The Young Turks - Trump's Cope Spiral

Episode Date: September 12, 2024

Trump blames ""dishonest"" ABC News for ""rigged deal"" and insists he won in an early AM post debate interview with Fox & Friends. Conservatives pan Trump's furious debate performance: ""She's mopping the floor with him."" ""Why push something that’s not true?"" Vance goes on CNN and gets grilled on Trump’s regurgitation of baseless pet-eating claims. Federal Reserve unveils toned-down banking regulations in victory for Wall Street." 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. To succeed in the future of work, forward thinkers use AI to deliver measurable results. Workday is the AI platform for HR and finance that frees you from the mundane so you can focus on more meaningful work. Workday, moving business forever forward. I put on the blinders. I say, I just do it. You heard it with your own eyes.

Begaugh! Live from the Polymarket Studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks. What's up, everyone? Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. And I got to say, me and my team put together one hell of a show today. Lots of really fascinating stories. Of course, we're going to talk about the reactions from the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris last night. And look, I honestly am happy to report that it seems like a lot of prominent conservative are at least somewhat tethered to reality because they are fessing up to the fact that it was not a good night for Donald Trump. But in the second hour, when Jordan Yule joins me, we're going to talk about a few of the individuals who are still coping, lying to themselves about what happened last night. So I'm really looking forward to that conversation. We're also going to hear from Donald Trump.

He called into Fox and Friends to essentially share his thoughts on his own. performance, but also give us a hint in regard to whether there will be a second debate. So that'll be at the top of the show. Stick around for that. Also in the second hour, we will discuss how crypto scams have destroyed the lives of a lot of Americans. Maybe it's time to really consider some robust regulation, something that the cryptocurrency industry wants to avoid and has spent quite a lot of money lobbying to prevent. And so we've got a lot of money lobbying to prevent. And so we've got a lot to get to. And then in this first hour, I also want to go into this incredible report that PBS did. PBS does these awesome features where they'll take a contentious story of the

day or the week and they'll dig into it and try to provide a nuanced look. And so there's still some great journalism going on out there. And I want you to see what it's really like on the ground in Springfield, Ohio, because the fact of the matter is the Haitian community there, the migrants that have gone there have actually done a lot of wonderful things for that community, but it is a nuanced issue because it's a small town. And when you have a huge influx of migrants coming in without the necessary support from the federal government, that's going to lead to some level of resentment. But overall, I think it's a really great report. We're going to see some highlights and clips from that story. But before we get to any of that, just want to encourage you

to like and share the stream. In fact, I'll wait. Now is a good time to do it. Smash it. You could also support the show by becoming a member, t.yt.com slash join or just smash that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. Smash it. There we go.

There we go. All right. All right. Well, without further ado, let's go into the extreme level of cope that Donald Trump has been engaging in since the debate. I listened to Harold Ford. I don't know what he was watching because I think he wasn't watching the debate that I was in yesterday. I think we did great. The press is so dishonest in this country. It's amazing. So many things I said would debunked, totally debunked like Charlottesville. I have a list of seven different things, but I thought I did a great job. The moderators were unfair to me, but I think I did great. That was the main message that Donald Trump was sharing with the folks over at Fox and Friends.

This is a phone call that he made to Fox and Friends this morning as he was reflecting on his debate performance. Now, he believes he did a great job in last night's debate and he's not coping at all. There's no cope going on except you're about to hear that there's a lot of cope going on. The former president called into Fox and Friends just to share honestly in my mind how much he's kind of panicking about his debate performance. last night. It's not just about his self-reflection. It's also about what everyone else on the right and in right-wing media has been saying about his debate performance. We'll get to that later in the show. But for now, let's hear more of what he had to say. What is your review of your performance? Well, I looked at the poll numbers. I listened to Harold

Ford. I don't know what he was watching because I think he wasn't watching the debate that I was in yesterday. I think we did great. It was three to one. It was. was a rigged deal, as I assumed it would be, because when you looked at the fact that they were correcting everything and not correcting with her, and we knew it when it was 100% good coverage for her over the last month or last year, I looked at it, and only bad coverage of me, no matter what. The press is so dishonest in this country. It's amazing. Now, I didn't mind because frankly, I knew that I was pretty sure that's what they would do. CNN was much more honorable.

The debate we had with Biden was a much more honorably run debate. Was it much more honorable than how the moderators at ABC handled the debate last night? Or was it a great debate because you were running against and debating a man who was showing signs of significant cognitive decline? I mean, I totally understand feeling real good about the CNN debate against Joe Biden. I can also understand lying to yourself about how it's everyone else's fault that you performed poorly in last night's debate. But if you want to improve, you have to take personal responsibility. And the fact of the matter is Donald Trump just didn't seem prepared. I think he made a big mistake in underestimating his opponent, Kamala Harris.

And he didn't just internally underestimate Kamala Harris. He very publicly underestimated Kamala Harris. He kept calling her stupid, his supporters, and his campaign kept calling her stupid. And so they created this narrative in their minds that it was going to be a cakewalk for Trump. That Kamala Harris has nothing going on up there. And when you underestimate your opponent like that, more often than not, you are in for a world of trouble. And even Elon Musk admitted that Kamala Harris did pretty well. She delivered.

And I'm sure that was difficult for someone like Elon Musk to admit. But it is the truth in terms of the optics. And I want to be clear, the optics are obviously different from the substance, right? But when it comes to debates, optics are more important than substance. I'm sad to say. And so while I feel unhappy with the lack of in-depth policy debate and discussion, I do think optically, Donald Trump did poorly. Kamala Harris did well.

She appeared to be more prepared. She appeared more presidential. She appeared confident. She was smiling. She was looking at the moderators, looking at Donald Trump. We've talked about all of this during our debate coverage, but you get the picture. But I just love the fact that Donald Trump is doing this comparative analysis between the moderators over at CNN versus the moderators at ABC. because, yeah, the CNN debate did go really well.

It went really well because you were debating Joe Biden. Kamala Harris, much younger, sharper. And while I do have a few gripes with some of the moderation last night, really Donald Trump, if he was prepared, could have found a way to deflect if he needs to and go to a talking point that he finds to be effective with the independent voters that he's trying to appeal to. But that would take practice. That would take strategizing. That would take a lot of hard work behind the scenes. I heard that Tulsi Gabbard was preparing him for the debate. Maybe they should reconsider who they hired to prepare Donald Trump for the debate. But with that said, Trump then goes on to complain about the ABC news moderators failing to fact check Kamala Harris. And here, while he does sound whiny and incredibly annoying, I do think he has a bit of a point. I'll explain how when we come back from this clip. So many things I said were debunked, totally debunked, like Charlottesville, I have a list of seven different things.

And she could say anything she wanted, every time I spoke, and my stuff was right, they'd correct you. I thought it was terrible from the standpoint of ABC. They're the most dishonest, in my opinion, the most dishonest news organization. And that's saying a lot because they're all essentially really dishonest. but I thought I did a great job. It was three on one, and I thought I did a great job. Now, we sent you the polls, but every single poll last night had me winning like 90 to 10. We had C-SPAN.

At one point, it was at 80 to 20, and I don't know how it finished. That was late last night, so I have no idea, but it was at 80 to 20. We have to contend with two different things that he said there. So number one is the claim against the moderators. I'm going to get to that in a second. The second thing that he wants to bring up is how well he was doing based on the polls. And I mean, he cited C-SPAN, as if like the C-SPAN poll would contain a bunch of C-SPAN viewers. who were like total, anyway, we'll get to that because I actually have some of the polling

and all of that stuff after the debate was over. But first, were the moderators unfair? Look, I do think that there were some clear examples of Kamala Harris saying something that was dishonest or misleading, and they didn't fact check her. While they certainly did fact check Donald Trump. Now, I was happy with them fact checking Donald Trump, but you also have to be fair. So one of the prime examples that I'll bring up is early on in the debate, she mentioned how Trump threatened that this country would be a bloodbath if he loses the election.

This is a story that we actually covered a few months ago, because that was the dominant narrative in the press that Donald Trump said that. But we went in and we actually watched his rally and we showed you the evidence of what he actually said. He didn't say that the country will be a bloodbath. He said that the economy will be a bloodbath. And the loss of manufacturing jobs would be a bloodbath if he doesn't get elected. Okay, that is very different from, you know, the narrative that was playing out in the press about how, oh, Donald Trump is threatening a bloodbath if he doesn't win the election. He's being very specific about the economy.

He'd be probably best served in not using bloodbath or that kind of rhetoric because I think it will be used against him dishonestly. But I guess when you really think about it, if it's the legacy media, or the corporate media kind of perpetuating that lie about the bloodbath. I guess you can't really expect the corporate media to do that fact check on Kamala Harris in real time. So, but it is true. There were a few examples of her kind of getting away with saying things that were misleading or dishonest. Now, let's get to the ridiculous claim about how the polls show that he won the debate by a lot. And I'm sure you guys can all guess that that's not true. So let's go to CNN.

flash poll. I'll give you the results. They found that debate watchers said 63% to 37% that Harris turned in a better performance on stage in Philadelphia. Prior to the debate, the same voters were evenly split on which candidate would perform more strongly with 50% saying Harris would do so and 50% saying that Trump would. So it's interesting because going in, you know, you have these voters who have a preconceived notion of how the debate is going to play out. And then after the debate, you see Kamala Harris gain a 13-point lead over Donald Trump. And afterward, 96% of Harris supporters who turned or tuned in said that their chosen candidate had done a better job, while a smaller 69% majority of Trump supporters credited him with having a better night. So I think that's telling because while the majority of Trump supporters still believe that he did better than Kamala Harris did, fact of the matter is there's a sizable portion of Trump supporters who did not feel that he did a good job. And that is also reflected in what some of the conservative pundits have to say. Now, the results of the flash poll mark a shift from the reaction to the June presidential debate,

which should be unsurprising to all of us, when voters who watched the matchup between Trump And Biden said 67% to 33% that Trump outperformed his Democratic rival. And can we just pause for a second and acknowledge the fact that the reason why Donald Trump wants to run against Biden so badly instead of Kamala Harris is because he knows the truth about how much easier it would be to beat Joe Biden rather than Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris is still a little more competitive than Joe Biden is because she's younger. And even though she's in the current administration as Biden's vice president, the fact of the matter is voters see her as someone new, someone fresh. They're kind of sick of the Trump era to some extent, you know, the divisiveness, the anger, the rage, hitting people against one another. I think a lot of voters look at Kamala Harris and they see a different path forward. And I did notice, and this was also reflected in some of the reporting, that Kamala Harris

actually attacked Trump more than Trump attacked her. And I think in his debate prep, I'm just guessing this is obviously speculation. He was told, whatever you do, like, don't attack her. Because when you think about Trump's attacks against Kamala Harris, they're usually about her being a woman or her race, how dumb she is. But I think they forgot to drill into his head. It is okay to attack her on substance. I don't know if he's capable of doing that. He didn't do that. And in fact, if you look at the number of attacks that Kamala Harris did against Trump and

vice versa, Kamala Harris did attack him more, but obviously she attacked him on substance. Now, the Washington Post also spoke to voters who have a preference on who they want to win the election and how they felt about the candidate's performance. Jason from Wisconsin wants Trump to win. He's clear about that, but he also believes in objective reality, and I really commend him for that. He told the Washington Post, quote, Trump was on defense. Harris stuck to her points, was coherent and frankly more professional than I have

ever seen her. Trump missed too many opportunities. And I definitely agree with him on that. Look, if he wanted to demagogue on immigration and migrants, it's kind of curious that he chose the eating pets, eating cats and ducks story, which is completely debunked, rather than, I don't know, I mean, there was a whole hearing in the House of Representatives yesterday. And in that hearing, they had all sorts of family members of people who were victimized, murdered in a lot of cases by migrants. I mean, it was like a wall-to-wall hearing

of stories like that. And rather than, you know, exploit one of those stories for his own purposes, he went to one of the most ridiculous examples that's been debunked, complete unfounded rumor. So he also lashed out on Fox, by the way, which I thought was hilarious. He did so while he was on Fox. So I want to give him kudos for this. I think it's hilarious. Let's take a look. Before the debate happened last night, the Kamala Harris people said that they would actually like to do another debate in October. And I know that last night, Fox News offered, sent letters to your campaign and her campaign, offering three dates of debates moderated by Martha and Brett. One is October 9th in Arizona. Well, I wouldn't want to have Martha and Brett. I'd love to have

somebody else other than Martha and Brett. I'd love to have, frankly, Sean, or Jesse, or Laura, you know, somebody else. Let's give, let's give other people a shot. But, I didn't think Martha and Brett were good last night. I thought Jesse was fantastic last night what he said. Jesse really got it. Jesse said Trump won that debate. That was, we won that debate by a lot. No, I wouldn't want Martha involved.

Everyone had me winning the debate. So, Mr. President, I don't know that I want to do another debate. Right. So you do, right at the end, as I was interrupting. So you don't know if you wanted do another debate. It sounds like you're a no. Well, I'd be less inclined to because we had a great night. I mean, he gave the whole game away in that answer, right?

Because Brett Baer last night and you're going to hear from him in our next segment made clear that he felt that Donald Trump lost the debate. And so Trump likes to retaliate. I don't know what Jesse Waters had to say about it. I feel like Jesse Waters should only be listened to when he wants to go on one of his funny straw rants. Other than that, I mean, what a waste of time. But Brett Baer was critical. And so I think that's the reason why he's now kind of trying to renege on a future debate on Fox with Martha McCollum and Brett Bear. But, you know, something that probably stings quite a bit, we just got word that RFK Jr., the independent candidate who dropped out of the race to avoid being a spoiler candidate for Donald Trump.

He dropped out, endorsed Donald Trump. He has said that Trump lost the debate. I'm going to read you his exact quote. I think the vice president, I think that Vice President Harris clearly won the debate in terms of her delivery, her polish, for her organization, her preparation. Kennedy declared, I think on substance, President Trump wins in terms of his governance. But he didn't tell that story. In fact, the first question was an extraordinary lost opportunity because it was a question. question, which is, are Americans better off four years later? And there's really no argument

for saying that they are. So incredible. And RFK Jr. isn't the only person who has opened up about how he feels about Donald Trump's debate performance. A lot of his allies have also spoken up about it. So it's important to know what they're saying. So we're going to take a break. When we come back, we're going to get into that story. We're going to get into all the right-wing and their interpretation of how the debate went last night. Don't miss it. Wassa Fisherman. We also have Wesley Chandler,

Jetty Master J.B., Kent, 1420, Andy Topic, Rocky, Toronto, Steve Ilus, Peter Moser, Bunnycat, and Sabrina Woodford. You guys are amazing. Thank you for supporting the show. Thank you for becoming members. Members get the whole show for free. You have access to our archives.

You get extra members-only content on election nights, date nights. You always get some piece of the pie that is like behind a paywall when we have our specials. And you also get our daily bonus episode on top of that. So thank you to everyone who supports the show. I would much rather be funded by our audience as opposed to corporate advertisers or corporate companies. It's awesome to be accountable to you rather than, you know, all sorts of nefarious forces at play for corporate media. But anyway, without further ado, Let's get to our next story. I asked several of his surrogates, like, what they thought.

And the number one question I asked him was, what do you think his best answer was tonight? None of them could come up with anything. Donald Trump looked old tonight. Donald Trump was foolish at times. And then I saw my old friend Lindsey Graham. You know, we used to be parallels in 2016. He looked to me and he was just like, you are right about one thing. That was a disaster.

He was unprepared and we should fire the debate team. talk about migrants eating dogs and cats. I mean, that's something Saturday Night Live would do. Why would you even bother do that? I didn't think I was ever going to witness a debate as devastating as the one that you and Dana moderated back in June, where Joe Biden basically tanked his reelection campaign. I think tonight was just as devastating. Everyone you just heard from, conservatives, lifelong Republicans. And honestly, it is nice to see that some conservatives in the media and some political individuals as well still believe in objective reality. Because honestly, I've gotten used to a lot of people

rejecting reality. But in this case, you have conservatives who are willing to fess up to the fact that Donald Trump had a bad night. It was not a good debate against Kamala Harris. He did terribly. So let's begin with the man who was eventually ousted from Fox News, Bill O'Reilly. Donald Trump was foolish at times. He won the first half hour of the debate, but then he descended, as he always does. And I don't know why. I wrote a book on a man, I can't tell you why. I mean, they talk about migrants eating dogs and cats. I mean, that's something Saturday Night Live would do. Why would you even bother do that? And to go back and try to relitigate for the what? thousand's time election 2020. I mean, Ms. Harris is right when she says, hey, we need somebody

to look ahead. We've got to get out of this. It's four years. Bill O'Reilly is totally right in what he just said. And I'm specifically happy to hear that he's upset that Donald Trump decided to just bring up the Haitian migrants eating your pets BS. In fact, O'Reilly wasn't the only person who was irritated by that and saw it as a foible for Trump during the debate. Eric Erickson, another conservative, says he's a little more colorful in his language, if you will. He says, you stupid MFers just got Trump to repeat your lie about the pets. Congratulations on setting the news stories tomorrow by lying so Trump picks it up and says stupid crap. I don't think that was a strong moment for him. And honestly, when you

look at the polling leading up to the debate, Donald Trump could have used that particular issue to his advantage if he was smart about it and if he knew how to, I guess, demagogue correctly about it. And instead, he went to the lowest common denominator. He went to a ridiculous, insane lie out of Springfield, Ohio, an allegation that Haitian migrants are stealing people's cats and eating them. You know, it's interesting because if he wanted to focus on Springfield, Ohio, he could have taken some jabs at the Biden administration for not providing enough federal support to Springfield in order to withstand the high numbers of people coming in because it is a small town. They didn't have the resources. They did need help. And that's where the resentment is coming from when it comes to individuals in that local community. But that would require honesty. That would require. strategy that would require, you know, avoiding the temptation of going to the lowest common denominator. And I don't know if he has that in him. I mean, clearly last night he showed us that

he doesn't. And so I'm happy that O'Reilly and Eric Erickson are bringing that up because it was a bad moment for him. And I don't know, I could be wrong, but I'm starting to feel like even his most ardent supporters are kind of getting sick of hearing about 2020. Because it makes Trump look pathetic and weak. It makes him look like a child, a baby, a whiner. Who wants to be led by a whiner? Who wants their candidate to be a crybaby? Someone who is unable to accept reality, unable to pick himself up and just say, you know what, I'm going to move forward. I lost that one. It's okay. I mean, in some of these swing states, I barely lost, barely. So I'm going to do what it takes to be Kamala Harris, I'm going to stop whining about what happened, you know, three and a half years

ago, but he doesn't have it in him. So then you have Chris Wallace, who, of course, for a long time was employed by Fox News. He's now over at CNN, but make no mistake, Chris Wallace has been a lifelong conservative. He has taken some jabs at Trump in the past where logically it makes sense to. It's not like he's needlessly going after Donald Trump and being unfair to him. He has criticized Trump in the past where Trump deserves the criticism. But here he is over at CNN, making some interesting points about how Trump performed last night. Let's watch. I didn't think I was ever going to witness a debate as devastating as the one that you and Dana moderated back in June where Joe Biden basically tanked his reelection campaign.

I think tonight was just as devastating. I think that Kamala Harris pitched a shutout. On almost every subject I can think of, she shut Trump down on abortion. She shut Trump down on January 6th and democracy. She shut them down on national security and turned to the former president and said, the military leaders who served with you think that you're a disgrace. And then, as Dana mentioned, very powerfully at the end made the point that she is the candidate of change. We need to turn the page from a decade of division and polarization.

I think Wallace is correct, especially about that last part, because I personally feel it. And I think you guys see it in the way that I approach some of the stories that we cover. I'm also sick of the divisive rhetoric. I'm sick of, you know, the constant hate and division with the other side. I want to find areas of common ground. I want to find a way to move forward in this country. right? Find solutions for the issues that we clearly have in this country. And I think a lot of Americans feel the same way. And it's impossible to get there when you have one of the candidates

on that stage putting out lies about migrants eating cats. It's impossible to do that when you have someone who's still obsessed with the fact that he lost the 2020 presidential election and refuses to just believe in objective reality when it comes to that election. You know, we had a few moments last week where he was willing to admit, you know, on the Lex Friedman podcast, while speaking before the Moms for Liberty conference,

he said, we lost, we lost by a whisker. And I was like, all right, finally he turned a page. I mean, it took a while, but he turned the page. He's finally accepting the results of the 2020 election. But he went right back into it. And this is the kind of garbage that tears the country apart. It really does. And I'm tired of it.

I think a lot of people are tired of it. But Wallace also weighed in on the optics of the debate. And I think he really nailed it here. Let's watch. The image of the debate to me is she's there happy, smiling, expressive, shaking her head, and dismay at things Trump was saying. And Trump looked angry, scowling. She was looking directly at the audience.

He was looking at the moderators and arguing with them and something else. And he was, yeah. Donald Trump looked old tonight. That Donald Trump look old tonight line, I'm sure is going to get under Donald Trump's skin. Now Kamala Harris, of course, is much younger than he is. But she had this kind of like energetic, vibrant demeanor. It wasn't just about the age. It was the way that she she presented herself. She seemed energetic. He was scowling throughout the entire debate.

He refused to look at her. I mean, these are actually very similar to some of the points that we made during our debate coverage last night. But optics matter more than anything during a debate, more than the substance. It's just the truth. Because look, most people aren't going to do fact checking in real time. So you can, unfortunately, in a lot of debates, lie or mislead or be dishonest and get away with it and still win the debate if the optics are right, if the optics are there. But you have Kamala Harris, who again seems confident, energetic, vibrant. And then you have Donald Trump who's just like, like you couldn't see his neck for most of the debate because he's kind of like hanging his head. He has bad posture. And he looks grumpy.

He looks like someone who needed a nap earlier, but just couldn't fall asleep and is like irritated that he has to be there. That's not a good look. Those were terrible optics for him. Finally, we go to Britt Hume, also lifelong conservative, pretty hardcore with his conservatism. And he actually did complain about the moderator somewhat. So I want to be fair to him about that. But he also had to make this admission. Make no mistake about it. Trump had a bad night. He rose to debate repeatedly when she baited him, something I'm sure his advisors had begged him not to do. you know, in the first debate, when Biden attacked him, he just kept his cool and kept

going. And in this debate, he rose to the debating. And we heard so many of the old grievances that we'd long thought that Trump had learned were not winners politically. And there they all were, you know, talking about how he didn't lose the election and all that. I mean, so my sense is that she came out of this in pretty good shape. So let's talk about a potential future debate. So earlier I had shared with you all that Donald Trump kind of made clear while speaking to Fox and Friends that he's not inclined to do another debate. He complained about the possibility of Fox News hosting a debate that would be moderated by Brett Baer and Martha McCollum. And he doesn't think that they should be the

moderators. They're not fair to him. More of the same. It's not fair. It's not fair. But really the person who would be better served in not doing a second debate would be Kamala Harris. Like Donald Trump should be like desperate to do another debate to kind of reverse the disaster that took place last night. But it seems like he's trying to skirt out of it while Kamala Harris's team is, you know, goading him for another debate. Now, if she genuinely wants to do another debate, I mean, obviously last night she proved that she can perform really well. But if I were in Donald Trump's shoes, I would definitely want another opportunity to turn things around. But it seems like for the moment being and things can change, he's kind of running away from it. And I don't think that's going to do well for his campaigning.

So we'll see what happens. I would not be surprised if there isn't going to be a second debate. But I think the results are in. I think it's pretty clear based on the polling of voters, based on what even conservative pundits are saying in conservative media, Donald Trump did not have a good night. He lost that debate. Kamala Harris did really well. Now, of course, the second part of this is how much of an impact will the debate have on the overall general election? And, you know, historically, they haven't had that much of an impact. There have been some outliers, though, as we all know. One of the outliers, of course, was the debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. I am curious to see how this debate is going to be, you know, integrated in the polling moving forward for this election and whether

or not she's going to see a bump in support. But last night, she did a really good job. And her team, honestly, her campaign team, has made a lot of really great decisions. Being ecstatic about accepting Dick Cheney's endorsement, not a good move. I would have avoided that. But for now, it seems to have, like, you know, barely hurt her. But all other decisions so far have been pretty sound, pretty good. And it seems like she's taking this seriously. And she came correct, like she came prepared. He underestimated her.

She did not underestimate him. And I love to see it. So there you have it. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we're going to switch gears entirely. I'm going to share that PBS report out of Springfield, Ohio with you. We're going to talk about the nuances of the. influx of Haitian migrants in that area.

And we're going to talk about that and more when we come back. Don't miss it. Welcome back to the show, everyone, Anna Casparian with you. And just want to encourage you to like and share the stream if you're watching us live, you can also support us by becoming a member at t-y-t.com slash join, or just hit that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. All right, let's change gears a little bit because we've been talking about the aftermath of

the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Now I want to talk about one of the issues that was raised, although raised poorly, in the context of that debate, and that had to do with the influx of migrants coming to Springfield, Ohio. There's been a lot of demagoguing, a lot of gross lies and smears being spread about what's happening on the ground in Springfield. And so I thought it would be important to share a wonderful investigative report that was done by PBS. They actually went to Springfield. They spoke to people there. They wanted to know what's going on. So let's get into it. This misleading false claim that you yourself have talked about in recent days

about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, abducting people's pets and eating them, which officials there have said is not true. You yourself acknowledged, it may be false on Twitter. You still told people to keep spreading it. Again, whether those exact rumors turn out to be mostly true, somewhat true, whatever the case may be. Caitlin, this town has been ravaged by 20,000 migrants coming in. Has it? Now, while JD Vance, demagogues with a creepy fake smile on his face, it is important to debunk his claim that Springfield, Ohio has been ravaged by migrants. Because the answer is actually no, it hasn't been ravaged by migrants, but the reality is also nuanced. And PBS News went to the town to see for themselves

what's really going on. What is the reality there? Now, before we get to the videos, there's something that we also need to set the record straight on. So one of the other smears, against the Haitian migrants who have come to Springfield, Ohio, is that they're all illegal, which actually isn't the case. So the United States back in 2010 granted something known as temporary protected status for Haitians after a devastating earthquake ravaged Haiti. I mean, it was so terrible that the United States government, and I thought this was the right thing to do, offered this program to Haitians. And temporary protected status, by the way, is just that. It's supposed to be temporary.

So it can be extended, and the Biden administration did, in fact, extend it. But just to give you some more details about this, temporary protected status, TPS, is an immigration designation available to Haitians and foreign nationals from 15 other countries that allows them to live and work in the U.S. for up to 18 months, subject to extension or redesignation by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. So as I mentioned, the Biden administration, because of the violence that has broken out in Haiti, gangs now control about 80% of the government there. It is brutal. Biden has decided to extend the program so people who are here under the temporary protected status can stay a little longer. The Dayton Daily News also notes that many Haitians in Springfield are eligible to apply for TPS status. and once approved for TPS, they can also immediately apply for a work permit. So these are not people who are getting paid under the table and, you know,

employers are hiring them instead of American workers because they can pay them much less. These are people who have the right credentials to be able to work and live legally in the United States. And I think it's important to know that distinction. There is, by the way, no pathway to citizenship with TPS. and immigrants can be deported once the period of time covered by the authorization ends, people who have been granted asylum or refugee status can apply for citizenship. And by the way, I should also note that if they have TPS status, they can also apply for citizenship or asylum as well.

Now, immigrants who have TPS designation, you know, the Haitians that we're talking about, a lot of them have decided to go settle in Springfield, Ohio. Now, why did they choose that area? Well, because the housing was a little cheaper. It was a little easier for them to kind of get settled there. But we did see a pretty large number of people show up in a short period of time. And when you're talking about a small town, that could have some issues, right? And so we're going to get to those issues in a minute. But first, I think it's really important to also talk about what the Christian right in this country is currently spreading about Haitian migrants. Springfield, Ohio, nonsense about them stealing cats and eating them, and just totally ignoring who these people really are and how they've already become part of the fabric of the community there. So take a look at this. Springfield's a small blue-collar city with a familiar story. Much of the factory work left decades ago, and the residents followed. A community of more than 80,000 emptied out to less than 60.

That is until the last few years. Our church is, we've seen new people. In the pews? Yes, absolutely. West Babian was the pastor at First Baptist Church for almost 20 years. For years, we've lost people, but you hope somebody else will come and take their place. That hasn't happened here. Until now.

Because there are folks from Haiti who are coming to church. So these are church-going, hardworking Haitian migrants who escaped terrible conditions, either from the earthquake or from the horrible gang violence that's been taking place in Haiti. And I just think it's important to not allow anyone from any political group to dehumanize these people. It's just not the right thing to do. Obviously, I find it immoral. And when you dehumanize people, that leads to instances where others feel justified in demonizing them, attacking them, and it's just not fair considering what they have already been through.

Now, that's not to say that there's never any problems with migrants, right? But it is to say that it is unfair to smear an entire group of people who have already had incredibly difficult lives and aren't doing anything wrong for the most part. These are people who are going to church there. These are people who are working in factories there. And in fact, it is important to also discuss how the industries there, the factories there, have actually benefited from an increase in the population in this area. Because as you saw earlier in that clip, you know, the deindustrialization of that area led to a lot of people leaving. But now things are changing and the Haitian migrants have something to do with it.

Let's take a look. Gregor is the CEO of McGregor metal, which makes welded parts for the auto and farm industries. Right now, about 10% of his workforce is Haitian. Over 30 employees. I wish I had 30 more. Our Haitian associates come to work every day. They don't have a drug problem. They'll stay at their machine. They'll achieve their numbers. They are here to work. And so in general, that's a stark difference from what we're used to in our community. McGregor acknowledges the sudden arrival of so many new immigrants is a challenge on multiple fronts. But he believes this is partly how the industrial Midwest can regrow.

We want more jobs in our community. And in order to fill those jobs, some jobs need to be people who are not originally from here. So there has been this, the economy to some extent has been stimulated as a result of new workers coming in. And those new legal workers, remember, these are people who can work legally because they have the temporary protected status from our federal government are based on what you just heard from that CEO, they're dependable, they're showing up to work all day. They're excited to work all day. It's helping to stimulate the economy, the local economy. And it's also starting to make the local community there a little more vibrant. Whereas before people were leaving. Okay, it was a town that was already a small town, but it was slowly dying with more and more people leaving. But I also want to talk about the next clip, because, you know, there are some other elements to this that I think we need to get into because no story is ever black and white. And I do think that when you see instances of resentment toward a migrant population coming in, yes, there are definitely going to be

some people who just, they don't want to see people different from them coming into their local community. I get that. That does exist. But the resentment, I believe, for the most part, comes from the fact that when you have an influx of people coming in and you don't have the resources to respond to that appropriately, well, then there's going to be a little bit of a fight for those resources. And I'm actually kind of irritated that the federal government didn't do more to support this community to prevent some of those resentments from bubbling up. So let's go to our next clip. There's things in the last five years that have really changed and has been a forward improvement for Springfield. But this is taxing the resources of the city.

Springfield's mayor, Rob Roo, says he was cautiously optimistic when the first Haitians settled in town. But then their numbers quickly rose. The city estimates 12 to 15,000 Haitians are here now. The infrastructure of the city, our safety forces, our hospitals, our schools. Springfield is a close community and has a big heart. But at the same point, we've had this influx that has taxed all these services. The number of students needing English language help has quadrupled in five years.

Translators at the local health center cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. And last year was the busiest year on record for the fire department. Mayor Rue says reckless driving is an issue. But there has been no uptick in crime related. to the immigrant population. But with so many new arrivals, he says, the city needs help bolstering basic infrastructure. We say we need help, basically for translation services and safety forces. That's what we're looking at. Our hospitals need reinforcement.

In fact, I mean, if you listen to what actual people living in this community are saying, you know, they're not saying things like they're eating our cats. I mean, yes, there's like a handful of examples of people saying unhinged things. But most people are saying, look, there's been a problem with reckless driving. And you just heard PBS News report that. But there hasn't been an uptick in crime. And there's a reason for that, guys. What's the reason? Well, we're not talking about people who cross the border illegally. Again, these are Haitians who applied for temporary protected status. Now, in order to do so, you have to fulfill certain requirements, including the statute specifies grounds of inadmissibility that cannot be waived,

including those relating to criminal convictions, drug offenses, terrorist activity, and the persecution of others. So these are people who, to the conservatives who are concerned about this, these are people who have been vetted for the most part, right? And so they had to get approved for this status. They're working in the community. But as you just heard from the mayor of Springfield, Ohio, when you have that influx of people coming in, it is going to tax the infrastructure there, the health care system, emergency services, the schools, because you have to think about it. You have to have enough employees to respond to that in the hospitals, in the schools. That doesn't mean migrants are bad people, okay? By admitting this, you're actually allowing for solutions to be discussed. So you can, avoid resentment from the local community that's been living there. That's what we should be wanting

to do. I think one of the biggest mistakes is kind of like turning the other way because we don't want to make it appear as though we're being critical of migration or migrants coming in. But like, guys, we need to find solutions for the legitimate concerns that people have because you do want to avoid the resentment. And you do want to make sure that local communities that are affected by federal policies are getting the appropriate resources to deal with what the federal government is doing, right? The changes that they're making to their immigration policy. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that's actually a good thing. We shouldn't run away from potential solutions or a discussion about potential solutions. We should be open-minded

about what people in that local community are concerned about. What can we do to fix it? And what can we do to make that community better. So everyone's happy. And I love that, you know, PBS actually went over there and did this story. They went to the community. They talked to the appropriate people. And they were able to get to the bottom of what the real issues are. And so I would say, you know, meet your fellow Americans with some grace when they air their concerns. Not everyone who brings up these issues is doing so because they're hateful. They're doing so because they're seeing some problems. They're seeing a lack of care or thought from the federal government. And I think they're definitely right in wanting those issues to be addressed. But you also have to keep in

mind that these are people, the migrants who have come in, these are people who are also stimulating the local economy there, who are taking a town that was slowly but surely dying due to deindustrialization and revitalizing it. So there's a lot of good, but there are also some issues that should be addressed. And so again, there you have it. We'll put a link to the PBS news report in our description box. I highly recommend watching the whole thing. And for now, we're going to switch gears. I'm going to do one more story before we bring Jordan Ewell in for the second hour. Well, today marks a big day, a big win for Wall Street because the Federal Reserve has decided to water down banking regulations that were actually meant to prevent another disaster like the global financial crisis of 2008.

All right. So the capital reserves that a bank contains is really at the center of this regulation. And the Federal Reserve, in response to some of these smaller banks failing recently, wanted to increase the amount of federal reserves that banks have in order to prevent, you know, financial collapse. So again, a bunch of banks like Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic, they failed. Then the Fed wanted to overhaul something called, it's the basal end game. Okay. So under this new rule, the world's largest banks, aka those with 200,

$150 million or more in assets would have to have their capital requirements boosted to 19% or buy 19%. But they didn't want to do that. And they're honest about why they didn't want to do that. Capital requirement, again, is a term for how much money the banks are required to hold as a buffer against big losses. Because, you know, when you deposit your money at a bank, It doesn't just, like, sit there. Usually the bank invests that money, okay? They gamble with your money. But the Federal Reserve wants to ensure that these banks have enough capital as a buffer

to prevent some of those, prevent a complete, another disaster if some of those investments go south. So the Fed argued that the change was intended to keep large banks from doing too much risky lending and trading. But the banks made a curious claim to push back. They said this. By raising the capital, the banks are required to hold as a cushion against losses. The plan could have also made loans more expensive or harder to obtain, pushing more activity to non-bank providers, according to trade organizations. Wait, wait, hold on, hold on.

So the big banks are worried that the capital requirement would make it harder for ordinary people to get loans at their big bank, and thus they would need to go to a smaller bank or a non-bank provider, non-bank institution. How is that a bad thing? Isn't that a good thing? I mean, don't you want options for people? Like, I think one of the issues with our banking system is we have those banks that are

too big to fail. That was a line that was commonly heard after the 2008 economic collapse because the idea was, well, if we just allow these banks to fail, these big banks, that would crush the economy because of all the people that are employed at these big banks, all of the stake that these big banks have in our overall economy. And so, like, why would the Fed find that argument convincing? Now, unfortunately, it appears that they did find it convincing. We're going to get to what the Fed ended up doing in just a moment. But the big banks also, spent a lot of time lobbying. They lobbied pretty hard. Okay, so this may, the Wall Street

Journal reported that J.P. Morgan Chase, CEO, Jamie Diamond, at a meeting in Washington last fall told his fellow CEOs to bypass Michael Barr, the central bank's vice chair for banking supervision, and the main architect of the original plan to increase their capital requirements by 19%. So, as I mentioned, big banks don't like it. So Diamond, Jamie Diamond, urged his fellow bankers to instead press the Fed or press other Fed governors, in particular, Chair Jerome Powell, to alter the proposed capital rules. So big U.S. bank CEOs also met with Powell, Jerome Powell, more than a dozen times between last July and March, according to the central bankers public calendar.

Barr met 15 times with the CEOs of the largest U.S. banks. during the same period. He also met with Diamond in April and in May, a Fed spokesperson said. So Barr in a statement said something that was, in my opinion, obvious and pretty clear, but for anyone who needs to hear it, quote, I have not felt bereft of attention from the banking lobby. Oh, I'm sure you didn't, Barr. I'm sure you didn't. And so, look, they were in high gear.

They're like, we're going to do what we can to prevent this or at least water down this regulation. because they want to invest as much of their capital as possible because that stands to benefit them with potentially more profits. Like, that's what they want to do. Having a capital buffer at a higher percentage means that they have less capital to play with, less capital to invest. And so they don't like that. They want to prevent that from happening.

And in the end, it looks like the Federal Reserve went along with what they wanted. So the banks weren't just going after the Fed. They also conducted a PR campaign against the regulations. For instance, Goldman Sachs spent millions on its own advocacy campaign. The Financial Services Forum, which represents the eight largest U.S. banks, also asked its members to chip in $2 million a piece on another ad campaign. Do you guys understand? They're not spending money because they're really concerned about the possibility. of ordinary Americans being able to obtain loans, okay?

They're spending a lot of money on this PR campaign because they want to protect their profits. That's what, it's an investment that they're doing on behalf of themselves. And in fairness, the opposition to the new rules didn't just come from the banks. It also came from, you know, a certain caucus in Congress that is, look, this is, the Congressional Black Caucus is full of all sorts of politics. politicians that take major donations from the banking industry in Wall Street. So I was unsurprised to find, according to the Wall Street Journal, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, housing advocates, and civil rights groups said the new requirements could

inadvertently widen a longstanding racial home ownership gap by making it more expensive for banks to offer mortgages to lower income and minority borrowers. But look, I was in the market for a home loan, and you want to know which banks had the absolute highest interest rates associated with the loan, with the mortgage, the big banks. I did not get my loan from a big bank. So like I don't know how that argument makes any sense. In fact, you could do this right now. You could do this right now. Go ahead and look for, well, don't do it right now because you're watching the show, but after the show. Search for high yield savings accounts. Take a look at what J.P. Morgan Chase or Chase Bank pays an interest

for a high yield savings account, then go to one of the smaller banks, which bank is going to give you a higher interest rate on your savings? It's not going to be Chase. It's not going to be Wells Fargo. I know because obviously, I've researched this myself. And so it's just curious that this is the argument that you're hearing from some of our lawmakers, who I'm sure haven't taken a dime from the banking industry or Wall Street. And it's no surprise, Anti-regulation Republicans also spoke out against the Fed, and eventually the campaign worked. Although they weren't able to completely scrap the increased capital requirement, they did water it down from 19% to 9%. And by the time the regulations are finalized, the 2024 election will

already have taken place, which is not good news if Donald Trump gets elected, because I don't think Donald Trump would want the Fed to move forward with this regulation. I could be wrong. But I do think that Kamala Harris would be more likely to allow the Fed to be independent and implement this new increased capital requirement policy. But we'll see. We'll see what the final result will be because we still don't even know if the big banks will have an increased capital requirement at all. We'll see what happens.

We'll fill you in as this story develops. But for now, we're going to take a quick break. And in the second hour, Jordan Yule joins me to talk about a whole host of other stories. including a really fun one involving conservatives who are not tethered to reality. And we're going to have fun with that one. Don't miss it.