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
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 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 failing 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, shop Wayfair.com to make your home way more you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wayfair, every style, every home. | |
| I think this will end up, this is where I would really need that foreign terrorist organization designation because that will prohibit this, right? | ||
| The 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 uh 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 postmillennial, Google admits Biden admin pressured them to censor YouTubers and will reinstate banned accounts. | ||
| This is shocking. | ||
| Jim Jordan said that's not all. | ||
| He says YouTube admits the Biden admin censorship pressure was unacceptable and wrong. | ||
| Confirms the Biden admin wanted Americans censored for speech that did not violate their policies. | ||
| They detail when YouTube began rolling back its censorship policies on political speech after the judiciary begins investigation. | ||
| States that public debates should never come at the expense of relying on authorities, promises to never use third party fact checkers, warns that Europe censorship laws target American companies and threaten American speech. | ||
| Now I have questions. | ||
| Serious questions about where this goes. | ||
| Will these companies adhere to Trump's authority? | ||
| Well, right now they're terrified of Jim Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee. | ||
| So it seems like they will. | ||
| But Trump just declared Antifa a terrorist organization. | ||
| And the question is, will they fall in line? | ||
| I'm curious about the legal matters. | ||
| So we brought in a lawyer. | ||
| We'll be joined by Will Chamberlain. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's bring him in now. | |
| And let's see if uh we get this working. | ||
| It looks like it may be working. | ||
| Audio seems good. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's uh let's just start it up. | |
| Make sure everything is usually we have some audio issues. | ||
| Will, can you hear me? | ||
| I can hear you just fine. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Well, how's it going, brother? | ||
| Good, man. | ||
| How you been? | ||
| Uh, all things considered, as good as I can be. | ||
| Right. | ||
| 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 just uh 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. | ||
| Uh 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Uh however, the rest of the executive order does immediately direct the Department of Justice and all related agencies to start going after Antifa then 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 the there is actually some current legal import to identifying them as a domestic terrorist organization, I think that's correct. | ||
| I I think actually then that would imply the executive order is actually quite toothful. | ||
| If if there's no legal distinction, then it is only what Trump asserts it to be. | ||
| A terrorist organization. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| And I mean, Trump can Trump can just say somebody's a domestic terrorist organization. | ||
| He can demand that executive branch officials refer to it as a domestic or 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. | ||
| He, you know, is in charge of the Department of Justice. | ||
| He's a depart charge of the Department of Homeland Security. | ||
| So when when an executive order comes out, you know, essentially it's not, it's not the fact that they were semantically defined as a domestic terrorist organization. | ||
| It's the fact that President Trump is saying you need to prioritize these people and stop their criminality, and that's a high priority number one. | ||
| But there are serious cultural elements here. | ||
| So I was just talking about uh the big tech platforms all have rules banning terrorist organizations. | ||
| The obvious question is who defines what a terrorist organization is? | ||
| Because they're not saying foreign. | ||
| This would apply to American organizations as well. | ||
| So this is the question that I've been asking. | ||
| Do first I'll ask you your opinion. | ||
| Do you think the big tech platforms are actually going to treat these Antifa accounts like terrorists and ban them? | ||
| Uh I think Elon Musk's ex probably will. | ||
| I wouldn't bet on anybody else doing it. | ||
| 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, uh, which is very cute but false. | ||
| There is a 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 is runs 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 they lie. | ||
| And these NGOs, these non-profits 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. | ||
| But I'm but I'm curious where where does this go? | ||
| 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 Bondi 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? | ||
| Uh I mean, I think it's to I think there's a symbolic nature of the 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. | ||
| It's simple, but it is 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. | ||
| And we also have acts of we have laws in the books about foreign terrorist organizations too. | ||
| I think the the real the real interesting next move is whether President Trump's gonna be able to designate Antifa as a foreign terrorist organization. | ||
| I know they're looking into it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| Um, and that actually does have meaningful legal import because uh there are federal crimes against material support for a foreign terrorist organization, for example. | ||
| Um, and then there are travel bans and there are any there are uh there are a number of ramifications and consequences that can result uh when an organization is designated as an FTO. | ||
| Well, there's uh prominently Antifa Germany. | ||
| The Netherlands is considering also naming Antifa as a terrorist organization. | ||
| What would stop them from saying this is a foreign terrorist organization? | ||
| It's 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, uh, as opposed to an actual organization of people that cause riot in mayhem all over the world. | ||
| We just saw it actually in Italy, uh huge Antifa uh riots uh against the fact because the Italian government didn't recognize the state of Palestine. | ||
| And Paris as well. | ||
| Just the other day, uh Nick Shirley posted this crazy video of people saying they were Antifa. | ||
| They are aligning under a singular banner. | ||
| You know what my guess would be is that the Trump administration probably knows they could issue a declaration of as an FTO right away. | ||
| I bet they want to get some financial ties first so that when some lib or you know 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 uh they probably want to make the findings as robust as possible to insulate them from court challenge, uh, right? | ||
| If the state department, if the State Department does it on its own, then you have a question of whether uh there's a 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. | ||
| Uh actually, you know, getting the foreign terrorist organization designation done and making it stick, they probably want to have as as solid a legal footing for that as possible. | ||
| 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 uh 2021 with Texas v. | ||
| Pennsylvania. | ||
| You had said, I uh and I'll you can you can elaborate this because I want I don't want to put words in your mouth and use your idea, but the I the reason why I asked why the Supreme Court would not take up this this lawsuit between Texas and Pennsylvania, only Thomas and Alita would, and you said the Supreme simple version, Supreme Court doesn't want people to realize it has no enforcement power. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Do you want to just basically explain that and better than I think? | ||
| I forget the facts of the Texas and the Pennsylvania case, so it's hard for me to remember exactly what was going on, uh what I said that in reference to. | ||
| But I I can I can't explain the concept is that you know, the the federal papers explain that the judiciary was created as the weakest branch of government and it's totally relies on its legitimacy and its judgment 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 in the Antifa context, um I mean you could see them trying. | ||
| I mean, I could I don't think that necessarily comes into play too much. | ||
| Uh it might come at it will come into play on the foreign terrorist organization designation if that came, but I don't see them, you know, there's there's no cause of action. | ||
| The concept you're mad. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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 gonna 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 the that's a general understanding, I believe, right? | ||
| Kind of. | ||
| I I think it's that they 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. | ||
| I think that's true. | ||
| Um they certainly don't want to do things that require kind of continuous oversight. | ||
| You're seeing a major retreat from things like consent decrees, where uh, you know, a local jurisdiction and maybe the Department of Justice will sign some settlement requiring uh the DOJ, or not the DOJ rather, but requiring judicial oversight of the local policies of that police department. | ||
| This is really common in the past. | ||
| Uh but the Supreme Court doesn't really like these, and 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 in continuing to monitor whether somebody is complying with a law. | ||
| That's a classic executive branch function and not a judicial function. | ||
| So they did they want to be in the business of judging. | ||
| The reason I bring this up is that my 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 admin 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 is banable, is removable. | ||
| With Trump formally declaring as an executive order that they're terrorists, this is a 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. | ||
| Okay, so the the argument therefore is that the Trump shouldn't have done this because it makes him potentially look feckless. | ||
| Is that is that the argument? | ||
| I'm saying it's a risky move by Trump. | ||
| And if 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 are not banning these people. | ||
| It shows a clear distinction in what they fear and what they don't. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| But then I I guess I wouldn't say that it's risky on the part of the Trump administration. | ||
| If anything, then it's just revealing, right? | ||
| It's revealing the extent to which uh these these platforms are essentially in the pocket of the left, 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 think it's 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 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 I 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. | ||
| Uh take a look at California. | ||
| When Trump says we're gonna start rounding up illegal immigrants, the 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 these the superior authority of this country. | ||
| If Antifa feels that they can firebom a federal police, uh federal uh law enforcement facility, and the state of California will safe will provide them 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 but I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, right? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, I think what you're saying is, and and what you're right about is this this will result 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. | ||
| Uh, that, you know, essentially the I mean, California's already starting to do stuff like this. | ||
| You know, they passed a law purporting to regulate the whether or not federal agents could wear face masks in their states, which they don't have authority to do. | ||
| Yep. | ||
| It's completely frivolous. | ||
| They don't they have no authority to tell federal agents how to do their jobs. | ||
| But but the cracks of I'll go go ahead. | ||
| No, so yeah, I mean, the 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? | ||
| We he's they're on a record-winning streak of the Supreme Court. | ||
| But so but these are the cracks forming, right? | ||
| You made a really good point with Newsom. | ||
| He did that press conference the other day where he says federal agents can't wear masks. | ||
| And again, he has no authority over this this federal law enforcement, but he's trying to assert it. | ||
| There's currently an ongoing battle as to who has the authority over the National Guard in California. | ||
| I think right now the latest was a stay, so that Trump does retain control, but it's gone back and forth so many times. | ||
| I don't actually know where we're at right now. | ||
| And and think about it this way. | ||
| 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, shop Wayfair.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. | ||
| This is this is massive. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah, I think I think this will end up, this is where I would really need that foreign terrorist organization designation because that will prohibit this, right? | ||
| The 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 uh 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 have their host their accounts if they're a foreign terrorist organization in particular. | ||
| So I think that I think that I really want the administration to do to go further here. | ||
| They they should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization. | ||
| The organization was founded in full in Europe. | ||
| It is not an American organization. | ||
| Uh uh, you know, as such. | ||
| It's a global organization. | ||
| And we should fight it as such. | ||
| I mean, there's videos of them right now in foreign countries. | ||
| And these people do communicate. | ||
| When I I traveled all over the world, and my other journalists and I would call that 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 globalists 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. | ||
| It is just him saying it. | ||
| The FTO would be that legal distinction. | ||
| So it sounds like Trump may be poking at the con 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 gonna say, we won't move unless we have to. | ||
| Yeah, I think that's a that's actually an interesting way of looking at what Trump is doing. | ||
| It's sort of testing the waters. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And seeing the extent to how far does his power reach, how how what are these companies willing to do in the face of you know the president of the United States saying that's a terrorist organization, we're dedicating federal resources to fight them. | ||
| And I'm not sure how the, I'm not sure how the tech companies who respond, will respond, but I think you're I think you're right that it's and Trump does this sort of stuff. | ||
| He loves throwing out tests and rhetorical traps for people, like just he throws stuff out there to see what comes back. | ||
| Like the 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 into office was instruct FBI agents to go arrest Hillary, I bet they'd say no. | ||
| They'd say, I I'm not, this is crazy. | ||
| Because Trump is trying to jump out of the Overton window. | ||
| The expectation of this is too great. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| They're trying to select cases that they're going to win on to bring to the Supreme Court. | ||
| They you know, there's been a lot more injunctions against the DOJ than cases they've actually brought to the Supreme Court's attention. | ||
| Uh, and so they're being very strategic about it in the same way. | ||
| There was a lot of worry, especially in the aftermath of the Alien Enemies Act case that the Trump administration was going to defy court orders. | ||
| They've made really clear they're not going to do that. | ||
| They're going to obey the court. | ||
| 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 that's also a big part of it. | ||
| So you could then take that sort of analogy from how DOJ is 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. | ||
| We're going to start by saying they're a domestic terrorist organization. | ||
| Then maybe the leap to a foreign terrorist organization doesn't seem so large. | ||
| And then all of a sudden a whole bunch of authorities open up. | ||
| There's no way they don't know. | ||
| I I know, you know, Stephen Miller knows, right? | ||
| He knows what Antifa is, he knows what they've done. | ||
| He's got all the stories lined up, he's watched them happen. | ||
| That guy is very, very smart. | ||
| So I have to imagine that the de the domestic terror designation, which is not it's it's it's not a legal distinction, it's a Trump declaration, is intentional. | ||
| For what reason we can speculate, but they know how and when they're gonna pull the foreign terrorist organization trigger. | ||
| I think they've planned this out. | ||
| Yeah, I think that's right. | ||
| And Steven Miller's no fool. | ||
| He's very, very legally sophisticated. | ||
| I don't know if he has a law to agree, but if he doesn't, he he might as well. | ||
| He's extremely legally sophisticated. | ||
| Uh 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's not making things up. | ||
| It it they 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. | ||
| So they're not fools. | ||
| It's a trial. | ||
| It's it's it's the cultural play. | ||
| If Trump came out and tried the FTO thing up front, the backlash would be nuts. | ||
| And it's already pretty bad. | ||
| But I think because there's no real legal distinction, and I I was even mentioning this before because people have long said he should do it. | ||
| And I'm like, but you can't. | ||
| Like there's no legal distinction for this. | ||
| You look at um who was it? | ||
| I can't remember who it was. | ||
| Um that stupid meet the press guy, Chuck Todd, I think. | ||
| Maybe I'm maybe it's not him, but he was, oh no, now Trump's making it ill uh you're a terrorist if you oppose him. | ||
| We knew that was going to be the way they went. | ||
| But with this very light approach, there's no real direct ramification to you being Antifa. | ||
| You've got Krasenstein's got all these liberals coming out saying I'm Antifa. | ||
| And we know nothing's gonna happen to them because the distinction has no real teeth. | ||
| But I guess the question is this for you. | ||
| Um, everybody knows my answer. | ||
| When Trump makes these moves, do you think the left will just let him do it? | ||
| Hmm. | ||
| Uh to a degree, I mean, this one I think they don't have a choice, because it's an again, there's no legal import to the designation. | ||
| Will the left just let him do anything? | ||
| Not really. | ||
| They they've they've made it clear they want to resist at every turn. | ||
| I mean, you just saw what happened in Illinois, where you have, you know, candidates for Congress standing in front of ICE vehicles trying to trying to stop it. | ||
| So that they're gonna they're gonna try and resist. | ||
| It's just 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 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, or not just Trump, but the federal government. | ||
| A great example is ABC right now. | ||
| Jimmy Kimmel gets taken off the air because according to Wall Street Journal and the Hollywood Reporter, he wouldn't apologize. | ||
| Advertising affiliates were angry, and Bob Iger and Dana Walden said, Jimmy, the first they were on his side, then said, You're gonna make it worse. | ||
| And Jimmy was like, I don't care. | ||
| I'm not gonna apologize, I'm gonna do this. | ||
| So they pull his show. | ||
| Five days later, Next Star and Sinclair are still saying they will not air his show. | ||
| So the affiliates are still pissed. | ||
| There's no indication advertisers have changed their mind. | ||
| What changed that made Disney say, okay, Jimmy, you can come back? | ||
| 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 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 the 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. | ||
| 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 you know, right wing people were just boycotting or you know, trying to get people fired and uh 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. | ||
| Uh there means a lot more assassinations. | ||
| And at a certain point, any political movement, if their own people are getting re assassinated, they they they just it's it's effectively civil war. | ||
| This is Algeria, right? | ||
| That's that's what the Algerian rebels were doing. | ||
| What's up? | ||
| You said it, not me. | ||
| Yeah, that's Algeria, that where they were just shooting law enforcement and the you know, the the native uprising was just essentially we are in full rebellion against the operation of the state. | ||
| Well, but I don't want to live in that world. | ||
| It's a really, really bad world for everybody. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| I want to go get Taco Bell and watch World Poker Tour and just put my feet up and relax and not have to worry about the explosions outside. | ||
| And that's where I fear we're heading. | ||
| But you just made the point that that I was alluding to. | ||
| The point at which the left feels that Trump's authority is toothless is when they decide to engage in escalation of violence. | ||
| And the Jimmy Kimmel precedent is terrifying. | ||
| The only discernible reason they brought him back is because of the terror attacks. | ||
| He's not apologizing. | ||
| That's the report from the New York Post. | ||
| Advertisers and affiliates are still angry. | ||
| The affiliates are still pulling his show, but ABC caved. | ||
| 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 Igern knows who the threat is. | ||
| Trump ain't gonna come arrest him. | ||
| The right is not gonna 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? | ||
| No. | ||
| Dave will do nothing. | ||
| And I use him as an example because he's such like a you're like, and I don't mean this in a disrespect disrespectful way. | ||
| He's like a run-of-the-dle, like kind of lukewarm political commentator. | ||
| Not extreme in the least bit. | ||
| These Antifa guys have told you they will kill you. | ||
| So where does that, where does that bring us exactly what you said with assassinations? | ||
| Yeah, and I mean, it's civilization versus barbarism all the way down. | ||
| That's the fundamental divide in our politics. | ||
| And we're on the side of civilization, and as a result of being on the side of civilization on the right, you know, we're not gonna be the party that's out there wanting riots, wanting disorder, uh, 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. | ||
| That is what we should fight for. | ||
| And that ultimately means an enormous amount of responsibility is on President Trump and Pi Ambondi 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, uh terrorists are not allowed to get away with this nonsense. | ||
| The last thing I'll say is uh 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. | ||
| Maybe it's a little rough. | ||
| They're basically saying, hey, we shouldn't cancel people because they're, you know, insulting Charlie Kirk and dancing out of his grave or whatever it may be. | ||
| And my response is I'm not gonna advocate they be fired for their opinions, but I'm not gonna defend them either. | ||
| I think it's time that we recognize we are not a singular nation of differing opinion, arguing over the limits. | ||
| We are a constitutional republic being attacked by forces that do not agree with and will not adhere to our form of governance. | ||
| When they go out and engage in terror like Antifa does, when they suppress silence and threaten, that is not the American people debating. | ||
| That is an external threat that is inside this country now, trying to destroy our rule of law and our way of life. | ||
| I'm not gonna stand up for them when they get censored or silenced or otherwise. | ||
| Yeah, you're you're nicer than I am. | ||
| I'm I'm actively going to insist that they be censored. | ||
| Uh there you go. | ||
| I I'm sorry. | ||
| Uh 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 just completely destructive to the social fabric of this country and deserves social sanction. | ||
| You know what? | ||
| You've changed my mind. | ||
| I agree with you now. | ||
| The people who would celebrate and or otherwise defend the assassination, I think you've made a really great point. | ||
| They need to be censored and silenced. | ||
| And the reason is a culture, this is your point. | ||
| It's a great point. | ||
| A culture that tolerates in any way political assassinations is a culture opening the door to civil war. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| That is that is the core of my argument. | ||
| It is a necessary, in order to prevent civil war, you must have a hard red line, so in terms of social sanction on the celebration and encouragement of assassination. | ||
| It must be render you persona non grata in polite society. | ||
| Yeah, yeah. | ||
| You know what? | ||
| I agree. | ||
| I agree. | ||
| Uh Will, this has been great. | ||
| Thanks for hanging out. | ||
| Where can people find you? | ||
| Uh, I'm at Will Chamberlain on X, and you can also follow the work of the Article 3 Project. | ||
| We were also trying to actually get Ilhan O'Mar's strip from her committees. | ||
| That was a big project of mind of the past week. | ||
| Uh, we can go into why that didn't work and we've lost by a single vote, maybe another time. | ||
| But follow what the Article 3 Project does. | ||
| We're constantly trying to agitate and move the ball forward on conservative politics, and especially in when it comes to the law and the judiciary. | ||
| Right on, man. | ||
| Well, thanks for hanging out, and uh, we'll see you next time. | ||
| 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, but you know what? | ||
| He's changed my mind. | ||
| He really did. | ||
| You see, I hear thoughts and ideas. | ||
| They make their point, and this is a conundrum for us. | ||
| 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, shop Wayfair.com to make your home way more you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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 we're we're we're done for. | ||
| I think, you know, when I talk, uh 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. | ||
| But we are dealing with high scale issues now. | ||
| Do we allow millions to go online and celebrate assassins? | ||
| We have been. | ||
| And look what happened. | ||
| Luigi Manjoni, the alleged assassin in the uh uh the insurance assassination of the CEO. | ||
| He's been venerated, he's been celebrated. | ||
| And then not even a year later, Charlie Kirk is killed. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Because the leftists know they will be celebrated and absolved of all wrongdoing. | ||
| Statues and candles we made in their honor. | ||
| We cannot allow a society to function that way. | ||
| I think it's actually a fine thing to say. | ||
| Hey, don't celebrate murder. | ||
| Don't go online and glorify a high-profile political assassination. | ||
| That's not that big a deal. | ||
| And if you're gonna, there should be social consequences. | ||
| Will's changed my mind on that one. | ||
| We should ban these people. | ||
| We cannot tolerate this. | ||
| We can't. | ||
| And if the argument is that we will for the sake of freedom, congratulations. | ||
| There will be more assassinations. | ||
| The door is open. | ||
| I say we close it. | ||
| We may fail. | ||
| We may try and pull the door closed, and the door breaks off. | ||
| But the door to civil war is before us, and we have to try everything we can to prevent an escalation. | ||
| Smash the like button. | ||
| Share the show with everyone you know. | ||
| Coming up next, we've got our good friend Russell Brand. | ||
| He is live now on the Rumble Morning lineup. | ||
| Shout out to the mug club, Steven Crowder and crew. | ||
| You guys do great work. | ||
| I really do appreciate it. | ||
| Let me send you on your way. | ||
| Don't forget, we're back tonight at 8 p.m. for Timcast I R L. And uh we do have some segments coming up today as well. | ||
| You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. | ||
| Make sure you do it and check out the new channel, Rumble.com slash Tim Pool. | ||
| We changed the URLs around to new channel. | ||
| I've got a video coming up at two about the Charlie Kirk assassination and the conspiracy theories. | ||
| It's also available at YouTube.com slash at Tim Pool. | ||
| Make sure to check that one out. | ||
| Thanks for hanging out. |