Trump Declaring Antifa Terrorists Means YouTube MUST Ban Far Left ft. Will Chamberlain
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) Guest: Will Chamberlain @willchamberlain (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL Trump Declaring Antifa Terrorists Means YouTube MUST Ban Far Left ft. Will Chamberlain
It's Kelly Clarkson here to talk all things Wayfair, the best place to buy furniture, decor, and anything else you can think of to create a home you absolutely love.
I know when I shop with Wayfair, I find options for every style, whether I'm filling boho or farmhouse, modern, traditional, French country.
I can find exactly what I need for my home and more.
No matter your space, style, or budget, shopWayfair.com to make your home way more you.
Wayfair, every style, every home.
I think this will end up, this is where I really need that foreign terrorist organization designation because that will prohibit this, right?
For example, I mean, if you place them under sanctions, it's the same reason that members of the Russian government can't have blue checks on X because X is the United States company.
There are sanctions on Russia, so there can't be any financial relationship between the United States and entities associated with the Russian government.
Same thing will start applying here.
If we get that designation, every blue check will have to go away.
From the post-millennial, Google admits Biden admin pressured them to censor YouTubers and will reinstate banned accounts.
So we decided to bring in a lawyer because I got a bunch of questions, not just on the legal ramifications of Trump's Antifa terrorist designation or what we've just discovered about what Google was doing in censorship, but also the cultural elements of what happens to a country when confidence is broken.
But we'll just start at the beginning.
Trump has designated Antifa a domestic terror organization through an executive order.
Now there's a report out from the Hill claiming he has no legal authority to do so and it's meaningless.
unidentified
Is that true?
What is this?
I mean, meaningless is a little bit strong, but there isn't a statute that sets out a category of domestic terrorist organization.
As far as I know, that means that the designation would have some profound legal implication.
However, the rest of the executive order does immediately direct the Department of Justice and all related agencies to start going after Antifa then and prosecuting them under existing law.
So I think the idea that saying the entire executive order is toothless is wrong, but the idea that saying that there is actually some current legal import to identifying them as a domestic terrorist organization, I think that's correct.
I think actually then that would imply the executive order is actually quite toothful.
If there's no legal distinction, then it is only what Trump asserts it to be.
A terrorist organization.
Right.
And I mean, Trump can just say somebody's a domestic terrorist organization.
He can demand that executive branch officials refer to it as a domestic terrorist organization, treat it with the seriousness of any other terrorist organization.
Remember, he's the guy whose responsibility is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
I assume that there's this sort of lingering meme among the left that Antifa isn't really an organization because it's so decentralized, which is very cute, but false.
unidentified
A loose organization, and they're trying to have this very cramped definition of what constitutes an organization to be somebody with like a supreme leader who runs the organization like a CEO and has authority over all its subordinates.
Organizations can be much more loose and decentralized than that and still be organizations.
Yeah, I can speak from experience.
I know Andy knows probably the expert on this one, but there are leaders.
It's actually quite simple: who prints the flyers?
Who picks the time?
Who tells people where to stand?
And I've personally met these people at these meetings.
They exist.
They lie.
And these NGOs, these nonprofits lie as well, claiming it's leaderless because they want to make it difficult for law enforcement to track down who's actually responsible for funding and organizing all this stuff.
I mean, I don't know that Trump actually needed to designate them terrorist organizations for any law enforcement function.
He could have just told Pam Bonty, start going after these groups.
Does this grant him any kind of special RICO powers or preempt anything?
Like, what's the point of doing it?
unidentified
I mean, I think it's to I think there's a symbolic nature of the executive order to say that, you know, he's, this is formally recognized by the executive branch as a terrorist organization.
I think there's value independent of everything else to that.
But it is still symbolic.
It doesn't create some new statutory right or statute.
It doesn't create some statutory right for the government to go after people that it didn't already have.
But we do have laws on the books specifically targeting acts of terror.
Yeah, we do.
We also have acts of, we have laws in the books about foreign terrorist organizations too.
I think the real interesting next move is whether President Trump's going to be able to designate Antifa as a foreign terrorist organization.
I know they're looking into it.
Wow.
And that actually does have meaningful legal import because there are federal crimes against material support for a foreign terrorist organization, for example.
And then there are travel bans.
And there are a number of ramifications and consequences that can result when an organization is designated as an FTO.
The Netherlands is considering also naming Antifa as a terrorist organization.
unidentified
What would stop them from saying this is a foreign terrorist organization?
It's not clear.
I mean, again, this is one of those situations where you have a whole bunch of left-leaning journalists saying, oh, of course, this couldn't be done.
It's impossible because Antifa is some decentralized grouping of ragtag bums down the street or something, as opposed to an actual organization of people that cause riot and mayhem all over the world.
You know what, my guess would be is that the Trump administration probably knows they could issue a declaration as an FTO right away.
I bet they want to get some financial ties first so that when some lib or tries to make the argument that just because they use the same symbols and then the Trump admin can say, actually look at this exchange of finances and communications or something like that.
Yeah, and I think they probably want to make the findings as robust as possible to insulate them from court challenge, right?
If the state department does it on its own, then you have a question of whether there's an opportunity, 30 days to challenge the designation and say, you know, it's not a foreign organization.
It's not an organization at all and potentially get it removed from the list.
So I think they're, you know, whereas Trump making this symbolic declaration now is just, he's just saying it, actually, you know, getting the foreign terrorist organization designation done and making it stick, they probably want to have as solid a legal footing for that as possible.
unidentified
I actually think this is one of the riskiest things that Trump has done.
I was talking about this on IRL last night that you had explained to me back in 2021 with Texas v. Pennsylvania.
You had said, you can elaborate this because I don't want to put words in your mouth and was your idea.
But the reason why I asked why the Supreme Court would not take up this lawsuit between Texas and Pennsylvania, only Thomas and Alita would.
And you said simple version, Supreme Court doesn't want people to realize it has no enforcement power.
Yes.
Just basically explain that and better than I can.
I forget the facts of the Texas v. Pennsylvania case, so it's hard for me to remember exactly what was going on, what I said that in reference to, but I can't explain the concept is that, you know, the federal rules papers explain that the judiciary was created as the weakest branch of government and it totally relies on its legitimacy and its judgment.
unidentified
And it relies on the other branches of government to enforce its rulings.
And if it's seen as illegitimate or if it's made to be responsible for continuous supervision of somebody, then it doesn't want to do those things.
I guess in the Antifa context, I mean, you could see them trying.
I mean, I don't think that necessarily comes into play too much.
It will come into play on the foreign terrorist organization designation if that came, but I don't see them, you know, there's no cause of action.
The reason I bring up the concept, it's not so much that I'm saying the Supreme Court will have to issue a ruling, but I'm bringing up the issue of confidence.
unidentified
The Supreme Court fears that if people realize they can't enforce certain actions, people will start to disregard many of their rulings because what are you going to do about it?
And so the idea is that the Supreme Court tries to issue rulings that they know people will socially agree to without being so egregious it requires physical enforcement.
That's a general understanding, I believe, right?
Kind of.
I think it's that they don't want to go too far outside the bounds of the Overton window with any of their rulings to the point that it threatens their legitimacy.
You're seeing a major retreat from things like consent decrees where a local jurisdiction and maybe the Department of Justice will sign some settlement requiring the DOJ or not the DOJ rather, but requiring judicial oversight of the local policies of that police department.
unidentified
This was really common in the past.
But the Supreme Court doesn't really like these.
And the reason being is it kind of it puts the judge in a position where they're doing this almost executive function of continuing to continuing to monitor whether somebody is complying with the law.
That's a classic executive branch function and not a judicial function.
unidentified
So they want to be in the business of judging.
The reason I bring this up is that my view on this is that under the Biden administration, we're now learning, like we knew this, but we're now learning this with Jim Jordan just putting out this post.
The Biden administration, Democrats pressured Google to censor people who broke no rules.
And the political climate was such that Google was scared of the executive branch and complied and began censoring people.
My view now is with all of these platforms having these rules against terrorism and supporting terrorism and memorializing or in any way, like Google's actually pretty explicit about even saying nice things about him as bannable, is removable.
With Trump formally declaring as an executive order that they're terrorists, this is a public confidence challenge.
If YouTube, X, Meta, TikTok, et cetera, do not now act as though Trump's word matters, there are going to be people who say Trump is illegitimate and big tech platforms don't even follow the executive branch's designation of terrorism.
unidentified
Okay, so the argument therefore is that Trump shouldn't have done this because it makes him potentially heckless?
Is that the argument?
I'm saying it's a risky move by Trump.
And if YouTube, for instance, declares the Biden administration yelled at us, so we banned innocent people.
The Trump administration made a formal declaration of a criminal extremist terrorist group.
We don't care what he thinks.
We're not banning these people.
It shows a clear distinction in what they fear and what they don't.
Sure.
But then I guess I wouldn't say that it's risky on the part of the Trump administration.
It's revealing the extent to which these platforms are essentially in the pocket of the left.
unidentified
And they, you know, regardless of whether the president of the United States says some organization that's clearly rioting all over the country, launching violence everywhere, though they're not a terrorist organization, but we were going to take the word of the Biden administration about every scientist who was saying anything about COVID.
Well, it's clear who you're in the pocket of.
So I don't think it's risky for Trump so much as it's revealing of what these tech companies will do.
I believe the risk is that it shows these companies don't fear Trump's enforcement capabilities.
They don't take it seriously and there's no real threat.
And then from that, you have a fracturing of confidence in who actually has legitimate power in the United States.
If Trump's executive branch cannot treat terrorist organizations as terrorist organizations and he's told it's illegitimate, it starts to fracture the view of who has actual authority in this country.
I think Trump needs to be able to say terrorists are terrorists and it'll be treated as terrorists.
But the big tech companies, it's the majority of how we consume information and how our society builds confidence in who they actually fear.
The way to describe it is, if Trump says he's going to arrest somebody, but no one actually thinks he'll ever win in court, they'd ignore it.
Take a look at California.
When Trump says we're going to start rounding up illegal immigrants, the government of California doesn't enforce the law and allows the far left to engage in violence against Trump.
There is a fracturing of confidence in, I'll put it this way.
The way it needs to be is that there's a monopoly on violence from the superior authority of this country.
If Antifa feels that they can firebomb a federal police, a federal law enforcement facility, and the state of California will safe, will provide a safe harbor, they will keep doing it.
And then people in that state will recognize, I don't have to listen to Trump or I shouldn't listen to Trump because the true monopoly on violence comes from the state of California.
And that's when you start getting these civil war distinctions.
But I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, right?
Yeah, I mean, I think what you're saying is, and what you're right about, is this, this will end up in a test of the will of the Trump administration, whether they have the will to enforce the law and to put down these sort of quiet, low-key, quote-unquote, rebellions that, you know, essentially the, I mean, California is already starting to do stuff like this.
You know, they passed a law purporting to regulate whether or not federal agents could wear face masks in their states, which they don't have authority to do.
It's completely frivolous.
They have no authority to tell federal agents how to do their jobs.
But the cracks are.
Go ahead.
So, yeah, I mean, the only point being that if the Trump administration has the will to enforce the law to push forward with this, I mean, the Supreme Court's going with Trump and the Trump administration on basically everything, right?
They're on a record-winning streak at the Supreme Court.
Trump has said formally by executive order, they are terrorists.
It's Kelly Clarkson here to talk all things Wayfair, the best place to buy furniture, decor, and anything else you can think of to create a home you absolutely love.
I know when I shop with Wayfair, I find options for every style, whether I'm feeling foho or farmhouse, modern, traditional, French country.
I can find exactly what I need for my home and more.
No matter your space, style, or budget, shopwayfair.com to make your home way more you.
Wayfair, every style, every home.
If YouTube allows them on the platform, they will be making money.
I mean, if you have Antifa aligned group flying the flag of Antifa, asserting they are Antifa in California and using money earned from social media platforms that refuse to remove them, and that money then goes towards their terrorist activities as viewed by the Trump administration, I think we're in a very dangerous situation.
unidentified
Yeah, I think, I think this will end up, this is where I really need that foreign terrorist organization designation because that will prohibit this, right?
For example, I mean, if you place them under sanctions, it's the same reason that members of the Russian government can't have blue checks on X because X is a United States company.
There are sanctions on Russia, so there can't be any financial relationship between the United States and entities associated with the Russian government.
Same thing will start applying here.
If we get that designation, every blue check will have to go away.
And it's not clear that X will be allowed to even host their accounts if they're a foreign terrorist organization in particular.
So I think that I really want the administration to go further here.
They should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization.
It's a global organization and we should cite it as such.
I mean, there's videos of them right now in foreign countries.
And these people do communicate.
I traveled all over the world.
And my other journalists, and I would call these people the tourists, a group of activists that somehow ended up all over the country and even in China and Turkey and France and Germany.
The same people, the same organizing meetings, because these are people, some might call them globalist, or they believe in borderless, no borders, one world, whatever you want to call it.
They're communist.
They want total domination.
These are leaders.
They're active.
I suppose what I'm seeing now then, what we can look at, Trump's designation is not a legal distinction.
So it sounds like Trump may be poking at the confidence of this country to see, will these other companies, not just big tech, but will companies actually fall in line with what he declares?
Or are they going to say, we won't move unless we have to?
Yeah, I think that's actually an interesting way of looking at what Trump is doing.
It's sort of testing the waters and seeing the extent to how far does his power reach, what are these companies willing to do in the face of the president of the United States saying that's a terrorist organization.
unidentified
We're dedicating federal resources to fight them.
And I'm not sure how the, I'm not sure how the tech companies will respond, will respond, but I think you're, I think you're right that it's, and Trump does.
He loves throwing out tests and rhetorical traps for people.
unidentified
Like, just he throws stuff out there to see what comes back.
Like the Pam Bondi thing, right?
Where he posted on truth saying, Pam, go and arrest these people.
Why are we waiting?
Then deletes it.
I think it's a trial, but he wants to see what the reaction is going to be.
The point I was making at the beginning of this show earlier was that if the first thing Trump did when he got in office was instruct FBI agents to go arrest Hillary, I bet they'd say no.
They'd say, I'm not, this is crazy, because Trump is trying to jump out of the Overton window.
So he needs to build the pressure and slowly move in that direction.
That's why I think we're seeing like Letitia James facing prosecution over the mortgage thing.
It's rather light.
unidentified
Once it becomes more accepted and commonplace that these people will be charged and arrested, and they have been, it won't be a great leap for a rank and file FBI guy to be like, okay, I'll go arrest Hillary.
I could see that.
I think, you know, he's also trying to find one of the things, the DOJ is conscious of this.
And the consequence of that has been a slew of victories at the Supreme Court, I think.
I mean, also the fact that they're on the right side of the law, but that's also a big part of it.
So you could then take that sort of analogy from how DOJ is treating the Supreme Court and say, okay, now this is how President Trump is sort of, you know, creating the environment where people are used to the idea of, okay, we're actually going to go after Antifa in a serious way.
So, you know, there's no question that the administration knows what it's doing on this front, that it's not, you know, make it not making things up.
They put out this executive order knowing that it didn't have legal ramifications in the same way that a foreign terrorist organization designation would.
It really is just a test of the will of the Trump administration at the end of the day.
The federal government's the most powerful entity in the history of the world, most powerful entity in the history of humanity.
It just takes the will to use its power and essentially stop those who would resist it.
The ultimate question is, when does the left give in and accept the authority of Trump?
With Newsom trying to assert authority of the National Guard, trying to assert now authority over federal law enforcement, which he doesn't have, and whether big tech is going to fall in line behind Trump's designation of a terrorist organization.
The question is, when do these companies finally just say, okay, Trump, you're in control?
What changed that made Disney say, okay, Jimmy, you can come back?
unidentified
There was only one other reported issue at play.
And according to the Wall Street Journal, Dana Walden and Bob Iger feared for the safety of their staff due to threats they had been receiving.
Since then, a leftist anti-Trump guy opened fire on an ABC station and several other affiliates owned by Sinclair received terroristic death threats.
So they pulled Charlie Kirk's memorial.
It stands to reason.
The most probable case is leftist terror forced Disney's hand.
If Trump cannot assert more authority than random psychotic leftist terrorists, no one will listen to what he has to say.
The right will be culturally toothless.
And this goes to a dark place where I have to imagine the end result is going to be Trump kicking doors down with an expanded federal law enforcement, insurrection act or otherwise, to stop the terror threats, or the left just increases the violence.
They don't let Trump do it.
There needs to be a stop put to it.
And this connects to something I was having arguments a few days ago because, you know, obviously there was this whole move where you had kind of moderate liberal types saying, oh, right-wing cancel culture is in because of the overwhelming force that right-wing people were just boycotting or trying to get people fired and shows canceled.
And they were saying, oh, this is right-wing cancel culture.
And I'm like, cancel culture, this is not cancel culture.
This is necessary for the health of the Republic because in a world where assassination becomes normalized, you need to just game that out a little bit.
You just need to think about the consequences of a world where if anybody random crazy person or any lonely person knows that they can go out and assassinate a right-wing leader and they will be cheered and absolved of that crime, there means a lot more assassinations.
And at a certain point, any political movement, if their own people are getting assassinated, it's effectively civil war.
The affiliates are still pulling his show, but ABC caved.
unidentified
Why?
Someone put a bunch of bullets in an ABC station and they've been getting death threats, terroristic threats.
What they are saying publicly when ABC does this is, we are more afraid of the left than we are of the right because why?
Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
What did the right do?
They got together, they prayed.
When George Floyd, a random guy no one knew, died, they burned down every city they could.
I mean that figuratively, billions in damage.
Bob Iger knows who the threat is.
Trump ain't going to come arrest him.
The right is not going to smash windows.
The joke I used to make is, do you really believe Twitter fears that Dave Rubin will march down the street with a crowbar and a bunch of classical liberals to smash their windows out?
And as a result of being on the side of civilization on the right, you know, we're not going to be the party that's out there wanting riots, wanting disorder, wanting random decentralized violence.
But what we will demand is the assertion of legitimate and lawful public authority against the enemies of public order and peace.
That is what we want.
unidentified
That is what we should fight for.
And that ultimately means an enormous amount of responsibility is on President Trump and PM Bondi and the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security because we are the peaceful movement.
It is on them to ensure that justice reigns and that these terrorists, terrorists are not allowed to get away with this nonsense.
The last thing I'll say is I made this point quite a bit.
People keep advocating on the right for the freedom of speech of these liberals who are smearing Charlie, advocating for more death.
That is an external threat that is inside this country now trying to destroy our rule of law and our way of life.
unidentified
I'm not going to stand up for them when they get censored or silenced or otherwise.
Yeah, you're nicer than I am.
I'm actively going to insist that they be censored.
There you go.
I'm sorry.
Not necessarily by the state, but certainly this is exactly the kind of thing that private pressure and societal pressure is appropriate for.
Yes, celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk is not a crime.
Congratulations.
We're not going to jail you, but it's appalling and abhorrent and completely destructive to the social fabric of this country and deserves social sanction.
A culture that tolerates in any way political assassinations is a culture opening the door to civil war.
unidentified
Correct.
That is the core of my argument.
It is a necessary, in order to prevent civil war, you must have a hard red line in terms of social sanction on the celebration and encouragement of assassination.
It must render you persona non grata in polite society.
Well, thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you next time.
unidentified
Next time.
Take care.
That was, of course, Will Chamberlain, lawyer, Article 3 Project, working to get Ilhan Omar stripped of her committees, as she should be for what she has said about Charlie Kirk.
You do have a right to free speech in your opinion.
It's Kelly Clarkson here to talk all things Wayfair, the best place to buy furniture, decor, and anything else you can think of to create a home you absolutely love.
I know when I shop with Wayfair, I find options for every style, whether I'm feeling boho or farmhouse, modern, traditional, French country.
I can find exactly what I need for my home and more.
No matter your space, style, or budget, shopwayfair.com to make your home way more you.
Wayfair, every style, every home.
However, Will makes a very, very, very important point.
The line at which we say we are no longer engaged in the expressing of ideas.
If our society allows people to venerate assassins at grand scale, I think scale matters.
We're done for.
I think, you know, when I talk, I think it plays into the idea that I was saying before, like the Nuremberg trials, we defended, we had lawyers defend Nazis, but it's because we didn't face the threat.
If on a normal day, 30 years ago, someone cheered for an assassin, we'd be like, well, you're crazy.
Because our society isn't threatened by that at a low scale.