Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 14, 2025 - The Culture War - Tim Pool

02:27:19

Is DOGE A THREAT To 'Democracy?' Left V Right w/ PrimeCayes & Justin Gibbs

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guests: Primecayes https://www.twitch.tv/primecayes Justin Gibbs https://www.twitch.tv/admiralgibbs My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

57:52

Appearances

Clips

bryan dean wright

00:57

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
bryan dean wright ▲ ● ▼		Brian Dean Wright here, former CIA operations officer and host of a daily news podcast called The Wright Report, like The Wright Brothers.
		Each morning at 5 a.m.
		Eastern, I take you with me around America and around the world for news that you need to know.
		But here's what's different about The Wright Report.
		I use news sources from the left, like MSNBC, and from the right, like Fox News.
		I present that to you before I then make clear that I'm pivoting to my analysis and opinion of what to make of it all.
		And that's important.
		Separating facts and data from analysis and opinion.
		In fact, that is exactly how a good intel officer does it.
		We're trying to provide global secrets and assessments to the White House in what is called the President's Daily Brief.
		And that is why my podcast is so very different.
		So join me and thousands of my listeners each and every day on The Right Report.
		You'll find it Monday through Friday at 5 a.m.
		Eastern on all major podcast platforms.
		Once again, I'm Brian Dean Wright.
		I sure hope to see you tomorrow morning with your daily presidential brief on The Right Report.
unidentified		Oh, boy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Doge.
		Did you guys hear a judge is ordering Donald Trump to rehire a bunch of probationary employees saying you can't just mass fire people like this?
		And, of course, Democrats are in protest.
		Liberals are upset.
		They view this as a very bad thing that Elon Musk is going in, and for nefarious reasons, he is gaining access to data and terminating government regulators.
		However, on the right, it's largely viewed as the first time anyone has actually tried to shrink the size of government.
		So how about we just debate that whole thing, and we'll get right to it.
		We've got a couple gentlemen here who want to have that debate.
		Sir, would you like to introduce yourself first?
unidentified		Hello, hi.
		My name is Prime Kai, P-R-I-M-E-C-A-Y-E-S, and you can find me on Twitch and YouTube and Twitter and all that stuff.
		Yeah, so I usually do debate streams, and I'm on the left, and I think Doge is a problem, and I'm excited to talk about it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Sir, who are you?
unidentified		My name is Admiral Gibbs.
		I'm a rancher and a business owner in Texas, and I do streaming, political streaming.
		I host the debate championship series and the Give Me Break podcast on Twitch, YouTube, and everywhere else.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And you like Doge.
unidentified		I'm a big fan.
unidentified		Huge fan.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Huge fan.
		Well, okay.
		What's wrong with Doge?
unidentified		I think Doge undermines our democracy.
		I think that it's an end run around all the systems that we actually already have in place to do exactly what Doge says it's going to do.
		And that's a way to avoid responsibility on our lawmakers for all the draconic changes that are going to be made.
		Yeah, I mean, Prime here will have you believe that the democracy is threatened by Doge.
		But the real threat to democracy, in my opinion, is unchecked bureaucracy.
		It's pretty clear that the Dems have set up a bureaucratic government that is basically just funneling money to all sorts of different places.
		And I'm a really big fan of Doge.
		It seems to be peeling back this little nasty onion and letting us see what's underneath and love it.
		It's what we voted for and we're getting what we wanted.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, you know, you mentioned that it's undermining.
		The structures that are already in place that should be dealing with it.
		What do you view those as?
unidentified		Simple.
		We have the Office of Inspector General.
		We have the Government Accountability Office.
		We have the court system.
		We have the lawmakers themselves who have oversight.
		We have oversight committees that do all these things.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Do you think they were working, like they were functioning as intended?
unidentified		I think they were functioning, but not to the speed that anyone is happy with.
unidentified		I can say that at least.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I suppose that it's fair to say it wasn't efficient.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The system that was – well, I mean – What I'm trying to say is we have this position where you're saying it was working, but it wasn't working well enough.
unidentified		Yeah, but that's any system, right?
		And efficiency, if efficiency comes at the cost of democracy, if it undermines our ability, our constitution, our system of laws, yeah, that's not acceptable.
		We can improve our processes.
		We can go through, we can improve how responsive Congress is.
		We can do all these things, but it's hard work.
		We actually need to do those.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, this gentleman over here says he voted for it, though.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Isn't that democracy?
unidentified		Yeah, I would say so.
		I mean, when we look at the debt, right?
		Well, what, $36.22 trillion?
		The national debt that's held by the public is $28.9 trillion.
		I just want to see this.
		It's clear something's gone wrong, right?
		You know, Kevin O'Leary was recently on a show and I was watching.
		He was just talking about how when you do a business, and I do this in my day-to-day life, you go in there, you evaluate what's working, you trim the hedges, and then you expand, right?
		You don't just keep expanding in perpetuity.
		And I think that's what's happened with the government.
		We've had Democratic leadership.
		For 12 of the last 16 years in the presidency, and they've created this monstrous bureaucracy that definitely needs to have the hedges trimmed.
		And this is what I voted for, and I'm getting exactly what I wanted.
		I mean, look at USA being cut, and we find out there's funding, all sorts of random stuff all over the world.
		We're looking at, you know, things here.
		They argued about, oh, the DEI programs with FFA. Well, year-to-date, we actually have less plane crashes.
		I just looked that up earlier today.
		I mean, we're going through all these different programs.
		The Department of Education halved, you know, right off the jump.
		Big fan.
		All these things I wanted.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We've actually been going over the airline thing quite a bit, and year to date, it's worse.
unidentified		Is it?
unidentified		I mean, I might have the wrong data then, but that's fine.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It is challenging to get the data because if you look at year-over-year data, they'll tell you about general aviation crashes, but that could include, like, a tug hitting a plane on the ground or something.
		So then when you track for fatal airline crashes, we have, I think, three?
		Out of five serious disasters so far this year, and usually you get four to six per year.
		So we already have – we're way ahead of schedule of the average so far.
		I don't know what the reason for that is because I don't think Trump has been in office long enough.
unidentified		I agree.
unidentified		I agree with that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, right.
		And so we were talking with the – what was it?
		Ben Davidson?
		Is that his name?
		Am I going to make his name wrong?
		The space weather guy.
		And I'm like, you know, everybody wants to say that it's like DEI. You've got some people on the left, they're saying, oh, it's because Trump came in with Doge and they're gutting the FAA. People on the right are saying it's diversity, equity and inclusion.
		And I'm like, I don't think DEI would happen for years and then instantly in one month cause a bunch of crashes.
unidentified		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And I don't think that Trump got into office and then instantly a bunch of crashes happened simply from him being there.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I feel like we've got an anomaly there that's hard to track.
unidentified		Well, to back your point up, we know we've had a shortage for aircraft controllers for, what, two years now, I believe?
		I mean, I, as a conservative from Texas, Texans, we naturally don't like the government.
		I was initially hesitant when they said we're going to put Doge in because, hey, what's that slippery slope?
		It's going to be another organization wasting my tax dollars.
		But they've gone in there and they've done a lot of things.
		And with the FFA, I... It wasn't my favorite Trump plan so far.
		I could be critical of Trump.
		I think maybe we could have probably got a trained monkey to go in there and watch these things better than nobody.
		That's better than nothing.
		I feel like if we have a shortage, it's better to have somebody than nobody.
		That's nonsense.
		You don't agree?
		I mean, you could get the janitor to watch a thing.
		That's better than nobody watching it, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I would call it absurd, but technically the truth that a trained monkey is better than no one.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But we don't want a trained monkey.
unidentified		Sure, exactly.
unidentified		It would be better to not have any signals from a control tower than, like, random signals.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, trained monkeys.
unidentified		You'd be surprised.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They put chimps in spaceships, and they know when to trigger the, like, the boosters and whatever.
unidentified		Yeah, they can go to Sputnik.
		They can handle that.
		This is the high-level conversations I came to talk about.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They had a dog, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They had the dog go to space in Russia, and the dog was trained when the light turns on, it paused the button, and then the things happen.
unidentified		Okay, fantastic.
		That's my application for it.
		I'll notify Elon on that one.
		All right, so ignoring that part, right?
		So Doge says that it hasn't actually fired, in terms of the FAA, air safety individuals, right?
		That's not the case.
		We actually have articles talking about this, like Rolling Stone reporting, that they spoke with an FAA employee who was once...
		Among a handful of employees working on the obstacle impact team at the Mike Morini Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, the team evaluates many tens of thousands of potential new hazards, such as new buildings, windmills, and especially cranes, to inform flight procedures each year.
		That's a person who does safety.
		And there's another one.
		A secondary employee whose job was ensuring that pilots are medically able and certified to fly.
		This person's also cut.
		And there's many other examples.
		These are the ones listed in Rolling Stone.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I suppose the challenge then is, is this the article that I have pulled up?
unidentified		Yes, indeed.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So it's from February 18th.
		Well, I mean, I kind of feel like we already went over the point of, it may be disconcerting to many people, the points you're making.
		I'll give you that one.
		But I don't know right now what the immediate effects of that are.
unidentified		Oh, no, I agree.
		We agree.
		I don't think that at this moment, things have crashed.
		But things will get more dangerous, right?
		You fire all these teams, right?
		They're talking about how they've been gutted.
		There's still maybe a few of them still there, but they're doing the work of, like, five people doing the work of 20. That's not what you want.
		And before, they weren't fully staffed at first as well.
		And then, of course, we have the reporting from that big meeting between Trump and his cabinet members.
		And Elon Musk is there, not part of the cabinet.
		And Elon Musk gets into it with Treasury Secretary Duffy.
		There's a bunch of reporting talking about this.
		But Duffy says, That the Doge team tried to fire air traffic controllers, right?
		Elon Musk denies that.
		And then he asked Duffy to name the individuals who got fired.
		Duffy's like, well, no one got fired because I stopped it, right?
		But according to him, assuming this is correct, people were in the meeting or, you know, reporting back on it, assuming that's correct, then yes, he did try to fire air traffic controllers.
		I mean, yeah, sure.
		Okay, like I said, I'm a little bit critical of that as a conservative.
		I'm not a huge fan of when there's government overreach.
		I think the FFA was probably the worst thing that Trump's done so far, like how they've handled it.
		However, overall, when I look at Doge, you know, I think it's been wildly successful.
		I mean, just some of these stats here that Doge has been putting out, you know, they put, what was it, 11 point, here we go, 11 point something million loans went out to children.
		What's going on with that?
		Oh, yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They didn't check the actual ages.
unidentified		I'm not saying, like, okay, we all know the YouTube kid that, like, you know, reviews toys and, you know, mom and daddy probably have to run his day-to-day.
		Sure, that's fine.
		But why are all these loans going out to children?
		You know, like, these are questions.
		We look at USA. Right?
		Or USAID. They're sitting here.
		Well, they literally told him to burn docks.
		I was watching a Marine the other night, and he goes, hey, the only time we burn docks is when the embassies are getting run over by a terrorist organization.
		Why are we sitting here burning docks?
		It's pretty clear something nasty is going on.
		Wait a minute, hold on.
		The Trump administration is telling them to burn docks, right?
		Like, just now.
		Who?
		Okay.
		USAID. Yeah, USAID head for the Trump administration.
		Now.
		Yeah, now, because these are leftover, right?
		They're burning docs and Doge is trying to go in there and look at it.
		They're doing that under the Trump administration.
		You're saying this is a rogue employee that's burning documents?
		Yeah, that's why they had to put a court order on it to stop it recently.
		So you're saying that this individual is not operating under the Trump administration.
		They're operating like loyalty to the Biden administration and burning documents right this second.
		Yeah, I mean, you know about it.
		I mean, you can pull it up.
		They're talking about it all over.
		It's all over the news.
		I've heard about this.
		They're in the docs.
		But like, as far as I know, I mean, this is done under Trump administration.
		They can send marshals to stop this person.
		They have a court order out right now trying to stop them.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Court asked to intervene after email tells USAID workers to destroy classified documents.
		Let's see.
		Judge Carl Nichols set a Wednesday morning deadline for the plaintiffs and the government to brief him on the issue.
		A person familiar said it comes as a Trump administration.
		Let's see.
		Lawsuits are mounting.
		Okay, they don't have the...
		No, we don't want to donate AP. Thank you for your assistance in clearing out classified USAID headquarters.
		It begins...
		I don't think it actually has the name in it.
		Erica Carr.
unidentified		There you go.
		Acting Secretary of USAID. Acting Secretary of USAID. A person that's...
		I mean, we can check.
		It's the bureaucracy fighting back against those.
		I mean, are you disagreeing that there's elements that have loyalty to other different groups within the thing other than MAGA and Trump?
		I mean, it's pretty clear that there are different groups that have different interests.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm looking up who Erika Carr is.
		Let me ask you, though, as it's being pulled up.
		If you were ordered, if you worked at a government institution through multiple administrations and Trump came in and said, Prime, I want you to burn the documents, get rid of them all.
		Would you do it?
unidentified		No, I wouldn't.
		You see?
		Absolutely.
		Well, I would say this is an illegal act, right?
		No matter who installed it, it's an illegal act.
		But the claim here is that specifically it's being done to cover up the crimes of the Biden administration.
		I don't believe that.
		I'm actually...
		Ask you for evidence that's happening under their auspices, right?
		No, it is a suspect.
		It's an absolute suspect.
		And they should be arrested or charged with a crime or whatever.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		She is a Joe Biden hire.
unidentified		Eric Carr was appointed by Biden in January of 2021. Is she doing it on Biden's orders or anyone else's orders?
unidentified		Well, we know it's not Biden's orders because they have an open investigation of the autopists.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't think that has anything to do with what we're talking about.
unidentified		Well, but you're implying there's something nefarious going on.
		One, there is because they shouldn't be bringing the documents in the first place, right?
		But like that this is the deep state fighting back.
		So I don't know.
		Those are your words, not mine.
		Okay.
		I don't know what the motivation behind this is, right?
		So let's investigate that.
		Sure.
		I mean, I'm down for investigation, but isn't that what Doge is supposed to be doing, investigating?
		That's their whole job is to investigate ways to...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Honest question.
		Erica Carr previously worked in the Obama administration and was at the Office of Management and Budget.
		She was appointed by Joe Biden in 2021. She is now the acting executive secretary of USAID, and she sent an email instructing staff to shred and...
		I believe the email said something to prepare for burn.
		I don't think they're burning in the building.
unidentified		It was like, keep shredding, and when the shredders get tired, use the burn bags.
		It's extremely egregious.
		Here's the question.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's just, total honest, what could the possible motivation be for wanting to destroy classified documents?
unidentified		I have no idea.
		I'm not going to guess at that.
		Well, I mean, when they're doing it to hide it from Elon coming in and trying to, like, clean stuff up, it's clearly nefarious.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But to be fair, there's one potential.
		Is there any above-board normal reason?
		I'm asking this honestly.
unidentified		It's all nefarious.
		Again, I agree.
		Completely nefarious.
		And I'm not defending that at all.
		I'm saying that, like, but I'm looking at his claim, right?
		Like, it seems like you're claiming.
		And if you're not doing that, then I take back my words.
		If you're not claiming that this is from the Biden administration, if you're not claiming that they're acting on orders like previous loyalties, then I'm not saying that.
		I take it back because I have no idea what's going on.
		Well, I don't necessarily think it's on acting orders from the Biden administration.
		First of all, I have concerns about whether Biden's presidency is even legit after this Autopin scandal has come out.
		I mean, we'll have to see.
		But, like, yeah, you don't know about the Autopin thing.
		So basically, they found a bunch of documents recently that were all signed, and they have, like, when they were signed, we know for a fact he was in a different location.
		Some of them were the executive orders.
		Some were pardons.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Autopin is an online service where you can store a...
		Okay.
		And then we click sign and it'll automatically imprint the signature.
unidentified		Yeah.
		And so now that we know that...
		Is that illegal?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well...
		You know what?
		To be honest, Obama and Trump have both done it, but I think it should be illegal.
		The issue, as he pointed out, is there are questions of the location of Biden when some of these documents were signed.
unidentified		And his mental capability.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that is a broader argument, but I think the actual legal core you'd actually get in court is, hey, Joe Biden wasn't there.
		At the Oval Office, he was traveling when that document went out.
		Did he sign it through email?
		Like, what's going on?
unidentified		Well, I mean, that's...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Not to derail, to go back to where we were.
unidentified		So, yeah, back to where we were going with that.
		So my point is with that, we have Mike Johnson on file saying that Biden doesn't know what's going on.
		My point with this is I'm not going to sit here and go, oh, it's some sort of deep state, Biden, whatever.
		What I'm saying is I think that Erica Carr knows they've been doing nefarious things.
		They know there's doing illegal things, and this is what we call covering our ass.
		And she's over here burning things because she doesn't want Doge and covering it because they're firing all sorts of fraud all over the place.
		So we're going to find a little agreement here, right, and discuss this before.
		BID. It does have, like, actually do nefarious things, like, for the intelligence services.
		It's been used to undermine, like, various foreign countries, right?
		It goes in on the auspices of aid, but then it will, like, carry out intelligence operations.
		We already know this.
		But that doesn't mean, of course, it wasn't actually doing aid in other areas, right?
		But they were used as a tool to, well, do whatever, like the CIA wanted.
		No, we don't know what they're doing.
		That's the whole problem.
		Yeah, yeah.
		And so if that's what they're burning, again, I condemn it completely.
		You'll find no defense here.
		Well, so then you agree with me, Doge.
		No, why would I agree with Doge?
		Hold on.
		Did you forget the first half of this conversation?
		Well, you brought up the Inspector General.
		Yeah, when I talked about the Inspector General.
		Well, hold on.
		They were doing this because of Congress.
		It wasn't like the CIA was a rogue agency doing this, right?
		These were orders by the president.
		Like, hey, we want to do these operations within whatever country, right?
		These things were approved.
		This isn't actually corruption.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Which things were approved?
unidentified		I mean, like the operations from USAID, we have no, there is no, at least to my understanding, there's no evidence that these things were done by the CIA, on the CIA's own behalf, right, without the president knowing at the time.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I do think, though, I think the average person...
		Would not conclude that multi-administration or inter-admin agencies like the CIA are acting under the direct orders of the president who is currently in office?
		With the example being Chuck Schumer saying that the intelligence agencies have six waves from Sunday from getting back to Trump if Trump tries to change what they're doing?
		The implication, of course, is I think this is fairly widely accepted in foreign policy.
		The CIA has long-term operations that span decades.
		So every time a president comes in, the CIA gives a briefing to the president of current operations.
		That suggests largely that what the CIA and the other U.S. agencies are doing...
		They are not at the direction of the current administration.
unidentified		Okay, well, that current administration can cancel those.
		Oh, we don't like this operation.
		Is it going against our current policies?
		Then we can just dump that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think Trump was the first president to try to do that, and they impeached him for it.
unidentified		I don't know about that.
		I don't know about that claim, so you'll have to show me that it was because that Trump was trying to attack the intelligence.
		And to be clear, I'm not...
		I'm not defending the intelligence community, right?
		Absolutely not.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		My point is just that the Ukraine Burisma scandal is a really great example of something untoward is going on, and it was a CIA agent who filed the initial paperwork to trigger the Trump impeachment.
		And interestingly, YouTube, the man's name was Eric Charamella, and YouTube would delete any video that said his name.
		Facebook would take down any post that said his name.
		This is a fact.
		Twitter was the only platform, I believe, that would allow you to actually say the man's name.
		Right, right.
		And this was rooted in...
		Joe Biden, of course, engaged in an illegal quid pro quo with the president at the time.
		I believe it was Poroshenko.
		He said, if you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting the billion dollars.
		And Donald Trump made a phone call to, at the time, I think it was Zelensky.
		I'm not sure.
		No, no, was it?
		I don't know if it was Zelensky.
		But he made a call and said, what is this?
		What happened?
		I want to know what happened here.
		A CIA agent then blew the whistle, filing a report.
		I believe it was Alex Vindman.
		Took it up the chain, Congress got a hold of it, and they impeached Donald Trump over this for trying to stop what was a CIA operation.
		A CIA counterterrorism director was on the board of Burisma when Trump said, I want to know what Biden was doing here.
		They impeached him.
unidentified		Anyway, I digress.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		My point was simply, sorry, my point was simply, the CIA does not act underneath the president for my entire life until Donald Trump.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And only now, actually, and only to a certain degree because he's firing him.
unidentified		I don't know if that's the case.
		Again, I'm not defending the—this is a weird space to be in because I can't really defend intelligence agencies.
		I know they do all kinds of crazy shit.
		From an outside perspective, I can't tell at what points in time is the CIA more under control or less under control or the other agencies.
		Well, that's a problem.
		Well, yes, but that doesn't mean Doge is going to solve it.
		You brought up the Inspector General's earlier.
		If they were going to solve it, they've existed.
		How long is the Inspector General's office?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
unidentified		How does this solve it?
		We open up the books and see what they're doing.
		That's the whole point.
		First of all, I want an audit of all agencies.
		Everything.
		That I want.
		And we were already doing that.
		We already have processes to all these things.
		But whatever, right?
		Those processes aren't working.
		It's the whole point of Dozier.
		Then we can fix these processes.
		This is unconstitutional.
		We'll get back to that in a second.
		Hold your horses, buddy.
		We've got time.
		I don't know, again, from an outsider's perspective, the level of power these agencies have, or sorry, the intelligence agencies have at any point in time.
		So it's a weird space to try to be defending them, so let's kind of move past it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, I agree, I agree.
		My point was not to ignite a whole thing on the CIA. It was just to basically point out, I'll keep it flat.
		The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and all other, what, 14?
		They exist with the same leadership through multiple administrations, and that de facto means if they're going to launch an operation, it will start before Obama and extend after Obama.
unidentified		And you want continuity of operations, right?
		You don't want them to be—so it's a tough balance there, right?
		At some point, you want them to complete a mission once it's started, but also we want to adjust with the changing times, with the priorities, with the will of the people.
		So who knows, right?
		I mean, so, okay, well, moving on, I guess, I guess a related thing with this.
		You had told me five years ago.
		That someone was going to set up an organization to cut government bloat and government waste.
		I would have been...
		One, I would have been hesitant because, like I said, I'm a Texan.
		I don't trust big government.
		I don't want more organizations, more agencies.
		However, Doge has come in and they've immediately done what they said they were going to do.
		If you had told me five years ago that, hey, there's bloat, there's these things, I don't think anybody, left or right, would have disagreed.
		But now that Doge is actually uncovering the bloat and going through these things, it's like up in arms because my pork belly project has been...
		No.
		Doge is not actually uncovering the bloat.
		I mean, so there is a level of waste within any organization, no matter what, whether this organization, whether you have anything, private.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		None.
unidentified		Okay.
		All right.
		Maybe this guy's job.
		Maybe that's bloat.
		I'm sorry.
		I'm kidding.
		But no, there's always a level of waste within any organization, right?
		Is what Doge is doing, right?
		Are they reporting things correctly?
		Are they understanding how these contracts work?
		I think again and again we're seeing that they actually don't, right?
		So there's plenty of reports of the errors that Doge has had.
		Reports of them overestimating contracts, of them...
		Saying that they saved on a contract that was actually canceled under Joe Biden.
		There's been a whole list of errors.
		And then we have people just fact-checking these contracts.
		And they're shown that, yes, there's an inflated amount of savings that Doge is reporting.
		Yeah, I mean, to be fair to that, though, all right, so anytime you have a new organization come in and they go look at things, right?
		So, like, there's the story with Elon Musk and Twitter, right, where they had this server farm and they go in there and they're like, we can pull this out on Christmas.
		And him and two other guys go in there and pull it up and whatever.
		And everybody's like, oh, look how bad Twitter's doing.
		Well, you know, I mentioned Kevin O'Leary earlier.
		He mentions that, oh, okay.
		Twitter is back to like 60-70% the stock price of what it was originally before Elon bought it.
		That's as of yesterday, right?
		It was at $54 yesterday when it was closed.
		And so these added new features.
		The site was running smoothly after a few hiccups.
		So when I look at Doge, this is the exact same concept.
		You're going to go in.
		You are going to have mistakes because you are clearing things out.
		But then what they do is they will have the mistake and then they correct them.
		They actively had to be called out.
		They have to be called out and embarrassed about that question.
		Oh, no, no.
		Hold on.
		All right.
		So, for instance, the agency once claimed to have canceled contracts ended under President George W. Bush.
		The agency also wrongly reported canceled an $8 billion contract when it was only worth $8 million, right?
		This is not – I mean, I have more examples.
		This is not an isolated instance with this agency.
		But the thing is, though, what people like you will do is that they'll talk about, like, the Doge number, right?
		And what many news agencies report.
		The Doge number.
		So that's like $115 billion, I think, by now.
		If you can take a look at the Doge Wall of Receipts, right?
		They got a website.
		Oh, it's the debt clock.
		But you can take a look at the Doge Wall of Receipts.
		They do have a website.
		Yeah, $115 billion.
		That is not a believable number.
		It's not, right?
		Why?
		Because of all the errors that I'm talking about.
		So these are what they're reporting, but there's no—at this point, there's no reason to believe that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Now, there's others— You're saying that the Department of Government Efficiency is not efficient at all?
unidentified		Indeed.
		Indeed, I'd say that, right?
		Now, there's another website, all right, that you can also take a look, called Doge Tracker Muskwatch.
		I can get you the URL if you need it.
		I think it— Doge.muskwatch.com?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Indeed, yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Muskwatch.
unidentified		Yeah, take a look.
		All right?
		Got to watch out for President Musk, you know?
		Yeah.
		So, this takes a look and it looks at what's actually verified, like verified savings here, right?
		And it compares that to grants.
		Sometimes grants can't be verified.
		But this is actually doing the comparison.
		You can go down to, like, let's say, like the first USAID one, right?
		Like, yeah, right?
		That large bar, like, in the lower half.
		Yeah.
		Put the cursor back on the bar.
		So it says $144 million.
		Yeah, the overestimated savings.
		So it shows what Doge says it's saved and then what's actually saved.
		Now, this is an interesting website that I actually just discovered.
		Hold on.
		Let's look at this website real quick.
		So the last one.
		You go back to the last website if you don't mind real quick.
		Alright, so this says $115, $714.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're missing the mic.
unidentified		Oh, sorry.
		Can you hear me now?
		Yeah, okay.
		So it says $115 billion today, $714.29 per taxpayer.
		Let's go to this other site here.
		Back to the one that we were just on, if you don't mind.
		Alright, so on this one...
		What's crazy to me is when you look at these things, right?
		We have, at the bottom, you had the $254 million that was, like, not verified, is what you just said, I guess, what you had pulled up.
		And we have verified, canceled, 8.6 and 29.9.
		What's interesting to me is when Dems talk about taxing people, right?
		They're like, oh, we got to tax the billionaires.
		These are the ones we got.
		This is terrible.
		But when Doge makes these kind of cuts that actually save taxpayers hundreds of dollars every year, now we sit here and scream, reee!
		Okay, but it doesn't actually do it.
		What do you mean?
		So I'm going to ignore it.
		You don't know what you're saying, right?
		What do you mean?
		Taxpayer dollars being saved.
		Is that correct?
		Yes or no?
		I'm sorry.
		Repeat that, please.
		So your website's correct, right?
		These are the cuts you admit they've done.
		Yeah.
		All right.
		That means that's money that's been saved by the taxpayer that can be spent more officially.
		It depends, right?
		Were those things things that should have been canceled?
		We haven't actually established that.
		We're just assuming that Doge knows what should and shouldn't be canceled.
		Now, there could be things that you and I agree with, right?
		I'm sure we can find common ground on contracts that haven't canceled.
		Even if they're not something that should be canceled, it would still in theory save us money, correct?
		I don't care about just saving us money.
		I'm not a conservative.
		It doesn't matter to me that we simply save money.
		I want to use that money for important purposes, to actually run the government.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I just want to make sure this is clear.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's not necessarily a correction, but when we highlighted USAID cuts showing $244 million, that's actually just one component.
unidentified		One component.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's an O&M. Right, so I just want to make sure everyone understands.
		There's actually a bigger list of all the different USAID cuts.
		Here's another for $70 million.
		Here's another for $12 million.
		Oh, I'm sorry.
		It's overstated savings.
		Oh, okay.
		So they're saying terminated funding is $351 million, not...
		Wait, what?
		Oh, I'm sorry.
		I'm sorry.
		Okay.
		Let me clarify.
		Doge is claiming $595 million.
		They can verify $351 million was terminated.
		The overestimate was $244 million.
		So I read that wrong.
		So the first number on this must-tracker says, For USAID, O&M follow-on contract was $350 million saved.
		Just for example, there are a bunch of other USAID contract cuts.
		This one, for instance, was $12 million.
		Another was $70 million.
		And another was $9.8 million.
unidentified		This is pulling from government databases, right?
		So if you – so there's – So there's a Doge website, the Wall of Receipts, right?
		And on that website, for each of these council contracts, it sends you to what's called the Federal Procurement Data System, right?
		FBDS. If you click on one of those, right, you'll have no idea what you're looking at.
		It's not something designed for, like, regular, like, individuals.
		Like, click on the savings part or something?
		I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Which one?
unidentified		Why does it matter if it's not designed for regular individuals?
		No, it actually does matter.
		Because the point is, people are saying that this has been the epitome of transparency.
		But actually, if regular individuals can just look at this and say, I guess this is a savings, I guess this works out, but they actually can't tell.
		Have you met the average person, though?
		They can't tie their shoes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But real quick, additionally, we should point out that Verified cancelled funding and Doge claimed funding.
		Neither are falsifiable.
		Doge Tracker is saying, here's what we looked at what Elon said.
		We know this was cancelled.
		That doesn't mean...
		Elon is wrong, lying, or the numbers are not correct.
unidentified		Okay.
		Well, you'll see what I'm saying.
		So click on that, the USAID contract you were looking at before, right?
		Click on the bar itself.
		Yeah, yeah.
		And click it, click the link.
		So you see the FBDS, right?
		There's that.
		That's what you'll find on Doge, right?
		You'll take a look at this.
		This is like fucking inscrutable.
		But also, there's the USA spending website.
		So if you look at that, right?
		If you go back to the other one, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh, wait, hold on.
unidentified		Take a look.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So this is what the Doge tracker actually linked.
		It says that the Doge estimated savings is $595 million, but that's actually only $351 million, and it's claiming $244 is overstated.
		But when you actually click the link they provide, it says the base and all options value is $596 million.
unidentified		Exactly, yeah.
unidentified		So if we go to the USA spending, the other link there.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Click for links.
unidentified		I did.
		I mean, just while you're all doing this.
		Yeah, there you go.
		Do you agree that $351 million...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This is an important...
unidentified		Yeah, this is a much more readable version.
		So exactly what you're talking about before.
		There's the other options, right?
		Those options aren't exercise options.
		So there's...
		That's his potential award amount.
		Yeah, that's what's actually been...
		Because you have to actually learn to read this.
		I spent the time to actually learn to read this thing, right?
		So the current award amount, that's the amount that's already...
		Verified.
		Yeah, right.
		Yeah, the $556 million...
		That's options.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What they were going to get.
unidentified		If they exercise those options.
		And they were going to.
		Were they?
		Do you know that?
		So you can have an extension.
		So you can sign a contract.
		Wait, wait.
		Hold on.
		Come on.
		You can sign a contract, right?
		And then you can say, hey, I'm going to extend that contract.
		I have the options, right?
		To extend that option multiple times.
		And I'll get additional money for that.
		But if you don't extend those options, right?
		Because they might not need the money.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Are you joking?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I... I got to be honest, I kind of feel like you tried pulling a fast one.
unidentified		I didn't try pulling a fast one.
		I'm literally walking through the website.
		I'm not pulling a fast one.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They have an option to pull out.
		I do understand what you're saying, but the idea that an organization that has offered up an additional $250 million would be like, you know what?
		We decided we don't want it.
		We're not going to take it.
unidentified		Never happened in history.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, never happened in history.
unidentified		That absolutely happens all the time.
unidentified		What?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You do know that they sell $500 hammers to the Pentagon.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This was a big scandal.
unidentified		Yeah, $13,000.
		I am perfectly aware of that.
		I'm aware the Pentagon doesn't pass audits, right?
		The Marines do.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is that the Marines do?
unidentified		Yeah, the Marines passed an audit.
		That's crazy.
		Yeah, I am aware.
		That the Pentagon gets overcharged all the time, right?
		And other agencies actually get examined and run in a different manner, right?
		Like, the Social Security Administration doesn't have the same amount of waste and bloat as the Pentagon.
		We can understand these things are treated differently.
		The whole Social Security is bloat, but go ahead.
		It's not all bloat.
		I mean, obviously, like, this is important.
		This is a useful...
		Hold on.
		You realize...
		I can't let this one go.
		You know what the Social Security...
		If I invested my tax dollars that I spent that would go towards Social Security, the same amount exactly in the S&P fund or a mutual fund, my return would be drastically higher.
		You understand that, right?
		So basically Social Security is boning the American out of their money.
		People don't say it that way.
		We have to actually design a system for people.
		People, I wish people.
		Why is that our problem?
		Why is that a problem?
		Because I care about a fellow man and woman.
		That's why.
		So do I, but this is the difference between, I guess, you and me on this, right?
		We voted for Doge to come in and clear this stuff out, right?
		We see these things as wasteful.
		We see these times.
		Like, I can't tell you how many times I know people that are working three jobs that are going, why am I getting taxed so much?
		And it's going to pay people that are just, you know, living off the teat of society.
		And Doge is part of the answer to that.
		They're going in and clearing stuff out.
		Listen by your numbers, right?
		Let's just take your numbers at the $351 million mark.
		That's a ton of money.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, hold on.
		This is interesting.
		I'm trying to figure out what these phrases actually mean.
unidentified		There's a glossary that you can check out, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay, we'll do that.
		But just let me ask your perspective on this.
		Current award amount, that means they did give $352 million to this organization.
		Wouldn't that then mean that there is still yet to be paid $250 million?
unidentified		Only if they exercise those...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We don't know the terms of the contract.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So you can't make that assumption.
unidentified		Yeah, and they can't make the assumption either.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If they say, currently we have given $350 million to them, the argument would be, we didn't actually save $350 million.
		It's inverted.
		The Musk tracker has it backwards.
		Elon Musk saved us $250 million because they've already given $350 million to this organization.
unidentified		I'm saying those...
unidentified		Options aren't, haven't been exercised.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's the savings.
unidentified		So here's the issue.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right, so let's put it this way.
		If an organization, let's just round these numbers up so we can get simple.
		We'll make it simple.
		USAID, screw it.
		Let's just say, government organization gives $600 million contract to be paid out.
		Elon Musk says, terminate that contract.
		They say, okay, we've already given them $350 million.
		You can't save money that's already given away.
		However, the remaining $250 that has yet to be dispersed when the contract is canceled, that $250 stays in the account.
		If that is correct, it appears that the number is overstated because Elon is including in the savings money they already gave away.
		My point is this.
		The Doge tracker has the number backwards.
		When it says terminated funding $351 and the overstated savings is $244, that's incorrect.
unidentified		Oh, I see what you're saying.
unidentified		I see what you're saying.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right, so the actual savings is the money we did not give.
unidentified		I see what you're saying.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The money we already gave is gone.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah, fair enough, fair enough.
unidentified		No, I got you, I got you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If that's what it means, otherwise I'm trying to understand, like, what are they saying here?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Fair enough, fair enough.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Unless it means the current award amount is the government saying, we will, over the next 10 years, give you $352 million, and then potentially we could give you more, if that's what it means.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So here's what it says.
		I looked it up.
		The current award, yeah, yeah, okay, so your website does have it backwards.
		It's actually worse.
		This is a point for you.
		You should do this.
		The current award represents the amount that has already been awarded to a recipient.
		It includes obligated funds, meaning the government has committed to paying this amount under an existing contract or grant.
		Okay, so it doesn't mean they already gave it.
		Potential award represents the maximal possible funding that could be awarded over the life of the contract or grant.
		It includes both the current award amount and any future options, modifications, or extensions that may be exercised.
		So they did not give the $350 million.
		The problem then becomes, how much did they give?
		Did they give $921,000?
unidentified		Obligated is what they paid.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So then I think this is arguing semantics.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Elon's going to cite the higher number.
unidentified		I have a specific example.
		Let's take one second.
		Obligated is what's promised, and then outlay, I think, is actually what's been paid.
		I'm just learning this literally last night.
		But you can look through the glossary, and it'll tell you which one's which.
		I don't want to...
		Get false information, but go ahead.
		So, yeah, I brought this up with you the other day.
		In San Antonio, we're having exactly the situation you just described, Mr. Poole.
		In San Antonio, they just shut down a migrant facility, right?
		It was an overflow facility that's been used twice for like three months total, I think, whatever.
		It was costing us $15 million a year, and they canceled the contract, right?
		So it's a potential loss or whatever.
		It was $15 million a year.
		I think it's 200, so it equals that, 215 million total a year or something around that.
		And then it equals about 1.1 billion since 2001.
		And there's non-profits posting record profits and all sorts of crazy stuff.
		And so it's gotten bipartisan support locally because it's barely been used and whatnot.
		And so basically they canceled the contract and I guess that's potential savings.
		That fits exactly the criteria you're describing in this kind of case is when they're going in there, cleaning out bloat.
		Yeah, sure.
		I love it.
		So, when Tim's ready, hopefully...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, go ahead.
		I think our original assessment of what this was was correct.
		They have not yet awarded...
		Okay, so awarded means we signed a deal.
		So, you know, you say to me, if you give me a million dollars, I will write a beautiful poem for you.
		And then I say, okay, but I want more than one.
		And you say, then we'll do this.
		After the first year, we'll include an option for me to make another poem for you for another million, and then another year we'll do this again.
		The question is, who has the option rights is the important thing.
		If the recipient of the funds says, we want the option, that means that money is basically committed.
		If the U.S. government says, we want the option, which tends to be more likely, in most contract deals, the person paying.
		We'll say we want to retain the option to re-up or cancel as opposed to the person doing the work.
		So it would seem that the thing about this is obviously Elon's going to stress we saved all of the potential money.
		But if it was an option held by the government, then...
		I suppose it's semantics.
		It really is semantics.
unidentified		I don't know that it is semantics, though.
		I just brought up that facility.
		That's $215 million a year.
		It's been used six months since 2021. Since 2021, that's a billion dollars.
		Let's just take six months out of that, or eight months.
		I don't care.
		We can take a year out.
		If we can pull up Endeavor San Antonio, that's what we're talking about.
		Let's just say they take out a full year.
		What's specifically about it?
		basically they're spending 15 mil a month to keep a cold facility open and they're saying that's what it costs to open this, like bring it back at any given time.
		We have to have 15 million a month.
		So they shut it down.
		So that's 215 million a year.
		Let's just say they had it open and used it for a full year, which they didn't, but let's just say Oh, you're talking about the facility that's 18 million per month.
		Yeah, 18 million a month.
		That one, yes.
		Sorry.
		So 15 should be 18.
		This one, exactly.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It was reportedly shut down because of inhumane conditions or something to that effect.
unidentified		No, because it wasn't being used.
unidentified		No, it was shut down because it wasn't being used.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There were numerous, the reason it wasn't being used was because, I don't know, this is what...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'll look it up, but apparently...
unidentified		I haven't heard anything about that.
unidentified		I'm local, but I will say...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The conditions were considered to be subpar.
unidentified		Well, that makes it even worse, but without even factoring that in, right?
		Let's just say for...
		It wasn't subpar, and let's just say it was used as it was supposed to be for one year, right?
		Full year, $215 million per year, right?
		That's a lot of money to the average taxpayer, and when you save that over a...
		That's a billion dollars in three years.
		You act like a billion dollars in three years.
		One closing isn't a massive amount.
		We can't judge these in the sense of individuals' pocketbook.
		Yes, all this money.
		Absolutely we can't.
		No, we actually can't.
		Because in all the numbers when we're talking about government are massive.
		To fund anything is a massive amount, right?
		So that in itself doesn't tell us whether something is worth spending on or not, right?
		Whether you should cut it or not, right?
		We actually have to judge these on the utility that's being processed.
		Sure, and this is a prime example of waste.
		So I don't know.
		So I'd like to...
		No, it's not a prime example.
		Tim, I haven't heard about the inhumane...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, let me fact check that guy.
unidentified		I'm not sure about that.
		So, yeah.
		I'll wait for that kind of evidence.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay, no, we got it.
		We got it.
		I got it.
		Since March of 2024, HHS was paid $18 million per month to keep the facility in Pecos, Texas, used for housing unaccompanied migrant children.
		That was previously at the center of reports of poor conditions.
		That's what they said.
unidentified		Okay, well...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I don't know if that's the reason why they stopped using it.
unidentified		So hold on.
		Look at the sentence before.
		As a result, family – this is the big controversy, right?
		As a result, Family Endeavor's cash portfolio investments grew for $8.3 million in 2020 to $520 million in 2023. So what – yeah.
		That is sus.
		No, it's not at all.
		It's not at all sus.
		They got money from a contract.
		That's not at all sus.
		Why would that be sus?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It doesn't make sense because nobody's using it.
unidentified		No, hold on.
		All right.
		We understand.
		I know, Tim, you understand migration flows, right?
		Migration flows aren't constant.
		So there are some times, and we've seen this, right?
		When migration has skyrocketed, right?
		Because they were bringing them in.
		Okay, whatever.
		I love the Gibbs.
		So it skyrocketed, right?
		And we've had a ton of facilities filled up to the brim, right?
		To the point, and you might remember this, Tim, when there was within Texas, right, we were housing migrants under a bridge.
		Because, yeah, yeah, exactly.
		Yeah, it was entirely too much.
		And so we didn't have enough facilities.
		So what this is doing, right?
		So yes, this was an empty facility.
		But we understand that we don't know when those migration flows are going up.
		They were being paid to keep that facility open, right?
		So when it does go up, we have a place to put the kids.
		And if you want to complain, right, about the bad treatment of migrants, oh, I agree, right?
		We treated them far worse than I think anything in this facility is probably done.
		We remember the reports, right?
		We remember the reports of what happened to those.
		We remember the sexual abuse.
		We remember the freaking guy who was...
		Castrating them.
		But he was like sterilizing women, right?
		There was a doctor who was sterilizing women who were trapped in the immigration jails before.
		We understand, yes, the federal government treats people badly.
		But specifically talking about this contract, this contract is actually useful because we want to hold that space.
		I don't want to dive too much into immigration because that's not...
		Oh, no, no, but you brought this up.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Immigration is effectively zero now, right?
unidentified		That's where I was going to go with that.
		We have had a record number of catches on the border.
		They're having record numbers of not gotaways, right?
		Because one, Abbott went down there and built the wall.
		And two, Trump has backed them up.
		And it's proof that, hey, this is kind of how it relates to Doge, is it's proof that the government could have stepped in and done these things if they had wanted to, right?
		And so then when we see this facility, this is clearly a fleece because they could have shut down the immigration because Trump's done it.
		And then we could have shut down.
		That's a bullshit.
		Hold on, hold on.
		Do we have a caravan coming?
		Not anymore because the wall's up.
		Because the wall is up.
		The wall hasn't changed.
		What are you talking about?
		Hold on.
		Did Trump suddenly build a massive amount of wall in the time sense?
		Oh, okay.
		So, yeah, but...
		Even when that was happening, we saw massive amounts of people trying to come in.
		And we also saw in the areas where the wall was built in locations like Eagle Pass, it went from 1,500 a day to three in a week.
		Yeah, so your point is, yes.
		So what I'm saying is we can stop it, and then we do stop it, and then we have these facilities that are just a freeze.
		All you're saying is that migrants can't become intangible, right?
		They're not X-Men.
		They're not Kitty Pryde, right?
		They're not intangible.
		And so when they find a wall, right, they try to go around that wall or they try to look for a witness in that wall.
		How has it been stopped completely then?
		Because we do have people coming up here.
		Like, I don't understand what your argument is here.
		It's like not a good one.
		It hasn't been stopped completely.
		I'm saying that if there's – sorry.
		If there's another – I keep hitting the mic.
		I apologize.
		If there's another crisis that happens, right, like within some Central or South American country, right?
		There's always a crisis.
		There's a crisis right now.
		Venezuela.
		Migration comes in waves.
		We know this, right?
		It comes a different way.
		Under each administration, right?
		Under the Obama administration, the Trump administration, the Biden administration, and then again during the Trump administration, there's going to be another surge.
		It happens all the time.
		And when that happens, the question is, what do we do about them?
		Do we actually prepare, right?
		Do we understand context?
		Do we understand history?
		It's like, oh, well, last time this happened, this was a huge problem.
		We don't have any place to put these goddamn kids, right?
		So, or do we, can we have a place available at that time?
		It's actually a tiny amount of money. - Well, two things, two things to this objection, One, we've stopped it.
		It's proved that we can stop it.
		Hold on.
		What does we've stopped it mean, though?
		The Texas government and then on top of that...
		There are other places to go in.
		What Trump has done nationwide, we've seen record numbers of catches nationwide.
		We've proved he can stop it.
		That doesn't stop people from coming.
		I didn't even factor in what Mr. Poole here brought up about the inhumane things, but if it was inhumane, that's definitely one that should be shut down.
		But two, why are we going to have a facility that we clearly didn't need because we could have stopped it from the get-go?
	And then when we get there, it's not even used.
	How can you justify $8 million a month to bring something from coal to whatever?
	We don't know.
	What I do know is I know how businesses work.
	This isn't a business.
	This is a government.
	Family Endeavors, right?
	Whenever I look at a business and they're charging $18 million a month to keep a facility open because they've got to keep it from coal.
	All right, what do they have to do?
	Okay, maybe you have to replace medicine.
	Okay, how much can that cost?
	Let's just say it costs a mil to replace medicine.
	It's not just a medicine.
	How many employees are you paying that are doing this?
	Let's say another three mil for all these employees.
	There's no way you could justify 18 mil a month.
	It's a fleece.
	It's a corruption.
	Also, there's the potential.
	Okay, look.
	I'm not going to necessarily go through and defend a contract.
	I don't know the exact details of, right?
	But there's also the potential of that space, right?
	So not only are they...
	Potential?
	Yeah, because if they weren't...
	Are we spending money on the potential?
	If they weren't...
	Yeah, actually, no.
	Of course you are.
	Of course you are.
	Why wouldn't a business charge for that, right?
	Right?
	If Tim...
	It's insanity.
	Sure.
	If Tim is told that someone wants to use his studio, right?
	But they're not sure when.
	But they are going to use it at some point in time, right?
	And Tim's like, okay, well, I guess I'll let you use the studio.
	But I could be using this to do work.
	I could be using this to make money, right?
	So what I'm going to charge you for this is the price of the studio maintenance in and of itself and what I might be able to make, right?
	Like a nominal rate for what I might be able to make otherwise.
	Otherwise, he's losing money because he doesn't know when that contract is actually going to come in.
	Obviously, you know business.
	Right?
	You know business until you know this.
	Yeah, but they're overcharging.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
		I respect the point you're making.
		I'll try and give an analogy.
		If I were to rent out my studio, we've got personnel who have to be on site to run and fix the cameras.
		So if someone said, we don't know exactly when, but we're going to need to use that studio.
		And I say, okay, well, when is when?
		I mean, what do you want from us?
		Just keep it open.
		Well, if you want me to keep it open, we need facilities maintenance.
		That means somebody to check the plumbing.
		And you've got to be there every day, and they have to have a clipboard where they go to every single room and write down, is the water working, are the pipes frozen, whatever might happen.
		We have to check the cameras every single day, because if you want to be able to use it on a dime, on a moment's notice, we have to check the cameras and do all that every single day.
		We're going to have to have a minimal skeleton crew who's there.
		For a larger facility, it's probably going to be two people.
		So for this facility, we need at least two people.
		One person in the studio at all times, one person walking the grounds.
		People will steal things.
		And you're going to have to pay us every single month to maintain that.
		I think the bigger issue is this is interconnected to clearly the Biden administration was allowing illegal immigration and then offering up facilities money to operate.
unidentified		Absolutely.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But I'm not arguing an opinion.
		I'm saying they did allow this.
		Biden is quoted as saying surge the border.
unidentified		He said that.
		He told the immigrants to surge the border.
		That's a direct quote.
		Yeah, hold on.
		First of all, I love the context of that quote.
		But Kamala Harris literally went out.
		The borders are.
		Yeah, the borders are.
		I don't want to even defend Kamala Harris.
		To be clear, I'm not a fan of the Joe Biden administration, right?
		But in any case, Kamala Harris actually went to Central America and talked about, hey, don't come.
		Remember this, right?
		The don't come moment.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		CNN reports from Andrew Kaczynski, Joe Biden promised to absorb 2 million asylum seekers in a heartbeat.
		In 2019, he now faces an...
		Sure.
		The question is, why were they paying to keep a facility open?
		They could have just said, we're not letting people in.
		And if they knew that they were facing an immigration crisis and shutting the border down, they could have shut those facilities down.
unidentified		International treaties, right, to say that, like, if a person presents themselves at a border, right, or even not at the border, at two government officials, like, we have to process them.
		That's international.
		That's actually part of the law.
		It's not like you just shut it down.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I know that that's true.
unidentified		I mean, you're talking about the asylum treaty.
		One, that's a whole different thing.
		But, like, on top of that, like, one, I'm also— That's not a whole different thing.
		That's part of this, right?
		People are claiming asylum because they're, like— They're claiming asylum.
		Yes, actually, we have to process them.
		We're legally obligated to process those people.
		Yeah, we're not obligated to process them here.
		We can process them at the embassies.
		We can process them there.
		And on top of that, people are claiming asylum because of gang violence.
		Like, I'm sorry, that's not a real reason for asylum.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So they're prohibited from being under the Refugee Act of 1980 and the 1951— Well, that's crazy.
unidentified		You can process them anywhere, sure, right?
		But that doesn't...
		Some of them will end up being processed here.
		And also, the immigration doesn't happen straight through the border, right?
		Because we get immigration from all kinds of sources.
		But the point is that we are supposed to process them somewhere, right?
		And I want them to do it humanely.
		And you're bringing up the humane point.
		The U.S. doesn't treat any of these goddamn prisoners humanely, right?
		Our citizen prisoners, we don't treat humanely.
		That's something that we should change.
		I'm curious, will Doge deal with that?
		But that's a larger issue, right?
		That doesn't go to say that any individual contract dealing with these things is necessarily a problem.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There's something called the Safe Third Country Agreement.
		Individuals are not required in the United States to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.
		However...
		They can be denied, found ineligible if they do pass through safe countries without seeking protection.
unidentified		Interesting.
		Yeah, administration identifies quote-unquote safe countries that they can...
		So if you're coming up...
		There's no safe countries in all of Central America.
		I mean, to be honest.
		I mean...
		Well, relative.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Mexico's pretty good, but that's still North America.
unidentified		Well, even then, Mexico, right?
		Migrants, like, staying in...
		I guess anything Central America is technically...
		Oh, my God.
		I love Mexico.
		Okay.
		Well, I'm sure you would love Mexico, right?
		A man of money, right?
		Who, like, who can...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bro, bro, bro, hold on there.
unidentified		My dad's illegal.
unidentified		Oh, I'm sorry.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Have you been to Mexico?
		You do not need to be a man of money.
		People go to Mexico specifically because the medical care is cheaper.
unidentified		It's probably...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's why I love Mexico.
unidentified		You went to Mexico because the...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Medical treatment.
unidentified		Really?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Because you get medical treatment that's not legal in the United States, and it's like a tenth of the cost.
		So family members of mine get all their dental work done in Mexico.
		Not only is it like a tenth of the cost, but they have advanced technology.
		They do blood platelet treatment.
		I don't know what it's called.
		After you get dental work done, they take some of your plasma, they spin it in a centrifuge, take the concentrated platelets, and inject it at the site to increase healing.
		Mexico is awesome.
		And they have Buffalo Wildwood.
unidentified		Also, on that note, just real quick, I will say Mexico, they also have drive-through pharmacies, which are pretty cool.
		You can go in there and tell them what you want.
		So if you wanted to get the gear or whatever, it's legal there, you get a prescription.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bro, Mexico is, you can get really, really incredible food.
		Like, I gotta tell you, man, the reason why people go to Tijuana and Cancun places is because you can live well for very little money.
		Like, you can get...
unidentified		Same thing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's amazing.
unidentified		My point is, is that your situation is different.
		You want, when you're in Mexico, right, I'm assuming you're not desperate for housing.
		I'm assuming you're not on the streets.
		People coming, migrants coming through to Mexico.
		Get abused all the time, right?
		That's not our problem.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's true, though.
		He's right.
		Yeah, they get abused.
unidentified		Yeah, they get abused.
		But it's not our problem.
		I hate to sound like a dick.
		Like, it's America has its own problems.
		No, Gibbs, Gibbs, I know.
		You don't actually give a damn about anyone else, right?
		Sure.
		But for the rest of us, right?
		For the people who actually have humanity, we actually do care about these people, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I disagree with that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think you're evil.
unidentified		Oh, okay.
unidentified		Thank you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But I'm not trying to be mean or rude or whatever.
		I think that there is a banality of evil in let us...
		We entice people to travel from, say, Africa to Brazil, up through some of the most dangerous parts of the world.
		What's that corridor in Panama that's considered one of the most dangerous places in the world?
		We have children, young girls being raped mercilessly because people like you are saying, please, you can make it.
		Come, come, come.
		And then what happens?
unidentified		No.
unidentified		I brought that up before.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They end up sleeping under bridges.
		They end up getting sold into sex trafficking.
		Yes, this is true.
		Dr. Phil reported this on The View.
		How about we say, you will not be granted anything from us.
		Stop trying to make this perilous journey.
unidentified		Sure.
		That's an option, Tim.
		That's an option, right?
		Or we could do the thing that I'm actually in favor of, right?
		And have more legal migration.
		These people want to come here.
		Let's have more open legal paths.
		I am not in favor of undocumented immigration.
		It's a problem on all levels.
		The humanitarian level, just as you've laid out, but also logistically in terms of cost.
		There's a certain level of burden that happens when you're dealing with undocumented immigrants.
		Let me just ask this one.
		No, don't add.
		Don't add yet.
		One second.
		I love the Gibbs, right?
		Go ahead.
		Gibbs and I know each other in case the audience doesn't know that.
		Gibbs and I know each other.
		But in any case— But they're not friends.
		Not while we're working.
		Amen.
		But in any case—but no, we should actually have legalized immigration, right?
		We want people to be documented.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Explain—like, do you have a view of the structure of the immigration you'd want to see?
unidentified		I would rather—I'm not going to go exactly because I'm not an immigration lawyer, so I'm going to be clear, right?
		But in any— In any of the various paths that we use, because there's all kinds of paths that you can go up to.
		Increase the numbers.
		If there is quotas, if there is barriers of entry for people coming here to work, let's lower those barriers.
		I agree with you on all that.
		I want a secure border, but I also want work.
		One of my best friends is a former illegal alien.
		He's legal now.
		This man's living the American dream.
		This is also why I'm against welfare.
		This man works three minimum wage jobs.
		He just bought his first home.
		He just bought a Porsche.
		And he's getting married to a large American woman.
		And he's like, oh, Gibbsy, I have made the American dream.
		I'm going to have kids and all these things.
		And I'm like, this guy, what is your excuse when you're working?
		He's working three jobs.
		He's illegal.
		Yeah, I want more of these people that want to come work.
		A lot of them are people living off the welfare.
		This guy's sitting here.
		You're going to work 60, 80 hours a week, and you're going to make it.
		You can do that doing anything.
		They're not living off.
		There are absolutely people living off the welfare.
		There's always going to be some level of people using government help.
		There's going to be some level of people, including our own citizens, using government help.
		But the point is, if what you're talking about...
		But why can this guy do it and millions of Americans can't?
		Like, I'm absolutely full of legal immigration.
		Stop moving the goalposts.
		I'm not moving the goalposts.
		No, you've actually moved it.
		It's the same goalposts.
		No, it's not.
		So what we're talking about is people getting in, the process of getting in.
		And do we want, like, what that process should look like?
		Now, I can agree with you that we should have a...
		Quote-unquote secure border, right?
		Because like I just said, I'm not for undocumented immigration, right?
		I want people to come the proper way.
		And if that comes along with a stronger border fence, like whatever, fine, right?
		Because I don't want people to make that dangerous journey, right?
		I want them to be able to come in here in a legalized manner, of course, right?
		And so in that case, maybe we can find common ground, right?
		We want them to come here and then to be able to work, right?
		We want to lower the barriers.
		There's a lot of Republicans that will agree with that.
		Great.
		Tim, do you agree?
		Sorry, like having more legalized immigration, right, in terms of people here coming to work to be productive, of course, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Short answer, no.
		Long answer is it's not – the simple question of do we want an easier path, there's way too many factors in the labor market to say more or less.
		So it's overly simplistic to say let's make it easier for people to immigrate here.
		Oh, hold on.
		What's the unemployment rate?
		This is an important question.
		When we determine whether or not we're going to make immigration easier or harder, we have to check our current economic factors.
		There are certain times where we may want more.
		There are certain times where we may want less.
		And there's a whole bunch of different types of visas.
		So the one thing we don't want, the one thing we do want to happen right now is all illegal immigrants gotta go.
		All illegal immigrants gotta go.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, Donald Trump, in his first term, had a raid on numerous food processing plants in the South.
		I think it was something like ICE raids led to 700 or 800 deportations.
		The collective narrative from the corporate press and prominent Democrats was, these are jobs Americans don't want.
		Literally within a day, there were lines out the door of people trying to get these jobs.
		And when they interviewed people, one guy said, it pays more money than where I worked at the gas station.
unidentified		I'm so glad you brought this up.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So the issue is, first...
		Legal immigration is fantastic, and I'm a big fan.
		And I think, as Trump said, we want everybody in the world to come here, but they got to do it legally.
		So the response we get typically from Democrats is, so we should make it easier.
		But that still doesn't address the, we need to make sure we have the appropriate unemployment number.
		Many people don't understand this.
		I learned this only in the past few years.
		We want unemployment to be around 3% and 4%, and it's currently just at 4%.
		It could be lower.
		The reason why is, no unemployment.
		It means that a company who's looking to fill a position can't find someone to fill it because literally everybody has a job.
		So there's a degree of unemployment that actually is not a bad thing.
		If unemployment is high, no immigration.
		If unemployment is low, then we need immigration.
unidentified		What sounds like you're saying is that you're looking for a dynamic system, right?
		That actually adjusts the current conditions, right?
		If there is slack within the labor market that's not being filled by Americans, you'd say, let's maybe increase the amount of immigrants coming in, right?
		If there's not slack, then we put a pause on it.
		Does that sound fair, like a fair assessment of the argument?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		To simplify a dynamic system that fluctuates year over year, I think that's what we do.
unidentified		I want to talk a little bit about what you just brought up with the ag workers and whatnot, because I directly work in ag, right?
		And my family has worked with immigrants their entire lives in regards to ranching.
		I have some of my fondest memories of getting fresh tortillas from, in fact, still my favorite food today, tortillas with butter on them, right?
		That's like some of the immigrants.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Have you ever had a tortilla right off the press from a family Mexican restaurant?
unidentified		Yeah, it's amazing.
		I'm Jake Masa myself, so I'm a big fan.
		But when we're sitting here and we're talking about these things, the Democrats, not you, Prime, but the Democrats as a party, as a general, are arguing for what amounts to modern-day slavery, right?
		They're arguing, oh, all these costs are going to go up with agriculture if we replace these immigrants.
		Well, that's fine because the free market is going to fill it with American workers or legal immigrant workers because that's who should be getting the job.
		Some prices might go up, but wages will go up.
		Instead, what we're doing is we're having illegal immigrants here working in ag and we're underpaying the living shit out of them.
		And they're driving the cost down for everybody.
		And that's hurting mom and pop ranchers way more than anything else.
		I agree.
		We should have these people documented and then paying them a proper wage so they're not undermining American workers.
		I agree.
		We should have more legal immigration.
		Now, Tim, I don't know about this particular situation that you're talking about.
		I'm going to take your word for it, right?
		In terms of this factory or whatever, this processing plant.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It was a big story like five, six years ago.
unidentified		I'm sorry.
		I'm unfamiliar.
		What I have seen is testimonials on the other side, like farm workers or whatever, farm owners, saying the opposite, that they don't have people to fill in these.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'll give you a simple one.
		I don't care, Margaret.
		If a farm worker says we can't convince Americans to do the jobs, then you need to find a way to do it.
		That's called the market.
		I'm a big fan of Trump's tariffs, and I'm a big fan of companies having to pay a living wage.
		So this argument of nobody wants to do this job.
		Here's a question for you.
		Would you go and pick grapes in Virginia?
		They've got a lot of wineries.
		Would you do that for $7 an hour?
unidentified		Uh, no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But an illegal immigrant would.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Would you do it for 12 bucks an hour?
unidentified		Uh, no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Would you do it for 20?
unidentified		Uh, probably not.
		There's a number.
		Obviously, there's a number.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, 50?
unidentified		Yeah, yeah, 50. Sure.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		50 bucks an hour, you take the job.
unidentified		Broke as shit.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hey, guess what?
		The problem we have is these people who are going, I can't convince anybody to do it.
		What they're really telling you is I want to exploit poor people who will go on perilous journeys and work illegally.
unidentified		I hear you.
		We agree.
		On Santa.
		Again, we keep saying we agree, right?
		If we're saying that we want more legal immigration – or sorry, you're not saying that.
		You're not quite saying that, right?
		But I'm saying at least I want these people who are working here to be documented, be legalized.
		And then that's the path for it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I agree with that too.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		All right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But I think – the reason why I didn't say yes or no to the should we increase or decrease is it really depends on the current levels of unemployment.
		And the other concern is the cultural concern.
		When you—and look, it's weird that this is even debated, but when you have a large influx of migrants, you see this in every single country, you get cultural displacement, which leads to conflict.
		And that is not a good thing.
unidentified		Oh, boy.
unidentified		All right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's a fact.
unidentified		We've been lucky here in North America with our immigration where it's very similar.
		We haven't had as much of that problem.
		Maybe it's because we have the Spanish who used to own Mexico and all this, and the culture is similar.
		We've been lucky with it in regards to that.
		Our cultures are fairly similar compared to, say, Europe where they're having vastly different cultures move in.
		I don't think it's the same problem except on a mass scale.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'll give you a specific example because I went to Sweden, and this was like a big thing that I did.
		In the 90s, Sweden brought in a bunch of refugees from Somalia.
		They did not have proper placement plans.
		They literally just said, have fun, figuratively.
		And what ended up happening was, well, what does a refugee, migrant, or otherwise do?
		They would prefer to live near people like themselves.
		This is true for any human anywhere.
		You can see it in places like Chicago.
unidentified		Chinatown.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
		And so what ends up happening is the children of these Somali refugees were born in Sweden.
		They do not know Somalia.
		If they go and visit Somalia, they're called Swedes and they have a weird accent.
		In Sweden, they're called migrants despite being born there.
		And so they end up creating enclaves where the culture is dramatically different.
		And Swedish people consider the things they do to be criminal, but the police can't go and enforce it because you've got a dense population of tens of thousands of individuals.
		I'll give you an example in the United States.
		You can shake your head no, but in the United States we have a female genital mutilation problem in Michigan because of the large Muslim population that comes.
		To them, it is culturally normal to engage in female circumcision.
		In the United States, we call that mutilation.
unidentified		Sure, yes, and they have to follow the laws of the United States.
		But they don't.
		Yeah, but then they should be arrested.
		Then they should be arrested.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So you are saying that state police in Michigan should go into Dearborns that are arresting these groups that are practicing these traditions?
unidentified		If an individual does female genital mutilation, yes, they should arrest an individual.
		Not go in and simply arrest large groups of people on suspicion that they've done female genital mutilation.
		Do you disagree that large migrants can cause unrest, though, as a concept?
		Hold on.
		Let's, like, I want to recenter, right?
		Because I don't know.
		I honestly actually don't know how long this show is.
		We have an hour.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Real quick, my point was cultural displacement.
		So one of the concerns we have on the right is if you have 100 people who like baseball and every year they vote to allocate tax funds to a baseball game and you bring in 101 people who play cricket.
		When it comes to a vote, cricket is going to win, and the people who are from there get angry and it leads to conflict.
unidentified		Yeah, so within our own country, right, there are people who like baseball and there are people who like basketball, right?
		Let's say some people who like basketball are from New York, and they come to Florida where people like baseball.
		And then from there, you can see there's cultural displacement.
		Yeah, that happens when we have migrant flows, right?
		And all of a sudden, we have a conflict.
		That happens with an internalized movement, and it happens with externalized movement.
		That's understandable.
		I don't know what happens when new people get a common contact with each other, but that's okay.
		That's the thing that can happen, and the U.S. is actually uniquely capable of doing this, right?
		We have been taking immigrants—a country of immigrants—we've been taking immigrants from the very beginning.
		We're actually very good with onboarding immigrants compared to a lot of those European countries.
		But in any case, right, I actually do want to pull it back because we— I'll pull it back.
		Sure.
		Yeah, again, agreed.
		Is that a real thing?
		Unconstitutional genital mutilation?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		U.S. law banning female genital mutilation declared unconstitutional.
unidentified		That's insanity.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is this from seven years ago?
unidentified		Well, then I disagree.
		Sure, sure.
		I disagree with that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Federal judge in Detroit.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		See, here's the issue.
unidentified		I don't care.
		I don't care.
		I would really like that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You don't care that they did that?
unidentified		No, hold on.
		I do care about female genital mutilation.
		I've already said that, right?
		But in terms of this actual court case, right?
		Yes, I agree with you.
		Assuming that you're giving this story correctly, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		I just pulled it up.
		I didn't read it.
unidentified		Oh, okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let me ask you a question.
		They're not gotchas.
		It's a literal question.
		Do you think that gender identity should be protected?
unidentified		Oh my god, no.
		Sorry.
		I want to talk about Doge.
		I want to talk about Doge.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I get there.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		In the context of this, I have a series of questions to ask you.
unidentified		I don't...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you can say no opinion, no comment.
unidentified		I'm not prepared for female gender mutilation.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm not going to ask you about female gender mutilation.
unidentified		Or gender theory or whatever.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm not going to ask you about gender theory.
unidentified		I don't want to talk about it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So no comment.
unidentified		Not on that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Come back.
unidentified		Invite me back, and I'll have that conversation with you.
unidentified		I'm not going to have a conversation right now.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'll explain the issue as to migration, as we are talking about it, which correlates with the San Antonio Endeavor facility, the waste of money, and the Biden administration allowing people in.
		In Michigan, of course, a judge ruled that, at six years old, that the ban on female genital mutilation was unconstitutional.
		Someone in this country might ask themselves, how is it possible that a judge would declare such a thing?
		So the reason I bring up human rights law, and you don't got to answer it, whatever, is that in New York City, they say that gender identity is defined as self-expression, meaning the name you give yourself, the pronouns you use, and the clothing you wear, no matter what it may be.
		Well, this literally means...
		That an individual could dress up like a cowboy and call himself cowboy gender.
		But I don't think a judge is going to look at that and say, well, hold on there a gosh darn minute.
		So in the story I've told quite a bit, I talked to several human rights lawyers in New York and asked them if I dressed up in, say, a clown costume for my first day at work and said I was clown gender, would they have to respect me dressed up like Bozo?
		And they said, no, they can fire you for that.
		I said, hold on, though.
		The law clearly states in plain English, what I wear, what I call myself, is my gender identity and it is a protected class.
		The response I got was a judge would laugh you out of the courtroom if you tried to pull that card.
		What ends up happening in places like Michigan, and I'm not saying it was specifically for this story, is if you have an area that becomes 60-70% of any culture, the judges in that place will represent that culture.
		When the question arises to a Christian moral traditionalist American, should we ban female genital mutilation?
		They're going to say without a doubt.
		Well, of course, you can't do that.
		But what happens when you get a judge who this is part of their culture and they call it female circumcision, not mutilation?
		They're going to say, you can't ban that.
		That's a religious traditional practice.
		The judges interpret the law and they will interpret as their culture and moral traditions dictate.
		To my point, to wrap it all up, and we can go back to Dozier or whatever, when I mentioned I don't know that we necessarily want more or less immigration, the question is not just economics or unemployment.
		It's cultural displacement.
		Do we want people to form communities where their judges interpret our laws in ways that would actually shock Americans?
		Like you were both rather shocked to find a judge in Detroit said that it is unconstitutional to ban female genital mutilation.
unidentified		Can I add one thing to that before we go back to Doge?
		This is also another problem that I found out recently.
		I saw New York was considering letting legal migrants start voting, which I'm not a fan of in local elections.
		And I think California already does it.
		This is that exemplified, like, you know, That exacerbates the problem that you're talking about right there.
		We're having people that are not even citizens voting.
		Imagine if I was in Texas, and I have a ranch, because I do.
		If I decided, hey, I'm going to bring in a bunch of immigrants, and we're making the local laws to where, hey, they can vote.
		Well, they're just going to vote me into office.
		And I'm going to never get out because what's good for me is good for them.
		Like, this is just a pathway to corruption that the Dems have been using, which is bringing in immigrants.
		It's the end of the way to corruption.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
unidentified		It's embarrassing.
		Sorry.
		It is embarrassing.
		I would be embarrassed.
		It's an embarrassing argument you're making here.
		But whatever.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So if non-citizens can vote, like they proposed in San Francisco and New York, and I believe in Connecticut.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There is no democracy at all.
unidentified		Okay, great.
		Let's talk about Doge and how Doge is ending our democracy.
		Sure, of course, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How is Doge ending democracy?
unidentified		Okay, yeah, let's talk about that.
		I'm sorry.
		Let's talk about that.
		So the reason why I think that Doge is ending a democracy is specifically because it's going and doing an end run around our own particular processes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You did mention that when we open the show.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The question we then came to was this gentleman here voted for it and Trump won the popular vote and now Trump isn't doing what he promised he'd do.
unidentified		And I got a question.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How is that not democracy though?
unidentified		Sure.
		Well, then let's look at that, right?
		So there was a Reuters.
		Poll, right?
		Talking about, Americans are broadly supportive of the idea of cutting the sides of the federal government.
		With 59% of respondents to our voters slash Ipsos poll completed on Wednesday saying they supported that goal, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How many people were in the poll?
unidentified		I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's important because we did a poll in November and found the majority of the country supported Doge.
unidentified		It said 59%.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Of how many people?
unidentified		I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let me tell you.
unidentified		We're going to look up the poll.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's fine.
		70 plus million people voted for Doge.
		A poll is an opinion extrapolation.
unidentified		We're going to talk about what they voted for.
		I want to talk about that.
		Okay.
		Well, then that's what I'm trying to get to, right?
		So, 59% of respondents to the poll that was completed this Wednesday said they supported that goal, right?
		But, right, then they asked, right, so how about the way Trump is going about it, right?
		In terms of firing tens of thousands of federal workers, right?
		And then 59%, exactly what I said, the opposed.
		The way that Trump is doing, right?
		So people...
		No, you're correct.
		That people voted for cutting government, right?
		Like 70 million or whatever the number is, right?
		Voted for cutting that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Or Elon Musk to do it specifically.
unidentified		No, hold on, hold on.
		Yes.
		They voted to cut waste, fraud, and abuse.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let's pause real quick.
unidentified		Hold on, hold on, hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		To address your point, Elon Musk for a year said, we will have doge.
		We will go in.
		We will cut.
		These programs will fire people.
		Trump came out and campaigned on how they were going to do it, and people voted for him.
		You can argue that the masses are ignorant and didn't pay attention.
unidentified		Just to prime your point real quick before you go on, because this has been a point that I've heard in the debate sphere, and it's mainly like a lot lately, right?
		And it's that all these Republicans got bamboozled.
		They can't believe what they voted for.
		What is Musk doing?
		And I'm sitting here going...
		Who are these people?
		Because I'm a Republican.
		I talk to Republicans daily in my real life.
		I talk to Republicans in the online space.
		I talk to people.
		I haven't met a single Republican that is going...
		I hate it.
		Like, you know, there's some like me go, oh, I have some concerns about, like, what's going to happen next with a new agency and if, like, a dim gets in charge.
		But, like, because we don't, like, trust big government, right?
		But, like, overall, I haven't met a single Republican that these dims are talking about.
		These are phantom Republicans.
		Yeah, yeah.
		They're going, oh, no, Lord and Lord, they're coming for us.
		Like, it's ridiculous.
		It turns out within Gibbs' friend group, everyone seems to agree.
		Amazing.
		I mean, you think my friend group leaves, right?
		Yeah, it turns out within my Christian friend group.
		We're in a group, right?
		Everyone really loves Christ.
		You think this is a great guy, right?
		Who would have seen that coming?
		I mean, most of my friends are left.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, it's not democracy.
unidentified		Hold on.
		What does...
		Okay.
		What does democracy mean?
		Like, what do people actually vote for, right?
		Like, the average person says it's so that they're going to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, right?
		That they're going to shrink the size of the federal government.
		And the federal government being this big, unwieldy thing in people's minds, they say, sure, yes, actually, that's great.
		Waste, fraud, and abuse.
		That's a very convenient tagline that we can just repeat over and over again, right?
		But the details of that matter.
		Of course, how do the details of the plan not actually matter?
		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to try and get this – to answer this question, how would you define democracy?
unidentified		How would I define democracy?
		People voting for – people voting to – just people voting.
		That's democracy.
		Like voting for what?
		It depends.
		If we're in a democratic republic, right, then we're voting for representatives.
		If we're in a direct democracy, then we're voting directly for the policy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And we're in a democratic republic.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So we have a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives.
unidentified		Sure.
unidentified		Hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So you're saying that— I was just asking one of them.
unidentified		Yeah, hold on.
		Then let me ask you this, right?
		Are you saying that within a representative democracy that people never end up voting for a representative who says they're going to do a thing, right?
		And then they start doing that thing, but they didn't understand the details.
		And so what they're actually getting is not what they want.
		You just— In a representative democracy?
		Hold on.
		Before we just got started, right?
		You were in the green room.
		You talked about the Green New Deal.
		You said you were a big fan of the Green New Deal until you heard the details.
		Until you released it, right?
		So let's say you were a consensual of AOC, right?
		And you voted for that.
		She says she's going to get the Green New Deal.
		I support that.
		But then when she actually gets in office, she puts out a plan that you don't support.
		Now, you're saying, well, that's just democracy.
		And it is just democracy, but that doesn't necessarily – it captures exactly the will of you, the individual.
		Correct?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So here's the issue.
		When AOC first got elected, and they're talking about a Green New Deal, the implication was a public works program investing in green energy, rebuilding roads and bridges.
		We've got crumbling infrastructure.
		And I said, that sounds fantastic.
		Of course, my position usually on this stuff is we've got to cut spending somewhere to pay for it.
		We shouldn't be taxing people to do it.
		We shouldn't be spending money on wars.
		Let's stop spending money on Ukraine, Israel, insert country Afghanistan, and bring that money back home.
		When AOC then released a resolution, it was...
		Diversity nonsense.
		It was hiring.
		It was getting academic scholarships to minorities.
		And I was like, I don't know what that's all about.
		The question then is, if you believe that, or the issue I suppose is, if you believe that democracy is being threatened and you believe and agree with an institution in which you vote for a representative democratically and they get an office, if your intention then is to subvert the individual who was put into office, you are a threat to democracy.
		Do you agree with the system we have where we vote for representatives?
unidentified		I agree with the Constitution, right?
unidentified		And within that Constitution...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we vote for representatives?
unidentified		Yes, indeed.
		And that Constitution has clauses.
		It's not simply that we vote for them and they do willy-nilly, right?
		They simply exist in this thing called the government and they do whatever they want, right?
		So we have...
		Sure, yes.
		We have structures within that, right?
		And we have laws.
		And Doge is literally breaking those laws.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What laws are they breaking?
unidentified		Sure, okay, let's talk about it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We're changing the subject here now.
unidentified		So let's wrap up.
		Okay, sure.
		Then let's talk about that, right?
		So let's talk about veterans.
		Let's talk about veterans.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's wrap up the last point.
		The point of which you asked me is we have a system in place.
		People get elected all the time who lie.
		Politicians lie.
		Everybody knows it.
		People vote hoping that the person will present to the best of their abilities.
		This is the system we have, and a lot of people on the left keep saying our democracy, our democracy, our democracy.
		It's more of a liberal talking point than a conservative one because conservatives say constitutional republic all the time.
		If you would try to upend the administration that was elected by your own system, which you support, you are a threat to democracy.
unidentified		If that administration is upending the Constitution, they're a threat to democracy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's definitionally incorrect.
unidentified		That's not.
unidentified		No, because they're breaking those laws that I'm talking about.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So there is a mechanism by which you can remove Donald Trump.
		It's called impeachment and conviction.
		If you are trying to obstruct and suspend the will of the democratic system, you're a threat to our democracy.
		So right now, you can argue the people did not expect Elon to do this, that, or otherwise.
		The appropriate process would be then Congress impeaches.
		Unfortunately, the people also elected a Republican majority.
		And the Republicans, looking at their constituents and current polling, which they track all year round, The indications are there is no popularity in stopping what Trump is doing.
unidentified		Yeah, I think currently, certainly, well, it depends on where you go and depends on what you're asking.
		But again, I'm trying to get to that.
		Let's talk about these things.
		Okay, so let's talk about veterans, right?
		Veterans make up about 30%, according to this article from The Independent.
		Veterans make about 30% of the nation's federal workforce, right?
		So they've been disproportionately affected by these fires.
		So I care about veterans.
		I'm not sure about you guys, right?
		You think the VA does a good job?
		Pull it back, pull it back, put it back, right?
		So I care about veterans.
		I care about what happens to them.
		I care that veterans are part of this workforce, are being valuable members of the workforce, and they're suddenly being cut and being told that they're bloat necessarily, right?
		And so veterans also are more likely to vote for Donald Trump.
		Here is a collection of veterans who voted for Donald Trump, right?
		But then...
		Guess what?
		They got fired.
		Nathan Hoeven is a disabled Air Force veteran who voted for Donald Trump in November.
		Barely three months later, he's now unemployed and says he feels betrayed by the president's dramatic downsizing the federal government that cost him his job.
		I have more stories.
		James Stansel, a 60-year-old Army veteran who was fired last month from his job at a supply technician at the VA hospital in Milwaukee, said it felt like he'd been shot and dumped out of a helicopter.
		This is ridiculous.
		It's ridiculous, Brian.
		It's ridiculous to hear the story of veterans.
		First of all, if you know any veterans, they all hate the VA. One.
		Two, we know the VA was spending federal money to have orgies.
		That's literally a thing that came up recently.
		It was a big controversy.
		You can Google it if you want.
		Look up, VA orgy.
		It's crazy stuff, right?
		So why are we going to be spending money on orgies?
		Hold on, Brian.
		One second here.
		So when I'm sitting here hearing what you're saying, and you're saying, oh, I can find a...
		I'm sitting here and I'm talking about mass quantities, right?
		I voted for this.
		Everybody that I know voted for this.
		So when I'm sitting here going, I'm looking, you're finding one example of a guy that fired.
		I have more examples.
		We can go back to that one second.
		Let me just finish.
		When I'm looking at America as a whole, I'm seeing, hey, what do you think that...
		This is what it looks like.
		This is what we voted for.
		Trump ran on a couple things.
		He said, close the border.
		He did that.
		He said he's going to try to get out of Ukraine.
		We've got a ceasefire going.
		He says he's going to cut spending.
		Doge is cutting spending.
		This is what cutting the bloat looks like.
		Sometimes people are going to get fired.
		I'm sorry.
		Tough tits.
		The postmaster general said they could cut 10K jobs and become more efficient, and they've been barely able to stay afloat for a while now.
		Whenever we're sitting here saying there's 10K jobs, That's a lie.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I have a fact check real quick.
		Don't forget what you're going to say.
		I asked ChatGPT, do veterans hate the VA? Yes.
unidentified		I appreciate that, but the problem with the...
		This is a bit of a distraction, but I'm going to engage it just for a second.
		The problem with the VA is that...
		Hold on.
		There's a lot of inefficiencies there, right?
		And there's something that we should deal with.
		There's a lot of agreement.
		I could literally text my veteran right now that says they hate the VA. Yeah, yeah.
		But the reason is they use a VA because when they actually get those services, they like those services.
		Because it's paid for.
		Yeah, exactly.
		Everybody likes a free handout.
		Yeah, exactly.
		Because people would like their health care to be provided for.
		I'm sure that I'd love to buy Snake and Lobster on an EBT card, too.
		That'd be great.
		I get it.
		You're conservative, right?
		I'm sorry.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You can.
unidentified		I know.
		I get you're conservative, and you don't.
		I like a government that cares for its people and does that through health care.
		I understand that.
		We're not going to agree on that, so I'm not going to argue with that.
		My point is that when they get the actual services, yeah, they like the VA. But in any case, right?
		When they get them, after they've gotten fucked by the democracy, that's the big threat to democracy.
		Oh, yeah, sure.
		So I think these stories of veterans are important, right?
		So we have James Evans, a reservist therapist at the Salem VA. It was Friday and February.
		His eighth month as a probationary worker, Evans said a patient had just told him how much he appreciated his work when he received his email.
		He had moved from California with his wife, three-year-old son, and a one-year-old daughter for a job that he had long wanted.
		Even Evans, a 36-year-old Army veteran, was the only one working in his family.
		He said he feels scared, numb, and angry.
		I cried, Evans said, about learning about his firing.
		I haven't done that in a while because you're just kind of free-falling now.
		You're in an area...
		You're in an area to where you're not really familiar with and you're just being left out to drive.
		This is what many of our veterans are feeling.
		So, like, what are we doing here?
		How long have the veterans felt, like, left out with the bureaucracy?
		Yeah, and so you're like, and the way to fix that is to fire them.
		Yeah, because if you fire the bad employees, you get better employees.
		Are they bad employees?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, my view would be I don't see how...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		A singular story of someone upset over firings has a bearing on the entire system that is being challenged.
unidentified		We have that famous story that just came out this week about this girl that said, literally, I can't believe they fired me for poor performance.
		I didn't know poor performance was a thing.
		Like, that is insanity.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But my point is, there's a meme where it's a person crying, or no, it's a little kid crying, and they say, oh no, the child is crying, quick, burn the Constitution.
		What the meme attempts to exemplify is, Look, you're not going to go to a conservative especially or a parent and be like, the sad child warrants that you throw away your system.
		So, a veteran going to the media and saying, something bad happened to me, it's like, okay, the system is broken.
unidentified		Something bad happens to him all the time.
		The idiocracy.
		That's the problem.
		Then we can also say that, well, just because people support...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's democracy.
unidentified		Yeah.
unidentified		Well, also, then it's also democracy if people decide that this isn't what they wanted, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If in 2026 they vote for Democrats in the House, Donald Trump gets impeached and then convicted in the Senate, I agree.
unidentified		Sure.
		No one is...
		You're saying elections don't have consequences, right?
		They absolutely do.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		My point is largely just right now we are existing in our democratic process, and if there is subversive action taken to stop the current administration and what they're doing...
		And I'm saying subversive.
		I'm not saying legal, standard, political stuff.
		I'm saying subversive stuff.
		That's a threat to our democracy.
		So, for instance, right now what we have is a president who won the popular vote, who won every swing state, specifically with one of his core projects, Doge, and the firing of bureaucrats.
		And now we have people on the left protesting, which is fine.
		But then we have people setting cars on fire, shooting at Tesla vehicles.
		We had a series of swattings last night.
unidentified		Two assassinations of Trump.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So this is the biggest threat to our democracy we face, that when Trump was leading in the polls, they tried to kill him.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Like two people, that's the they, I mean.
unidentified		Okay, well then, agreed.
unidentified		Not a favor for the assassinations, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Or the arson or the vandalism.
unidentified		Or the arson or the vandalism.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So right now my point is, the perceived threat to our democracy that you see is the administration doing what it told people it would do.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The threat to democracy I see is terrorism from the left.
unidentified		Okay, hold on, then we agree.
		We agree that, hey, if you are causing violence and destruction and not illegal, peaceful protests, that you should be in jail, that's undermining democracy.
		Okay, if that's your point, then I agree with that.
		Yeah, so I would say— All right, but that doesn't undermine my point, though, right?
		So you're saying that that is a threat to democracy.
		Understood, right?
		I wasn't saying that a doge is the threat to democracy.
		It's simply another threat to democracy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But the paradox here is— People voted for it, and the process is playing out as they chose.
unidentified		No, absolutely.
		No, they didn't.
		No, they didn't vote for it.
		No, they didn't.
		Hold on.
		What do you think?
		No, hold on.
		That's what you can keep saying.
		What do you think?
		Actually, yes.
		What did they think?
		They thought that, yes, we're cutting...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I can't read minds.
unidentified		Yeah, I know.
unidentified		You can't read minds.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Elon Musk formed a judge well before the election.
unidentified		Elon, yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Campaigned on it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		People voted for it.
unidentified		Now it's happening.
		Hold on.
		Saying that we are going to make the government more efficient without details of exactly what that looks like, right?
		We have details.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Listen, listen.
		It was explicit.
		Drain the Swamp has been a slogan of the Trump campaign going back to 2015. Drain the Swamp means fucking nothing.
unidentified		It means fucking nothing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's not an argument.
unidentified		Actually, I will make that argument.
unidentified		That's a thought terminating comment, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		For 10 years, Donald Trump has campaigned on firing people and gutting the bureaucratic state.
unidentified		But what do people actually think about when they consider these things?
		I agree with you.
		It's speculation.
		Because these individuals say, yes, I want the bureaucrat.
		The bureaucrat has been built up within conservative politics for decades.
		The evil bureaucrat.
		Yeah, I want them going.
		But what I don't want is the veteran that I know.
		I don't want him fired.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The point is, Donald Trump ran a campaign for a year.
		Elon Musk and his doge are going to fire people.
		The process is playing out right now.
		This is not an argument in favor or against.
		It's what happened.
		Your argument is, you believe.
		That people don't like the way it's happening.
		We don't actually know that.
unidentified		First of all, I have a poll.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You have a poll of how many people, right?
unidentified		We can look up the number of people.
		It's a poll.
		It's a poll run by a reputable source, Reuters.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The poll we have is the election took place.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Beyond this...
unidentified		Can you look up the poll, please?
unidentified		I'll pull whoever does it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The point I'm making is we had an election.
		Based on this promise to do a certain thing.
		You are now arguing people do not like the way that thing is happening.
		I'm saying we don't actually know that, poll or otherwise.
unidentified		Can I just talk about the drain the swamp thing real quick and then I'll turn it right over to you.
		This is like, when I hear drain the swamp...
		I don't expect Trump to go in there and try to do this.
		Not to quote Alex Jones, but I will quote Alex Jones.
		I know I look like a high-RT version of him.
		But he says, hey, I don't expect him to not get shit up to his ankles.
		This is what he's doing.
		He's going in there.
		He's getting in there.
		He's cleaning stuff out.
		When you're sitting here arguing these things, yeah, I don't like that veterans are having problems.
		It sucks that a veteran got fired or this veteran got fired.
		But when I hear clean the swamp, I go, hey, look, there's a VA. We have documented examples of the VA using taxpayer dollars to host orgies.
		That is something that happened.
		That's not even arguable.
		It's not a debate.
		And we're going to sit here and go, okay, that trial should be cleared out.
		Those people should be fired.
		So when we're downsizing and we're clearing people out, that's exactly what Americans voted for in mass.
		If you're talking about people doing something improper at work, those people should get fired.
		Hold on.
		We found out, right?
		I'm sure Tim runs a tight organization, right?
		But we found out that one of his workers, maybe this guy right here, I don't know, I don't want the cut of his jib, right?
		But maybe if this guy was up to some shady shit, right?
		The response shouldn't be Tim shuts down his organization, turns it all down, right?
		Because he was like...
		It might be if he's got a whole organization.
		This guy was jerking off in the studio just before we came here, right?
		And Tim sees it.
		He's like, what the fuck, man, right?
		And so he's like, well, you know what?
		I'm going to burn down the organization.
		The only way to fix this is to burn it all down or to fire half my employees like the other guy who's like doing the coding, right?
		He needs to get fired, too, because this guy's...
		Well, hold on.
		Control yourself, sir.
		Maybe.
		Hold on, hold on.
		What was your name, sir?
		What's your name?
		Maybe he doesn't want us to know now.
		I'm getting attacked out here, but Kellen.
		Was it?
		Kellen.
		Kellen.
		All right, so say Mr. Kellen here runs Mr. Poole's newsroom or whatever, right?
		Or a different word.
		And Mr. Kellen has decided that we're going to have orgies every Friday and we're going to do it on Tim Poole's dime.
		And then his employees, since this is the work culture, has gone along with it.
		Guess what?
		He is absolutely within his right to go, hey, we need to gut all of that and get rid of it.
		But you're sitting here going, oh, hey, hold on.
		When you're sitting here going, oh, these people didn't vote for this.
		This is what they've campaigned on.
		We want this.
		This is what we want.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let me just draw the distinction here.
		You're saying if one employee does a bad thing, we shouldn't shut everything down.
		You're saying, yes, but if the work culture and they're all doing a bad thing, you should.
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, we should take a look at it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So the question is, to what degree were these agencies doing bad things?
unidentified		To what degree were their orgies in the NBA? Or inefficiently.
		Or poor performance.
		Wait, wait, wait.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Guys, guys, guys.
unidentified		Let me ask.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You have a company of 50 people, and one guy is doing something untoward.
		Should you shut the whole company down?
		Just yes or no?
		One guy's doing a bad thing.
unidentified		Depends on which person it is.
		If it's the CEO, and maybe.
		If not, then no, probably not.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Just the CEO is secretly doing something bad?
unidentified		What if it's the owner?
unidentified		Say it's like...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Someone else owns and is funding it.
unidentified		Then no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If there was a company and literally 70% were doing something untoward, should you shut it down?
unidentified		Yeah, like if the Catholic Church has a multi-decade, probably multi-century track record of abusing kids.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're playing games here.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We're trying to argue a simple— No, no, no.
unidentified		I'm agreeing with you.
unidentified		Yes, but you're trying to divert— I'm giving you an example.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And when you do something like that, it's intentionally antagonistic and changes the subject.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		My point is this.
unidentified		I'm not trying to antagonize.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We actually completely agree.
		We all agree that if a company has an overwhelming workforce of corruption, we're going to shut it down.
		We may have to just fire all his employees and then start from scratch or leave it a skeleton crew.
		And we all agree if one person is doing something wrong, then we just fire that person.
		We don't have to throw the whole thing out.
		So the real question we're asking is, are the institutions or the offices, the departments that are being gutted, are their whole workforce is doing something wrong or is it a small bunch that should be excised?
		That's the real question we're asking.
		How we determine that is very difficult, but...
		That's where we're actually going.
		Your view is...
		The departments are largely broken and corrupt, and your view is they're largely not.
unidentified		Well, it's not even just broken and corrupt.
		Let's just take an organization like, I don't know, say we take the VA. Say he guts the VA. Sometimes you need to gut them and get out the poor performers.
		Actually, a better one.
		USPS, right?
		We're going to rehire them?
		Hold on.
		The Postmaster General just said he wants to cut 10K employees, and he wants those to help them.
		Now, in my mind, what happens is now you've cut all these employees.
		You have an excess of funds.
		Instead of rehiring them, you might replace them with more qualified people at market value, right?
		So you can pay the better people that can do twice the work in half the time and pay them more, and that's more efficient, and that's going to be better.
		And that's what the Doge is arguing they should be doing in a lot of these cases, is cutting poor performers.
		These people couldn't even answer a five-question thing from Musk.
		They're sitting here sending in troll emails back going, oh, go fuck yourself.
		- Yeah, because they don't wanna go around the tech villain who comes in. - You don't have a performance.
		Have you ever worked a job with a performance review?
		They did have performance reviews.
		Hold on, hold on.
		These individuals literally did have performance reviews.
		They're being fired for bad performance reviews, but we had these individuals actually show us their past performance reviews, and they're excellent.
		Under a corrupt government?
		Oh, under a corrupt government.
		Okay, I guess the performance...
		Let's try this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is there a particular department or institution that you think is being wrongly gutted?
unidentified		Okay, let's talk about it.
		Let's talk about the CFPP, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
		So that's pretty much shut down.
		The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that's important.
		Consumer Financial Protection is actually working for you, the taxpayer.
		It's working for individuals who are in contact with the financial landscape.
		All these institutions in terms of banks, in terms of non-bank entities that also deal with a lot of financial transactions.
		It is an excellent institution.
		What the institution has done, it has returned over its lifetime $21 billion in fraudulent transactions from the big banks.
		Individuals who don't have the resources to actually take these guys on, these institutions like, for instance, the...
		The credit agencies, right?
		You don't have that ability.
		You could have gone to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and they would have helped you out, right?
		And they did help individuals out.
		Now, that is no more.
		That is no more.
		I mean, so, interesting you brought up the banks, but when was the last time that we had a balanced budget?
		Do you know?
		Do you know which one?
		That's a distraction.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The idea here is to address...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		His concerns over the threats to democracy and the issue we're bringing up is specific institutions that are being gutted that should not be.
unidentified		Sure, I understand that.
		And this is where I'm going with it.
		The last person to do it was Andrew Jackson, right?
		And so when I look at this, you balance the budget?
		I believe so.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We've never balanced the budget.
unidentified		I thought 1837. He got rid of national debt.
		Okay, so maybe I have incorrect information.
		Please go ahead.
		So anyway, Andrew Jackson got rid of national debt in 1837, right?
		Now, okay, he didn't like the banks.
		You bought the banks.
		I'm not a huge fan.
		Listen, sure, maybe the, what was it, the CF... PB? Yeah, PB. Sure.
		All right, cool.
		You know what?
		I'll even grant you one.
		Here's one that I wish Elon would clear out.
		Like the ATF. We got the ATF. I think that'd be a big fan.
		Like all conservatives.
		We got questions.
		When you're saying there's, yeah, are there organizations that maybe he's given a look at and, you know, maybe they are good?
		Sure.
		Sometimes there's going to be hiccups.
		That's a given when you have these, like, massive bureaucracies that have existed for 20, 30 years unchecked.
		I'm not going to argue that there's not going to be hiccups.
		Absolutely.
		But on...
		On the flip side, you can't sit here and go point at every little hiccup.
		It'd be like nothing good is coming from this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's address the CFPB real quick.
		So here's what I've pulled up.
		The CFPB operates independently from Congress, getting its funding from the Federal Reserve instead of annual congressional appropriations.
unidentified		That was to protect it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This has led to lawsuits and accusations that it lacks oversight.
unidentified		Yeah, from the banks.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Critics claim that CFPB enforces regulations selectively, often targeting businesses and banks while ignoring fraud from politically favored groups.
unidentified		Interesting.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Many believe CFPB imposes excessive and burdensome rules on financial institutions, hurting small business and limiting consumer choice.
		The CFPP faced multiple scandals, including allegations of discrimination in hiring and wasteful spending on luxury office renovations.
		However, progressives and consumer advocacy groups defend the CFPP, arguing it protects consumers from predatory financial practices.
		The agency remains one of the most controversial in the federal government.
unidentified		Yeah.
		OK, let's see what the CFPP actually been doing.
		OK.
		CFPB closes overdraft loophole to save American billions and fees, right?
		Like, banks overdrafting people to have, like, there's all kinds of ways that banks can increase their fees through overdraft.
		Yeah, Wells Fargo's capped at three now.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Overdraft fees, like Wells Fargo, for example, if you have, say I have a charge go through, and they...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They can overdraft you three times?
unidentified		Yeah, for $30,000.
		BS. That's what the CFPB actually...
		They can only do it for a charge.
		Exactly that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Overdraft fees should be banned and illegal.
unidentified		Yeah, but it has to be for different charges.
		So if I got a negative account, it would be $35, and then it would be the next one, say a Twitch payment went through or something, then they would charge me another $35.
		They'll cap it at $3.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Don't let a credit card clear if there's no money in the account.
		How about that?
		They know this.
unidentified		100%.
		These banks are full.
		Something else that they would do is that they would rearrange the numbers.
		So let's say if at first the first charge wouldn't overdraft, but the next one did, they would switch it.
		So the one that overdraft, the bigger charge, would come in first.
		And then you would have two overdraft fees.
		So the other one that didn't overdraft at first, that switched.
		So now they get two cracks at you rather than one.
		That's the thing that banks are doing.
		The CFPB actively, directly targeted that, right?
		CFPB sues Experian for sham investigations of credit report errors, right?
		So people would go to Experian, right, a credit agency, and we know you need credit, the importance of that, right?
		They would go and say, hey, I've got an error on my file, right?
		I need you to take a look at this, right?
		The CFPB would say, oh, yeah, we're going to get right on it, right?
		Type, type, type, type, type.
		But it turns out they didn't actually do it.
		And they'd be gaslighting people.
		The CFPB sued them for that.
		CFPB proposes a rule to ban contract clauses to strip away fundamental freedoms.
		So there are...
		Rule would forbid a fine print that seeks to censor speech or wipe away a trying right.
		So basically, if you're a bank, right, and you're saying that I want to keep you from doing whatever, right?
		You're going to put some black bullshit...
		Clause in the contract, right?
		It doesn't actually have to do with delivering the services.
		Hey, you can't do that, right?
		CFPB finalizes a rule to remove medical bills from credit reports, right?
		So because medical bills, massive amount of the debt within our country, right?
		Removing that from your credit report so having some sort of medical bill, a payment, doesn't destroy you and your ability to work or to find a place to work, right?
		Or to live.
		CFPB... Wait, is that a good thing that they're removing that from...
		Absolutely.
		Like credit reports?
		I don't know if I agree that that's a dissimilar.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's do this because we only have about 20 minutes.
		Let's just start from this point.
		CFPB, for the sake of argument, is the greatest organization we have in government.
		Let's just agree that it's fantastic.
		It has 1,758 staff members.
		Currently, they're facing reductions.
		A judge is barring that.
		USAID has over 10,000 staff.
		It's been cut down to 294. What are your thoughts on USAID? Should we be...
		Should it be left untouched?
		Should DOGE have not gone in?
		What do you think?
unidentified		Well, DOGE should not have gone in.
unidentified		Should the American government have gone in and...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		DOGE is.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's the U.S. Digital Service.
unidentified		You can say this, Prime, but if they were going to go in, they would have already done it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		DOGE is the United States Digital Service.
		They call it DOGE for form.
		They renamed it.
unidentified		Yeah, they renamed it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So these are U.S. government employees who went in.
unidentified		Sure.
		Yeah, hon. I understand that.
		But Doge is doing that in an unconstitutional manner.
		The manner in which they do it actually...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hold on.
		I don't believe the Constitution actually discusses Doge.
		Yeah, or these issues.
unidentified		Of course.
unidentified		First of all...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Only the technicality of whether or not Congress or there should be judicial review.
unidentified		The technicality of a judicial review.
unidentified		You mean appointment.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The Constitution doesn't directly...
unidentified		You mean appointment review.
unidentified		Congress appointing a person to actually do this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The point is, you said, they're going in unconstitutionally.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't believe the issue of interagency terminations and finances is an issue of the Constitution.
unidentified		Actually, it is.
unidentified		It's 100%.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What part of the Constitution?
unidentified		Tim, I've been trying to drive to this point for like an hour.
		Please let me do that.
		So the Constitution says that Congress is in charge of the purse.
		Congress is in charge of distributing funds, deciding where those funds go.
		The executive executes that.
		And so what's happening is that this group of individuals goes in and they are making cuts.
		But as we're looking at the...
		How these things work previously in terms of looking at the contracts and stuff.
		There are obligations designed by Congress.
		Congress says we're going to spend this amount of money to hire individuals to make this infrastructure improvement.
		The president does not have the ability to simply decide I'm not going to do that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're actually wrong.
unidentified		Through the Impoundment Act, the Impoundment Act of 1974, there is a process to do that.
		There is a process for the president to say, To delay or possibly cancel this money, right?
		So that's a process that he could use.
		That is not Doge.
		That is not douche.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The challenge at hand over the constitutionality is that Article 2, Section 1 says the executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States.
		He shall tell his office, etc., etc.
		Sole executive power is held by the President.
		We've had this strange phenomenon in this country.
		So one, USAID is operating under the executive branch, meaning Congress can apportion funding to USAID, and the executive branch has control over what it does, meaning you can put the funding there, Trump can say you're all fired.
		The issue then with checks and balances would be the judiciary needs to step in to make a determination as to whether or not this is being operated correctly.
		But it is within Trump's purview to do this.
		The check would be now if the courts agree or disagree.
unidentified		No, they can.
unidentified		He can.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It is constitutional.
unidentified		No, no, no.
		No, it's not constitutional.
		We have plenty of challenges.
		Literally.
		Yeah, yeah.
		Hold on.
		You're just putting up articles.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Constitution.
unidentified		Hold on.
		No, but it's not.
		You're simply stating that it's constitutional, but we have actually legal experts saying that it's not constitutional.
		But they keep doing the cases.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to pause you again.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		USAID operates under the executive branch for which the president has sole authority.
unidentified		Yeah.
unidentified		So?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So that means the president has the constitutional authority as he oversees these departments.
		That's how they operate.
		The president can't— Congress can't— And then what is going to happen right now is the judiciary will engage in what's called a check.
		On the executive branch to make a determination about whether or not— Yeah, and they're literally doing that right now.
unidentified		Hold on, hold on, hold on.
		But this is the point.
		This is literally the heart of it, okay?
		The heart of what we're talking about.
		So, yes, they operate under the executive branch.
		But that doesn't mean that, like, when Congress says, you have to use this money for this thing, and this thing doesn't get done, that that's okay.
		That is impounding.
		That's violating the Impoundment Act.
		Do you agree the judicial system has to decide what's constitutional?
		Hold on.
		They're literally in the process.
		We have plaintiff court cases.
		No, they're not.
		I don't care about this right now.
		I've got to focus.
		This is the point.
		We have a limited amount of time left.
		This is the point.
		Congress has said that we have a certain amount of funds that we're going to be used for these processes, to build this infrastructure.
		You can't just close down this agency and say, that's what we're not going to do.
		We have money for the FAA, right?
		For safety.
		For safety checks or whatever the fuck, right?
		That money has to be used for that.
		So yes, he can fire those individuals that you were saying before, but then he has to somehow actually accomplish that task, right?
		So the point is to have new safety upgrades to our planes, right?
		Those safety upgrades have to happen unless he actually goes through the process.
		And there is a process, right?
		A process he used before in his first term where he can cancel those expenditures.
		He's not doing that.
		And this is why.
		Final thing, final thing, final thing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But you're wrong.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The president gets a one-fiscal-year delay of spending at his own discretion, and Congress can—unless Congress— Yeah.
		The president can temporarily – it's called the deferral.
		So the president cannot rescind fundings, but he can for one fiscal year defer payment for policy reasons.
unidentified		I want to add to this real quick.
		So Prime keeps making the claim that it's unconstitutional, right?
		There's been a ton of lawsuits, right?
		First, they – we could go in with the dates.
		I have them and we could go to watch.
		But first they argued that he couldn't get full access to that.
		So that wasn't cool.
		Doge won that case.
		They said that they were not allowed to exist at all.
		Then they were, okay, Doge was formed as a reconstructed tent position to be disbanded by July 4th, 2026, and reformed of the Obama agency so it's allowed to operate.
		They won that case.
		USA Freeze was put in place.
		They won that case.
		Admin said that Doge has to be backed by Trump's opponent heads of each department on the left.
		So, yeah, they've won all of these.
		Doge also just lost the case because this agency that's supposed to be the most transparent agency we've ever had, right, also wants to be exempt from a FOIA request.
		They just lost the case in terms of that, in terms of a judge saying, no, you are subject to that.
		You have to actually respond to this FOIA request.
		There are other cases as well.
		But hold on.
		Before we get distracted with that, which doesn't actually fucking matter in terms of the point that I'm trying to make here, in terms of having processes to defer, if it's a simple deferral, okay, but then what happens after?
		Are we rehiring the CFPB? Bro, please.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		One of the conditions of deferral is, quote, to achieve savings through efficiency.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If spending can be delayed to reduce costs to increase efficiency, the president can defer funds.
unidentified		You're talking about empowerment.
		Yes.
		Yeah, that's part of...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So this means what he's doing is allowed under the empowerment.
unidentified		No, because there's a process to do this, right?
unidentified		For instance, if he wants to cancel a payment, he has...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's called deferral.
unidentified		Yeah, I know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And he's not even doing that.
unidentified		Hold on.
		Yeah, I know he's not.
		I'm saying...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bro, I'm just saying, I looked up the law that you cited.
unidentified		Yeah, you're not looking...
		I looked up...
		Don't worry, because I looked up the law that I cited.
		So I know what I'm talking about.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Unless otherwise specifically provided by law, the president can legally withhold the funds for one fiscal year.
unidentified		Yes, I get that.
		The law allows you to do this, right?
		But how does it allow you to do it?
		You have to follow a process.
		And he's not actually doing that.
		And it involves consulting Congress.
		So, for instance, to cancel those funds, it's a simple majority.
		It's a majority that you can get through Congress.
		But he's not actually going through Congress.
		Why is he not actually going through Congress?
		He doesn't need to go through Congress.
		But he does!
		That's the law!
		That's what I'm talking about!
		So when I say it's unconstitutional, when I'm saying it's breaking the law, that means, hey, you're not following the law.
		If you're going through another process you just made up, that would be breaking the law.
		That's my entire point.
		Aren't you following this, Gibbs?
		Hold on.
		No, I disagree here.
		Let me just...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay, no, no, no.
		A fair point for deferral.
		The president sends a message to Congress for which they reject, modify, or approve, and it's a freeze of one year.
		I do think it's fair to say that Trump is not actually deferring anything, and the issue then is we are in a, to be fair, constitutionally nebulous position of Trump firing people isn't legally rescission or deferral.
unidentified		So, okay, yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The argument would be that it is.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean – Their argument that it's not.
unidentified		Well, so let me just – I want to examine another push to this because we only got a few minutes left.
		Just real quick.
		So Doge right now, which has said – and this has been controversial this last week.
		It estimates that the government had 4.6 million credit cards and 90 million unique transactions in the fiscal year 2024. All right.
		I've worked for several companies that have given me a company credit card, right?
		And I've had to answer with a receipt every time I spent money on that card.
		2.6 million credit cards issued.
		That there is not potential for waste in there, and then we need to go in there and look it up and see.
		Hold on.
		I get that you're saying it's been appointed.
		This money's been appointed.
		But say there's money that's been appointed for the credit cards, and we find out they're spending it buying T-bone steaks every night with the misses.
		Guess what?
		Yeah, the money might have been in proportion for these credit cards, but it's being misused.
		And it's not unconstitutional to reassess these things.
		And we don't have oversight.
		And we don't have oversight.
		No, it's not the oversight.
		You just don't like that Trump and Elon are at the top.
		That's your big problem.
		I didn't like Joe Biden either.
		I dislike most of the politicians.
		That in itself is not the reason.
		It doesn't matter if I like him or not.
		It doesn't matter if it's legal or it's constitutional.
		That's the thing I'm examining.
		So I don't give a fuck if Joe Biden or Donald Trump happens.
		I'm examining the actions.
		They're following the oversight.
		No, they're not following the oversight.
		Okay, so you're not actually even listening, right?
		I am listening.
		You don't know.
		Tell me about the Empowerment Act.
		Tell me about it.
		I mean, I don't have that information.
		I mean, you didn't have the information for the other thing.
		You don't know.
		Yeah, you don't know.
		Based off what he's just read, I mean, it sounds like he's doing fine.
		No, he literally just said, hey, actually, there is a process here.
		He's not following the process.
		I'm not talking about deferral.
		What I'm talking about is Congress appoints funds.
		Trump is head of the executive.
		He decides how those funds are spent.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Trump has not deferred or rescinded any funds.
unidentified		Do we disagree with this statement?
		Trump has not deferred or rescinded funds.
		So Congress approves funds, correct?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Tell me what I'm wrong.
		Trump decides, as the head of the executive, how those funds, once they're allocated for a certain thing, are to be used.
		Is that correct?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Technically, you're 50-50.
		Congress can allocate funds for a specific use.
		Trump then determines how to go about that process.
		So it's a mix.
		Congress says...
		Here's $100 million specifically to grow strawberries.
		Trump can say, okay, we've got to grow strawberries.
		Hire me 10 people.
		Send them to California and grow strawberries.
unidentified		So, okay, yeah, that's my point.
unidentified		So Trump has discretion on how that money is spent to an extent, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		To the extent that it's been approved.
unidentified		So when he's sitting here gutting an agency, especially when it could be in the fiscal year still, there's no reason for me to go, oh, it's unconstitutional.
		Say he guts USA. He could hire new people.
		He could spend that money differently.
		There's no reason why this is unconstitutional.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You made this point, and I think you're in agreement.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You said so long as what was apportioned by Congress gets done, right?
unidentified		Yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Trump has to find a way to do the thing Congress has to be done.
unidentified		Okay, that would change the calculations if that does happen.
		We don't know what he's going to do.
		Right now, yes, we don't have a plan for that.
		Actually, we don't.
		He probably doesn't.
		He's saying he's going to close down the Department of Education, right?
		If that spending has been approved.
		Right?
		And it takes an act of Congress to actually close that down anyway, Trey, right?
		And which is the point that I'm talking about.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Has he?
unidentified		You have to.
		No, but he's working.
		He's actively saying he's working.
		Hold on, hold on, hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Has he shut down any department?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Has any department been shut down?
unidentified		Well, CFPB. But it's an agency.
unidentified		That's an agency, not a department.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so nothing's been shut down.
unidentified		Well, the CFPB. No, no, no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And the USAID. Of the congressionally approved funds.
unidentified		What do you mean?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So of the things that Congress has mandated to be done, has Trump shut those things down?
unidentified		If there's no workers to execute those things, then yes, they've been shut down.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The answer is they have not been.
unidentified		Fine.
		Then how would they—OK, so the Congress appropriates, like, we're going to send this amount of aid to Nigeria or whatever, right?
		And there's no workers to actually send that— It's not USA. Just go with me, right?
		And there's no workers to actually execute that.
		Well, then how has that not been canceled?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		OK, full stop.
		We're not talking about hypotheticals.
		The question was, has Trump actually shut any of these things down?
unidentified		Shut any of these things down?
unidentified		Are you talking about a contract or operations?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Anything that Congress has mandated to be done, has Trump ordered shut down completely?
		Is it yes or no?
		I don't know.
		Don't get mad.
unidentified		Because you're moving this around.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm not at all.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm asking you.
unidentified		Sure.
unidentified		If you're talking about in terms of what...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no.
		Stop.
		I'm not if.
unidentified		The CFPB has been shut down.
		I've already said that before.
		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for finally answering.
unidentified		I said that before!
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And you said it's not a department.
		It's an agency.
		Now, my follow-up question is, did Congress apportion funds for the specific task of CFPB to engage in certain practices?
unidentified		Yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		So the issue then is, one, Was CFPP actually shut down?
		It has not been.
		A judge has blocked that.
		Although, it's fair to say Trump wants to, I guess.
		A whistleblower is now testifying that they still want to do it.
		However, it's been...
unidentified		That would be the...
		So the Unconstitutional Act would be...
		Hey, and he follows the law.
		He follows the court's decisions when they do it.
		Yeah, so if shutting it down would be the thing that's the problem that I'm against.
		If you're saying that a court stopped him from doing the bad thing, well, then I agree with the court, but I still have a problem with the bad thing.
		So it doesn't invalidate anything that I just said.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, Congress did not apportion funds for CFPB. In terms of, from the Treasury, we already talked about this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Congress did not appropriate funds for CFEB. That's why I thought you said it wasn't a department, because you were specifically mentioning that Congress doesn't fund it.
unidentified		But it's funded indirectly.
		Well, we mentioned this at the very start.
		We were talking about the funding of the CFEB, right?
		CFEB has a special way of funding it, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The funding method has been challenged because it's constitutional.
unidentified		Yeah, from the banks.
		Yeah, they've been trying to, the banks that have been trying to be, have been regulated, right?
		They don't like it.
		And so they've been challenging it on all grounds.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's just slow down.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We're trying to get to the truth here.
unidentified		Sure.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So when I asked, and you said CFPP is an agency not a department, I thought the point you were trying to make contextually was this one may be shut down but doesn't qualify because Congress didn't apportion funds for it.
		The question was, if Congress says this money is for this thing, Trump must have that thing happen.
		He controls how that thing does happen, but it has to happen.
		CFPB is not given funds by Congress, which has been challenged, so it's nebulous.
		This is hard to adjudicate.
unidentified		Okay, fine.
		Sure.
		I disagree that it's any different in terms of how our government actually works, but we can just move on to USAID. If USAID is getting its funds directly from Congress, then it counts for USAID, right?
		Or any other department.
		It's literally the same principle.
		But if you want to talk about the technicality, because again, yes, the CFPB is protected because when it was created, it was structured in a way so it couldn't easily be shut down.
		Apparently that was wrong.
		If you go through an unconstitutional manner, of course you can easily shut it down.
		If he totally guts USAID and puts Trump aid in there instead or whatever, I'm just making something up, and it does the exact same job, wouldn't that fulfill the obligation to spend the money on that thing?
		Yeah, it might.
		So then it's not a constitution.
		We got it.
		You can replace it with something.
		Will it be replaced?
		Maybe.
		The point here was to shrink the government.
		So what you're telling me now is that now they're not going to shrink the government.
		No, no, no.
		To shrink the federal government.
		They've talked about that many times.
		I'm not going to bullshit that.
		So it's not about replacing this with something else, right?
		That's one thing.
		Yeah, but they're not doing that.
		Stop making that up.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I think, you know, I'll just give my final thoughts.
		And largely when we say things like, if a department has one bad person, don't gut it.
		If a department has a mass majority of corruption, gut it.
		The issue is largely just how we see the world in these institutions.
		And it's why I believe that there's not going to be reconciliation.
		There's not going to be a coming together of either side.
		My view, especially reading now about CFPB, is...
		I was, you know, I'm learning a lot here as Doge does its thing.
		Notably that Congress has created extra constitutionally agencies.
		What I mean by extra, outside of the confines of the Constitution, they have created agencies that are independent.
		Of the government.
		The excuse they made in the 70s when they started creating these things, not all of them, but some of them, was that they should be free from political influence.
		But you know what that means?
		It means it's outside of democracy.
		The CFPB was intentionally done this way.
		It operates outside of the executive branch and Congress, which is shockingly insane, as does the Federal Reserve.
		This is not democracy.
unidentified		This is terrifying.
		We leave that for the Inspector General's office, right?
		We shouldn't have Inspector General's who are independent from like...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Political processes.
		No.
		You don't think the inspector general— No one should be independent from politics.
		Politics is the marketplace by which people— Amen.
unidentified		That's judiciary, right?
		Like, the Supreme Court is supposed to be independent from politics, right?
		That's why they have the— No, they're not.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That is not correct.
unidentified		Of course they are.
		What do you mean?
		So you're making a semantic argument.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Supreme Court justices don't get elected.
		They get appointed.
		The president of the executive branch will appoint and Congress must approve.
unidentified		Isn't that the inspector generals as well?
		They get appointed?
		They don't just appear out of the leader?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The point is we have three branches.
		The judiciary is not free from politics.
		A president gets elected and most people actually vote solely on the Supreme Court justices.
unidentified		Sure.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Then Congress can say yes or no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So the Supreme Court justices are free from the electoral process, but they are politically appointed and politically approved.
unidentified		Okay, same thing the Inspector General said.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hold on.
		The reason why we do it this way, the Supreme Court gets a lifetime appointment so that there is a stability in judicial review.
		The president gets four years.
		The House gets two.
		Senators get six.
		This country, in my opinion, has become a hodgepodge of duct tape in many ways, notably with agencies operating outside of the confines of government.
		That makes literally no sense.
		Doge is an executive branch department.
		It's not outside the government.
unidentified		Hold on.
		But no, those other things were outside the government.
		Hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		CFPB literally...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay, no, no, no.
unidentified		Hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hold on.
		This is a fact statement.
		I am not making this up.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		One of the big questions right now that sparked a lot of controversy was Donald Trump asserting executive authority over departments that were told or were said to be independent of the president.
		One of these is CFPB, which is operating outside of the executive branch and Congress.
		This is, in my view, insanely unconstitutional.
		The purpose of a political process is quite literally.
		We can impeach Supreme Court justices.
		Fundamentally alter agencies that we believe are doing wrong or doing right or just need improvement, whatever it may be.
unidentified		Who appoints the head of CFP? What?
		Who appoints the head of CFP? The president does.
		The president does.
		Oh, really?
		Just like the Supreme Court?
		Oh, so they're operating outside.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And so who gets to fire employees that are bad?
unidentified		The president can, but that's different from shutting down an agency or whatever.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So the president can fire these people.
		Right now it is largely Democrats resisting executive authority over what should be branches operating under the executive authority.
		Trump has sole executive authority as the president.
unidentified		It is insane to me that at any point ever— He can't do anything he wants, though, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Under executive authority.
unidentified		No, he can't do anything he wants under executive authority.
		He can't torture members of his branch, right, just because he wants to.
		He has to work within the bounds of the law.
		If he's not doing that now, then that's the issue.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't think you're familiar with the NDAA signed by Obama in 2012. Please tell me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Donald Trump can literally take anybody he wants and torture them offshore.
unidentified		Okay, then that should be illegal as well.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I completely agree.
		Over a long period of time, this country has become a hodgepodge of duct tape with insane things in it.
		Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act Indefinite Detention Provision, which allows a president with sole executive authority to rendition literally anyone in the world anywhere they want indefinitely.
		Insanity!
unidentified		Tim, Tim.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		George W. Bush.
unidentified		We're going to find some agreement here, right?
		Okay, the thing that I was trying to drive to that I never got to is the point of Doge, right, and not going through Congress.
		Because like you just saw, there is a process to do exactly what he's talking about, but he's not using that process.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no.
		You're misconstruing things.
		Trump has not issued a deferral or rescission.
unidentified		The Impoundment Act.
		Yes, exactly.
		No, no, no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Trump has not engaged in rescission or deferral.
unidentified		Yes, exactly.
		He hasn't followed the Impoundment Act.
		That would be the process.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hold on.
		Deferral is specifically if Trump said...
		The funding appropriate to Congress shall be deferred one year by sending a letter to Congress.
		He has not deferred.
unidentified		I know.
		I agree.
		I don't know why you keep repeating that.
		I know that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The impotent act has nothing to do with what Doge is doing.
unidentified		I'm saying that Doge is the end run around the Impalmment Act.
		That's what I'm saying, right?
		That we have a process to do that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What I'm saying is that this is— Okay, so the issue then is you are saying perhaps there should be new— First, there should be judicial review of what he's doing to see if it violates the Impalmment Act because he's not issued deferral rescission.
		He has quite literally not frozen funds or rescinded the funds.
		Then we would need new legislation to specifically state— Here are the parameters by which – this is called a check and a balance.
		That's why we have a legislative branch.
		So far right now, the argument is purely political, stating in the future we should operate like this, not what you're doing right now.
unidentified		No, no, no, no.
		It's not purely political, right?
		I'm talking about the actual process.
		We have a process.
		We're outside the bounds of that process.
		That's the thing I'm talking about.
		Okay.
		You're wrong.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, hold on.
unidentified		Real quick.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Donald Trump – okay.
		You keep signing the Impoundment Act.
		I'm going to say it again.
		The president says, I hereby rescind these funds.
		They will not be used for this purpose.
		Deferral.
		The president says, I hereby put a stay on these funds for one year so we can review based on these criteria.
		Trump has not frozen or rescinded those funds.
unidentified		I know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Which means the legal confines of the Parliament Act do not apply to determinations.
unidentified		Of course it does, because the Parliament Act is to say that, you know, the Parliament Act, the president can't do that unilaterally, right?
unidentified		It has to go through the Parliament Act.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to try it again.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to try it one more time.
unidentified		You can try it again.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Firing an employee is not a declaration of deferral of funding.
unidentified		If the acts of Congress don't actually get done...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So in one year, we will revisit that conversation.
unidentified		Okay, all right, then we'll do that in one year.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And then you can argue Trump did not handle it.
unidentified		So the final thing, right?
		I think this is an act of the unitary executive theory.
		Oh, I agree with some of that.
		Of course you do, right?
		It basically means that under the...
		The president, right?
		They have complete control of the executive, right?
		And it's unchecked power.
		That's the unitary executive theory.
		No, it's not.
		That's exactly what it is.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no.
		I'm saying the Constitution, you have a check and a balance.
		The judiciary reviews the actions of the executive.
		Yeah.
		Trump has a single authority.
		He can't do these things.
unidentified		No, I'm saying that under the unitary executive theory, right, the point is to undermine those checks and balances.
		Well, I don't know if that's true.
		I say Doge is one of the processes they're using to undermine it.
		They have a process.
		They go through Congress, and they have a Republican Congress that will actually do these things.
		They have said, we want to cut these things, but they're not doing it.
		They don't want to cut Social Security.
		They don't want to cut Social Security, so they'll have those do it instead.
		But we have a process to do exactly that.
		So this is part of the whole thing, why people in my camp voted for Trump, is, all right, it's clear.
		That we can get shit done, right?
		Yeah, if you break the law, yes.
		No, no, it's not breaking the law.
		He's followed all courts orders.
		He's come out of the breakneck parish.
		He's secured border.
		He's started Doge.
		He's done these other things.
		And so when I look at this, we're only six weeks in or seven weeks now, and Trump has already done so much stuff.
		We're at like arguably $105 billion saved or $65 billion or whatever.
		But my point is this.
		My point is this, right?
		They're sitting here, and when we see this, it's clear.
		That the bureaucracy has been holding us back.
		And Trump is going in there gutting it.
		And when I go...
		Another way for the bureaucracy are the things that people voted for.
		Hold on.
		Didn't we vote for one of the other stuff before?
		Hold on.
		You talked about democracy and what people voted for.
		People voted to have the Department of Education.
		They voted for the CFPB. They voted for the Veterans Affairs Office.
		They voted for all those things.
		Those things are being under...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So we do have to wrap up because we're going a little long, but I do think you made a really great point when I asked which laws were broken.
		You said the Impoundment Act.
		The issue, of course, being that to the letter of the law, Trump didn't break that law.
		However, you choose to interpret it that way because your opinion is that Trump firing people is an end run around the Impoundment Act because he is eliminating employees that should be able to get the job done, thus effectively deferring the funding because now it's not going to be utilized properly.
		This is why my final thoughts on this are...
		The left over the past 15-20 years has engaged in the ethos of there is no truth but power.
		This was the words of the late David Graeber, not me, that the left has adopted the fascistic ethos.
unidentified		What is that?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What?
unidentified		Could you explain who that person is?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		David Graeber.
		He was called the anarchist anthropologist.
		He was a professor and he was a prominent progressive and one of the organizers of Occupy Wall Street.
unidentified		OK, thank you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He passed away a few years ago.
		But before he died, he had this long thread on Twitter.
		It was Twitter at the time that the left has adopted fascistic ethos, namely there is no truth but power.
		And so what we've been seeing is, for instance, with Donald Trump's documents case, his home was raided.
		His wife and his child's bedroom were raided.
		And they tried to prosecute him under this.
		Joe Biden, however, his ghostwriter explicitly stated, on the record, Biden was recorded saying he had illegally retained national security documents as vice president for the purpose of writing a book to make money.
		There was no prosecution against Joe Biden.
		There was against Donald Trump.
		The statement that Donald Trump violated the Impoundment Act, I do believe, rather exemplifies the crisis we're having in this country, in that, to the letter of law, Donald Trump did not.
		He did not.
		Publicly declare a deferral of funds or a rescission of funds.
		He fired a bunch of people.
		The interpretation for you and many on the left would be, you see, he is breaking the law.
		We deem it so by our interpretation.
		By the spirit of the law, he has broken it, not by the letter.
		So the challenge we then have is, the left is, there is no truth but power.
		We will interpret the law and we will enforce it as we see it, not what the law actually states.
		Donald Trump is doing an end run, whereas the right has continually played this.
		Yeah, we're not going to do that because we can't.
		And several examples of that are the Summer of Love riots where the White House was firebombed.
		We got no M29 hearings or committee.
		There was no investigation into the 100-plus people who were throwing the firebombs and setting fire to churches.
		The mass riots that resulted in 30-plus deaths, all of it ignored.
		And this was under Trump's administration.
		The right does not engage in these No Truth But Power games for the most part, though sometimes they do.
		The left has a tendency to do so.
		So my ultimate point is there's not going to be an agreement as to whether or not what Trump is doing fits or does not fit within the confines, because we fully expect the liberal establishment and whatever's left of it.
		There's no Democratic Party leader to utilize the law however they see fit to make sure make sure that their political enemies are destroyed.
		For instance, the racketeering charges against Jenna Ellis in Georgia for simply representing Donald Trump.
		She was charged with two counts of racketeering.
		All she did was provide legal legal advice to a man who hired her to do so.
		And in Georgia, they tried putting her in prison, to which she cried on TV and apologized for doing so.
		They did this in, I believe it was Wisconsin as well, targeting the lawyers, the legal representation of a sitting president.
		We have seen two left-aligned individuals try to assassinate the man, not to mention the Iranian plot, but that's here nor there.
		You've got terror attacks against Tesla.
		I perceive this as Republicans are going to continually be weak.
		However, and the left will continually either obfuscate, defend, engage in extra legal practices, target lawyers, shut down speech.
		Let's just start from the beginning.
		Let's go quick.
		The censorship wave of major corporations throughout the 2010s in big tech with left-aligned individuals working with federal intelligence agencies, shutting down largely conservative personalities was denied by the corporate press, finally admitted to by now Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and the whole lot of them.
		They now acknowledge, yeah, they actually did that.
		We have evidence from actually left-leaning publications in which the intelligence agencies had back doors.
		This is from The Intercept and X to submit for review things they wanted taken down.
		It is now a known fact several years on that, yes, these institutions actually were censoring opinions, largely the conservative side.
		You then have the Summer of Love riots, the Antifa riots, the 90 plus days of firebombing of federal buildings by far leftists to which Kamala Harris and Joe Biden solicited funding to help these individuals get out of jail.
		Then you have January 6, the one time.
		The firebombing of the White House in St. John's Church should have resulted in a mass committee hearings and mass arrests.
		J6 did.
		And we got years of hearings.
		The lopsidedness of enforcement and aggression in this country is apparent to anybody who follows the news.
		For example, Joe Biden in the Burisma scandal.
		Joe Biden said illegally to a president of a foreign nation.
		This one's for you.
		Congress approved federal loan guarantees to Ukraine.
		And Joe Biden flew there and told the president, I am going to block that as vice president unless you do.
		Unless you make a political move that I demand.
		The firing of a state prosecutor, Victor Shokin, who is currently investigating, among other things, Michael Ozodczewski, the founder of the Burisma Energy Company, for which Joe Biden's son was on the board.
		Call it whatever you want.
		At the bare minimum, it was a conflict of interest.
		When Donald Trump called the president and said, what is this all about?
		I want this investigated.
		He was impeached for it and accused of a quid pro quo.
		By all means, say Donald Trump was guilty.
	Joe Biden should be guilty all the same.
	But for some reason, enforcement only went in one direction.
	What we have today is for the first time that I have seen in 20 years, the right, the Republican side has said it is time to wield power.
	And what have they done?
	Fired people.
	And the reaction from the left is it's a threat to our democracy.
	He's destroying our democracy.
	He must be stopped.
	OK, the reason I think Donald Trump won is because nobody liked the summer of love riots.
	Nobody liked the 30 plus deaths.
	Nobody liked the firebombing of the White House and nothing was done about it at all.
	Nobody likes that they're paying taxes at all, regardless of whether they're good or bad.
	Nobody wants to fund foreign wars.
	The Democrats have become the party of the military industrial complex in at the top level, not not the progressives in their support for Israel.
	As party-wide, their support for Ukraine, including the progressives.
	That is the largest funding right now of the military-industrial complex, and it is supported across the board.
	The right has become what I would call the horde, in reference to World of Warcraft.
	A hodgepodge of various groups have only aligned against the quote-unquote alliance of established power structures.
unidentified		They also support Israel.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They're largely at the establishment level, but I would imagine that both sides...
unidentified		Lots of evangelicals are power-based, like it supports Israel, of course.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Both the left and the right have their anti-Israel faction.
unidentified		Fair enough.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And absolutely, Donald Trump will give Israel whatever they want.
		However, the side that has the larger anti-war sentiment and element is, of course, the Republican side.
		So what we see right now is the principal positions of the right.
		We want chemicals out of our food.
		There are some people on the left who want that, though R.F. Kennedy Jr. was rejected by every single Democrat when he was up for appointment.
		And what is R.F. Kennedy Jr.'s position?
		We should have better science, better reviews.
		And they called him an anti-vaxxer and they called him all these other things.
		And then he put out an op-ed saying, please get the vaccine, which is insane.
		It's insane that people criticized him for that when he was never active.
		That's what I mean.
		R.F. Kennedy Jr. represents the let's get healthy, which used to be a left Democrat position.
		It was the big corporations aligned with libertarian billionaires that didn't care that we had chemicals.
		You've got Tulsi Gabbard, a large anti-war personality, critical of U.S. spending in foreign policy and the bombings in Syria, etc.
		And they called her pro-Russia for it because she was critical of us engaging in regime change wars across the Middle East.
		So you've got the anti-war element, the health element, and you've got the make America, the reduce the size of government element.
		On the Democrat side, you have...
		I would call it also additionally a strange hodgepodge, but you have support overtly for the military-industrial complex at the highest levels.
		Broad support for the military-industrial complex at the progressive to large levels, which is Ukraine, which received more—Ukraine received more funding than Israel has in 70 years.
		So if you're talking about the principal funding, the largest recipient of military-industrial complex support is Ukraine.
		Nothing else comes close.
		Even Vietnam, I think, was only $70 billion.
		Israel has—right now, after 70 years— has already been surpassed by Ukraine in two, which is nuts.
		The Democrats largely supported mass corporations.
		They largely now support war.
		They oppose the health operations, and they support bureaucratic institutions, which most people can't understand what's currently going on.
		My view here is, now I'm ranting, but I'll just finish by saying this.
		When you've got prominent punk rock bands that used to be anti-war, now pro-Ukraine, It appears that the Democratic institution has crumbled for a reason, and that is it is hypocritical and doesn't seem to be at all representing any core ideology.
		The ultimate point I'm trying to make is no one's going to agree.
		The Democrats are going to continue to say might makes right, and the right is going to continue to say, but we're literally watching these things happen.
		The difference now is through the collapse of the corporate narrative machine and the rise of podcasts, Donald Trump was able to win.
		And now you actually have people who want actions to happen happening.
		And of course, the Democrats still maintain Mike makes right, so we'll do what we want.
unidentified		Yeah, I'll just give you my final thought, right?
		And it's pretty simple.
		There's an age-old expression when you look at organized crime is that they get more violent and they get louder.
		the closer you get to hitting their money.
		And it seems to me, it's crazy that the reaction to Doge by the left in general has been like terror attacks on Tesla, has been outrage over all the stuff that's been going down.
		And to me, it seems like it's because they're hitting the money and there's some kind of nasty onion that we need to pull back the layers.
		And, you know, I just, the visceral just hatred, and they're sitting here, they're calling him President Musk, they're calling him, you know, a Nazi, they're calling him all these different things.
		and I'm just going, you know, well, there's got to be something up.
		And every time he goes and clears something out, it's just no matter what he does, it's bad, even if it's not bad.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Even when he took out the leader of ISIS. Yeah, terrible.
		I believe it was Ezra Klein who said something to the effect of the fact that Democrats can't give Trump one good day effectively disproves their...
		I'll paraphrase, but the fact that Trump couldn't get one good day at all...
		For killing a man who was kidnapping young girls and raping them and leading a terror organization in the Middle East, something that even Obama spoke out against, shows there is no ethos or ideology behind their actions.
		It is simply might makes right.
unidentified		Oh yeah, when he turned General Salami into Salami.
		I mean, a big fan of that.
		He crippled Iran's terror organizations through the Revolutionary Guard.
		He crippled them, and nobody ever wanted to give him credit for that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But these are things the Democrats, based on their positions today, should have supported.
		This is the issue.
		Donald Trump takes out the quote-unquote austere scholar in ISIS and he was still heavily criticized for it.
		He takes out the leader of terror operations in the Middle East.
unidentified		That happened in Iraq.
		If I remember correctly, and it's been a long time, that was the issue.
		Not that he took him out because we attack Iran all the time, but that we took him out on Iraqi territory.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		See, that's hypocrisy.
		Hold on.
		Oh, let's play the game, buddy.
		Barack Obama murdered a 16-year-old in Yemen.
unidentified		I agree with you.
unidentified		100%.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And where is the outrage over what Biden was doing and what Obama was doing?
unidentified		There was plenty of outrage on the left.
		I agree with you in terms of liberals.
		I 100% agree with you in terms of their support of Israel, right?
		It's been completely undermining anything they've talked about.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And let me pause you because my point is when Democrats defended and cheered for Obama murdering people, children in Yemen, they don't.
		I'm not talking about you or the progressives.
		I'm saying the Democrat establishment that is supposed to be the other side of this conflict are mad at Trump for killing Soleimani while celebrating or defending Barack Obama for murdering literal children in countries we are not at war with.
unidentified		I agree.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And that is the principal issue.
unidentified		We both have anti-establishment views then.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's why I said I'll tell you one of the problems I have with the progressives is their support for Ukraine.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Which makes literally no sense.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But anyway, I digress.
		Instead of me interrupting and ranting like I should, we should wind things down.
		So if you guys want to take the final thoughts.
unidentified		Go ahead, Brad.
		Okay.
		Doge is a disaster in terms of constitutionality.
		It violates Congress' ability to decide where funds go, and it undermines various other laws and regulations.
		We're figuring this out in court.
		I think that there's lots of things that we didn't get to, right?
		Because we got distracted by immigration, unfortunately.
		But we didn't get to Elon Musk's endless conflict of interest, right?
		Like, for instance, undermining other companies' contracts.
		So he starts firing people in the FAA, and then he decides, oh, the FAA is using this system, is deciding to go to Verizon to get this communication system.
		I'm going to get that contract canceled, or it's going to mysteriously cancel itself.
		And then Starlink, instead, is going to take that contract.
		Interesting, right?
		I think the Doge does a bad job in giving Trump the information, right?
		So if a Doge is just an advisory board, which people claim, which is bullshit, right?
		But if it's just an advisory board and it's giving Trump information to then act, then it's doing a bad job.
		We can see that with the Social Security Administration, right?
		Talking about those tens of millions of people, right, over 150 getting checks.
		That was a lie.
		That was a lie.
		Not even a lie.
		I think it's because they were so stupid.
		They didn't understand exactly how those government databases worked.
		It was literally just a quirk of programming.
		But we see this all the time in terms of errors.
		So it's not efficient in that it makes mistakes all the goddamn time.
		It requires other people to error check it.
		It has tried to ensconce itself in secrecy in terms of hiding from FOIA requests, pretending it's not an agency, but then pretending it is an agency.
		Donald Trump saying that Elon Musk is in charge of...
		Doge, but then not in charge of Doge, and so is this Amy Gleason person who no one's ever heard of, right?
		This is a whole process to undermine our democracy.
		Rather than going through Congress, rather than going through the normal process that we have set up, we have Doge, right?
		And you can say it's getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, right?
		But one, Doge is deciding what is waste, fraud, and abuse.
		Something that we can't agree with, and there's a lot of it that we can't, right?
		But it should be handled through our legislative process.
		That's the process that we...
		That we have.
		And so undermining that is a problem.
		This is an act of the unitary executive theory, right?
		This is to undermine the checks and balances so that the executive has unchecked power.
		This is exactly the plan.
		Russ Vault, who's now the head of the Office of Budget and Management, I believe.
		He is another person who's been pushing unitary executive theory.
		There is his attorney general, General Barr, from his first term, actively talked about the unitary executive theory.
		All of this is in line with that.
		Rust's fault is important.
		He's critical to actually accomplishing this plan.
		So I'm against that.
		I like the checks and balances, the checks and balances that Tim apparently says that he still values.
		If you do, well, then you won't like Doge.
		I appreciate you, Tim, for inviting me on the chat.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Extra comment.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This has been fun.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Well, first, yeah, I... Big fan of everything Trump's done.
		Trump said we'd get tired of winning.
		Not tired yet.
		It's been every day, every day.
		It's breakneck wins.
		I just can't even keep track.
		Elon, if you happen to watch this, hey, why don't you go check out the ATF? We'd be a huge fan of that.
		You know, as far as I know, nobody likes the ATF. But moving on.
		Yeah, I love what he's doing.
		Hope he keeps up the good work.
		You know, big fan of all of those things.
		The government's clearly bloated.
		I think the fact that we're getting this...
		I think that we're going to find more and more.
		It's just crazy to me.
		But yeah, shout out to Prime for helping set this up.
		Thanks for having us, Tim.
		And shout out to Modi and Wick.
		I wouldn't be streaming and doing any of this without them.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Where can people find you?
unidentified		Oh, you can find me every day, Monday through Thursday at 7.30pm Central as Admiral Gibbs on pretty much every platform.
		Sure.
		You can find me on Twitch.tv and YouTube.com at PrimeKai, P-R-I-M-E-C-A-Y-E-S. We love to have you.
		We do stream on Mondays and Thursdays, but we're expanding our streams, right?
		We want to do more content.
		So please check us out.
		We love to have you.
		And you'll find Gibbs here.
		So you like Gibbs, you'll find more of Gibbs.
		We argue all the time, and I prove them wrong all the time.
		I don't know if I've ever been proved right.
		They call me the political prophet because...
		I'm always right.
		It's crazy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Gentlemen, it's been great.
		Thanks for hanging out.
		I wish we had more time.
		But in the future, we're planning on doing these live with an audience and bringing up people on stage.
		So I'd love to have you guys back.
		It'd be great.
unidentified		Love it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And in about, let's see, a month and a half, we're playing our first show.
		And we're trying to figure out what we're going to do.
		So we'll see what happens.
		And hopefully you guys as members may actually come up and sit at the table and yell at one of these two fine gentlemen.
		He's really excited for that.
		Yeah, the idea is for those that are members of the Timcast Discord.
		We want to have about 40 seats in the audience, and members of the audience submit their debate talking point on the core issue, so we'd present them doge, pro, for, or against.
		Then we're going to try and do split between half for, half against.
		People will present their arguments, we'll look through them, and if they're not very good, then we're going to be like...
		Okay, we're not going to be this person.
		But we're not going to be mean.
		But then we want to bring people up and have them sit down in the chair and give them a few minutes to debate.
unidentified		That's a really cool idea.
		I've been working on my own.
		I've been doing formal debates where there's a winner and loser and we have rankings and whatnot.
		And I think that there's definitely space in this industry for what you're describing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think the issue is we want to decentralize the ability for people to be loud.
		And there's probably a lot of people we've never heard of who are smarter than all of us combined.
		And they're just not marketing people.
		I like it.

▲