The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - October 7, 2020

Episode Date: October 8, 2020

Trump appears to be reversing course on his stimulus plans. Ana Kasparian and John Iadarola discuss on The Young Turks. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. The new BMO ViPorter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks. More points. More flights. More of all the things you want in a travel rewards card.

And then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter MasterC. and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit bemo.com slash the iPorter to learn more. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun.

Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now. I get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. I don't know. I don't know.

I don't know. Oh, hey there, everyone. Welcome to TYT. I'm Anna Kasparian, joining us today because it is Wednesday. We have John Iderola, host of the damage report, all around good guy, fan of dragons. What's up, John? Sure. I want to be those things. I'm good. I'm glad to be here. It's debate day. It's this whole big thing. I don't know. How are you? How are you? I mean, I'm hanging in there. That's for sure. I did a pretty fiery interview today on the woke bros podcast, which is actually hosted by Nando Villa and Wozni Lambre. We've had him on the show as well. And we had a pretty lengthy conversation. about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. So, you know, John and I did a really long segment about

that last week. Please, please, please, please read up on it and help in any way you can. Armenia Fund is raising money for the civilians in Nagorno-Karabag that are caught in the crossfire. So I felt really good about how that interview went because, you know, there's a pretty decent left media in the country that, like, didn't exist when I started my career. They talk about issues that matter, issues that get ignored by the media. So I'm trying to focus on those positive developments on the left to kind of offset the negative stuff going on overall. So other than that, I'm good.

By the way, speaking of the debate, you are covering the vice presidential debate tonight along with Benjamin Dixon and Jank Yugar. Everyone can actually watch that live at 5.30 p.m. Pacific time, 8.30 p.m. Eastern. You don't want to miss it. It's four hours of debate coverage and you know that you're going to get the best analysis on this network, tyt.com slash live to watch live. I want to remind you all to share this stream. It's one of the easiest ways that you can spread the progressive message and help this network. And also a quick note from one of our partners, aspiration, a wonderful financial institution where you can keep your money and not worry about them using it to fund fossil fuel companies or finance, fossil fuel companies. So check them out, Aspiration.com slash TYT. All right. Without further ado, let's do some news and analysis. John Iderola, you ready? I think so. All right. Yesterday, Donald Trump announced through social media that he was putting a stop to any negotiations between the GOP and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the topic of another stimulus bill.

Now, it has been months since Americans have seen any financial relief from our government amid the pandemic. And it looked as though Steve Mnuchin, who was negotiating with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was getting closer and closer to a deal. And then out of nowhere, in a steroid-fueled rage on Twitter, Donald Trump all of a sudden said that he wanted to stop these negotiations. Well, there was a political price to pay as a result of that. Some of that, was also reflected in how the stark market was impacted by Donald Trump's statements. So now he is doing a complete reversal. That is the latest update.

Trump appeared to backtrack calling on Congress to approve some additional assistance for airlines and a small business aid program. He also tweeted that Congress should pass a bill providing another direct payment to Americans. So let me give you a little sense of some of what he put out there, he said, if I'm sent a standalone bill for stimulus checks, $1,200, they will go out to our great people immediately. I'm ready to sign right now. Are you listening, Nancy Pelosi? And look, to be clear, I think that the Democrats are correct in rejecting any attempt

to do these piecemeal standalone bills, because the fact of the matter is Donald Trump is responding to the business community and how upset they were about. him halting negotiations. Trump does not care about offering aid to average Americans. He does care about making sure that the business community is on his side. So just to remind you all of where the negotiations left off, Nancy Pelosi is asking for $2.4 trillion to bail out poorly run high crime Democrat states, money that is in no way related. This is what Donald Trump said. I apologize. This was an original tweet or thread, including all these tweets. Nancy Pelosi is asking for $2.4 trillion to bail out poorly run high crime Democrat states,

money that is in no way related to COVID-19. We made a very generous offer of $1.6 trillion. And as usual, she is not negotiating in good faith. The big divide between Democrats and Republicans is that states need financial aid in order to pay unemployment benefits. That's really at the heart of this issue. There are so many people who are unemployed that states need help in order to pay these benefits to people. And Republicans don't want to do it.

The Republicans do want to listen to the business community. And turns out that this political group that's composed of big business CEOs hit up Donald Trump and they're like, what are you doing? This is not good for us. You better basically change your messaging. I'll give you that message in just a minute, but John, I wanted to give you an opportunity to jump in. Yeah, and even we're like, it's sort of a flip, flop flip at the very least. Like there's at least another layer that we're going to go through.

But even in between the flip and the flop, there was multiple forms of pushback. There was the pushback that you're talking about with the corporations, obviously saying, what are you doing? Like, no, we need this aid. There's the pushback against, that would eventually come from people like Brian Kill Me that are just, hey, look at, what it did to the stock market, dude, I'm looking at my account. This is terrible. What are you thinking? There's the people who are like, hey, we're in the middle of a pandemic and millions of people have lost their jobs. Just sort of morally isn't the government supposed to do something to help them. And it's interesting to see which of those apparently got through to

Trump, even if just momentarily and which did not. Because there was a lot of pushback that this seems horrible in terms of your responsibility to the American people. Strategically, for your reelection, this seems like a really bad idea. And so when he comes back and says, okay, we need aid to the airlines, well, that's placating some of those critics, but certainly not others. And at least even briefly pretending that he cares about the $1,200 checks, that was probably the wisest move that he made last night. I don't think that he actually cares about it. And to the extent that he does, I'm sure it's because it seems like a relatively constrained amount of money for what he can pitch and indeed would

as look, I care about the regular people. I'm going to have my signature on these. It's going to be awesome. But it's not necessarily what the people need. There was a, I forget who the tweet was from, but it was, what are you doing talking about $1,200? We should have been receiving this the entire time. Like you owe us like 8,400. If that's what, if that's the form it's going to come in, then I'm not interested in a resumption of that limited aid six months later. And then Presumably, you go back to ignoring us again. Right, exactly. And so, you know, part of what we're supposed to do is decode the overt language that you're hearing from politicians.

And so if you just take what Donald Trump is saying, you know, at a surface level, it seems like he wants to allegedly help Americans. But you're absolutely right, John. He wants to basically throw crumbs to Americans in the form of another. one time $1,200 check, but he does not want to fund state governments that need the funding in order to continue on with the unemployment benefits. So the fact of the matter is he's not concerned about average Americans at all. He is worried about the political ramifications of what he had tweeted yesterday, essentially taking ownership of halting the negotiations. And so let me now give you the information on where they were in the negotiations before we go to

What might be a really smart response by Nancy Pelosi, I haven't seen the video yet, we'll decide after I watch. So the two sides had been edging closer after the House passed a $2.2 trillion bill last week down from its earlier $3.5 trillion package. Mnuchin had proposed a $1.6 trillion offer last week in response. The two sides remained at odds over how much state and local aid to include in an agreement. But to be fair to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, It seemed like she was actually making some pretty decent progress in getting Steve Mnuchin to concede on a number of elements in that CARES package, upcoming stimulus proposal. So now with Donald Trump basically putting a monkey wrench in all of this, you have Nancy Pelosi finally speaking out. She was on the view. Let's hear what she had to say.

But the fact is, is that he saw the political downside of his statement of walking. away from the negotiations. Negotiations to honor our heroes, our health care workers, first responders, teachers, teachers, teachers, transportation, sanitation, food workers who make our lives possible. And he walked away from the opportunity to crush the virus so that we could open our schools in our economy safely. And he walked away from putting money in the pockets of the American people in a way that will make a difference in his lives. It's interesting that he said he'd send out those checks if we just sent him that bill because all he has ever wanted in the negotiation was to send out a check with his name printed on it. Forget about the virus,

forget about our heroes, forget about our children and their need to go to school safely and the rest. So he's just again rebounding from a terrible mistake that he made yesterday and the Republicans in Congress were going down the drain with him on that. I would love to see more of that from Nancy Pelosi. I thought that was a fine video. What you need to do is determine what your opponent's Achilles' heel is and then continue stabbing at it nonstop. That's what Nancy Pelosi should do.

So I'm happy to see her finally speak out a little more aggressively about the lack of stimulus as a result of the GOP, being incredibly difficult when it comes to providing aid to Americans. Yeah. Yeah, I'm not going to go on for a long time because it's just my response. This is basically what my response has been every time the negotiations or the lack of stimulus has been discussed over the past six months or so. They don't care. It's depressing. I've sort of made my peace with it. Our government is hanging us out to dry. It's terrible. But what are you going to do? Hopefully replace them in November. That's about it. what the business community did and how that played a role in Donald Trump's flip-flop. So, why exactly did Donald Trump decide to flip-flop on the potential of another stimulus bill during this pandemic? Remember, we still have an 8.4% unemployment rate. We have people who are desperate for any financial aid. More and more job losses are becoming permanent job losses as opposed to simply layoffs or temporary layoffs.

And so Trump had tweeted yesterday that he wanted the negotiations to stop. He was taking full ownership for halting those negotiations on the next round of stimulus. And then all of a sudden he changed his tune and argued that he wants these piecemeal standalone bills that address various parts of our economy rather than having a comprehensive stimulus bill. Well, if you're curious about what's motivating Donald Trump behind the scenes, yes, steroids might be playing a role as a result of his positive coronavirus test and treatment. But also keep in mind, the business community finally got together, and they sent a strong

message to Trump. So speaking to the Washington Post, the business roundtable, which is a political organization representing the CEOs of America's top companies, shared their disappointment with Trump. And Trump definitely heard this loud and clear. They say we are deeply troubled by the sudden halt of negotiations. Millions of American workers, families, and businesses are suffering from the economic and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and need the support of their government. Communities across the country are on the precipice of a downward spiral and facing irreparable damage. Failure to reach a deal on additional relief would worsen and prolong this crisis for our country. So let's decode that because the truth of the matter is

A lot of these companies, especially when it comes to the CEOs and executives of the top companies in this country, have shown that they care very little about keeping jobs and they care way more about bailouts so they can pay dividends to their investors and essentially leave their workers out to dry. That's what we've seen over and over again. But regardless of their deceptive messaging there, they do have a lot of influence over Donald Trump. And so does the stock market. After Trump had announced that he put a halt to the negotiations. The stock market took a dip. I'm sure the CEOs didn't like that either. And really, the stock market's the only thing that Donald Trump has been able to point to in order to argue that he's been a successful president in regard to the economic situation in this country. We all know that's not the real economy. We all know that's BS, but we also know that that's what Trump cares a lot about. So his reversal today, I would argue, has more to do with his own personal and financial interests as opposed to anything else.

Yeah. And that makes me wonder why, like, did he not get that his tweets yesterday would cause a negative effect on the stock market? Like how I don't understand how you wouldn't expect that. I mean, one would wonder, is he playing such three-dimensional chess that he's expecting that, but thinks that this is a long-term play? It doesn't seem like it. I don't know. I know that you were, you and Jank yesterday on the show were talking about, is this just a form of messy negotiation. I think Jank said, no, Trump has shown throughout his career that he's not good at negotiating this way. But he had his initial tweets yesterday. Late last night, he had his, well, maybe there are bits that I would work on. This morning, Mark Meadows

says, no, he is actually done with the negotiations? So is this just negotiating by saying you're not going to negotiate? Are they hoping that even though this really does seem to take the onus and the blame off of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are still Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. So even though they've, you know, they're off the hook, they would still come to him with a deal he would like better. That seems to be looking too far ahead for Donald Trump. Yeah, definitely. And so maybe this is just a mess. I don't know. If it is, I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to it. If it's negotiations, then we can have a conversation about where they'll actually end up. It's still, one last point I'll make.

This is obviously Donald Trump's fall to some extent. He's saying he doesn't want to negotiate. But the thing is, if a bill goes to his desk, what is he going to do? Is he not going to sign it? If Mitch McConnell passes some sort of aid bill, is he going to veto it? I sort of doubt that. So while this is technically Donald Trump's fault, if Nancy Pelosi in the House are passing bills and they have been for literally months, the Democrats and the senator are totally down to do something. It really does seem like it's Mitch McConnell that is holding this thing up. Maybe not in terms of the social media campaign, but if he passes a bill, Donald Trump will sign it. So once again, I would have to say this is really Mitch McConnell

is screwing people over. You're a hundred percent right. I refuse to ever believe that Donald Trump is playing three-dimensional or any dimensional chess. Like Donald Trump is not thinking that far into the future. But remember, Trump tweeted that thread announcing the the fact that he wants to halt these negotiations right after he had a conversation with Mitch McConnell. So you're right in laying the blame on Mitch McConnell because the truth of the matter is he does not want to pass another stimulus bill. There was the so-called skinny stimulus that was voted on in the Senate. And that was really just an effort to make it appear as though some of these vulnerable Republicans who are facing tough reelection campaigns can point to something

if they get called out for failing to pass any type of stimulus bill. The skinny stimulus was a sham. There was really not much in there to help ordinary Americans, it was all just part of Mitch McConnell's political theater. He doesn't really want to pass more stimulus. And he was honest about that yesterday in a statement. Let me see if I can just pull it up real quick. So McConnell, who has been in regular contact with Mnuchin, said he agreed with Trump's decision after Trump said that he wanted to halt the negotiations. I think his view was that they were not going to produce a result, meaning the Democrats, and that we needed to concentrate on what's achievable.

McConnell just wants to confirm Judge Amy Coney-Barritt. That's all he wants to do. So he loved that Trump announced via Twitter, hey, stop negotiating on financial aid for Americans, just focus on getting that Supreme Court nominee confirmed, even as the majority of Americans who have been pulled on this issue say that they would rather the next president make that decision as opposed to Donald Trump.

Yeah, and specifically when given those two options in terms of how they prioritize it, literally every group of the Democrats, like eight or nine out of 10 say you should go with the economy first, go with the pandemic first, between 70 and 80% of independence, even 55% of Republicans say, of course you've got to prioritize dealing with the crises wherein rather than dealing with the Supreme Court. But that's just like the population in a democracy, perhaps that would matter. We're being provided all the evidence we need to know that it doesn't. And I wanna leave you with this, Jerome Powell, who's the head of the Federal Reserve, had just announced prior to Trump's Twitter storm that Americans are really in a precarious

situation and we need stimulus. Like our economy is really in jeopardy right now. And the Federal Reserve has done a lot to help corporations by bailing them out. They can only do so much. And so we're now at a situation where if you look at the numbers, consumer spending has slowed down considerably. A lot of job losses are now considered permanent job losses. The airline industry just announced laying off more than 30,000 workers. And so this is a complete, and utter disaster.

And Donald Trump is the most irresponsible, incompetent person I have ever seen in government. And that's saying something because it's allitered with incompetent, irresponsible people. So I leave you with that. We got to take a break. When we come back, we have more news for you guys, including, let me see, what do I have next for you guys? Pretty explosive story from the New York Times about who was really behind the family separation policy at the border. You don't want to miss the details on that and more. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-Fing the Republic or UNFTR.

As a young Turks fan, you already know. that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, And just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it.

The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must not learn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. Hey everyone, welcome back to TYT, Anna and John with you. I'm gonna read some member comments and then we'll move on to the rest of the news. By the way, last week I believe it was, I read a member comment without really thinking about what was meant by that member comment.

They made fun of Trump's intelligence and I think there was something in there about Trump's not even on the spectrum. For the people who were offended by that, I understand why that's offensive. I didn't realize what that comment was when I read it. So I apologize for not being a little more careful. And thank you for educating me on why that is an offensive comment. Moving on, from our members comments, we have I am Catwoman who says, I like piecemeal bills because they don't hide bonuses for the rich.

As long as the piecemeal is stimulus, unemployment, or things that help regular people, I'm all for it. Catwoman, I totally agree with you. The only difference here is that Donald Trump, who's motivated by the business community to do something is really looking to pass bills that help bail out these businesses, whereas a piecemeal bill that focuses specifically on unemployment or stimulus for average Americans can just get ignored. I mean, that's essentially what they're going to do. That's why I'm a little skeptical about it in this specific context. Cognitive dissonance squirrel says, oh my God, Nancy Pelosi is capable of not saying platitudes. I know.

When she tries, she can be effective. She should try more. Ruth Iverson says, why is TYT the only place that tells the truth about the stock market? The stock market is a bunch of rich people juggling nothing. It has nothing to do with real life. You're right. With the intervention of the Federal Reserve, it really doesn't in any way mirror reality. The stock market used to be based on consumer spending and consumers can't spend unless they have disposable income. Now, that is kind of thrown out the window if these companies know they can get money that's been printed out by the Fed and then either buy shares of their own stocks or go ahead and pay dividends to their investors. That's what we're seeing happen over and over again.

All right. Can I say one quick thing? Of course. So there have been comments made on the show to the effect that the damage report never had any shirts on shop TYT. I'm not saying who said that or who made a big point out of it multiple times. But they're saying it, many people want apparel. And but is TYT not merciful? If you go to shop TYT.com right now, there is a damage report shirt on the site. In some way, that is awesome, in some ways there being one shirt is kind of like Trump giving $750 in taxes. It's almost worse than there being nothing, But one is a start and we're gonna get more going from there. It's a cool design. So go to shopty.com and now you can wear something that rocks TDR.

You know, I know that we're working remotely now. I know that we only host once a week, but like when did you become such a diva? Like they made a shirt for your show and you're like, yeah, yeah, it's a good start, not good enough, okay? I'm just playing. I mean, what do I care about shirts? Apparently I just throw them on the floor in the studio I'm hearing reports now. Anyway, that's inside baseball. Maybe we'll talk about that. Yeah, in the post game. In the post game. But anyway, shop tyt.com. All right. And t.y.com slash join to become a member so you can find out why John is throwing his shirts on the floor in the studio. All right, let's move on. We have news. We got to get to it.

So during his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump pretended like he cared about the Americans who lost jobs as a result of outsource. companies who sent jobs overseas in search for cheap labor, and he claimed that he was going to bring those jobs back. That's what Donald Trump is all about. Except if you take a look at his actions and maybe ignore some of the circus that he engages in to distract us, you'll notice that he's actually done quite the opposite and has rewarded companies that have continued to ship jobs overseas. According to common dreams, Donald Trump has awarded more than four $425 billion in federal contracts to corporations responsible for offshoring 200,000 jobs held by U.S. workers.

And that's according to a new report by public citizen. All of you guys should be reading everything that comes out from public citizen. They do great work, and this is the exact type of story that should be covered by every single outlet because this is the type of story that actually impacts everyday Americans who are in fact losing their jobs as a result to this corporate greed. The report states that the Trump administration awarded an average of two and a half times the amount or $10 billion more in contracts to firms that offshored during his term than those that did not. And, you know, I just want to remind everyone of what Trump campaigned on and bragged about after he was elected. Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences.

It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. We're not going to allow it to happen again. We are going to stop it. They're taking our jobs. They're taking everything. And we will also provide tax credits to bring jobs out of China back to America. And we will impose tariffs on any company that leaves America to produce jobs overseas.

We will make sure our companies and jobs stay in our country, as I've already been doing for quite some time. noticed? Have you noticed, Anna? I've noticed that if he considers punishment giving government grants in the amount of $425.6 billion, then yeah, he's been, he's definitely been punishing these companies with a lot of taxpayer money, a lot. He's bearing him. I mean, I'm glad, sorry, what you're saying? Yeah, I just want to read this one graphic because again, I want to drive home the point how much he has given these companies that have shipped jobs abroad in government grants, at least $425,000, I'm sorry, $425.6 billion in public money has gone to firms that move jobs overseas in the past four years, which means that at least one in every four

taxpayer dollars spent by the federal government on procurement contracts during the Trump administration went to the pockets of companies that offshored American jobs. Go ahead. Yeah, so I'm glad that in that montage of videos, like as you were introing the story, I was thinking of the carrier and just how emblematic that was of the fake concern for jobs and outsourcing, but it was in there, which is great. And he really has returned to this message a lot. I mean, you saw that one of those videos was from the RNC, his big address. And they brought it up there because they know that it's an important part of their pitch. It just hasn't been an important part of his presidency. It's right wing economic populism, which means it's

shallow, it's about speeches, and that's it. They don't actually care about it. They give trillions of dollars to rich people. That's really all that it's about. They hold up certain industries, like they'll talk about coal and things like that, that have very low number of jobs, pretend that they're prioritizing it. And then, I mean, look, he mentioned in that video that he was going to be doing tariffs. Now he has initiated tariffs against China, against China, but not to punish companies that are moving jobs overseas, just in this vain attempt to punish China, but in a way that so punishes American farmers and things like that, that we have to give billions of dollars in economic assistance to them as a result

of those. It's just, it's a nonsensical economic policy that is at odds with his own public statements. It doesn't actually fulfill the mission that he's implying it's supposed to. And so you end his first term effectively with a stock market that had been doing well before the pandemic and is recovering, but it hasn't really translated into an economy that's working better for regular workers. Yeah, you're absolutely right. And as Gabby Marita from our members section writes in, she says Trump did a corruption should be the headline of every news website from now on. And I agree with you, Gabby. And by the way, our members help our show happen. You can become

member by going to t yt.com slash join. Gabby, you're so right. And it's just been, I guess part of the reason why I've been growing increasingly frustrated and visibly frustrated on the show, like yesterday for instance, is because this kind of stuff seems to like, it's not salacious. It's not like, I think it's scandalous, right? But it's not scandalous in the way that reporters can, you know, sensationalize and, you know, drive up views or readership. And so this. This is the kind of stuff that falls by the wayside and it drives me crazy when, you know, I get it, we're gonna talk about the Trump circus. It's just gonna happen, but we can't allow the important stuff to be forgotten about because

people are actually suffering real life consequences due to Trump's just utter selfishness and competence, everything that we've outlined on this show over and over again. And what drives me crazy is he still continues to campaign on this message. of I'm bringing American jobs back. Let's actually go to Carrier. You know, he used Carrier to drum up support all this like nonsense, patriotic jargon in order to make himself out to be like this real warrior for the American people. But it didn't really play out that way. So the jobs of nearly 600 unionized workers at Carriers Indianapolis plant. And all 700 in its Huntington Indiana factory were relocated to Mexico in 2017.

And it's quite crazy because he's, again, still campaigning on bringing jobs back to America for his 2020 reelection campaign. Campaining in 2020, Trump is pledging he would ban government contracts to firms that offshore to China, yet as president, he awarded $113.9 billion to corporations that offshore to China while he was president. So yeah, that's what's really going on. That's who he really is. And when it comes to his trade wars, keep in mind that there are or were farmers in the middle

of this country who were absolutely devastated by that, knew they couldn't recover financially as a result. Some of them, you know, tragically took their own lives as a result. Trump has been a disaster for the financial reality of many Americans. So we really need to do a better job as media in differentiating between the stock market, which the majority of Americans are not actually invested in, and the real economy, which is what actually impacts Americans' day-to-day lives. All right.

John, thank you for letting me have the last word. You're very nice. All right, well, let's, you know what? The next story is actually a huge one. one. It's the family separation story that I talked about a little earlier. So let's just take a break. I want to make sure we have ample time to discuss this and more when we return. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that

doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important.

ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three. extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EXP-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. Welcome back to T-YT. John said something very sweet during the break. He feels that the workers at T-Y-T are like a family that have been separated because of the pandemic. That's how much everyone loves John because he's like the kindest, sweetest person in the company. Anyway, let me not get

too shmoopy right now. So super chat comments, I don't want to neglect you guys. Anthony Turner writes in and says, hey guys, will you be doing a voter's guide for the California propositions? I'm hella confused, Brett, you're not the only one who uses the word hella, just wanted to note that. And the answer is, I don't know. I know that internally we've started a document to discuss the California ballot initiatives, but it's mostly for our own information. I don't know how useful it would be or how ballot initiatives are written in a really tricky way. So I hesitate to commit to that because I don't want to accidentally spread any type of misinformation. So sorry, that's my answer. I don't know. I don't know too much about it. Let's see, Michael says Biden will be saying

by done when he beats Trump. I mean, I like it. I'm for it. You're in Canada and I'm jealous. I hope. Yeah. And Marquita Brown, your vote is not for sale. It's absolutely right. Nice. Okay, so let's move on to what really happened at the border and who was pushing for it when children were being taken away from their families. New reporting based on a draft report from the inspector general and the DOJ indicates that Jeff Sessions, when he was attorney general, was the most vicious and pushed the hardest in trying to separate children from their families as they reached the border seeking asylum. Now Donald Trump's zero tolerance policy sought to prosecute every single person who was seeking asylum. And in order to do that, they separated

children away from their parents, put them in cages, and as many as six kids did die in detention under the Trump administration as a result. That's not even counting the more than one dozen adults who died as a result of Donald Trump's actions. But really behind the scenes, you had then Attorney General Jeff Sessions essentially implementing this policy in the most extreme way and telling DOJ prosecutors that they need to do. they needed to listen to what he and Trump wanted. So the five U.S. attorneys along the border with Mexico, including three appointed by Trump, recoiled in May of 2018 against an order to prosecute all undocumented immigrants, even if it meant separating children from their parents.

They told top Justice Department officials they were deeply concerned about the children's welfare. But it turns out that Jeff Sessions wasn't buying it and didn't have any empathy whatsoever for these children. Here's what he said in response. And again, this is according to a draft of a report done by the Inspector General for the Justice Department. Sessions said, we need to take away children, Sessions told prosecutors, according to participants' notes. One added in shorthand, if you care about kids, don't bring them in, won't give amnesty to people with kids. So this was part of a terrible, cruel strategy meant to deter people from seeking asylum in the United States. have more details, but John, why don't you jump in?

Yeah, just briefly, that last comment that you read the little shorthand, I know it's a small thing in, you know, in the grand scale of everything that happened, but like, if you're going to institute these sorts of like incredibly cruel fascist policy, shouldn't you have to like use a full sentence? Like it's the it's the casualness of it. It's like I'm talking about something that couldn't be more real, that I'm going to tear apart moms from their just born children, and I don't even care enough to write out a full thing. Just a little like, you know, like scribble out something. That's fine. That'll do it. It really gets you into the mindset of the sort of people that could do this. It really didn't bother them at all. They didn't

seem to have put too much thought into it. Yeah, you're absolutely right. And if it did bother them, it didn't bother them enough to really stand up to what Jeff Sessions was demanding. because, you know, Kirsten Nielsen was apparently the one who was most vocal in the beginning against this policy. And it literally took her less than a day to basically be on board with it. So I felt like the New York Times piece on this tried to basically make the readers feel some sympathy for Kirsten Nielsen. But no, zero percent sympathy. She went ahead with what the they wanted. And that's all that matters. It shows you exactly who she is. She's just as feckless and pathetic as anyone else within the Justice Department who went along with this.

So Rod Rosenstein, who's also the, or was the deputy attorney general at the time, also wanted to make it clear that they wanted to separate children from their parents at the border regardless of what the children's age was. So in one quote, he said, per the attorney, Attorney General's policy, we should not be categorically declining immigration prosecutions of adults in family units because of the age of a child. And this came up after there were instances of infants who were still breastfeeding being taken away from their mothers. And there were some people who spoke up about it, I guess. And Rosenstein's response was what I just read to you. So again, I mean, going back to what you were saying, John, no empathy whatsoever.

However, these are so-called pro-life conservatives. They pretend to care so much about the lives of the unborn. But when it comes to actual humans and actual children, some of whom are as young as infants, I mean, when push comes to shove, you know what they actually think. They don't care. And again, this was part of a deterrence program, essentially telling the world, hey, if you're fleeing violence and persecution in your country and you're coming to us seeking a Well, that's too bad. We're going to go ahead and persecute you further, take your children

away from you. It's just incredibly hideous. Yeah. Yeah, and that like as a philosophy, the idea that we're going to make things so bad that you would prefer to stay somewhere where there's war, political persecution, domestic violence and things like that. I mean, obviously this is the most, this is the most iconic part of that, but it really does seem to have warmed its way through like all different aspects of the administration. Things have become hell in 2020. And really fast, I just want to mention because I'm glad that you're talking about this because I know that it was like the biggest story of 2018, but a lot of people, you know, unfortunately have moved on, aren't thinking

about it a lot. There are still maybe this particular policy in the form and the extent that it was practiced initially may not still be in effect, but the way that migrants are being being treated is still barbaric in a number of different ways. COVID, you know, rampaging through these facilities, you have the uterus collector and things like that news that people have already moved on from. But let's also just briefly mention that while I'm glad that more people who were apparently instrumental in putting into effect this policy, including people like Rod Rosenstein that I had never heard being affiliated with this, you do also have Stephen Miller, a guy who's in the news now for contracting COVID. He has stuck around in the Trump administration for so long

When so many people have transitioned away, even though he was initially one of the most front and center architects of this plan that was so damaging to Trump in the midterm elections, they apparently still value him so much that they've kept him. And most of the people in the story are now gone, but you do still have Stephen Miller. Yep, yeah, you're absolutely right. In fact, one of the aides closest to Stephen Miller later tried to throw Trump under the bus when called out for implementing these types of policies. We'll get to that in just a second. But first, I also want to call out former attorney general Jeff Sessions because we should all remember what his messaging was. And then we should also

keep in mind what the reality is. So let's go to this video. These optics have not been good for the administration. What's the response to that? Well, it hasn't been good. And the American people don't like the idea that we're separating families. We never really intended to do that. What we intended to do was to, um, make sure that adults who bring children into the country are charged with the crime they've committed. We'll work our way through it and try to do it in the most compassionate way possible. I mean, lies upon lies upon lies. The Attorney General's goal, according to Rod Rosenstein, from this report, was to create a more effective deterrent. Don't make a mistake about it.

more effective deterrent so that everybody would believe that they had a risk of being prosecuted. Imagine like showing up to the border because you, you're terrified for your life, for your family's life, you're looking for safety, and you're immediately treated as a criminal. That was intentionally done to stop people from looking for safety in the United States. That's what it was all about. And by the way, Horowitz, Michael Horowitz, who's the inspector general, doing this report and investigation had been preparing to release the report since late summer. According to a person familiar with the investigation, though, the process allowing

for responses from current and former department officials whose conduct is under scrutiny is likely to delay its release until after the presidential election. So I'm glad that we got, you know, some reporting on the draft of this inspector general report. And this is who we're dealing with in the Trump administration. They do not care about human lives. And I think the coronavirus pandemic has shown us that they don't care about the lives of immigrants, that's for sure. But they don't care about our lives. They don't care about lives, period.

They just care about themselves. Yeah. Yeah, it's like it's one thing if it's like, well, it's only immigrants, whatever. some Trump fans might think that. But no, now it's, you know, it's everybody. And it's at one point it's, oh, they don't care about the blue states. Who cares if you have a gig of fire, rampaging or us California? But I mean, he seems to care even less about his own followers' lives in terms of how he talks about the pandemic and the rallies he has and all of that. So they're, you know, they're the most dishonest, I think, administration ever. But not even necessarily

intentionally, they are very honest about how they actually view us. And I think that that's, that's, if If there's anything that explains why Joe Biden is in the polling position he's in right now, it is that they have done literally nothing in 2020 to hide what they actually think about America. And it's kind of speaking. Yeah, you're absolutely right. All right, well, why don't we top off the main show today with a delicious video? Because I love delicious things, and what I'm about to offer up is very tasty.

So polls show that incumbent Republican Senator Martha McSally from Arizona. is likely to lose her re-election bid. Most polls show her losing against her independent challenger, Mark Kelly. And during a recent debate, McSally was actually asked about her support for Donald Trump, which in the beginning seemed to be an asset to her campaigning, but now has begun to become more of a liability. Let's take a look at this wonderful clip from the debate. So, counterfeit Kelly says he's an independent and a mom.

moderate and lots of platitudes here, but the stakes could not be higher. If you want your tax cuts, I'm your girl. You want the largest tax increase in history? You got somebody else over here. Senator, the question was, are you proud of your support for President Trump? I'm proud to be fighting for Arizona every single day. Is that a yes or a no for President Trump? Putting legislation on President Trump's desk.

So you're proud of your support for President Trump? You look at the legislation we put on his desk is to cut Arizona taxes. It sounds like she is proud of her support for President Trump. for Arizona. The question is, why was he wanting to support Bernie Sanders? Oh, my God. Oh, it's so good. It's so good. I love it when it's so good. No, that moderator needs to moderate every single debate moving forward. Like, what I, okay, the Martha McSally part, of course, is the best. But let's just focus on Mr. Moderator for a second. Because, like, he's monotone, straight-faced. Do you support Donald Trump? Are you going to answer the question? That was the question.

Do you answer, are you going to, sounds like you support Donald Trump? Like that was awesome, right? Like no shenanigans, just keeping it straight to the point. And he was absolutely right in how he assessed that situation. Yeah, I'm just, I'm gonna, I'm gonna mark you down as being proud, proud of Donald Trump, yes. What there should be a term for when in your quest to not say something that would be damaging, like to amount X, doing Y damage to yourself, looking so flailing and cowardly and dishonest, that you look honestly, that you have to look worse than you would have if you had just honestly said this the thing that people wouldn't like. Like you have her, you had Dr. Conley

over the weekend being asked about Trump's oxygen. It's like, we're not idiots. We know what you're doing. Like who watching that thinks, oh yeah, no, she's a straight shooter, real talk, Express right there, and they still do it. I hope that we're on the cusp of breaking through a little bit of that because now with the ability for a little snippets of video like that to be spread so widely so quickly, I think that the damage will be a little bit worse. But that's just, that's embarrassing. You don't look like a real person. You look like a political algorithm, like breaking down and trying to reboot itself. It's just pathetic. It's just pathetic. So let's get into a little of the details when it comes to this particular election.

So the Arizona race is one of the most competitive in the country, and it is crucial to the future control of the chamber, meaning the Senate. Democrats almost certainly need to defeat Martha McSally to take back the Senate. McSally is competing with Kelly, that's Mark Kelly, in a swing state in which a centrist Democrat, Arizona, Senator Kirsten Cinema, won the state's last U.S. Senate race in 2018, and polls show that former Vice President Joe Biden is competitive in Arizona, a state where Trump won by only 3% in 2016. Just to give you a sense of what the polls are looking like, I alluded to this earlier, but a New York Times Sienna poll released on October 5th found McSally trailing Kelly by 11 points, and a USA Today, Sufolk poll released three days earlier, found Kelly with a 9% lead over the

incumbent senator. And Mark Kelly, you know, as progressives, is not a candidate that would necessarily really appeal to us. He's certainly, he identifies as a moderate, an independent. The Navy captain and NASA astronaut is the husband of former Arizona representative Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head and nearly killed in 2011 and is now a leader in the movement against gun violence, the race has pivoted over health care. This is the part that you should know about in regard to policy, especially during the coronavirus pandemic. McSally said on Tuesday that Kelly's support for a public health care option was the first step to the government takeover of health care. Kelly has rejected those attacks saying in one ad that he will never vote to eliminate

private health insurance. So look, he's definitely better than Martha McSally. And it is important for Republicans to lose control of the Senate. But with that said, I mean, he's not a candidate that we would be championing, but he's better than McSally. That's where we're at with that race. Yeah, and we've gotten a reminder, not that either of us or most of our audience needed it, that controlling the Senate is not just like a kind of cool thing to have. It's pretty important, actually, for basically every priority that progressives have. Super fast, the counterfeit Kelly thing, Is that like a pathetic attempt to do like a Trump style nickname? Is that what she was going for there? That's not very good.

Yeah, although like I don't know. It's awful. What does that mean? So Mark Kelly is a counterfeit version of Mark Kelly. Is that? What does that mean? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, look, no one control candidates the way that Trump does. When you see other Republicans try to do it, it's just, it always comes off as clunky and weird, and that's a great example of it. All right, we're about to wrap up our main show, but we have an awesome postgame show for our members, tyt.com slash join to become a member. And remember, everyone, we are going to have live VP debate coverage tonight. That starts at 5.30 p.m. Pacific time, 8.30 p.m. Eastern. You can watch it live by going to t.y.com slash live. Don't miss that.

and stick around if you're a member because we're going to have an awesome show t yt.com slash join see you there thanks for listening to the full episode of the young turks support our work listen to ad-free access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcast at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon