raising neighborhoods with absolutely no regard for the people who once live there or the property they rightfully own. But why would anyone delude themselves into thinking that the Israelis give a damn about the Palestinians

at all? They see them as worthy of nothing other than extermination. Mohamed Al-Alstahl, a political analyst based in Gaza, says, Israel is wiping entire areas off the map. The Israeli military is destroying everything in front of it, homes, schools, factories, and streets. There's no security justification for what it's doing. Plus, Israel's extensive demolition is not permitted. This is important.

It is not permitted under Trump's so-called. 20 point peace plan. So what does the plan actually say? All military terror and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapons production facilities, will be destroyed. But Israel and Hamas also agreed to suspend all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment. Even Shal Aurelli, who is a former Israeli military official, who commanded forces in Gaza in the 90s, questioned the scope. of this demolition that's being carried out by the IDF. He says that this is absolute destruction. It's not selective destruction.

It's everything. So Israelis are also continuing to engage in the slaughter campaign, and I want to be clear about that. The death toll from the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip has now risen to officially, although I think the numbers are very likely higher than this, 71,424, close to 400,000. 150 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip since the signing of the ceasefire. And some are, by the way, dying in the cold. They have no shelter.

They're relying on tents. And those tents are not enough to keep people, including babies, warm. And so, you know, strong winter winds collapsed walls of a building onto a flimsy tent for Palestinians who have been displaced as a result of the genocide. And that killed four people just recently. And then on top of that, a one-year-old boy died of hypothermia overnight. So the devastation in Gaza continues at the hands of the Israelis. Yeah, they're killing an average of five Palestinians a day. There is no ceasefire.

I saw an 11-year-old whose head was all bloody and killed lying dead on a gurney. Palestinian children still being mowed down. So now in this story, New York Times is a terrific job of outlining this. of destruction and the specifics of the destruction. Great, we want good journalism, we're happy to have it, and we celebrate it every time. Now, what's being left out? As Anna explained to you, there is one potential explanation. The New York Times just couldn't find its way to finding.

So there's two plausible reasons why they're doing this. Well, I think there's only one plausible reason, but I'll let you be the judge of that. The one was the one that the New York Times offered, which was the Israeli position. Oh, golly, gee, we are so concerned about the time. underneath that we had to destroy every single building. Okay, sure. So now I'm going to read you a hilarious excuse that was from an Israeli source that the New York Times bothered to print while not printing the obvious actual reason.

Anyway, so I'll quote it. They say an Israeli military official who spoke on a condition of anonymity under military rules said that Israel was not indiscriminately knocking down buildings. Oh, no, no, not indiscriminately. How did he explain it? He said they sometimes collapsed when Israeli soldiers detonated explosives in the tunnels beneath them. Now, the way, golly, gee, we didn't mean to destroy every building. It's just that when we blew them up, they all blew up.

Yeah, that's what happens when you detonate explosives inside the building, right? And besides which, he claims that they're doing it in the tunnels. No, you see it on video. The whole thing implodes just like a planned detonation, a planned implosion. And so they're doing it to all the buildings. And so the obvious actual reason is, because they're never going to leave Gaza. They've said it a billion times. They say it all over Israel.

They're like, we're never going to recognize Palestine. We're going to take this part of Gaza and we'll probably take more of it for greater Israel. And they're going to destroy all the buildings and turn around and go, well, I guess there's no buildings left. So there's nothing to come back to. So I guess there's nothing we can do. We've got to keep it for security and self-defense. and because we're victims. And we just happened to ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians off the land.

And then we destroyed every single piece of building that was on there. And then we started rebuilding Israeli buildings on top of it. But this was all for self-defense. And then, you know, I don't blame Americans for believing it because what are they supposed to know? Our press lies to them 24-7, pretending that Israel is the victim in every scenario, pretending that Israel. So in this case, the New York Times, brilliant reporting. And then doesn't mention why they might be doing it other than the preposterous Israeli propaganda about how, oh, they're so concerned about the tunnels.

Come on. And then they ruin the reporting. Because if you ever suggest something that might blame Israel, oh no, anti-Semite fire them. I'm so sick of it. And by the way, I'm sorry, guys, but if you're in traditional media, you're a coward. You know what's happening in Israel. We all know what's happening and you won't report the facts because you're afraid you're going to get fired by some pro-Israel zealot inside your institution. And you all know it.

Every single reporter in the country knows that, but they never share it with their readers. I get it. You got bills to pay, et cetera. But did you get in this for the journalism or did you get in to be a marketing exec for Israel? And remember, the Israelis are very concerned about the freedom and safety of the majority. Muslim population in Iran. Yeah. Yeah.

And Hannah, one more thing. They said at the end, they have this one quote from a Palestinian. And the Palestinian says, but now remember, this is Hamas's fault. Right, right. Come on, man. I know thousands of Palestinians and a whole bunch of them don't like Hamas at all. But no one, not a single Palestinian, I know how to thousands go, oh, we had a coming because of what Hamas did.

No, no, Israel, it's not Israel's fault at all. No, no, we Hamas made them do it. That's not a real person, brother. Come on, man. Jesus Christ, nothing but Israeli propaganda. Yeah, they're leveling the place because it is textbook ethnic cleansing. And they will build on top of it and they will keep it because this was always about land theft. It's right in front of your eyes.

The only reason why some don't see it is because of the magic trick of traditional media. Oh yeah, they had got all the land. They attacked, they conquered, they killed tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, then took their land. But remember, that's, don't look there, don't look there. Look there. They're the victims. Israel's the victims. No, they're not. Israel's a very aggressive imperial empire in the middle of the Middle East that is causing nonstop wars, slaughtering people, destroying everything they own. And our press, like dogs, report that they're the victims. It's utter garbage. When we come back from the break, we'll switch gears a little bit and talk about what's happening here domestically because it turns out that the Clintons are not really paying attention to a subpoena, totally ignoring it, not complying with it. What are the consequences? We've got that and more coming up. We'll be right back.

All right. Let's go to members on QRT.com. At the gravel pit says the abolish ice movement has been vindicated. and it's okay to jump on that bandwagon now, I don't think the agency can be reformed. Look, guys, at some point, they're going to be criminal undocumented immigrants, and somebody's going to have to pick them up. We can call them ice, we can call them water, we can call them gas, we can call them anything we like, but you need somebody to pick those people up. And so that doesn't mean that they have to do it in this disgusting, immoral way that they're doing it today.

So I hear you though, you are right that currently, and we're gonna show you the numbers in a little bit, the American people are sick of ice and this would be a perfect, you know, Zykeyes for Abolish Ice. Later though, it will not be a perfect moment and that'll be used against us. That's my sense of it, but perfectly okay to disagree. We all agree that ice sucks as it is currently constituted and is doing terrible things that nobody's in favor of. The question is what do you do with it? And so that's a good political question. All right, Georgie Girl says learning stuff we don't usually learn anywhere else tonight. I hate to tell you this, Jen, but that's every night on TYT. Well, you're wonderful for saying that.

We appreciate that. And they wrote in later saying, Anna, you're a freaking genius. And I'm also very much digging the Veronica Lake Hair you've got going this evening. Wausa. Okay, so that's nice. Thank you. Girl. Yep. Boomer Dragon Cat says, I'm so happy to be here. Love you guys, T. T.Y.T. audience and workers. Thank you, Kat. We got old school tonight for you, Kat. So me and Michael I was on a flight. I've got great plain stories. You guys will enjoy that. It's a classic of old school. BS1954 says, yeah, Anna's back. Great interview on Saturday. I mean, how can that woman's show her face again on television? Referring to Pearl. Segment wrote in, ha ha, I think threatening to beat up your debate partner is pretty damn post-feminist. Not a lot of trad wives from the 50s were noted for that. So we'll get to that in a minute. Jack Callahan writes in, I saw your, I've had an interview today, Jank, and you did a great job. I think you gave Jennifer and

pumps food for thought. I was shocked that 95% of the comments were harsh against them and you, including XTYT. I don't know how you can reach those so against you. It's a shame. So Jack, there's three different phenomenon going on now. So number one, some of the old Hillary supporters have never let it go and they're never ever going to let it go.

It doesn't matter if I've had it as turned around and Brian Tyler Cohen has turned around and everybody's turned around. Nope, nope, nope, no. The Hillary deadenders will hate us forever for opposing their beloved terrible candidate, Okay, that costs us the election. And no amount of reality will change their minds ever, okay? And those people are unreachable. They're, you can lock him in for a Buttigieg or a Buttigieg clone for their vote now,

because they would never use their own minds. They're like, whatever democratic leadership says. So that's why I say they're dead enders, because there aren't that many of them, but they're super virulent and they hate me from the Bernie days, and they'll never stop hating, okay? We can deliver not only a Democratic victory, but all the bills that they ever wanted, and they'll still hate me. So that's a portion of it.

Then there's the dead enders who are like, oh, we hate young Turks more than we hate the right wing. We're going to spend our whole lives trying to smear the young Turks, even though everyone now is acknowledging, oh my God, you guys were right, we should go populist, you guys were right about the independent podcasters flipping. So tons of good people are acknowledging it all over the place. But the anti-TYT people, they're religious,

they're fundamentalists about hating TYT. Now there I believe there's a third category the Israelis see this as an opportunity to divide the left they're like oh you should hate a young Turks not for the anti-Israel position but they are not left wing enough so there's that going on too all right back on TOTJ and I'm Boxy Brown thank you for giving membership on YouTube well I'm gonna give something right back to you guys because now everybody's signing up and more and more people are

riding in going that totally worked so if your cell phone carrier isn't Noble mobile, you're about to save a lot of money. Okay, so tyt.com slash switch, go check your phone now. Ask my friends, they're all paying over $100. The max you could pay here is $50. Never pay more than $50, but really you're gonna pay in the 30s because they give you money back if you don't use your data. I paid 33, I paid 36.

So this is, it's gonna, like for some of my friends that literally saves them $100 a month and right now first month's only $10. So you gotta jump on it. TYT.com slash switch. TYT.com slash switch. Anna, what's next? This is next. Check it out. As a result of Bill Clinton not showing up for his lawful subpoena,

which again was voted on it unanimously by the committee in a bipartisan matter, we will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress. Yeah. Former President Bill Clinton has defied a House of Congress. Oversight Committee subpoena calling on him to testify in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. And his wife, Hillary Clinton, plans to do the same. Now, as you just heard in that video, committee chair, James Comer, is essentially threatening to hold them both in contempt of Congress.

I'm really curious how this is going to play out before we get to it. Jank, your two cents. Yeah, so sorry Clintons, but you got to go in. If subpoenas, the subpoena, that's what we said about Steve Bannon. That's what we said about Navarro. And I think that there is a much better way to handle this, which is what I'll share with you after Anna gives you the facts. Now, Bill Clinton was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee earlier today. And Hillary Clinton is supposed to testify tomorrow, but that is unlikely to happen. Here is James Comer explaining why the former president was asked to appear in the first place. Jeffrey Epstein, visiting the White House, 17 times while Bill Clinton was president.

I've been in Congress nine years. I think I've been to the White House nine times and nine years. Epstein was in the White House doubled the amount of time that I was under one president. And then we know that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's playing somewhere around 27 times after the presidency. So no one's accusing Bill Clinton of any wrongdoing. We just have questions. And that's why the Democrats voted along with Republicans to subpoena Bill Clinton. I think subpoenaing the Clintons is totally okay. I have no problem with it whatsoever.

However, I do have a problem with turning the Epstein cover up into some sort of partisan issue because it's not a partisan issue. This is very much a bipartisan issue. And it's been obvious that President Donald Trump has engaged very aggressively in the cover up is not currently complying with the order to release the Epstein files, something that Congress voted in favor of. And so are you going to subpoena the president? Unlikely. Unlikely. Are you going to subpoena any of the Republican names that are tied to Jeffrey Epstein? Unlikely. Hopefully, Comer and the House Oversight Committee will surprise me, but I doubt it. Now, in a letter to James Comer sent hours before the deadline, attorneys for the Clintons said their clients would not be complying.

So Comer did get a warning. The letter claims both Clintons have already provided all the information they have regarding the late Epstein and his co-conspirator, Delane Maxwell. The attorneys called the episode nothing more than a ploy to attempt to embarrass political rivals as President Trump has directed. They also brushed off threats of legal action arguing that because the subpoenas issued to the Clintons are not related to a valid legislative. purpose, the subpoenas are therefore invalid and legally unenforceable. I'm not buying that argument.

Who knows, I could be wrong. I mean, we have to kind of see how this all plays out, but the House Oversight Committee voted on this. So they're claiming that they're investigating the Epstein files and cover up. They're just assuming that that's not taking place and they're using that as justification to refuse to comply with the subpoena. Now, in addition to the lawyer's letter, Bill and Hillary also released their own a letter to James Comer in which they tried to act like their martyrs. So this is what they wrote. Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country. Its principles and its people, no matter the consequences, for us, now is that time.

Wait, now is that time? weren't you president for like eight years? Anyway, the Clinton's also accused Comer of being on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process, literally designed to result in our imprisonment while criticizing Trump's immigration crackdown, his use of the Justice Department as a weapon against his enemies, and even Republicans' opposition to extending health care subsidies. Now, unsurprisingly, Comer was not swayed by the arguments made in the letter sent by the Clintons. Shortly after Bill Clinton bucked the subpoena by not appearing in court or appearing before the House Oversight Committee, Comer announced that a vote to hold him in contempt would be scheduled to take place during next week's committee. A similar vote could be scheduled on behalf of Hillary Clinton as well, assuming that she does not appear in court tomorrow, Wednesday as she's scheduled to do.

And look, there is precedent for this. So Trump allies, Steve Bannon, and Peter Navarro actually spent time in prison after being held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify, for defying a subpoena. But Donald Trump also fought to avoid a subpoena back in 2022 between his first and second terms. He was compelled to testify in front of the House oversight. the House Committee investigating the January 6th riots, but Trump's lawyers argued that legal precedent shielded an ex-president from being ordered to appear before Congress and the committee ultimately

withdrew its subpoena. So today, John Stewart called out both the Justice Department and the Clintons. Let's take a look. Do you think that they should comply? I absolutely do. But why should they comply if the Department of Justice is not complying with releasing the files? Like, does, is compliance a kind of specialized individual indigenous opportunity or is it, should it be universal? I mean, the Department of Justice has subpoenaed them to testify in the Jeffrey Epstein case while not complying with releasing the files. So how does that comport in any? But do I personally think they should comply? Absolutely. Absolutely. And if they've got something to hide or an affair, like, yes, we should know about all this. This is bonkers how long this is going on.

I perfectly stated. I agree entirely with what we just heard from John Stewart. Everyone's a bad guy in this case because everyone is trying to skirt justice. And it is absolutely true that Trump is trying to make the Epstein files a partisan issue when in reality it's not. Jank, what do you think? Yeah, I mean, as usual, we agree with John Stewart or John Stewart agrees with us. So that's going to get to my solution in a second. But first, two things can be true at the same time. It could be a political ask, but you should comply with a subpoena anyway, because it's

your legal duty to. And the Clintons could be targeted for political reasons, but could still be guilty. And guilty of what we don't know. That's part of the point here. And I don't think it's fair to include Hillary Clinton in that. It's more Bill Clinton in this case. And so if it's, and by the way, I get why they're more animated than others. Have they been the target of a lot of right-wing spears?

Of course they have, right? And so, and they said that they did something wrong in a real estate deal in Whitewater. And then it turns out after this giant fishing expedition, pretend, you know, look into that real estate deal, Ken Starr came out and said, yeah, he didn't know anything wrong with the real estate deal at all. It was a total sham that we invented to investigate him. But we found out he had sex with the wrong person. Ha ha, we got him. So I get why they're reluctant to participate in that kind of sham again.

But a subpoena is a subpoena. You can't say we should put Republicans like Steve Bannon and Navarro in jail for not following a subpoena, but we should have a different rule for Democrats. No way, right? And so then how do you make this work? How do you get to the right result here? If I was the Clintons, I mean, it's extraordinary to ask the former president to do this. I don't think the former president should be above the law in any way, shape, or form. But historically, it is considered unprecedented. And by the way, if they want presidents to go in front of the Congress, is Trump going? to testify because Trump's in there way more than Bill Clinton is, right? So now they're not going to get that, but they could ask for something that they might be able to get.

For example, everyone who is implicated to testify and be held to the same subpoena as they are. And not based on politics, not, oh, we only want the Democrats, no, Democrats, Republicans, whoever it might be. And then the former president should be the last to testify. But he should guarantee that he is going to testify. So that's a proposed solution that they could make. Or they could do the one that John Stewart mentioned. Oh, as soon as the Department of Justice complies with the law and released everything like they're supposed to, then we'd be happy to come in and testify.

And then when you make it Anna, it's such a big public challenge in a sense, then it puts the owners back on Comer and the Republicans. Well, why are you only asking Democrats to testify? Why aren't you asking everybody else to testify? Why hasn't the Department of Justice released these files? And is that fair to have it be so uneven, right? But if it's fair, they should all go and testify. I would love to hear it and it should all be public.

You know, as provocative and somewhat salacious as this story is, I'm a little bit bored because I totally agree with you. There's really no point of disagreement here. You're right, it is being investigated unfair. in a very partisan way. And yet again, we have a situation in which the American people are not being granted the transparency that was promised to them. And even worse, we're dealing with a situation where politicians are treating this as

if it's some sort of hot potato, partisan issue that they can use to smear the other side and skirt justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. So first and foremost, that's the biggest issue. The fact that, again, we have a situation where this is handled in a way that ensures that justice will not be served. So we got to take a break. When we come back for the second hour of the show, I'll get into my debate with Pearl. I had what I thought was going to be a difficult position in defending feminism in front of an audience of, let's just say people who don't like women so much. Okay. But I crushed and I'll show you how when we come back. Every day, the young Turks delivers two hours of solid, fact-based, timely news and progressive commentary on all the day's most important stories.

We keep our viewers informed while also providing perspective and insight on the news we cover, so you understand not only what's happening, but also what's happening behind the scenes, the stories behind the stories. We play musical chairs and put these children in one awful detention facility to the next. That's what's happening at the border. The things that got him banned, he's still spreading. So presumably, I think it's raisable. to say that if you allow him back on the website, he's going to do it again. Any legal voter that we deem not willing to vote for my side shouldn't vote because it'll replace me that's supposed to vote for my side. That's not how voting works. That's not how democracy worked. And while many people following today's political news can get discouraged about the direction

of the nation and the world, that's not us. At TYT, we're genuinely optimistic about the future. And with good reason. Today, wide majorities of Americans agree with our progressive stances on issues ranging from health care and education to climate, immigration, and wages. The rising generation of young people are also overwhelmingly progressive in their political beliefs and policy objectives. And they're increasingly flexing their muscle as voters and activists to demand change from our elected officials. The traditional mainstream media is mostly AWOL. They, along with the government and many other cherished institutions, have been captured by corporate interests. Audiences sense that they're not getting the whole story or even the truth from once trusted outlets.

whether broadcasting cable TV news networks or national newspapers and magazines. The antidote is the Young Turks. Unlike mainstream corporate outlets, we're not beholden to corporate advertisers, the defense contractors, the Wall Street, or to Big Farmer, and we don't carry water for the Republican or Democratic parties. So watch us Monday to Friday at 6 p.m. Eastern, 3 p.m. Pacific, and join the thousands of progressives around the globe who tune in every day for TYT's unmatched award-winning content

and see what it's like to experience a news organization that only answers to you. Indisputable, exclusive, exclusive, disputable, exclusive. We brought you this first. No other news agency has this video. No other news agency has this story. Every week on Indisputable, we do original exclusive investigative reporting. You'll find nowhere else. Our reports have been viewed by millions. Hosted by Sean King, Ben Kropp, Senator John Ossoff.

You, through your investigative. reporting unearthed, very troubling allegations about specific forms of abuse and discrimination in the federal prison system. We catching these cases on camera. Just imagine the things that we don't see. Our groundbreaking investigations and exclusive interviews bring you the real voices no one else wants you to hear. We tell the stories. Imagine a prison that is so racist. The corrections officers contact me. That is a life or death situation being created. A black woman who was driving for Uber was allegedly assaulted by a white male passenger. After we got involved, roughly 24 hours later,

the police all of a sudden opened up an investigation. What was going through your mind when bullets was simply flying inside of your vehicle? Honestly, I thought I was going to die. Did these officers ever say that you fit the description of somebody they were looking for? Did they say that? Never. Okay, that means they lie. And we want you to be part of our truth-telling movement.

Send pictures and video of stories no one else is telling and a one or two paragraph summary of the story to Indisputable's exclusive tip line at IND Videos at TYT.com. If you have more information about what's happening at this particular facility, please let me know. Together, we're challenging the system, and together we're making a difference. I have the time background to this story,

and it is going to make your blood boil. Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Ritchie, unveiling the truth, empowering the people. Weekdays at 2.30 p.m. Eastern, 11.30 a.m. Pacific. All right, back on TYT, Jane. And Anna with you guys. More news? I don't know if this is news,

but I wanted to talk a little bit about the debate that I engaged in at this event. It was the first of its kind, but they're planning on doing more. It's called word war debate. And I was tasked with debating in favor of feminism. Whereas my opponent, Pearl Davis,

who goes by just pearly things, was debating against feminism. Let's get into it. Are you just making things up? No. What are you doing? Like seriously. Next question.

Yeah, look, I did not do good at all. I don't understand how this woman was able to basically verbally abuse me with no recourse. Sorry, I shouldn't say abuse with the woman in me. Anna, you talk for a living? It's kind of rich for you to come at me. What? bitch, what do you do for a living? Well, I had these very special experience of debating Hannah Pearl Davis at Word War

Debate and it was, it was something. Now, she froze up for a few minutes at a time. She didn't have any citations to, you know, back up her claims. She was a, she was kind of curbstop, if you, stomped, if you ask me, Jenk. But maybe I'm reading things inaccurately. What are your thoughts? Yeah, no, you're not. That's sort of every commenter is saying every right wing commenter, every left wing commenter,

everybody's saying the same thing. It was a bloodbass politically and ideologically. And so she said, you know, she was verbally abusing me during the debate. Yeah, that's what a debate kind of is, isn't it? Was she supposed to hand you flowers? And so look, I'll give her the tiniest piece of credit on this. She was clear afterwards that she took the L, right? She got slaughtered in that debate.

And but Anna, my favorite was the post-debate analysis when the first person said you'd have to be the R word to think that Anna didn't win. And then even the conservative guy was like- Don't give too much away. Okay, all right, you got that? You're gonna love that part. You're gonna love that part. Yeah.

Okay, so look, we don't have time to get to all the highlights. And I wanna say something, I had no intention initially to like, draw attention to this debate. After the debate happened, obviously, I promoted it beforehand, but I actually did feel bad for Pearl. And I just, I'm not looking to, you know, have our audience make fun of her. I'm not looking to make fun of her on the show. Like, she lost the debate. It was embarrassing enough. I was going to move on. But immediately, after she shook my hand, said, good debate, and she appeared to be a good sport about it, She then went on to mock my husband because I talked about how feminism allowed me the economic freedom to marry a man for love and not because I'm looking for someone to financially take care of me.

Started calling him a loser and all this nonsense and like just tons of various posts on X and I'm like, oh, you want to keep playing. All right, I'm down to play. And so here are some highlights from the debate. Do you believe in alimony? I believe in alimony in specific cases where the woman decided to forego having a career and working, decided to stay home and raise the kids. In those cases, I believe she deserves alimony, yes. But that's a privilege. You're ridiculous. Anyway, next, move on.

Wait, you said it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Especially coming from a girl who grew up in an affluent situation with an incredibly wealthy parents. you don't know anything about struggling economically or financially. So to tell a single mother who decided to stay home and raise her children instead of work, that she doesn't deserve a penny to raise her kids after a divorce is the most privileged piece of shit thing to say. This is the type of nagging that drives men to suicide. Good.

But I'm married and... So I want to be clear about something. I didn't hear the part where she says nagging that drives men to suicide. So the suicide part I didn't hear. But I said good to her complaining about me nagging. I mean, these people, this woman is just, she lives in La La Land. And the idea that women, like, because she promotes this whole notion of the so-called trad wife, you stay home and you raise the kids.

Well, you're putting yourself at a significant economic risk if that marriage doesn't work out. So the argument that I'm making is, yeah, alimony should be paid to mothers who were stay-at-home mothers. And if the divorce happens, I mean, what are they supposed to do? And her argument is, oh, they should just go to work. They should get a job. They should get a job. Okay, so no responsibility, no financial responsibility from the male in the marriage or, you know, now divorce in raising the children. By the way, people think that alimony is the outcome of every divorce or something.

It's not even the outcome in 50% of divorces. Only 10% of divorces end with an alimony settlement. You want to know why? Because feminism allowed women to be go-getters, go out there, get a job, start a career, and earn their own money. So alimony doesn't make sense if you're earning your own money and you can take care of yourself. But, Jank, I was curious about your thoughts on that.

Yeah. So look, the reason why it was such a blowout if you watch the whole thing is because of a couple of factors. One was the obvious where you would state facts and statistics and she'd go back to, well, I ran into this bro and that bro is really mad. So I must be right. That's not evidence, right? And so they'd be a little long, awkward silences. She didn't know how to respond when you asked her for facts. So it was like evident on its face. And I think that the reason for that is she's got this little niche. Everybody now these days have their little niches of, and in her case, And in a lot of cases, they're grievance niches, right? So she does grievance content for guys who are mad at women. And if you're a woman doing that, that's even better, right? Oh, you guys are right, women suck and X, Y, and Z, right?

But she's not used to actually be going out in the real world and having a conversation from someone outside that niche. And so when she runs into the real world and runs into you, that's running into a buzz saw, she didn't expect, right? where everyone's not validating her opinions. But the second part of it is because you did a lot of research and it was obvious in the debate. And you had looked into what she said in the past. She's trying to court these right wing guys who are mad at women.

But she tells them not to get married. But wait, that's kind of against the right wing talking points. So she's then caught in a conundrum, but it doesn't feel like she's bright enough to realize that she's in a conundrum. And then you did it again when you talked about, well, don't you want moms to stay at home and take care of the kids? That's the trad wife ideology. But now you're saying if they did that and their husband promised to take care of them, if their husband gets a new girlfriend and dumps them and betrays that core promise, she's saying, so what wives, go get a job, figure out of nothing. Look, I'm not saying that that should never happen, but it's at odds with her overall so-called philosophy.

So you put her in a box she couldn't get out of because her philosophy makes no sense. And it was exposed there. That's why I think that it's so universal in this case, not just left wing, but every part of the political spectrum was like, yeah, that was a slaughterhouse. And so that's why she's so mad afterwards and taking shots at you, taking shots at your husband, usual these days and talking about laying hands on you, which then ironically would have to lead you to some pearl clutching. That's hilarious. Now look, the worst part in my opinion of the debate for Pearl, of course,

was when she was supposed to interrogate me. Like there were these interrogation segments and well, let's just say it didn't go as planned for Pearl. Let's take a look. I get it, I get it. I get it. A little harder to debate someone who's not an only fan's girl, right? Never. I don't need to. Not that I'm judging.

Do you think that men should have the right to opt out of fatherhood, since women have the right to opt out of motherhood? No. Have children put a condom on. Or require him to wear a condom. That's equal. Yeah. That choice is equally irresponsible. He's the one with the Johnson.

He gets to decide what he does. with it. I think I'm more of a feminist than you. Sure. Go great. Congratulations. This is the longest 30 minutes of my life. It was, it was bad. Yeah. Obviously. So in the beginning when you're interrogating her, you got fact after fact that she's got no response other than I ran into a dude, right? And then she's supposed to interrogate you and she's got nothing. She had these things And the reason Anna mentioned the only fans is because she's, Pearl has debated a bunch of only fans girls and she like does this performative thing. She finds someone who knows nothing about politics and

really hasn't because thought about politics ever, right? And then she asked these questions like, oh yeah, should the man have a right to terminate the pregnancy? And they're like, I don't know, I've never thought about it. When Anna's thought about it, she's like, oh, yeah, that was a good answer. I don't know what else to say. And then you ironic, again, you put her in a position where you're kind of, you're pro choice, but you're arguing a position that a lot of pro-life people agree with, right?

And then she had to argue against the pro-life position. And you know you, and the moderator had to step in a bunch of times because she just had, she literally wouldn't say anything. So the moderator is like, I guess I'll ask a question, right? Yeah, yep. And then at the end, you know you've won a debate when you, When you're debating on whether feminism is good or bad, and your opponent says, oh yeah, I'm the bigger feminist than you.

Okay, I guess the debates over them. So what's so ironic about all of this is, look, I believe in equality. I genuinely believe in equality. I don't consider myself a feminist. And in the debate, I explained why. It's not because I'm against women's rights, but because I think that there have been some excesses that came out of modern feminism that are unfair and wrong.

You know, I give the example of, you know, let's say the Me Too movement. It started off with legitimate grievances of people who were actually being abused and taken advantage of in the workplace. And then it devolved into Aziz Ansari being treated like a predator just because he had a bad date. You know what I mean? So like, I believe in equality. I believe in women's rights, but I also believe in men's rights.

I don't want men to be treated unfairly. So it was like this weird topsy-turvy world in which I'm the one on the stage talking about the importance of family values because she discourages men from getting married. And my argument is, no, you absolutely should get married, right? There's nothing better when you find someone you want to build a life with. Like she's giving these guys such terrible advice that's going to ensure that they're going to be lonely and sad for the rest of their lives. And I really hope they don't take her seriously. Now, when it came time for me to interrogate, I did ask the question. What was really fascinating is how everyone reacted to it.

Because remember, her whole shtick is, oh, our judicial system, the courts are so unfair to men, so unfair, so unfair. So I brought an example of the judicial system being incredibly unfair to women. And everyone thought, no, this is the third rail. Take a look. Do you think it's fair that all of the young women who were preyed upon as minors by Jeffrey Epstein

are now experiencing yet another administration engaging in a cover-up? Or was it the female's fault for being preyed upon by a disgusting pedophile? I'm just curious. What kind of question is that? I think it's a pretty straightforward one. You're talking about the unfairness of our court system, especially as it pertains as pertains to divorces. But we're talking about a guy who got a sweetheart deal after raping minor girls.

And then even after that, multiple administrations, Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter, engaged in a cover up, ensuring that those victims would never get justice. And this has to do with this. I mean, you want to talk about the unfairness in the court system and how terrible it is for men. What about how terrible it is for women? Look, that is nothing to do with that. It has a lot to do. I think in fairness, you got to admit that's an anecdote too in comparison to the overall statistics.

It's a pretty big anecdote. Move off it, move off it, move off it. Oh my God, this is drawing attention to Trump engaging in a cover up of the Epstein files and the pedophilia involved. Move off it, move off it, move off it. Like, it was hilarious. That moment was so hilarious to me. It really stood out. Jank, what do you think?

Look, you could find one or two cases, by the way, of the courts or laws being a little bit unfair to men in some of the divorce cases, et cetera. And there are those anecdotes. And by the way, our answer to that one is so simple. And Anna has said it during the debate too, which is, okay, then let's fix those. So you don't have to hate women in order to fix those laws that are not perfectly fair. If you found one or two, we're very happy to fix them, right? And so, but the idea that overall, like men are getting screwed by the U.S. justice system, but women are just flying through, you know, like every time they go into court, they win.

Like single moms can't stop winning in court, right? Abused young girls, to Anna's point, oh my God, the court's just tripping over themselves to help them. No, no. You know, we know what the real issue with the courts are. It's not about men or women. It's about the powerful versus the powerless. The powerful can skate through anything and kill people, et cetera, and get away with it. And the powerless are ground up by this system.

And then last thing for me, before we get to the hilarious, awesome post-debat analysis, is, look, guys, these are all words that people put meaning into, feminist, socialist, even MAGA, right? So on left and right, what does MAGA mean? What does socialists mean? almost nobody ever defines it, right? So what do we think? Generally speaking, Anna and I were relatively very similar on this topic. Equality, period, not complicated. Yes, right?

Yes, yes. We don't want men at a disadvantage. We don't want women at a disadvantage. We don't want anybody at a disadvantage. Equal rights, where's the question? Exactly. And the ideal situation where two totally fine parents, they just didn't get along, a reconcilable differences, whatever the reason for their divorce.

As long as they're good parents, I want the 50-50 custody, like the notion that like, oh, these devilish women, they want the mom to have full custody and they want the man to be frozen out. No, I don't want that. I don't think that's good for the kids. But she lives in this weird la-la land where she thinks women always get everything they want and men get shafted. And she also kind of fails to realize like life is a lot more complicated. It's not so black and white. So you might have situations in which the man is an alcoholic and he's very abusive, like physically abusive with the kids.

Okay, then in that case, you want 50-50 custody? How does that make any sense? It's not safe for the kids. But anyway, let's move on to some of the post-debate stuff because things went so poorly for Pearl that she apparently considered physically assaulting me. Let's take a look at that. There was a point where I did want to throw hands. I'm not going to lie.

She's like 5'1. And I thought about it. I thought about it. I'm like, you can talk like this to men, but I'm bigger than you. I could body you. Do you know what I mean? I'm like, yeah, I don't know.

She was a little ghetto, you know. I know I was too polite. I can't be a little ghetto. I will co-sign onto that. But I don't think I was being ghetto on that stage. I mean, she's the one who's on camera right now talking about wanting to throw hands. Like what? Yeah.

No, no. I mean, that irony is hilarious. I wanted to body her. I wanted to throw hands. She's being ghetto. If you say so, Pearl. I know. And by the way, she also admitted that the event and audience was pretty much stacked against me and to her advantage.

Let's just take a quick look at that. And then we'll go to the post-debate analysis. And the worst part was the crowd was the best crowd. I talked to them before. They're all so nice. They're there to see me win, the majority of the crowd. I talked to them before. It was mostly there for me, or at least like rooting for me.

What do you think tonight is your best hope for swaying people in the crowd who might not be on your side? Um, I don't have a lot of hope, to be honest with you. So that last part was me acknowledging that, yeah, the, like, the audience was very much on Pearl's side. So I was kind of in a difficult spot because I, number one, don't consider myself a feminist. And then number two, everyone in the audience is on her side. But let's see how the analysts thought I did. Take a look. I think whatever opinion you have on the topic, that was an absolute bloodbath. I thought Pearl did great. I think that.

He thinks you won? Well, you know what I noticed going on over there? Anna doesn't have kids. Pearl has a kid. And Anna was doing this, like, masculine thing, where she was being really, you know, vociferous and attacking Pearl. And Pearl had this sort of, like, calm.

Why are we infantilizing Pearl? Women who given birth are better than women who haven't given birth. Anna is aping male characteristics. She's getting super aggressive and attacking, like a weird little pit bull that's mimicking male behavior. Everyone knows that that was painful. And the reality is it sucks for Pearl. You know, it's tough coming out here and trying to be a debate.

Well, she's taking on, let's face it, one of the Michael Jordans of debating. Oh. Damn right. I love that comment. I loved it. Me too. Undefeated. Okay.

So, by the way, Pearl doesn't have kids. Like, and it doesn't even matter. Pearl doesn't have kids. I don't have kids. Whether you have kids or not means nothing. Gavin McInnes is a clown. Oh, that was Gavin McGinnis? Oh, I didn't even recognize him.

Oh, that's hilarious. So look, my last point comments are about those guys. You're Anna. Yeah, I mean, she won, but only because she was aping male characteristics. Whatever gets you through the night, brother. Okay. And the crowd part, that's a really interesting point. So this is an old trick.

And by the way, honestly, we've packed crowds before too. Not as a trick, but just like we said, hey, we're going to Politicon and then a whole bunch of people bought tickets. And then once people saw us doing that, Ben Shapiro then did it when we were debating. And he packed the crowd with like 90% of his guys. But even so, when we got to money in politics and he's like, well, money in politics is great. And then politicians should take money from Israel or whatever, right? He didn't say Israel in that case. Even his own crowd was like, boo.

No, not at all. Yeah. Right? But you did that on steroids here. I mean, that crowd was in a lot of ways. They just started applauding you at some points. By the way, Ben Shapiro also did that trick at TP USA. So he knew that Tucker was gonna come on and he was gonna come on. So they packed up totally pro-Israel crowds. So every time he's like, we should cancel them. People like, yes, cancel for Israel, yes. And everybody else is like, who are these bozos? So it's an old trick and in this case it didn't work at all. Well, you know, I don't really have time to pack anything except for, as my dad would say, my brain. I pack my brain.

Anyway, all right, guys, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll get back to the news because I wanted to give you some updates on ICE, some pretty interesting public polling on U.S. sentiment toward ICE and more when we come back. All right. God, you guys, so many comments here. Okay, let's go with Titan of Olympus on Super Chat first. Anna, you crushed that and it was expected. I say this with all the respect and I hope you're not offended by this. That debate was beneath you. You're so beyond that woman, she was not worthy of your time. But you know, I think you're right.

Yeah, I hear you Anna, but I mean, they put up massan agents against me. They put up Rabbi Shmuli against me. What am I gonna do? If the other side sucks, I can't help that. And in this case, are they gonna find a genius? genius anti-feminist who don't think that women should have equal rights? That's a tough person to find. So you debate the people you are put up against, not the ones you wish you were put up against.

Barks says men's rights are so important, but the idea that I take the advice from a woman like pro is just silly, do women listen to men to drive feminism? You know, that is kind of funny. Like there's a big feminist get together. They're like, wait, guys, let's bring in men here to tell us what to do. do. And that's kind of what the anti-feminists are doing. Women, I shouldn't have equal rights. Here, let's bring in Pearl to tell us what to do. She asked me during her questioning, why is the saying happy wife, happy life? And I'm like, because it's true and I would want my

husband to be happy too? Like, you don't want to go home to an unhappy spouse? Like, what is this? Like what that's your big gotcha? It was so it was so embarrassing. Yeah. Anyway. All right, Tyne of Olympus writes back in a couple times and it says, when cops behave like criminals without accountability, I really don't want to hear about why we need people to get criminals. If the state can be criminals, then why even have laws?

So brother, ICE is acting outrageously. We're going to talk about that a little bit later in the show. The point I was making is a small point about framing. It'll come back to be relevant in a year or so or nine months or So but don't sweat it. The bottom line is we totally agree, ice is out of hand, no matter what you call it. Make it make sense this new TYT shirt slash tank top.

Picture this, a sketch of Anna wearing a crown and the caption, yeah, I'm reading these blind by the way. Princess Pottymouth, long live Anna, you are the goat. I don't know about that shirt brother, okay. So Titan also wrote in before ICE we had INS and we have we can have something after But whatever we have, I think it's not too much to ask, they be beholden to laws and not have the ability to shoot citizens or non-citizens in the face. Again, couldn't agree more. Timmy D. says they purposely aim at the base so all falls down, referring to the controlled demolitions that Israel does.

Of course they do. It's a controlled demolition. There's no question about it. They're not like, oh, we were blowing up the tunnel by itself and it accidentally blew up the whole building. No, they put explosives in all four corners of the building. It's not within question at all. It's part of the ethnic cleansing so that they could turn down into Israeli land. Lost 24 says, how exactly is Jordan's king and Israeli puppet? Genuinely curious, the current king's family have had power over Jordan since 1951. So look, I feel bad saying that because he's kind of a fun guy.

The King of Jordanites a weird and hilarious thing to say. But he likes Star Trek. He was like a side actor there, had a cameo or whatever. There's things to like about him educated down the West. But bottom line is, he knows that if he opposes Israel, he'll be replaced immediately. Israel will likely murder him and then put in another puppet. So he almost never opposes Israel. So it's sad, but it's reality.

The other puppets of Israel are a little bit more enthusiastic for what it's worth. There was a point where I did want to throw hands, but I'm bigger than you. I could body you. I know you are, but what am I? All right, back on TYT, Jane Kadana with you guys. So a wardrobe change. I like it. It's cold. It's so cold in New York right now. I got you. And guys, whenever we do appearances like Anna's usually and mine on I've had a podcast and Pierce Morgan this morning,

go to t.com slash press and you'll see our appearances in other places. All right, Anna, what's thanks? Well, we got to check in with ICE and what they've been up to. Let's get into it. Stand up. Where are they're pouring? Hey. For more, we're getting me out.

Shing our I'm literally a U.S. citizen. According to reports, they dumped him off at a Walmart later in the day.

This guy right here, they let him out of the vehicle. They porthered him. This guy? This guy right here, yeah. You're okay, man?

Oh, I'm not okay. No. Well, it's. Well, congratulations. You have ICE agents terrorizing American citizens, including American citizens at work. In this case, we're talking about federal agents harassing and putting their hands on

an American worker at a target. And as you just heard, he was later dropped off at a Walmart. Jank, your two cents. Yeah, in America, we used to not do things like this. Like if you were arrested, you were arrested, and we would take you down to the station. you'd be able to see our badge and see our name and where our faces wouldn't be covered. Now we have thugs in the streets that have masks on, no badges, no names. Now they're grabbing up US citizens because they ran out of people to grab and Stephen Miller

still wants them to terrorize people. Guys, you're gonna see two things in this story that are important. One is the tide has shifted and the American people now hate this. You'll see it in the podcasters that speak out. You'll see it in the polls. And the second thing we gotta talk about after Anna gives you the facts is, why are they doing this in the first place? This is not about immigration.

So let's talk about that in a minute, but first the facts. So the incident that you just saw took place last week on Thursday. Another target worker was also apprehended. Now the Department of Homeland Security addressed the case of this 17 year old target worker shown in the video at the start of the story, saying that this individual was arrested for assaulting federal law enforcement officers under 18 USC-1-1-1 assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers. Now, there were eyewitnesses there, and here is some eyewitness testimony from Bring Me the News. So per observers, agents were approaching target and asked the workers,

outside whether they were citizens. The workers didn't answer and tried to go inside, at which point they were grabbed. So I'm seeing more and more of these stories of ICE agents, like literally going door to door knocking on people's doors to ask whether or not they're citizens. Okay, so if you are an American citizen who was upset with the Biden administration's handling of immigration,

you want our immigration laws to be enforced, I hear you, Did you sign up for this? Did you sign up for federal agents knocking on your door? Did you sign up for federal agents harassing you while you're working at your very likely minimum wage job? Okay, so once we get to the polling on the American sentiment toward ICE, all of these examples I'm giving you is going to help explain the results of the polling. So according to reports, this is not an isolated incident. And if you've been paying close attention to the store, you'd know that. So some target stores are actually pulling Latino workers off drive-up duty.

That's when workers bring online orders directly to shopper's cars in the parking lot. And that's according to what one anonymous Minneapolis store workers said. And they're doing this to keep their workers safe to the best of their ability because they know that these ICE agents are going to racially profile. And if you look Latino, they're going to pull you aside and ask you questions. Over the weekend, protests took place outside of this target where the ICE agents snatched the employees. And the protesters wanted Target to do a better job in protecting their workers. But according to a company spokesperson, that's a pretty difficult task because our parking lots and stores are unrestricted spaces that allow for the free flow of people in and out.

Federal law enforcement agents aren't legally required to present a warrant to enter these areas. And I just want to understand something. So if you happen to have darker skin, you're an American citizen, but you don't have lily white skin, you don't have blonde hair, you don't have blue eyes, are you now expected to literally walk around with your birth certificate or with your naturalization documentation? Like, what is this? And, you know, Joe Rogan waited on it. During a podcast with Senator Rand Paul, Rogan stated that Renee Good seemed out of her effing mind. However, he also harshly criticized the tactics that ICE has been deploying. Take a look. After that woman was shot, I think unfortunately, well, everything is unfortunate about it, right?

But one of the real problems is now ICE are villains. And now people are looking at them like murderous, military people that are on the streets of our city. and they're masked up, which is also a problem, right? Because if you get arrested by a cop, you're allowed to ask the cop, what is your name and badge number? And you could film that cop. If you get arrested by an ICE agent, you have no such right. They're wearing a mask, they don't have to tell you. That's a problem. That's a problem on our city streets, right?

It's complicated, obviously, but it's also very ugly. To watch someone shoot a U.S. citizen, especially a woman, in the face, it just look horrific to me. I mean, when people say it's justifiable because the car hit him, it seemed like she was kind of turning the car away. It seemed like she was out of her mind to begin with. That lady seemed crazy, right? And didn't she move there specifically to get involved in all this?

Yeah, I don't know. She didn't seem mentally healthy. But does that mean she should be shot in the head? Is there no other way to handle this? So before I get to the polling jank thoughts on everything I just presented, Yeah, so look, I don't like them attacking this poor woman after she's been shot in the face three times. So no, she didn't look crazy to me. You might not agree with her.

You might not have liked what she was doing or what she said, but no, not crazy. But overall, though, Rogan is agreeing with us and the great majority of the country. And so there's a couple parts here. And to your point about are you a citizen? That's the question they ask. And then Target then is now having people go and walk, work in the back if they're Latinos, et cetera. Because why?

Who carries around their passport? Look, I look, I could, I'm brown, I could look Latino. People could think I look Latino. Am I carrying my passport around or my naturalization papers? No. That's a, it's not a good idea to begin with. So now if you say, are you a US citizen and you can't prove it, they're gonna arrest you.

If you don't answer it, they're gonna arrest you. arrest you, no matter what you say, if you look a certain way, they're gonna arrest you. And then since we're not doing anything by the law anymore, they're like, arrest you in the back of a van, and after we know we do, God knows what to you, then we just dump you off the side of the street. No, that's not the American way. That's not rule of law, that's not law and order. And it's actually very refreshing to at least see Rogan go, no, we don't wear masks, that's

not what we do. And guys, if you're not getting it by now, that leads to the second point I wanted to make, which is why are they doing this? So yeah, there's the reason that they're giving, which is already absurd and ridiculous. Stephen Miller wants to catch Obama. Obama deported so many people who's called a deporter in chief, and in order to catch them, they have to do 3,000 deportations a day. But when they do that, they run out of all the criminals that they could find.

They're onto the non-criminales, and they can't find enough non-criminales, partly because they live here. So they are in that house, that house, they're living lives. They're at work and the American people don't like to see what is a very ugly scene. That was exactly right. It looks very ugly when you have these stormtroopers going into the middle of American cities, agitating, agitating, agitating everyone. And then when someone goes, hey, I object, then they shoot them in the face.

No, and Anna, what I'm super worried about is they're trying to get us used to the tyranny and to occupation. Yes. Okay? they're not going to be able to get 3,000 people a day, and they're certainly not going to be able to get 3,000 people a day without massive oppression, massive number of mistakes and going after U.S. citizens, et cetera. We don't want this. Nobody wants this, and now the independent podcasters are clear. They don't want this. Dylan doesn't want a, Rogan doesn't want it. And the only reason why the Palantiers and the Stephen Miller's of the world want it is because at the end of the day,

we're all going to be in that same category soon, where the government is going to track all of us. If anybody objects to the government, look, there's mass men working for the government, ready to put their jackbooted, you know, thug-ish, you know, knee on your neck. And it isn't just for African Americans or Latinos anymore. It's for all of us. Yeah, that's exactly right.

And I don't want to live in a country where you have militarized federal agents roaming the streets and harassing people like this, right? Especially as they're just going about their day or as they're at work, it's ridiculous. And we know that there's been a hiring spree for ICE. We know that the Trump administration has cut down on the training. And this isn't the kind of country that we're supposed to live in. This isn't what our government is supposed to stand for. And this is all translating into some interesting polling results because UGov just released.

a poll over the weekend and they wanted to know how Americans are feeling about ice. And let's take a look at the very first graphic here. So they asked, you know, whether or not Americans support ice. And here's what they found. 46% of Americans said they would support abolishing ice. Okay, abolishing, 46%. 43% of Americans say they would oppose abolishing ice. 12% of Americans say they're not so sure.

But there are other results I want to get into. So this is the percentage of Americans who think the shooting of Renee Good was justified. So only 28% of Americans stated that the shooting of Renee Good was justified. 53% said it was not justified. So that's a majority. 18% were not sure. Let's look at the next one. So this kind of breaks things down based on party ID.

So 53% of Americans overall said that the ICE officer who shot in killed Renee Good should face criminal charges. 30% said that he should not face criminal charges. 17% of Americans not so sure. But when you break it down by party affiliation, 90% of Democrats, 54% of independence and sadly just 14% of Republicans want the officer to face charges. 6% of Democrats, 23% of independents and 63% of Republicans stayed. he should not face charges. So I've got some more. Let me just go to one more here.

So according to the UCOV poll, which was conducted on January 7th, which was the day that Renee Good was killed, you'll see that 39% of Americans strongly or somewhat approve of how ICE is handling its job. 52% of Americans strongly or somewhat disapprove of how ICE is handling its job. And 10% are not sure. Jank. Yeah. No, boy, has ICE lost the country? Gonzo. I mean, if you told me a year ago, which some probably some of you did tell me, that Abolish ICE would have, no, no one said this, but I would have been shocked,

I wouldn't have agreed if they had. I'm throwing myself on the bus there. That abolish ICE would have a plurality of Americans saying, yeah, let's just get rid of it all together, right? I would have, I think that I would have thought, if that happened, my God has iced on some terrible things. And that is what happened. ICE has done terrible thing after terrible thing after terrible thing to the point where Americans are like, what did AOC say about abolishing ice? Yeah, let's do that, right? So look, at the end of the day, you still need an agency to, you know, get the folks who are undocumented but criminals, like some of the people they picked up in the first couple of days, like the pedophiles, etc. And by the way, I wish that Donald Trump would stop releasing some of the criminals, like the former president of Honduras was an person that they brought from outside the country into here, we convicted him for 45 years, one of the worst drug dealers in history. And Trump's like, oh, you're actually undocumented and a massive criminal. You're free to go.

So that also ruined any credibility that they had, along with many other fraud cases where he pardoned people, that they were concerned about crime. And so, yeah, the American people are sick of it? They don't want these kind of ugliness in the streets. And are they saying this is permanent? And we're all just gonna have to get used to militarized guys in the streets with no identification and mass. And how many of them will are real? How many of them are fake? And we've done the many stories about the fake ones that are kidnapping people. And mainly women, mainly Latino women, but not exclusively Latino women, telling women to get into vans because they're quote unquote ice.

No, this sucks. And basically the American people are saying change it, change it. And Anna, it was a stunning failure on Trump's part to have done the initial closing of the border, get rid of the criminals. He was enormously popular at that point on the topic of immigration. And now independence by two to one have said not only have they turned against him on immigration, but they're saying we should maybe abolish the department that's executing his policies on immigration. And that is a stunning development. The size of that defeat is stunning.

Yeah, it's stunning. Turns out that Americans don't want to see militarized, federal agents, roaming the streets and harassing people. Wow, shocker. Anyway, we got to take a break. When we come back, Trump has some thoughts on his head of DOJ, Pam Bondi, and they're not good.

We'll be right back. All right, back on TYAT. Let's go to Super Chat for a second. And Lowe 24 says, one of the Michael Jordans of debating, Bart better load that on the soundboard. You got that, Bart? Okay, that's a good tip from Lose 24. Kshacks, well, my bad has an interesting point, or my e-bad. Does anyone notice Republicans laying to abolish ice trap for Dems as soon as the next immigrant murders, a white woman, they're going to pin it on the Dems?

Well, that's part of what I'm worried about. We don't, I don't want to debate it. I don't want to debate. Ice is doing terrible things. That's the most important thing. What we call it is a lot less relevant. But anyways, it's a good, interesting point. I'm glad you wrote that in. And so Michael Cotevelli with a point I hadn't seen in the news. I'm going to look to us up, Michael. Today, New York Attorney General Tish James announces a deal to dissolve anti-speech group Batar. James investigated Batar for targeting Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and Jewish New Yorkers. Amazing. Okay. I literally just saw.

that. I literally just saw that. Extremist group, Batar, to dissolve New York operations following New York State AG, investigation finds substantial civil rights violations, bars encouraging violence, harassment of protesters. So settlement, three-year oversight period, violation subject to $50,000 in fines. Is that a pro-Israeli group?

It's more than just a pro-Israeli group. They have no problem saying that they have saying that they engage in, anyway, I want to use my words carefully. So let's just say they use unconventional means to carry out their agenda on behalf of Israel. I've just stunned that an American politician or official held account to account and pro-Israeli group. Okay, we're going to cover that tomorrow. It's literally never happened before. So now all of a sudden I'm a huge fan of Letitia James.

You better lay your, take your hands off of my Letitia James, okay, Donald Trump. Anyway, box says happy wife, happy life is a veiled thread in my opinion. That's so funny. It is a funny way. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, a little bit. Boxy Brown 6,900 says, Pearl wants them to be lonely and sad. That way they'll continue watching.

No married man watches her. Oh, that's such a devastating point. So yeah, Boxy Brown, that's such a good. The percentage of married men who watcher, it's got to be minuscule. There's such a giant industry of influencers going to lonely young guys and going, it's not your fault, it's her, right? Or whoever they've decided to blame. Was you married, though, you're not worried about it.

You're not going back on there and listening to that crap. So that's an excellent point. Amidextrous Rex says, oh my God, Anna. Blonds aren't my type, but after watching you cook, Burl, I'm gonna reconsider. Mr. Anderson says that debate in needed the Jeopardy tune. Totally. As she's sitting there, I'm thinking, do do, do, do, do, do, do. I know you are, but what am I? No vitriol here, it says, send the salty queen into bury the BS weekies.

Way to go, Anna, P.S. love your conversation with Ryan Grimjank. Love you guys, Joy, Joy, Joy. We should enjoy tonight. So everybody stick around for that. One of you guys asked on the t. t.com member section, how do you write in? You write in through t.wit.com slash joy or on Tuesdays like today. You can just write in right now with your story. We'll be right back.

All right back on TYT, Jank, Anna and Jeff Ward. Jeff, thanks for signing up. We appreciate it, brother. I'm gonna read just two here. Natalie Stun wrote in in YouTube member section. You make me so proud Anna and Will Zep wrote in. I must say thank you, Jane for mentioning Jennifer Welsh and Pumps, Sullivan and in their show. I watched their episode with you in it today and it was awesome.

So t-y-t.com slash press, check that episode out when you get a chance. Anna. All right, let's get to our final story of the day. The end of the day, I've been disappointed in some of the criminal referrals that are collecting dust on Attorney General Bondi's desk. I've made that very clear with the White House. I'm hopeful that we'll see some action soon on, you know, the criminal referrals, that range everywhere from Dr. Fauci to the Biden family influence peddling scheme. Republican House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer is not the only Republican who is fed up with Attorney General Pam Bondi.

In fact, a new report in the Wall Street Journal exposes what President Trump really thinks of his former lawyer, now his attorney general. And let's just say that it isn't the review that she's hoping for, Jenk. No, it most certainly isn't. But why Donald Trump is throwing her onto the bus is really interesting. And it also shows you why there's literally no one in the country that could do that job for Trump. Can't wait to tell you why. Let's hear the facts first. I certainly would not sign up for that job under any circumstance.

But nonetheless, the Wall Street Journal asserts that Trump has been complaining to his aides over the past few weeks about how weak and ineffective Pam Bondi really is. His internal complaints are part of Trump's efforts to essentially pressure the DOJ to prioritize his demands. Basically, lawfare against his political opponents. And what just happened with Jerome Powell, head of the Federal Reserve, should bolster that argument. And his complaints also include the fact that his complaints about her have increased in recent months. Like he was like kind of taking some jabs at her. But according to this Wall Street Journal report, the complaints have increased. significantly. So chief among his grievances, they write, is what he sees as Bondi's failure to

quickly and effectively prosecute the investigators who had pursued him for years, including former FBI director James Comey and New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James. The officials and others familiar with his complaint said, both criminal cases were dismissed, by the way, back in November by a judge who said the Trump aide who secured the indictment had been improperly appointed to her post. Trump has wanted to see the case or cases continue quickly. He has also heard from conservative activists and influencers criticizing Bondi and collected similar social media posts that he has asked other aides about the official said. And we know how impressionable Trump is, you know, he'll usually go along with the person who has his ear.

And if he sees some of his supporters, you know, taking shots at Pam Bondi, he's, you know, more likely to listen to it, especially if he's unhappy with the fact that she hasn't engaged in enough lawfare on his behalf. Now, it's even gotten to a point where Trump is trying to figure out ways to appoint special counsels at the Department of Justice because of what he sees as slow progress. He's also angry at Bondi's handling of the Epstein files, which I'm sure he is, when White House Chief of Staffs, staff, Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that Bondi whiffed on her handling of the files. Trump told staff that he agreed with Wiles, two officials said. And now, remember, he's not agreeing with Wiles because Bondi said she had the goods and then engaged in a cover-up. Trump is upset that Bondi said she had the goods to begin with because he never wanted to release the Epstein files. And in fact, currently, he's not complying with the order to release the Epstein files.

Let's just be clear about that. Now, Bondi's support improved slightly in September to negative 17 points. Let me go to Graphic 4 here because she has lost a lot of support from when she was initially announced as AG. So the Atlas Intel polling found that her popularity peaked in February of 2025 when 49% of people approved of her and 43% disapproved. In the months to follow, it steadily declined. And by August 2025, she had a net approval rating of negative 27 points with 63% disapproving of her and 26% approving. So things are not good for Pam Bondi. A lot of disapproval aimed at her. But there's two different things here. And I don't want people to get confused.

Mag is upset at her. The general American people are upset with her, as you see in now polling, because she wouldn't release the Epstein files. But that's not why Trump is mad at her. is the one who told her not to release to Epstein files. So it's a little apples and oranges. So he's like, oh yeah, yeah, and Mag is mad at her, that's making me mad. No, but they're mad at her for agreeing with you, right? And so I thought when I first saw this story Anna, that it was gonna focus on, you know, she bungled it by saying that she had the Epstein files on her desk.

And that led to so much more of a brouhaha and a bigger scandal. And then she should have never said that and she should have tried to bury that Epstein files from day one. I thought that that's where the story was going to go, that that's what Trump was thinking. No, as usual, I have underestimated how insane Donald Trump is. And even me, and I think he's like Max insane. So why do I say that? So it turns out he is upset about Epstein, although that doesn't make any sense.

He's the one telling her to do that on popular thing. But then you go to James Comey, Letitia James, and Jerome Powell. He's like, he wanted them arrested earlier. If you don't know, you know, that statement that he put out on true social where he was like, you know, the attorney general or Pam should really arrest these people. It turns out he meant to text her, but the moron is accidentally put a post on true social instead of texting her. So then they had to pretend that, oh, yeah, no, that's perfectly legal, me ordering the Justice Department to arrest my political economies.

No, the president is supposed to remove from the Justice Department so that the Justice Department could actually just do the rule of law and not be biased by politicians. But he wants her to arrest them. So she goes to do it, but she can't find any real lawyer to do it because there's no frigate evidence, right? In fact, since the first charges, they've tried to bring up James Comey to two more grand juries. And there's an old saying in law you could indict a ham sandwich.

What that means is in grand jury testimony, there is no. no defense. So you could almost indict anyone you want. They're presenting this evidence to grand jury after grand jury about how James Comey did something illegal. And they're like, no, even without any defense at all, we don't see what the hell you're talking about. So he's expect, and then so since no real lawyer will do it, she finds a personal lawyer of Donald Trump or a dentist or a barber or something, sends her into arrest these people. And the judge goes, what the hell are you doing? You're not even an accredited lawyer within the context of this case and he kicks him out. This is an impossible task. No one can ask to do these things

that have no basis in fact, but that if that all that wasn't bad enough, finally he asked her, you have to find and prosecute the people who stole the 2020 election. But there isn't anyone who stole the 2020 election. So you can't find it and you can't arrest people that did it because nobody did it. So she's like, I don't know what I'm supposed to do. Exactly. So Donald- You say no. You say no. When he's thinking about appointing you to that position, you say no. But everyone is drunk on power and you think you're going to win. You're not going to win. You lost. And here you are.

Yeah. And by the way, the next attorney general will have the same problem. Every single attorney general that Donald Trump puts into office, he will then later crap on and say, I'm very disappointing in them. Because he's like, why did you just make it up? And just too grabbed up all my political opponents and said he stole the election with Hugo Chavez. You're like, but that's, I have to prove it in court and I don't have any freaking evidence. Who you fired? They're just to put it in you. So he's gonna do that to the next attorney general, I guarantee it.

And the one after that and the one after that. Because guys, here's what we're not getting. The brother is mentally disturbed. I, Anna, at this point, I think there's some chance he really thinks he won the 2020 election. Cuckoo for frickin' cocoa pops. Agreed. All right. Agreed.

So guys, Operation Joy is next. Anna's going to see Anna and so I'm gonna do Operation Joe by myself, but with you guys because you guys are writing your comments and we're gonna spread joy in the world. It's gonna be a wonderful thing. But check out Anna tonight. Anna, that's at 10 o'clock Eastern, right? Eastern, yeah, 7 p.m. Pacific. Yeah, so that's tonight with Abby Phillip.

And then two hours later, John I roll on CNN with Alex Michelson. So it's a TYT night on CNN and everybody enjoy that. Casper, love it, we'll see you tomorrow. See you later. Yep, everybody else stay here. Let's face it, one of the Michael Jordans of debating. I know you are, but what am I?