The Young Turks - MSDNC

Episode Date: September 5, 2024

Five things to know about the U.K.’s suspension of some arms exports to Israel. CNN polls across six battlegrounds find Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania are key toss-ups. Harris is leading Wisconsin and Michigan while Trump leads in Arizona. The Morning Joe crew accuses the media of pro-Trump bias: ""So concerned with being objective"" they give Trump an ""advantage.""" HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Live from the Polly Market Studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks. What's up, everyone, welcome to TYT, I'm your host Anna Kasparian. It's good to be back in the studio to do my first in-studio solo show since I came back from break and the DNC. We've got a giant show for you today.

Lots of breaking news, we're gonna talk about the DOJ's indictment of two Russian individuals who they claim were spreading disinformation on behalf of Russia. Now, these are obviously indictments, this is a case that needs to be proven. But I'm gonna give you all of the details as we have them at the moment. And there are some big names who are tied up in this big alleged scandal. So stick around for the details on that, we're gonna start the show with that story. Later, we're also going to discuss the UK's decision to suspend weapons shipments to Israel. How much of a difference is that going to make over Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank?

We're going to get into that. My favorite part of that story is the U.S.'s ridiculous response to the UK. So stick around for that detail. In the second hour, John Iderola will be joining me. We're going to talk about a whole host of topics. We're going to discuss the current presidential race and the polling associated with it. It's still a tight race, still pretty much tied, to be honest with you. But it really does come down to a few battleground states.

And so we're going to discuss where both Harris and Trump land in those critical battleground states. And then later in the show, hopefully if we have time, we're going to talk about all the different people and all the different things that Donald Trump has referred to. to as beautiful. Not something that you would think Trump would be associated with, but he does love to call things beautiful. So we're gonna get to that and have some fun with Trump's signature speaking style. But as always, I just want to encourage you all to like and share the stream. If you're watching us live, it's a great way to share our message. You can also help by becoming a member, t.com slash join to become a member or just smash that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. And send in your super chats, guys. Send in your comments. If you're a member,

I'll read them during our social breaks. Now, without further ado, let's get to our first story, having to do with the DOJ and allegations over Russian state media. Today, the Department of Justice charged two Russian state media employees with allegedly infiltrating an American digital media company and allegedly manipulating its content and the output of the company. Now, even though the DOJ did not reveal the name of this US-based media company, it is suspected that they're talking about tenant media.

And some of the talent associated with tenant media has kind of come out on social media to kind of confirm this. So we'll get to those details in just a moment. But first, we do need to give you some more details on what these allegations entail. So the DOJ's press release on the charges claim that two Russian employees who are, who are were from the Russian media outlet called Russia Today or RT, and they used fake personas in order to get hired at this American-based media company. They then allegedly worked from within this company to amplify pro-Russian narratives

and attempt to stoke divisions among Americans. Now, the company's two founders also both allegedly have ties to RT and were involved in this whole scheme. I want to just stop for a moment and make sure we're all on the same page. These are indictments. The DOJ is making allegations. Obviously, they need to prove what they are alleging. But these allegations have specific names tied to them and very specific methods in which they allegedly try to infiltrate the American media to spread disinformation on behalf of the Russian government. So the indictment features a woman by the name of Alina, or Elena, I should say, Elena, I'm going to do my best with her last name. Afen Asyeva, one of the undercover Russian

employees allegedly that was charged in this indictment. So let's go to the DOJ's press release on this and what they are claiming. So after the March 22nd, 2024 terrorist attack on a music venue in Moscow. She asked one of U.S. Company One's founders to blame Ukraine and the United States for the attack, writing, quote, I think we can focus on the Ukraine-US angle. The mainstream media spread fake news that ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, yet ISIS itself never made such statements. All terrorists are now detained while they were heading to the border with Ukraine, which makes it even more suspicious. Why would... Why would they want to go to Ukraine to hide?

Now, the terrorist attack that she was referring to was a terrorist attack that was carried out by ISIS. ISIS did take full responsibility for it. So this allegation that they didn't was ridiculous. In fact, CNN, which reported on the story at the time, said that ISIS had claimed responsibility for an attack at a popular concert hall complex near Moscow after assailants stormed the venue with guns and incendiary devices, killing 60. people and injuring 145, the terror group took responsibility for the attack in a short statement

published by ISIS-affiliated news agency Amok on telegram. Now allegedly RT also funneled a huge amount of money to this American company. Again, the speculation is that the American company is tenant media. And I also should just note that RT obviously is funded by the Russian government. So Russian government funds RT. And according to the DOJ, RT then took a, uh, uh, a certain sum and then funneled it to tenant media. So between in or about October 2023 and in or about August 2024, RT sent wire transfers to US Company 1 totaling approximately $9.7 million, which represented nearly 90% of this company's bank deposits from all sources combined.

So tenant media, according to these allegations by the Department of Justice, was nearly completely funded by the Russian government. Now, there's more, so the two Russian employees in this indictment have been charged with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. So what's different in this allegation compared to Russia-based allegations that we've heard from our government in the past, is that this is a lot more specific.

It names two specific individuals. It talks about how this scheme allegedly worked. It gives you a specific amount of money that the Russian government allegedly funneled to tenant media. And apparently the Department of Justice's statement, press release, and press conference about this was so detailed that some of the American-based talent who are associated with tenant media felt the need to come forward and essentially, defend themselves and say, yeah, we worked for tenant media, but we were unwittingly spreading

Russian propaganda. We're going to get to that in just a moment, so hold on. So as for what the American company involved in this scheme is going to deal with, so far we can only speculate, but we do have some clues, again, that it was tenant media, and that's because the DOJ press release gave us some clues. We got some hints, right? They said that the company is based in Tennessee, tenant media is based in Tennessee. In the business of posting commentary videos to social media, that's not really much of a hint.

A lot of different media organizations do that and identify six commentators as talent on its website. So this is where things start to get a little juicy. And so, well, a company called tenant media checks all of those boxes and here's the talent at the company. you have, you know, a lot of right wing voices, Lauren Southern, Tim Poole, I'm not familiar with Taylor Hansen, Matt Christensen, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, all of these individuals have been working as talent for tenant media. And Tim Poole, to his credit, has responded to these allegations. He did not respond in a way that I expected him to respond. I thought that he was going to just lose it and deny everything and say that this is just another attempt to

go after Donald Trump and hurt his chances of getting elected. But no, he didn't do that, again, to his credit. So let's actually go to what he did say. This is what he posted on X. Should these allegations prove true, I as well as the other personalities and commentators were deceived and are victims. I cannot speak for anyone else at the company as to what they do or to what they are instructed. The Culture War podcast was licensed by Tenant Media. It existed well before any license agreement with tenant, and it will continue to exist after any such agreement expires. The only change with the agreement was that the location of the live broadcast moved to Tenant's YouTube channel. He also refers to Putin as a scumbag and says

that Russia sucks donkey balls, so you've got that. But he also goes on to say that TEDMedia had no editorial control over the content that he puts out as part of the Culture War podcast. So there wasn't this effort to essentially right off the bat claim that the DOJ is making things up and I really respect the fact that Tim Poole did not do that. And he goes on to again say that, look, this is what's being alleged, it needs to be proven in court, I agree with him on that. And I do also appreciate that in this particular case, the DOJ is being very specific.

about what the allegations are, naming very specific people, calling out a specific sum of money that was allegedly funneled from the Russian government to tenant media. It's different from the Hunter Biden laptop story is a Russian disinformation campaign, right? I feel stupid to have bought that back in 2020. That ended up being a complete nutter lie, and that was a hoax. But in this case, it seems like there could be some real meat on the bones when it comes to the allegation. And look, to be clear, we should not be okay with any foreign government, having any influence over our media, over our politicians, and it is kind of interesting to see where our federal government likes to focus its attention, right?

So if you have a massive lobbying group that represents a foreign government, like APAC representing Israel, well, is anyone going to argue that APAC doesn't have a tremendous amount of influence over our political system, over our media. I mean, just think about that for a second. Now, some might argue, no, no, no, but it's okay because the way APAC does it is legal. Well, APAC doesn't have to register as a foreign agent because of how our, you know, organizations are funded, how money in politics works. There's a lot of dark money pouring in, so it's incredibly difficult to engage in oversight.

But if anyone is under the impression that it's only Russia that's trying to have an influence over our elections, or over our political discourse here in the United States, I mean, I've got a bridge to sell you. So, you know, dealing with Russia is one thing, and I have no problem with it, if there is clear evidence, and it's, you know, easy for the DOJ to actually prosecute this case with evidence on its side. But picking and choosing which foreign government gets to have influence over our political system, I think is a little questionable to say the least. And I also want to note that the Fed has taken other actions against alleged Russian interference in our media and our elections. According to the New York Times, the Treasury

Department has apparently sanctioned ANO Dialogue, a Russian nonprofit that helps run the doppelganger network. So the disinformation network, the feds have dubbed the doppelganger network, as well as the editor-in-chief of RT. Her name is Margarita Simonian and her deputies. The State Department has also offered $10 million as a reward for any information pertaining to foreign interference in an American election and sanctioned five Russian state-funded news outlets, including RT, Ruppley, and Sputnik. So the one thing that I will say is, look, disinformation, especially disinformation that's being spread within the United States by a foreign actor is a problem. But I also worry about kind of giving the federal government a lot of leeway in going after

media organizations that it suspects of having some sort of foreign influence, right? So think about all of the different media organizations that air or operate here in the United States that are funded by a foreign government, right? Al Jazeera is a good example. Al Jazeera does some excellent journalism, but what if the federal government decides that Al Jazeera's coverage of Israel and its endless war with Palestinians isn't really to our liking. It so's division in America. Like, is the DOJ going to get involved in trying to indict or silence people associated with Al Jazeera, which of course is funded by the Qatari government? And so there could be a door open here that I feel a little bit uncomfortable with. And I just think that we should proceed with caution and just be a little bit more skeptical of the federal government going after media organizations.

And they have to prove their case. And so we'll see what happens with these latest indictments and these latest allegations by the DOJ. I'm curious to see how it plays out. But again, just based on Tim Pool's reaction to it, it seems like there's really some meat on the bones here. And if that's the case, I'm sure the DOJ will move forward with the prosecution and we'll see how it plays out. about pretty explosive decision by UK. The government has suspended 30 of the UK's 350 arms export licenses to Israel. It's a decision that the chief rabbi says beggars belief and will encourage our shared enemies.

This is a serious issue. We either comply with international law or we don't, but we only have strength in our arguments because we comply with international law. I appreciate the party opposite, didn't think that international law mattered. And that's why we got into their thinking of the U.P. Well, the United States is now attempting to pressure the British government to continue all weapons shipments to Israel, despite the international community's fears that said weapons are being used to carry out human rights abuses and violations of international law.

Now, before we get to the details of how the U.S. has responded to the UK's decision to suspend some weapons to Israel. We should talk about what weapons are going to be suspended and how much of an impact this would have on Israel's ongoing war against Palestinians and Gaza and the West Bank. Now, earlier this week, Britain did announce that they would immediately suspend shipments of 30 out of 350 export licenses to Israel for items used on the war on Gaza. Obviously, this is a tiny fraction of what the UK is sending to Israel to support what the IDF is currently carrying out in Gaza. But when you take a look at the amount of weapons that UK accounts for in Israel, you'll kind of get a sense that this isn't really going to make much of a difference.

Nonetheless, the U.S. is obviously panicking about it. Israel is furious about it. We're going to get to everyone's statements in just a moment. But the suspension includes sales of components for some military aircraft, such as fighter planes, helicopters, drones. They're also suspending some items used for ground targeting. So why is the UK doing this? Like where is this coming from?

Why did they make this decision? Well, Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the assessment found a clear risk that the exported items, quote, might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of. of international humanitarian law. What's really telling about this story, by the way, is the acceptance among players in the international community that Israel is carrying out violations of international law while the United States keeps denying it. So you're gonna get a taste of that as I keep presenting the details of the story.

So in response to this, Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the decision was shameful and only emboldens Hamas. Yeah, the guy who facilitated financial payments to Hamas has something to say about what emboldens Hamas. Okay, sure. He also says with or without British arms, Israel will win this war and secure our common future. Well, it's easy to say that when the UK accounts for a minuscule percentage of Israel's weaponry. And even though, like if they didn't halt any or suspend any of the weapon shipments to Israel, it would still account for a minuscule percentage of Israel's weapons. But they decided to take a minuscule percentage of that minuscule percentage and halt those

weapons, which again, I don't think is really going to have much of a difference. It sends a statement, it sends a message that the UK is a little bit uneasy with how the IDF is prosecuting this war. But in terms of real tangible impact on Israel's ability to continue doing what it's doing, I think it's minimal to say the least. Now Amnesty International agrees with me. And Greg Hans, who is the Minister of State for Trade Policy under the previous government, told Parliament that Britain's exports account for 0.02% of Israel's overall military imports.

So as a result, I mean, Amnesty International just calls us spade a spade, they criticize the UK's decision as too limited. So is that going to have any weight over Israel's, I'm sorry, the UK's decision to maybe increase the amount of weapons that they're willing to suspend? Probably not, but I do think it's telling that Amnesty International is, like, this isn't really going to make much of a difference. Now, even though the UK is suspending a fraction of Israel's weapons shipments to Israel, which will again, have to, very little impact on how they're carrying out this war, the U.S. is already getting involved and pressuring the U.K. to essentially reverse their decision here. And how are they doing it?

Okay, get ready to laugh. The U.S. had privately warned Britain against suspending arms sales amid concerns. It could damage attempts to broker a ceasefire. I'm just going to let that, like, ridiculous statement sink in. You want to know who stands in the way of a ceasefire agreement? Benjamin Netanyahu, the guy who agreed to a ceasefire deal that was outlined by Biden and said, I agree to it. Now let's see what Hamas does. Hamas agrees to it, even though the provisions in that ceasefire deal made clear that there would not be a

permanent ceasefire. Hamas agreed to that. And then Netanyahu took it and said, oh, I'm going to add some more provisions to it. Israel wants full control of the Philadelphia corridor, which makes it so clear, this is not someone who's actually interested in a ceasefire. So if the U.S. is concerned about a ceasefire deal, maybe they should have a long, hard talk with Benjamin Netanyahu who has been the number one obstacle to that. Number one obstacle. He doesn't want the the war to end. The people of Israel know it, which is why you have mass protests going down in Israel. The American people who are paying close attention know it. Only those who have bought into the propaganda or have been funded by APAC genuinely think that the only thing standing

in the way of a ceasefire deal is Hamas or some other BS reason. The idea that the UK halting a minuscule percentage of their weapons shipments to Israel is going to stand in the way of a ceasefire deal is laughable to say the least. But look at the US throwing its weight around, telling the UK what to do. It is unbelievable to me, but let me continue. A senior government source said, the government had been poised to make the announcement earlier but faced private interventions from Israel and the United States. Quote, the Americans were always going to be difficult even if the Israelis were far more

angry, the source said. But they joined together announcing it would hurt. hurt the ceasefire deal, which no one is buying unless they're absolute suckers. Okay. So the U.S. State Department spokesperson Matt Miller, always a total joy and pleasure to hear from, was confronted about this, okay? And I love the way that this reporter framed the question, because the question here is how could the U.S. reach such a different decision

from its closest allies as it pertains to Israel and how it is carrying out this war. Take a look. You're trying to, I think, distinguish this, saying like, this is our law, this is their law. But effectively, the battlefield that you're looking at is the same battlefield, and we're all trying to get at that. We are just trying to wrap our heads around how two countries with pretty similar values, by the way, Are looking at the same battlefield and coming with very different conclusions? We are looking at the same battlefield. We, I will, have not reached conclusions.

I think number one, it is important to say. We have reviews that are ongoing, and we haven't made any final determinations or any final conclusions yet. Number two, there is a standard in the UK law. I will butcher it if I tried to speak to that standard, but there's a standard that relates to the risk. I think it is. But there is a longer in the U.S. I know, and it is a different standard. And so they make their determinations based on the U.K., the standard that is written in U.K. law.

We will make our determinations based on the standard based in U.S. law. Okay, we also have laws about our weapons not being used by foreign governments to carry out human rights abuses or violations of international law. We also have those types of laws here in the United States. the UK and the US, both governments, taking a look at the exact same war. And I think that reporter's question was absolutely right. How is it? How is it that the UK could look at how this war is being carried out and say that they are fearful, that their weapons are being used to carry out violations of international law,

human rights abuses? While the U.S. doesn't see the same thing, no idea of what? What's going on? It really does show you, by the way, that the Biden administration never once even considered using our weapons as leverage to get Israel to rein in the slaughter of innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip. And now obviously the West Bank. I mean, the war has now spread to the West Bank, right?

People had been forced out of their homes by Israeli settlers slash terrorists. the IDF standing by letting it happen, the Israeli government standing by letting it happen, and now they're doing bombings in the West Bank. And some governments are like, yeah, I don't know if we really want to aid and abet this. And the UK isn't the only government, even though I guess some action is better than no action. I mean, I live in America with a government that refuses to halt any weapon shipments to Israel, regardless of what Israel does. Okay, so I really don't have any room to talk when I take a look at our government.

But you look at the UK and, I mean, they did a tiny amount here. Other governments have gone further, and I want to talk about that. So let's take a look at Italy, for instance, because last year, Italy announced that they had stopped sending weapons to Israel. The government said that it was honoring existing orders on the condition that the weapons would not be used against civilians, according to Reuters. How does Italy, like these are Western allies, how do our Western allies look at the same war and decide, yeah, we don't really want to, we don't really want to send weapons for

Israel and the war that they're prosecuting, the way they're prosecuting it. We're not into that. But the U.S. is like, you can't do this. It's standing in the way of a ceasefire deal. Total joke. You have the Netherlands. The courts in the Netherlands actually ordered the Dutch government to suspend exports for parts for F-35 fighters to Israel. And apparently the government is not in favor of what

the courts decided there. So they're going to challenge this. They're going to appeal this decision to the highest court in the Netherlands. So we'll see how that plays out. Because of evident risks of serious violations of international humanitarian law in response to a lawsuit brought by Oxfam Novid and two other human rights groups. Okay, that was the decision that the courts in the Netherlands decided on. But then again, the Dutch government plans on appealing that. We'll see how that plays out. You have Belgium.

They suspended two licenses for gunpowder exports to Israel following the ICJ's order directing Israel to do more to prevent civilian deaths, which clearly they haven't done. And Canada has also halted weapon shipments to Israel as well. But the U.S. continues to arm Israel heavily, despite violations of international laws and human rights abuses. The United States has supplied security assistance worth $6.5 billion to Israel since October 7th, according to the Washington Post back in June. It is the top supplier to the Israeli military accounting for a whopping 69% of its total arms imports between the years of 2019 and 2023. And so sure, it sends a message to have one of our closest allies, the UK, suspend some weapons to Israel.

But at the end of the day, if we're talking about which governments are aiding and abetting Israel and how it's carrying out this war, really front and center you have the United States. You have our weapons manufacturers getting rich off of this. And my favorite thing, my favorite statement and talking point from members of the Israeli government is, why are these Americans complaining about how they're funding our war? Don't they understand that we have to spend some of that money on their defense contractors and their weapons manufacturers? No, that doesn't make us happy. That's not something that benefits the American people. It benefits a small group of already incredibly fabulously wealthy individuals who profit off of war.

That doesn't do anything for ordinary Americans whose taxes are essentially funneled to that very small group of very wealthy people through this war that's going on in Gaza, which of course, I mean, the money is one thing. The money obviously infuriates me, but that comes second to the apple. brutality and slaughter of women, children and innocent people in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. That's the real injustice here. And I just want to make clear that our allies in the international community see it clearly. And the US government will bully them and ensure that they don't see it clearly. But hopefully the UK stays true to what they decided here.

And maybe they widen that list of weapons that they sustain. spend to Israel. We'll see. But the longer this war goes on, I don't think Netanyahu realizes. I get that he's continuing this war for his own political reasons. He wants to stay in power. The longer the war goes on, the longer he can stay in power, the longer he can skirt any responsibility for the corruption charges he's facing. But what he's doing is destroying Israel, not just the Palestinians, not just Gaza, not just the West Bank. It is destroying Israel, but he doesn't care. Didn't care about the hostages. Didn't even care to keep his own people safe on October 7th. Funded Hamas, facilitated the money being funneled from Qatar to

Hamas, and then turns around and cries about the monster he partly helped create. All right. Anyway, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about where Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand in the presidential race. New polling is out, and I want to share it with you. Don't miss it. What's up, everyone? Welcome back to the show. Just want to read a few super chats.

Actually, I'm going to start off. with stinky, stinky feet in our super chats who says, everyone watched Jank on the totally non-partisan, totally not in the tank for Trump, Pierce Morgan panel. He called Pierce out and it was satisfying. So, jank loses his cool a little too much for my taste on those panels, but I'm sure a lot of our audience members will love it because what he's saying is true. It's just that he's like letting other panel members get under his skin and I wish he didn't do that.

But I will say this, I think Pierce Morgan and his producers retaliate against Jank by finding the absolute worst still shot of him to use in their thumbnail, like just awful. Come on, come on. Anyway, let's go to another name who says, interesting juxtaposition with Lex Friedman interviews lately from Jank to Trump. When's Anna Casparian going to be interviewed? Okay, so I actually really love Lex Friedman and his style of interviewing people. I know some people would rather him be a little more combative.

I don't know, I'm just in this phase right now where I want to hear what people have to say. And if someone says something untrue, yeah, of course, I want Lex Friedman to immediately correct what they're saying. Although that's sometimes difficult to do in real time. But anyway, if you've ever watched or listened to any of his interviews, He's very calm. And for some reason, that just really appeals to me these days. All right, I'll read more comments later. Actually, another name writes in and says, I really like the tempo and tone of Anna Solo.

It's clear she doesn't require a co-host. And it also lets her style and opinion fully shine through. And yes, her outfit looks nice. Thank you for all of that. That was very, very sweet. I like having a co-host. But, you know, the one hour a week solo is nice. It's a nice change of pace.

Okay. Let's get to our next story. New CNN polling released just this morning shows a race that is truly neck and neck among likely voters in key battleground states. Harris holds a lead over Trump in Wisconsin and Michigan. In Arizona, Trump holds the lead. In nearby Nevada, there's no clear leader. And in what are arguably the two most critical states, well, it's a tie. There is no clear leader in Georgia.

And it is dead even in the must-win state. of Pennsylvania. Well, despite the ascendancy of Kamala Harris and despite Donald Trump's insistence on essentially sabotaging himself at every chance he gets, the 2024 presidential race as it stands today is still a ridiculously close race. Nothing makes that clearer than the polls that keep coming out. Nothing makes that clearer than what the polls say about these critical battleground states. And for now, it appears to be anyone's game and There are only 62 days until Election Day.

So the candidates aren't in agreement on the state of the race, which is kind of funny. Now, Harris is openly acknowledging that it's going to be a close call while Trump is, well, why don't you see for yourselves? I can't believe that that's going to be a close election. You know, we're leading in the polls, and it looks close, but I think in the end it's not going to be a close election. We are the underdog in this race and we have some hard work then ahead of us. But here's the beauty of us in this room. We like hard work.

Hard work is good work. So the last several presidential races have been pretty close. So Trump's saying I can't believe this is a close election is kind of funny to me because presidential elections seem to be closer and closer. I mean, the polling leading up to the 2016 election, if you were focused on the national polling, which I think is always a mistake, that you would think, oh, I mean, Hillary Clinton's going to be Trump easy, no problem. But it always comes down to the battleground states.

Like, those are the states that really decide the election. And so let's talk a little bit about that, because CNN's poll specifically studied six battleground states. But there are two in particular, which you heard earlier, that will. will be especially important for the race to 270 electoral college votes. So here's more on that. We have talked so much about that blue wall, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. And as you noted here, we're seeing Harris with slight leads in Michigan and Wisconsin.

And so instead of our focus for the next 62 days just being on those blue wall states, I really think you gotta go down the side of the east coast that Pennsylvania, Georgia will see we don't of North Carolina and this set of polling, if that is acting like Georgia, those states may be the ones in German, it's because, as you noted, Donald Trump has to have everything, just hold everything he had in 20, flip Pennsylvania and Georgia, he's the president again. And so if Harris can win one of those states, that's a huge block that she puts up in the path for Donald Trump and sets her potentially on a course. Oh, it's too close.

Like I wouldn't bet on this election at this moment. And I know that there's a lot more excitement on the Democratic side of things now that Kamala Harris is the nominee rather than Joe Biden. But that doesn't necessarily mean that this is going to be a cakewalk. And I'm happy that Harris realizes that. I'm happy that she still sees herself as the underdog because I do think that Donald Trump, despite what Democratic voters might believe, is a formidable. opponent. You know, if you're a Democratic voter, you're a hardcore partisan, you look at Donald

Trump and of course, to you, it's easy to underestimate him. I would say it's a massive, massive weakness to underestimate your political opponent. Because the race, again, always comes down to the swing voters, independent voters, people who are not hardcore partisans, who are not loyal to one party or the other. These are individuals who can be swayed. And so when you think about the issues that are top of mind for American voters, in particular these, particularly these swing voters, they're concerned about the economy, they're concerned about immigration, and you should look at how they feel about Harris and Trump, how much they trust these two individuals on those critical matters.

And so let's talk about that, okay? on average, 15% of voters in these six swing states say that, that CNN pulled, of course, say that they have not decided on who they're going to vote for, just 15%. So that 15% of undecided voters in these six swing states, those are the individuals who are going to decide the election, okay? And so those Americans have some strong feelings about very specific issues and who they trust more to tackle those issues. Economic issues, which posed a notable weak point for Biden remain the topic most often chosen by voters when asked what matters to their choice

for president. An average of 39% of likely voters across states choose the economy as their top issue with protecting democracy next at an average of 25%. I think that that's telling because it shows you why Biden's one and only strategy to win reelection was so ineffective. I mean, the only messaging we really got from the Biden campaign was, we got to save democracy. Well, if saving democracy isn't the most important issue to these swing voters or to voters in general, probably because they're not buying the notion that Trump is a threat to democracy, whether you agree with that or not, that's what they're feeling. Well, get off message and talk about something that actually does matter to them, and clearly

the economy is top of mind. Harris, by the way, now trails Trump on trust to handle the economy by relatively smaller margins than Biden did. So that's good news. Across the current polls, Trump is more trusted than Harris on the economy by eight points on average. And by the way, I think that Harris is doing her best to try to earn more trust among these voters when it comes to the economy. Later on in the show, we're going to talk about her latest economic proposals and how they would benefit small businesses. She talked a little bit earlier about what she wants to do to help ordinary Americans or or help Americans in buying a home.

Now she's coming out with some proposals in regard to entrepreneurship and how to help, you know, spur small businesses in the United States. We'll get to that a little later. Now, in the New York Times, Sienna College polls of the six swing states this spring, the same calculation, by the way, yielded a 20 point Trump advantage over Biden. Really emphasizing here that Harris is closing that gap. to some extent. Trump maintains a broad advantage as more trusted to handle immigration, which really shouldn't come as a surprise. I mean, he has kind of taken ownership of that

issue and has, I guess, stronger messaging on it. So voters think that he would tackle the issue a little better than Harris would as it stands today. But that could change. Harris has built on Biden's lead as more trusted to handle abortion and reproductive rights. I mean, I should hope so, with women across these six states preferring her by an average of 27 percentage points on the issue. By the way, Trump's wavering on that issue and the flip-flopping on that issue is pretty gross because it really highlights how politicians see something that has a very real world impact on people's lives as nothing more than like a toy, a little prop to throw around.

You know, just go along with what the polling is saying. Who cares? Who cares about the consequences for real human beings? So like, I don't know what Trump actually thinks about abortion. He just kind of goes with the flow and goes with what he thinks is going to help him get elected. In the meantime, he's the man responsible for appointing the Supreme Court justices who aided and abetted the reversal of Roe. And that has led to a lot of pain, a lot of suffering for women and for families in some of these red states. that effectively have abortion bans. So I just, it's not a joke, it's not a game, and I think we should expect more from our politicians.

When they use these issues that have an impact on our lives, a real impact on our lives, and our ability to have families, when we have families, when we decide to have children, I mean, they're showing us who they really are. It shows that it's all about themselves, it's all about their own personal power, it's not really about improving the lives of Americans. So I don't know what Trump is doing, right? Oh, I'm going to vote in favor of the referendum in Florida that would set the abortion standards to what they were under Roe.

Then he gets backlash from the right and says, never mind, never mind, I changed my mind. Okay, who are you? And what do you represent? What are your principles? What are your values? Anyway, all right. So the swing state voters are also more likely to describe Trump as having clear policy plans to solve the country's problems, but also more likely to destroy.

his views and policies as so extreme that they pose a threat to the country. All right, and then there's also a massive gender gap. I don't want to feed into this narrative because I don't want a battle of the sexes in the country, but the abortion issue has made gender and sex a big part of the electorate and their voting habits here, right? So let's talk about that. Here is more on how this is kind of turning into a men versus women issue and how men and women are likely to vote in this election as a result of issues like reproductive rights. If you look at likely female voters across these states, you see enormous margins for Harris.

There. I mean, look, in Wisconsin, that's 17. I mean, 55% is a landslide in our closely divided. So she's plus 17, she's plus 16, she's plus 15. Those are huge. David Chalini is doing math on live television, everybody. No, this is like an awesome, awesome feat. We love it. But show the other side, because among likely male voters, it's big advantage Trump. This is what we mean by the gap.

When we say gender gap, it's not just the advantage among female voters for a Democrat. It's the difference between the female voter advantage among Democrats and the male voter advantage among Republicans. And you see what a big advantage that is for Trump among male voters. So look, it's important to keep in mind that women are still very much motivated to get out the vote because of the reversal of Roe, which I think is super, super interesting here. They are registering to vote in extremely high numbers. They're outpacing men in new voter registrations. So that is good news for Harris.

but she still trails Biden or how Biden was doing in support among people of color. And I'm talking about Biden from 2020, not how Biden was doing in this recent electoral process. So support for Harris has grown by 13 percentage points among black voters since Biden left the race in July. Combined results of journal polls in late July and August show. She is still 10 points behind Biden's 2020 mark, though. Harris has also gained 13 points in Latino support, but lags behind Biden's 2020 mark by six points. Now, that could be because those voters feel that they're no longer represented by the Democratic Party or that the Democratic Party hasn't really been listening to their concerns.

But I have noticed a difference between Harris and Biden in how Harris is carrying out her campaigning. She isn't really distancing herself from Biden, but she is coming out. with policy proposals that differ from Bidens, which I think is interesting. And she seems to be tackling the issues that voters are most concerned about head on, whereas Biden was nowhere to be seen. And that was a huge problem for Democrats in winning re-election. So we'll see how this plays out. Again, the race is still too close to call.

I wouldn't bet any money on it, but you know, you do have Harris, you know, refusing to underestimate her opponent here. You have Trump wondering how the election could possibly be this close. You do have two very different candidates. But look, at the end of the day, we live in a very divided country, unfortunately, like divided partisan wise, even though a lot of us agree on the same issues. And so it doesn't surprise me that the election is close. We'll see where it goes. But for now, we're gonna take a break. When we come back, we've got more news for you. I just have to be choosy. I have to be picky on what we cover because we're running out of time. I don't want to cut into John Iderola's hour too much.

We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone, Anna Casparian with you. Let's get right to our next story. But there's a false equivalency going on in the coverage of this race. Their objectivity actually is not objective at all. It ends up playing to Donald Trump's advantage every day. In an effort to appear balanced, to appear objective, mistakes are absolutely being made. And standards are being applied to both candidates here when Donald Trump is a different animal.

He is an insurrectionist. Well, the crew over at Morning Joe on MSNBC, you know, the same crew that wanted Biden to continue running in this presidential race, despite the fact that he was suffering from clear cognitive decline. Yeah, those people, they're furious that journalists would have the audacity of ever reporting anything negative on the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, because Trump is a, he's a special threat. And so since they've decided that Trump is a very special threat, well, then journalists should hide information about Kamala Harris from you. So you don't vote for Trump and definitely vote for Kamala Harris. In other words, they want the media to manipulate you and do the exact opposite of journalism. Don't believe me? Well, why don't we hear co-host Mike Barnacle make his case?

But there's a false equivalency going on in the coverage of this race, in that Donald Trump can say whatever crazy things he wants to say about submarines and sharks and electric batteries, whatever he wants to say. And it's not really covered in the sense that it's covered describing who said it, why he said it, and who the man is, Trump, out of his mind. And always in that story, in the equivalency, the false equivalency by too many reporters and too many American newspapers, there's also, by the way, Kamala Harris changed her mind on fracking. They always throw in something like that in coverage of the story. It's ridiculous. We don't cover the man for how dangerous he is.

You don't cover the man for how dangerous he is? I don't know. I don't know what country I'm living in. but I feel like we get wall-to-wall coverage about Trump being a danger to this country. It is incessant. It is all they talk about on MSNBC. Did he just suggest that journalists shouldn't report on Kamala Harris changing her mind on fracking? Is that not an important policy that voters should be informed about?

And also, is he under the impression that telling Americans the truth about where Kamala the Harris stands on the issues automatically means that Donald Trump is going to win the election. I just, see, this is, when I started my career, when I started working at TYT back in 2007, there really wasn't like left-wing media. There was like Fox News and the right-wing media infrastructure was kind of being built. And I prided myself and the left wing on the fact that we didn't try to manipulate audiences. And we didn't try to lie to people or cover up the truth about our preferred candidates or preferred politicians. We didn't want to stoop low and do what the right wing was doing with their misinformation, with the fact that they

It would omit incredibly relevant, important parts of the story in order to make Republicans look good and Democrats look bad. And now we're in this awful era of conditioning audiences and readers to expect journalists to cheerlead like partisan hacks for one candidate or the other. And if you don't do it, if you don't engage in it, they get mad at you. You're supposed to be, you're supposed to be my cheerleader. You're supposed to cheerlead for my preferred candidate. you doing? How dare you talk about Kamala Harris and how she went from being against fracking

to now saying she's totally in favor of fracking? How dare you? The media doesn't fearmonger about Trump enough? Has he considered that maybe, just maybe, the media had been fearmongering about Trump so much, so often that Americans have become desensitized to it. Has he considered that? Has he considered the fact that Joe Biden ran his campaign almost entirely on Donald Trump is a threat to democracy and it wasn't working? Why do you think it wasn't working? This is the most brain dead argument I have heard on MSNBC and that is saying something because there are a lot of brain dead arguments made on MSNBC. But we're about to hear more. So Joe Scarborough argues that journalists who are trying to be objective actually end up helping Trump.

So maybe don't be objective. Let's watch. Even Arlington, you've seen major newspaper outlets talk about, well, how will this impact Kamala Harris and the issue of Afghanistan after he goes? And he does a thumbs up and pictures. Well, and just acts like a brute. And, you know, desecrates Arlington, that's not a time to say, well, how does it, you know, it's, but again, we see it time and time again, for some reason, the mainstream media, how, what are we, nine years in to Donald Trump's era in American politics, still doesn't know how to cover Donald Trump. Their objectivity actually is not objective at all. It ends up playing,

to Donald Trump's advantage. Don't be objective because it plays to Donald Trump's advantage. Why? Because journalists want to answer a question about how Kamala Harris would handle Afghanistan. Would her views on Afghanistan happen to be? Do the American voters have the right to know where Kamala Harris stands on those issues? Or should we be kept in the dark because Trump bad? Trump bad. That's what Joe Scarborough wants. He wants journalists to line up and say in unison over and over again, Trump bad, because that's been real effective, right?

Listen, he wants to be a cheerleader for one side. That's great, go be a cheerleader for one side. But don't sit there on your boring ass morning show where you tried to gaslight the American public about Biden's mental health and pass judgment on people who are trying to get Kamala Harris to answer questions on something. amazing policy, where she stands on policy. Because there are voters out there, believe it or not, who aren't partisan hacks. Those are the individuals who actually end up deciding elections. And they want to know where Kamala Harris stands on policy. Simply hearing Trump bad over and over

again, doesn't work for them. I think the American people deserve to know where both candidates stand on policies. Don't insult the intelligence of voters. And more importantly, please don't pressure journalists to suck at their jobs by being nothing more than partisan hacks like Joe Scarborough is, like Mika Brzezinski is. It is unbelievable to me. So look, turns out that some are taking this crappy advice already as left-wing misinformation, unfortunately is now part of our media landscape and it's not something that I'm happy about

because a lot of these sources I used to trust, I used to believe they're reporting at face value. And then I came to the realization that they weren't telling the whole truth, they were admitting parts of the story, they were in some cases taking Trump out of context. And it was infuriating because if you put Trump in context and you actually report the story accurately, I'm not going to suddenly be a huge Trump fan, but I am going to get angry when I find out that the sources that I trusted were intentionally taking him out of context to make him seem worse than he really is. So there was a piece out in the New York Times today that I think you should all read. And it was titled, left-wing misinformation is having a moment. America's right flank

remains the chief purveyor of misinformation, but this summer's political tumult created ideal conditions for falsehoods to spread among progressives. So let's just quickly focus on the Trump assassination attempt, where Joy Reid, an MSNBC host with more than 340,000 followers on threads, raised questions about Trump's injury from the shooting, doubts that some of her followers interpreted when his medical details were not released as implying a cover-up. Then you also had that Brooklyn Dad defiant guy on X, who has more than 1.3 million followers, he amplified such suspicions by offering his own doubts about Trump's injury. Yeah, the FBI confirmed that Trump got shot in the year.

Okay, like it's confirmed by the FBI. Like, who are we? Really, we're going to play this game where we engage in conspiracy theories? Like, on one hand, criticize the right wing for engaging in conspiracy theories as we engage in conspiracy theories. I think it's pretty gross. But as a result, more than one third of President Biden's supporters believe the assassination attempt may have been staged according to a poll in July by morning consults. There's other stuff. And like, I hesitate to even bring this up because people are hell bent on being scared about Project 2025.

But let me just be clear about something. There are all sorts of allegations about the Heritage Foundation's document, which again, they release every election cycle. This is the first time we have the Democratic Party specifically tying it to Donald Trump because some of the people associated with the Heritage Foundation used to be in Trump's administration. Okay, does that mean that Trump is good? You think Trump respects anyone who is in his administration?

But okay, let's talk about the specific allegations that we've heard about what's in Project 2025, which is a 900 page document. The media knows that most Americans, they don't have the bandwidth to sit down and read a 900 page document. So they get to say whatever they want about it. They get to claim that it includes all sorts of things that it doesn't even actually say. So for instance, Vice President Harris said on July 23rd that Project 2025 called for cutting Social Security. It was not a one-time mistake. She also said at a July 11th, 2024 campaign event, Project 2025 includes a plan to cut Social Security. Well, NewsGuard, which does a pretty good job in fact checking these types

of claims on both sides, took a look and they found out that the Project 2025 policy playbook titled Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise, does not even mention any proposed changes to Social Security. Okay, great. Left-leaning news outlet, the griot.com, advanced the myth that Project 2025 proposes banning Muslims. The mandate for leadership includes no mention of a Muslim ban or any religion or ethnicity-specific entry ban. I'm not saying this to help Trump. I think Trump is plenty bad on his own.

And there are factual attacks that you could use against Donald Trump to win the election. Making things up to scare Americans into voting for the Democratic candidate, all it does is lead to people feeling totally disgusted with politics because people eventually find out. And people are getting sick of the fear tactics. And what's amazing to me is that the people over there at Morning Joe desperately want journalists to engage in more scare tactics, to lie to audiences more, to lie to readers more, to essentially do political cheerleading for one party over the other. And whether it's done on behalf of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, I'm sick of it. You need real journalism, factual journalism, actual reporting in order to have a well-functioning

democracy. Without it, we are hopeless. And so hopefully journalists don't listen to knuckleheads like Joe Scarborough and that other guy, Barnacle, whatever his name is. I mean, just, we don't like Trump. So we want you to lie on behalf of Kamala Harris or Biden or whoever. I mean, they've been outed as liars? Have they considered that maybe journalists don't want to embarrass themselves the way the crew over at Morning Joe has? They should think about it. We'll be back.