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: My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Which is worrying largely because, I mean, aside from the fact that people were shot, it's worrying, but it's winter. | ||
| Throughout my career, we have not seen organized protests at this scale during winter. | ||
| And the activists make fun of each other over this, that when it rains or snows, it's hard to get people to come out and join a protest. | ||
| But now we're actually seeing in Minneapolis, an occupation is forming, barriers are being set up, and we're seeing protests pop up across the country with quite a bit of alarming rhetoric. | ||
| I would say talks of hanging Christy Noam and people heard screaming, we're going to find you and kill you. | ||
| So we're going to have a debate about this. | ||
| We're going to ask these questions, play these videos, and go over exactly what's going on. | ||
| And of course, within this, the funny thing is we actually plan this debate out to discuss the capture of Maduro in Venezuela. | ||
| Now Trump is saying we're going to have ground strikes in Mexico. | ||
| And the U.S. is currently chasing a dozen oil tankers from Venezuela after seizing a Russian flag vessel. | ||
| All of this somehow does overlap, especially with the fraud scandal in Minnesota, Minneapolis, the reporting, how it ultimately leads to the protests and the violence that we're seeing. | ||
| So we'll talk about all of that. | ||
| We've got a great panel, sir. | ||
| Would you like to introduce yourself first? | ||
| Yes, I'm Daniel DiMartino. | ||
| I am originally from Venezuela. | ||
| That's part of my relevant experience in this topic. | ||
| I'm an economist. | ||
| I'm a fellow at the Manghatan Institute, and I live in New York City. | ||
| Right on. | ||
| Would you like to introduce yourself, ma'am? | ||
| Hi, my name is Aaron. | ||
| I go by Straight Raid Online, and I cover politics, do commentary on current events and whatnot. | ||
| Hey, Tim, I'm Dave Aaronberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County. | ||
| I'm current managing partner at Dave Ehrenberg Law, Substack at Dave Ehrenberg. | ||
| And it's my second time on your show. | ||
| Great to be back. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| So you said you were a state prosecutor. | ||
| I was the DA in Palm Beach County. | ||
| You were the DA. | ||
| For 12 years. | ||
| Have you seen the video footage of the Minneapolis shooting? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I have. | |
| I've seen the different angles. | ||
| And this is something up my alley because when you're the DA, this is an area where you're hands-on. | ||
| You go to the scene of an officer-involved shooting and you investigate the police to make sure there was no crime committed. | ||
| So, well, what's your assessment based on what you've seen? | ||
| I think it'd be difficult to get a conviction if a case is broad, but I do think there's enough there to send to a grand jury for a possible state indictment. | ||
| The feds are not going to cooperate, which makes this very unusual. | ||
| Normally, the feds work with you. | ||
| Here, they're going to try to work against the state, but the state can, if they want to, seek an indictment if there's enough evidence. | ||
| And if they get it to trial, I think it's going to be an uphill climb for prosecutors. | ||
| That's different than the question of whether he should have shot. | ||
| I'm talking from a legal standpoint. | ||
| I think it's difficult. | ||
| So this is pretty interesting in that the officer fled the scene immediately. | ||
| Is that normal? | ||
| That he walked away. | ||
| That he got in his car and drove off. | ||
| That is very unusual. | ||
| What happens is normally the officers stay on the scene and they're interviewed by the investigators. | ||
| Or what happens is the officer is there and the investigators will interview perhaps the head of the police union. | ||
| They'll send a lawyer or a lawyer from the police union and they'll do the talking. | ||
| But rarely does the, unless they're going directly to the hospital. | ||
| Now, I don't know if that's where he directly went. | ||
| That may be right. | ||
| He didn't go to the hospital, so maybe that's what happened. | ||
| Okay, well, okay. | ||
| Well, then if you go to the hospital, that is an exception to the rule. | ||
| Normally you stay at the scene, but if you go to the hospital, that is an exception, and that's normal. | ||
| That's presumably what happened because we know that he'd go to the hospital. | ||
| Now, Trump claimed he was run over, which is absolutely not correct. | ||
| And he said he's lucky he's alive. | ||
| That is not a justification of any action taken by any individual, but the fact is Trump is wrong about this. | ||
| Now, we're also thinking from the New York Times, they're claiming the officer wasn't, they're using manipulative language. | ||
| They say it appears he was struck, but upon closer inspection, he wasn't run over, which is two completely distinct things. | ||
| But before we get into the video, and then I'll ask you more about the prosecution itself. | ||
| I'm curious what you guys think about what you've seen so far. | ||
| Well, I watched it. | ||
| I think it's difficult to, I would say, on the legal part, but just on the ethical part, you know, whether it's right or wrong. | ||
| You don't know what's going through their head. | ||
| You don't know what the woman said. | ||
| You don't know whether she had threatened the other officer. | ||
| And so there's some reason to believe that she would have been violent. | ||
| Clearly, it's obvious that nobody should have ever obstructed the law enforcement operation and rammed their car into the operation. | ||
| I mean, this is why this happened. | ||
| But I do think it's a tragedy, regardless. | ||
| And just from the articles and videos that I've read and seen, it looks like murder to me, just based off of the position of the vehicle and circumstances that the ICE officer was in and the woman was in. | ||
| I'm not speaking to whether or not she should have been, you know, turning away or trying to evade arrest, which is the impression that I got based on the video. | ||
| I'm not speaking to whether or not he should have applied deadly force. | ||
| He did apply deadly force. | ||
| And so I think every single shot needs to be looked at and justified. | ||
| And the first one does not look justified to me. | ||
| The two subsequent ones, which my understanding is that she was shot in the head through the side window, not even the front, don't look justified at all to me. | ||
| So that's where I land on that. | ||
| So what do you mean by murder? | ||
| The unjustified, unlawful killing of an individual purposefully. | ||
| So you think he should go to jail? | ||
| I do think he should go to jail, yes. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So I'm curious what you think of murder. | ||
| With malice or forethought. | ||
| What Erin brought up is really important in that she separated the different shots. | ||
| Now, the defense lawyers will try to say it's all one. | ||
| Boom, Happen all of it all at the same time. | ||
| Now, I'm not, is it three or four shots? | ||
| That's one thing. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Three. | |
| Okay. | ||
| I do think that it's going to be tough to prosecute him on the first shot, especially if it went through the front of the window. | ||
| The other shots, though, that go to the side, you see her driving away, the wheels have turned. | ||
| That is not a threat to the police officer. | ||
| So I do think if you're going to prosecute him, you could have a better case on the subsequent shots when there was no real threat to the police officer. | ||
| Was it a threat to other people? | ||
| I don't think so. | ||
| He would, by the way, if it was a separate officer. | ||
| There was a woman standing to the right of the vehicle. | ||
| Right, but was she really going to be run over by this car? | ||
| Can he tell? | ||
| Well, that's going to be the defense saying I was defending myself and others. | ||
| Well, but also he's not a normal person. | ||
| He's a law enforcement officer, so he will claim qualified immunity. | ||
| Right, but if you can show that he acted unreasonably, so unreasonably, that you could try him for murder. | ||
| But qualified immunity pertains to civil, I understand, right? | ||
| Also, federally, for a state to prosecute a federal officer, the federal officer is going to say, I've got this sovereign immunity here, this federal immunity. | ||
| And you can break through it, though. | ||
| So here's another video that I think this started going viral because it provides important context. | ||
| And then we'll go through the actual video from Minnesota. | ||
| This is a woman who was killed in Baltimore. | ||
| One second. | ||
| She's standing in front of the vehicle. | ||
| At three seconds, the vehicle accelerates. | ||
| At four seconds, she's dead. | ||
| What should she have done? | ||
| This is a different scenario. | ||
| This was in a cul-de-sac. | ||
| She was backed into a corner. | ||
| She had nowhere to go. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| She's not. | ||
| She could walk away from that car right now. | ||
| But the car, like, she is facing, like, that car could not reverse. | ||
| No, no, no, no, hold on, hold on. | ||
| Wait, are we not in a cul-de-sac here or not? | ||
| So it is a cul-de-sac, it appears, but the exit is behind her. | ||
| Egress is behind her. | ||
| She's standing to the left side of the front of the vehicle. | ||
| She could take two steps to her right now, right now, to clear herself from this vehicle, knowing a suspect is in it. | ||
| And she's got her weapon aimed at him. | ||
| Now, she's dead. | ||
| And people are highlighting this, saying, when you're an officer tasked with stopping somebody who's committed a crime, presumably the obstruction committed by, and I say presumably because there's no trial for this, Renee Good, this is felony obstruction of a federal law, eight USC 1357. | ||
| So when they say, we're going to stop you and arrest you, and you decide to accelerate, the question is, if you find yourself in front of the vehicle, should you let the perpetrator escape or is the law enforcement duty to tell them to stop and brandish a weapon? | ||
| The policy within the Department of Justice and DHS is that you don't stand in front of a vehicle and put yourself in that situation. | ||
| It'll create the problem. | ||
| Now, here, I believe this guy had already committed a crime, right? | ||
| Well, the woman already committed a crime. | ||
| Well, but this is the first thing. | ||
| Renee Blanc did commit a crime. | ||
| What was her crime? | ||
| 8 USC 1357 obstruction of federal law enforcement, for which ICE does have the authority to arrest her. | ||
| I'm not saying she was proven to have committed a crime, but there's probable cause on the law enforcement's part when witnesses on the scene said she was leading the protest to block ICE vehicles. | ||
| That's a witness statement. | ||
| And I know it's hearsay, but she went on to say, additionally, someone told me that she actually was doing it. | ||
| So she said, I was here. | ||
| This is what she was doing. | ||
| So if three cops say out of the vehicle and you immediately begin to accelerate. | ||
| Well, a witness said, witnesses have said that there were conflicting orders. | ||
| One said, get the F out of the vehicle, and the other one said, get out of here. | ||
| I saw that as well. | ||
| There were, yeah, like multiple eyewitnesses were saying that she was, it was unclear whether or not she was trying to comply with one instruction or the other. | ||
| I also don't think that just the mere acceleration of a vehicle is enough to justify use of deadly force in every single instance. | ||
| I think it needs to be reasonable from the officer's perspective that not only was the vehicle accelerating, but it was accelerating towards them and that their life was truly an imminent. | ||
| But I think this woman, Amy Copper, is dead. | ||
| In one second, it's on the video. | ||
| It's from three to four. | ||
| She's dead. | ||
| So the moment you hear the engine rev, before you can do anything, you are dead. | ||
| Now, I'm not saying, I actually don't think this cop should have shot her. | ||
| However, it's easy to be looking at three different angles in slow motion and say he probably could have just spun out and taken a minor injury. | ||
| But you don't know what's going through his head. | ||
| And also that's the legal point too, because not only do you have to go through all the legal barriers that you mentioned, Dave, but you also have to just prove that it's beyond a reasonable doubt from his point of view, right? | ||
| So let me ask you, because we've done an analysis on this video a million and one times right now, there's a few things to break down. | ||
| The New York Times and liberals have argued the vehicle did not aim at him. | ||
| In fact, the officer stepped in front of the vehicle and they've asked, why did he step in front of the vehicle? | ||
| However, people on the right have argued the vehicle reverses and lines up with him. | ||
| Actually, it's fair. | ||
| I think it's fair to say both are occurring. | ||
| The DHS officer is standing to the front right side of the vehicle and he takes a step to his left as the vehicle reverses. | ||
| The pan of the camera makes both look a bit more exaggerated. | ||
| But from the new angle we've seen from CNN, he's not in front of the vehicle, but he is taking a step to his right as the vehicle is reversing and turning to its right, creating this lineup. | ||
| Now, here's where I see the most important part. | ||
| As we move forward, we can see, watch the wheels tilted to the left, not to the right. | ||
| And you can then see the wheel spin out. | ||
| See the wheel spinning out? | ||
| That is acceleration into the officer. | ||
| However, due to what appears to be ice on the ground, I can only assume it spins and doesn't gain traction. | ||
| There's two assumptions. | ||
| Due to ice being on the ground, it spun out and she released the accelerator. | ||
| Or the ECS system, the electronic stability control, stops the wheel from spinning the moment it spins out. | ||
| So this is something we've had for 20 plus years. | ||
| After the wheel, which is aimed at him, spins out, which means he heard the engine go, he then pulls his gun. | ||
| The vehicle right now, you can see the wheel is beginning to tilt, is still going forward. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| He then points the gun at her and steps to his right. | ||
| He still hasn't turned. | ||
| And now she's turning. | ||
| Right? | ||
| This is the point. | ||
| The gun is aimed at her. | ||
| The vehicle begins its turn. | ||
| Now, the important thing is you can see the officer's leg right here. | ||
| Watch his feet slide. | ||
| His feet slide. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| He's not taking a step. | ||
| He's sliding backwards. | ||
| That's because the vehicle is pressing on him. | ||
| The vehicle has made contact with his body. | ||
| He is now being pushed back. | ||
| And once that happens, he fires the first shot. | ||
| The vehicle then continues a rightward turn. | ||
| I believe that indicates she is actively conscious. | ||
| Otherwise, it would have gone straight. | ||
| It's the two subsequent shots after the fact, which is where she dies. | ||
| She is actively turning right now. | ||
| Presumably the first shot did not kill her. | ||
| It's the other shots that... | ||
| Where do you see the other two shots? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's see. | |
| Well, can we get the audio fixed? | ||
| Because the audio is not properly, it's not playing for the show. | ||
| So no one can hear the bangs. | ||
| Oh. | ||
| All right, let me try something. | ||
| I'm going to try and is it that? | ||
| I think that'll do it. | ||
| Let's see if that did it. | ||
| There we go. | ||
| First shot, after he got hit. | ||
| As he's getting hit. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh. | |
| Oh, yeah. | ||
| Yeah, especially that third shot there, right there. | ||
| That's a problem. | ||
| That's insane. | ||
| That third shot. | ||
| But now the question becomes, all of this, you know, we can see this whole thing was like seven seconds, but this is, I believe, 8X slow-mo. | ||
| The whole thing took one second. | ||
| Again, I think here's a woman who's presumably committed a felony. | ||
| Again, 8 USC 1357, obstruction of federal law enforcement, for which they have told her to get out. | ||
| And the officer is trying to pull her out of her vehicle, but she is attempting to evade arrest and actively driving. | ||
| There is an officer in front of her, and she accelerates right here. | ||
| That wheel spins. | ||
| I think right there, I think that clears him of any charges. | ||
| Well, the question is, as Aaron brought up, did the witnesses say that they heard the officer, a different officer, say, get out of here. | ||
| And so that's why she's trying to get out of here. | ||
| I believe he said, get out, get out. | ||
| Well, I was going to get the F out of the car. | ||
| We heard that on that video, yes. | ||
| But the witnesses say there is conflicting orders from the car. | ||
| Hold on, come on. | ||
| Come on. | ||
| Is that material when you have an officer in front of you, an officer grabbing your door, saying, get the F out of the car, and you're accelerating, even in reverse? | ||
| Well, if another officer is yelling, get out of here. | ||
| So she's like, I'm going to get out of here. | ||
| And also, even if she is trying to flee, you don't shoot to kill someone who's trying to flee. | ||
| That's against policy. | ||
| That's why. | ||
| Unless that person poses a significant threat to someone's life. | ||
| So we know that there are other people standing in the street and she's speeding off. | ||
| One could easily make the argument. | ||
| It's really about convincing a jury. | ||
| Did the officer fear for his life? | ||
| I think it's fair to say this officer, who had previously been dragged 330 feet six months ago and had to get 33 stitches, now standing in front of a vehicle all within about a fraction of a second. | ||
| I don't think he walked in front of the car thinking, I'm going to create danger. | ||
| But that tire spins out. | ||
| He hears the engine rev when that happens. | ||
| It's pointed right at him. | ||
| He's got past trauma related to an attack. | ||
| And now he's thinking right here, she's going to kill me. | ||
| The vehicle is not turning as it goes forward. | ||
| It hits him. | ||
| He shoots. | ||
| It hits the other guy, right? | ||
| Or him? | ||
| Who does it hit? | ||
| There's a guy in front. | ||
| Isn't that who he hits? | ||
| No, the shot goes through the windshield. | ||
| Right, but the shooter is... | ||
| The shooter gets hit. | ||
| The shooter is the one. | ||
| The shooter is the one getting hit. | ||
| You can see. | ||
| It's the front guy. | ||
| Not this guy. | ||
| It's the front guy, right? | ||
| Yeah, the front guy. | ||
| Look at his legs. | ||
| They slide backwards. | ||
| He's being hit by the car. | ||
| I don't think he's being grievously injured or anything like that. | ||
| But This is arguably hindsight being 2020. | ||
| In a fraction of a second, seeing this happen, how is anyone going to be like, let me freeze time and process what this woman is doing, what her intentions are? | ||
| All he hears is an engine rev with the vehicle moving towards him. | ||
| Right now, it's going straight towards him, okay? | ||
| The wheels spin out with it aimed at him, right? | ||
| I think you show that to a jury, and you say she is believed to have committed felony obstruction. | ||
| She is ordered out of her vehicle. | ||
| The cop has his hand in the vehicle, likely on the steering wheel, maybe not. | ||
| His hand on the door. | ||
| She's locked it, and she is attempting to evade arrest. | ||
| She then accelerates towards the officer with the tires spinning on the ice. | ||
| Clearly, the officer heard the acceleration. | ||
| I think it's reasonable to assume he fears for his safety. | ||
| He does make an attempt to get out of the way. | ||
| You can see he slides, but not fast enough. | ||
| Perhaps because of the ice on the ground, he can't get good traction to jump out of the way. | ||
| So the only move he has is to stop her, which it is also his duty to stop someone fleeing a felony. | ||
| And she hits him, and he shoots. | ||
| Now, the question after this is, in the second afterwards, when he fires two additional shots, does it even matter? | ||
| Because you'll argue those shots are problematic because he's cleared, but it's one second. | ||
| He's going bang, bang, bang. | ||
| The other question is, there is a woman standing at the right of the vehicle and there are other people down the street. | ||
| Could this officer just say, as she's accelerating into me, I fear that she is going to hit somebody and must be stopped to save the lives of others? | ||
| You're not able to guess that she would drive down the street and hit other people. | ||
| That's not justification. | ||
| So I think the only excuse here is if the officer thought that his life was in danger, then he is allowed to shoot. | ||
| The first shot, I think, is going to be very difficult to prosecute. | ||
| The second and third shots, I think you have a case, but you are exactly saying what the defense lawyers will say. | ||
| It's all one motion, one second, split-second decisions. | ||
| You can't be a Monday morning quarterback, which is actually what the Supreme Court has said. | ||
| Well, but he's also allowed to shoot if he believes other people's lives are at risk. | ||
| But that's got to be reasonable, though, right? | ||
| It feels like the legal debate is over because you will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to murder her, you know, for a bad reason. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Especially him being a law enforcement officer, the video, I mean, it's... | ||
| Wait, well, since this is your area, isn't it that they're going to analyze every single use of force? | ||
| So just like they're not going. | ||
| I don't doubt that his defense is going to argue that it happened so quickly. | ||
| You should basically view these three different shots in succession as effectively one motion. | ||
| But they will be asked to analyze every single one. | ||
| So don't you think that like the additional two shots that he takes at her afterwards are going to be really where he like runs into trouble legally? | ||
| That's going to be the prosecution's best case. | ||
| It's the second and third shot. | ||
| I had a case like this too, where we had difficulty trying to figure out which shot was it that killed him. | ||
| Tim is saying that it probably wasn't the first shot. | ||
| So, and this is important too. | ||
| She's going towards him and the wheel is slowly turning. | ||
| He then makes contact with the vehicle and shoots and she continues turning, implying she has continued to apply pressure to the wheel, likely still conscious. | ||
| Two more shots ring out and the vehicle finishes its turn. | ||
| But after the third shot, the vehicle goes straight and crashed into a pole, indicating it was not the first shot that ended her life. | ||
| You could always also just say attempted murder as a way to get around which shot was it that actually caused her death. | ||
| So there are ways prosecutors can get around it. | ||
| Here's what's going to happen. | ||
| I do believe the state is going to investigate independently of the feds. | ||
| The feds are not going to cooperate. | ||
| They're going to make it harder. | ||
| And the state will bring charges, I think. | ||
| And then the defendant will remove it to federal court, which he's allowed to do. | ||
| He's a federal officer. | ||
| So then it goes to a federal judge who's going to make the key decision whether this officer enjoys the immunity we discussed. | ||
| And if it does go to trial, it'll be done in a federal courtroom where you have jurors, not just from this county, Blue County, but from the whole state. | ||
| That's why they want it in federal court. | ||
| And a judge who is not elected by the local voters, but appointed by a president. | ||
| And it will be much harder to get a conviction that way. | ||
| I think 15 years ago, you'd be right. | ||
| I think today what happens is, and maybe you're right, but I'm just saying there's a decent probability, if not a greater probability, that the Trump DOJ just says there's no charges to be brought. | ||
| But it's still a state case, even though it's in federal court. | ||
| It's still a state. | ||
| Yeah, the state prosecutes. | ||
| I get it. | ||
| And Trump can't pardon. | ||
| The state will bring charges, but I think there's a decent probability it goes nowhere. | ||
| This guy's going to leave the state and say, have fun. | ||
| Do you think that's right? | ||
| Yes, I do. | ||
| I think all three shots are justified. | ||
| I think, well, I don't know about that. | ||
| I literally said he shouldn't have shot her. | ||
| I think the issue is we've already seen over the past several years complete bullshit prosecutions in one direction. | ||
| And if Trump allows ICE agents to be targeted like this, then he may as well just resign now. | ||
| He may as well just say, Democrats take the midterms, Democrats take 2028, the Republicans are unwilling to enforce the law the American people voted for. | ||
| And we are going to let individuals obstruct law enforcement, threaten the lives of law enforcement. | ||
| And then when they present clear and reasonable threats to agents, we're going to make sure those agents go down. | ||
| If Trump agrees that this guy should face it, that's why I'm saying Trump might say, this man will not face any charges. | ||
| He tried pardoning Tina Peters, and he can't because she's at the state level. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| And so what can he really do? | ||
| Well, we are beyond the scope of was it a reasonable use of force? | ||
| The New York Times is already lying about what happened. | ||
| And Trump is already lying about what happened. | ||
| You didn't agree with the video analysis? | ||
| The New York Times is lying. | ||
| They're 100%. | ||
| So I'm going to tell you this right here. | ||
| This is the key example of how the corporate press, left aligned, will lie to you to trick you into believing things that are not true. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Trump and others. | |
| Here we go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV. | |
| He was hit by the SUV. | ||
| You can see his feet sliding. | ||
| It's not possible to do an air moonwalk the way he did unless the vehicles made contact with him. | ||
| I don't think he was grievously injured by this. | ||
| In fact, I don't think he was injured by it at all, but he was hit, and he doesn't know which way the wheels are going. | ||
| Now listen to what they say. | ||
| I'm going to go back and play the whole thing. | ||
|
unidentified
|
President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. | |
| And it's true that at this moment in this grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV. | ||
| But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. | ||
| Have you guys noticed the manipulation technique they just pulled off? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| When the first statement is, it is true. | ||
| It does appear he was struck. | ||
| What is struck? | ||
| They say run over. | ||
| And then they say, upon analysis and synchronization, he wasn't run over. | ||
| This is a standard manipulation technique that is used in sales and marketing. | ||
| It's assumptive reasoning. | ||
| That's what it's called. | ||
| Where you create two non-sequiturs and you use one with intonation and emotion to trick someone into thinking it's related to the previous statement. | ||
| Well, I'm not sure. | ||
| But regardless, the fact is, they are stating through intention, he was not hit by the vehicle. | ||
| That's why they said it looks like he was, but upon synchronization, he wasn't run over. | ||
| Because people who don't understand manipulative language are now going to walk away saying, the New York Times said he wasn't hit. | ||
| No, no, they said it looked like he was, but that he wasn't run over. | ||
| Regardless of the editorialization and what you view to be a rhetorical sleight of hand, just looking at the synchronized clips, do you believe that either of them were touched or struck by the vehicle at all? | ||
| Wait, so sorry, I didn't hear you. | ||
| Do you believe that based on the footage that you see when they show the synchronized clips, that either officer was being touched by the vehicle whatsoever? | ||
| The officer is clearly touched by the vehicle because his feet both slide backwards. | ||
| And then from let's do this. | ||
| Just to make sure this is clear, not about. | ||
| At what point do you see it? | ||
| See his feet? | ||
| See his feet right here? | ||
| Well, also, unless he's being pushed upon by a force. | ||
| Can you go back to the synchronized clip and see where they line up the same moment? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's jump forward here. | |
| When we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. | ||
| He's not being run over, but what did they say? | ||
| It's true he does appear to be struck. | ||
| The New York Times said that. | ||
| I'm going to quote the New York Times. | ||
| It's true, it does appear the officer was struck by the vehicle. | ||
| End of quote. | ||
| So the vehicle touches him, and you think. | ||
| Come on. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Should I play the other touches his body? | |
| Do you think what follows from that, and this is my understanding, is that he wasn't in compliance even with ICE protocol or training. | ||
| How would shooting at her stop the vehicle? | ||
| How is he not taking her? | ||
| How would shooting at her stop the because they're not trained to step in front of vehicles and they're also not trained to shoot at somebody in a vehicle because that's not actually going to prevent anyone from being harmed or assault or is the officer in front of the vehicle right now? | ||
| No. | ||
| Okay, as the vehicle reverses, angling the SUV to the right, is he now in front of the vehicle? | ||
| No. | ||
| This cop right here is not in front of the vehicle? | ||
| That cop? | ||
| Yeah, I guess. | ||
| That's the guy who walked. | ||
| So the SUV reverses and angles the vehicle to the right as the officer is walking to his right. | ||
| That's why the liberals are saying he should not have been in front of the vehicle. | ||
| No, well, that's the legal ICE and DHS officials are saying that that's not what I'm saying. | ||
| ICE and DHS said the vehicle attempted to ram him. | ||
| And conservatives are saying the vehicle backed up to aim at him. | ||
| And liberals are saying, no, he walked in front of the vehicle. | ||
| The fact is both things happened. | ||
| The SUV is reversing, aligning the head of the car to the right where he was, as he makes a step to the right. | ||
| There's no fault on either party, in my opinion, because, well, to be fair. | ||
| I think she was trying to escape. | ||
| So there's fault in that regard. | ||
| But by the way, that doesn't mean it's not true that he thought his life was at risk. | ||
| Both things can be toward the same time. | ||
| What I find really lamentable. | ||
| Just to clarify this point, it does not appear the officer's intention was to place himself out of compliance with DHS. | ||
| While he was walking, the vehicle reversed and aimed at him. | ||
| That's a split second. | ||
| That's an accident. | ||
| Now, she was attempting to evade a felony arrest. | ||
| That puts her at fault. | ||
| Okay, let me ask you. | ||
| She was alleged to have done that. | ||
| She's innocent until proven guilty. | ||
| Well, right. | ||
| If the officers believe there's probable cause for obstruction. | ||
| I mean, she was escaping arrest. | ||
| That's a fire. | ||
| Right. | ||
| I mean, look, even if you're being detained, that's why you're told by the ACL. | ||
| You should comply, right? | ||
| Am I being detained? | ||
| Right. | ||
| So let me ask you this question. | ||
| If you're committing a felony and attempt to escape and in the process kill an officer, what crime will you be charged with? | ||
| Oh, you'll go down for felony murder then. | ||
| What if you're attempting to evade a felony and you commit assault but not battery? | ||
| Is that an assault on an officer? | ||
| Yeah, if you're committing, if death happens in the course of a felony, that's felony murder. | ||
| That's what, by the way, the officer would be charged with if he's charged with murder, because the felony could be the assault, aggravated assault, where you point the gun and then the death would be part of the murder. | ||
| So that's how they got also chauvin, second degree murder for the same reason in Minnesota. | ||
| That's the guy in George Floyd. | ||
| So somebody should ask, if you're attempting to evade police and in the process, through any means, even if you're just running, say you're running towards an officer, could that be considered as an assault? | ||
| So let's say this. | ||
| A cop walks up to you and says, freeze, you're under arrest. | ||
| You run for it. | ||
| And as you turn and run full speed, there's another cop standing and he puts his hands up as you're about to slam into him. | ||
| Is that an assault? | ||
| Yeah, well, if you're threatening to attack an officer. | ||
| No, no, no, I'm saying you're not threatening. | ||
| In the process of turning to run, there's a cop standing in front of you and you're about to slam into his body. | ||
| Like, my point is, is accidental creation of a threat and bodily harm still an assault? | ||
| I don't know that answer. | ||
| It depends on the facts of the case and what the laws of the state. | ||
| But I do know that the DOJ has a specific policy that covers something like this. | ||
| And this is my issue. | ||
| And if I could read the policy, it says that firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless, number one, a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle. | ||
| So that wouldn't apply here, right? | ||
| Because she didn't have a gun. | ||
| Or number two, the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury. | ||
| And here's the big part. | ||
| And no reasonable alternative exists. | ||
| So the question is, could he have just stepped out of the way? | ||
| Was this the only alternative to shoot into the car? | ||
| So I would argue easy, easy slam dunk for the defense. | ||
| Officer can't see where the tires are going. | ||
| The vehicle already accelerated towards him and he's standing on ice. | ||
| And that would be. | ||
| So the vehicle is being operated in a manner that will kill him. | ||
| And he's already taken a step to the right to try and mitigate. | ||
| It's a second thing. | ||
| I'll say this, like it's easy to, what do we call it? | ||
| Armchair quarterback or whatever? | ||
| Monday morning quarterback. | ||
| Monday morning quarterback. | ||
| It's easy to look at slow motion videos and just know, but he didn't walk in front of the vehicle. | ||
| There's a combination of factors that placed him in front of the vehicle, including a step he took, which I would say I don't think he intended to stand in front of the vehicle. | ||
| I also don't think Renee Good intended to place an officer in front of her vehicle. | ||
| I believe she intended to evade arrest. | ||
| And in the process, the circumstances align by which both are now in this circumstance. | ||
| So I don't see, I don't think, I said the other day, when I watched the video footage of the tire spinning out right there, that's hitting the gas. | ||
| And he's standing right in front of her. | ||
| And she knows that. | ||
| I had said first when the story broke, I didn't think she was trying to kill him. | ||
| I thought she was trying to evade arrest. | ||
| Then after watching this and breaking it all down, I'm like, holy shit. | ||
| No, she hits the gas with him right in front of her. | ||
| She's not turning around. | ||
| That's when he starts pulling the weapon. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| And then I said, I think she actually did intend to kill him. | ||
| However, new video footage has come out. | ||
| And after further analysis, I'm going to walk back a little bit and say, my assumption right now is she was trying to evade arrest and did not care if she killed this man in the process. | ||
| She was trying to escape. | ||
| And if it were not for the ice on the ground, that car would have lurched forward. | ||
| I mean, you can see the tire spin out. | ||
| She would have slammed right into him. | ||
| He's standing there already in near conduct vehicle. | ||
| He takes a step to the right, but you can see they're standing on ice. | ||
| And the proof of the ice is he slides backwards when the car hits him. | ||
| Now I'm going to show you this video again. | ||
| Okay? | ||
| It's one second. | ||
| He continued to advance. | ||
| Officer Caprio got off one shot. | ||
| Dead. | ||
| One second. | ||
| Literally one second. | ||
| I think this is a slam dunk for the defense, but I'm not convinced Trump will allow it to even go to court. | ||
| I just find it lamentable that because of the polarization that is happening in the country, right? | ||
| That it's like, you know, you have to always defend law enforcement or you always have to, you know, attack law enforcement. | ||
| We're not actually having a normal discussion about a tragedy. | ||
| And it's going to be the state of Minnesota is just going to try to put him in prison to get a political win against Trump. | ||
| They probably don't even give a crap about it. | ||
| They just hate the ICE deployment. | ||
| And the federal government is not going to cooperate in what there should actually be a comprehensive investigation with cooperation on both sides, but nobody is going to. | ||
| I disagree. | ||
| You don't? | ||
| You disagree? | ||
| I disagree. | ||
| Well, of course, because the other side is no good faith. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| This would be ideal if they were. | ||
| And I'll tell you my personal bias because I'm sure a lot of people are going to say functionally and reasonably we have to have a system and all that, sure. | ||
| My personal bias is that I can't be at my home studio right now because someone drove by and took three shots at me. | ||
| These people are not operating in good faith. | ||
| They are calling for my murder. | ||
| They are celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. | ||
| And if this cop died, they'd be dancing on his grave right now and doing the exact same thing they're doing. | ||
| So if we keep bending the knee to people who are committing crimes and calling for the murder of others, right now they're chanting Christy Num should be hanged. | ||
| If we say we're going to play softball with people who are actively murdering us, we're dead. | ||
| We're dead. | ||
| So Trump should resign now. | ||
| I'll move to El Salvador if that's what we're going to do. | ||
| So a month ago, someone drove by my studio and took three shots. | ||
| And now we've got employees and my family. | ||
| We don't want to be at a place where someone just took shots at us and they celebrate it. | ||
| And worse, people on the right call me a liar. | ||
| And here we are in Florida because we don't want to go back. | ||
| We spent the last week there because we had one week and we paid for advanced security to do so. | ||
| And now we're not going back there. | ||
| So this is an incident where a woman chose to go to a place where federal law enforcement was conducting operations they knew. | ||
| She had training to obstruct them from Icewatch. | ||
| She was, according to witnesses, the ringleader leading the charge to obstruct the vehicles from passing. | ||
| They attempted to make an arrest. | ||
| She tried to flee, and in the process of fleeing, she struck an officer. | ||
| I don't know how that's not clear-cut. | ||
| Did he know all of that at the time that this occurred? | ||
| The officer? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Does it matter? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| She struck him. | ||
| Of course it matters. | ||
| No, it doesn't. | ||
| She struck him. | ||
| He shot her. | ||
| And of course, well, to me, that's the only thing that's relevant: use of force in that specific incident, regardless of what her motive, like her ideology is personally, or what her beliefs are, or what she was up to earlier in the day. | ||
| Her activity in the moment is the most relevant thing to me as far as just looking at the use of force. | ||
| His perception of danger matters for the legal case. | ||
| Yeah, well, his perception, yes, and that I agree with. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But also, it doesn't just hinge on. | |
| It doesn't just hinge on his subjective interpretation of whether or not his life was in imminent danger, because, like Dave said, it's also going to factor in an objective analysis. | ||
| So, would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as this individual act the same way or have reason to be rational to think that they need to act the same way? | ||
| And I tell you what's going to happen. | ||
| They're going to, let me pull up this. | ||
| I'll pull this post as I talk about it. | ||
| I'm going to highlight the serious injuries he had received after being struck by a car six months ago. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And I've got an image of the injuries he sustained, which I would not call critical, but I would consider to be decently serious. | ||
| I mean, let me pull this up for you guys so you can take a look. | ||
| Here are the injuries he sustained six months prior to being dragged 300 feet on the front of a vehicle. | ||
| Six months ago? | ||
| Six months ago, indeed. | ||
| What does this have to do with justifying use of force? | ||
| So the question is: does he have reasonable fear of being killed after six months ago on the job, he was struck by a vehicle and dragged 300 feet and seriously injured, had to get 33 stitches and was covered in blood. | ||
| So now a vehicle has struck him. | ||
| And so this does play to whether or not he perceived a threat. | ||
| Well, that speaks to whether or not he's traumatized, but I don't know that just because he's traumatized in a past incident. | ||
| But that's the legal standard. | ||
| It's that if a reasonable person were in his circumstances, not if... | ||
| Well, in those exact circumstances, not if they all know that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
This is the exact same thing. | |
| Dave, is it including their past experience even back to six months ago when they experienced trauma? | ||
| I don't think so. | ||
| I think it hinges on whether or not a person in those exact circumstances is not factoring in their entire life story. | ||
| Well, it's based on his training and his experience, what would be reasonable in his mind. | ||
| So if he had trauma in the past because he was dragged by someone, that could come into play in a trial. | ||
| It's another reason why it's so hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime here. | ||
| I mean, I think he should not have shot. | ||
| I thought he had a chance to step out of the way. | ||
| I think he violated the DOJ and DHS policies. | ||
| But as far as being a prosecutor and convicting him beyond reasonable doubt, it's going to be hard. | ||
| But let me ask you this. | ||
| I agree. | ||
| I don't think he should have shot. | ||
| But I also factor in this in the mind of law enforcement having dealt with these things. | ||
| And this was a high-profile story. | ||
| Not that it necessarily is admissible, but I think cops, like, they see these things, but his trauma. | ||
| And so I ask myself, why did he decide to shoot? | ||
| Well, honestly, I don't know what I would do. | ||
| I mean, he's in front of a vehicle. | ||
| He can't see its tires. | ||
| It's accelerated towards him. | ||
| Its tires spun out. | ||
| He heard the engine rev. He's standing on ice. | ||
| He might be like, I'm dead. | ||
| You don't know what you would do for the first shot, but the two subsequent ones after, you would have taken those two shots after? | ||
| I think the argument is it's all one second. | ||
| You're not taking a shot, freezing time and saying, okay, where are her hands? | ||
| What are her hands doing? | ||
| Oh, she's turning to the right. | ||
| Now, every single use of force is going to be analyzed. | ||
| It's not just going to be seen as one continuous thing. | ||
| I know that they're going to argue that. | ||
| And the defense is going to win easily. | ||
| But do you think that those two shots afterwards are not the first one? | ||
| No, they're immaterial. | ||
| So you think they're immaterial? | ||
| You don't think they're justified? | ||
| I think defense, if allowed, creates a significant step. | ||
| Not defense, Tim. | ||
| What do you think? | ||
| Do you think that you already, they're immaterial to the moment? | ||
| How can they be immaterial? | ||
| Every single use of force is not a fairly fast thing. | ||
| Because you can't stop time and freeze everything around you and make a decision. | ||
| This is one second adrenaline pumping. | ||
| He was just at one time. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I did not say defense. | |
| I'm saying that every single one needs to be a fight. | ||
| When you are in a moment and your adrenaline is pumping, time does not stop. | ||
| When you decide to use lethal force, it's bang, bang, bang. | ||
| That was one second, three shots fired. | ||
| He didn't fire the first shot, stop, and then go, okay, now what's the car doing? | ||
| The car hit him and he went bang, bang, bang, right away. | ||
| There's no freezing. | ||
| There's no assessment. | ||
| There's pure adrenaline after being hit by a car. | ||
| That's it. | ||
| I think you're refusing to answer whether or not he's going to be able to do it. | ||
| But he literally just said it was okay. | ||
| He shot her three times. | ||
| How many times do I got to say it? | ||
| No, you were saying that the defendant's going to argue that you're going to be there. | ||
| That you were saying that a jury could say that. | ||
| And that's the side of the defense, regardless of criminal trials, those shots are immaterial to the argument. | ||
| Like in a span of one second. | ||
| So now you are saying all three are justified, even the last two. | ||
| Yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| 100%. | ||
| You have never been in a life or death situation like this, have you? | ||
| No. | ||
| I have. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| There's no stopping and being like, let's freeze time as the bolts are flying and figure what the appropriate course of action is. | ||
| I had to jump onto the ground and bash my face on the concrete to avoid bullets in Ferguson. | ||
| There was no time period where for the first shot was fired, I said, stop. | ||
| Should I turn to my right, turn to my left? | ||
| What should I do? | ||
| No, I literally just dropped my weight and belly flopped on the ground as bullets whipped cracked past my head. | ||
| When I was shot at the second time in Ferguson and the police told us to run from the bullets, I didn't know which direction I was running. | ||
| Even though it took 15 seconds, my brain, it's tunnel vision. | ||
| There's no peripheral vision. | ||
| I can only see what's in front of me. | ||
| I ran through a wall of tear gas, asphyxiated and collapsed. | ||
| And then a kid came out, poured cold water on my face, which triggered an inhalation response and woke me up from passing out. | ||
| This shit is fucking terrifying. | ||
| In the span of one second, you have a decision to make. | ||
| I am being hit by a car. | ||
| I might die. | ||
| This happened to me before. | ||
| She must be stopped. | ||
| Bang, bang, bang. | ||
| There is no moment where he stopped to reassess because it was one second. | ||
| I'm not saying that it wasn't a scary situation. | ||
| I'm not saying the tensions weren't high. | ||
| I'm not saying the adrenaline isn't pumping, but he is an officer. | ||
| He is law enforcement that's trained to be able to handle a weapon properly. | ||
| And even in these high-seek situations, the whole point of all of their training is to be able to act with more precision than the average. | ||
| But then that's a fact. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's a good idea of training. | |
| But he can't freeze time. | ||
| I'm not saying that he can freeze time. | ||
| He's saying that it's incumbent upon him to act in conformity, not only with the law, but also with this training. | ||
| And he was doing, he was not even acting in conformity with his training. | ||
| That's an opinion. | ||
| Well, but if he does violate the policy, but if he did violate the police. | ||
| So you disagree. | ||
| And which policy did he violate? | ||
| He violated the policy where you don't stand in front of a car and you don't shoot if you could step away. | ||
| Okay, now we got to stop. | ||
| As we've already gone through, both he and the vehicle line up. | ||
| I do not believe that shows his intent to get in front of a vehicle. | ||
| I think the circumstances created that scenario. | ||
| And I'm not going to blame her for putting him in front, nor he for getting in front, because you can say they both make movements. | ||
| So that means in a second, he does not know the vehicle is going to turn and point at him as he's stepping to his right. | ||
| He might think he's going to the front, right side of the vehicle and not in its path. | ||
| But there was no alternative there at that point. | ||
| No alternative to avoid the confrontation he had to shoot. | ||
| Did to save his life. | ||
| Did he know the vehicle was going to accelerate towards him? | ||
| I think the way that it was turning away from him, I don't think that there was ever a real threat to him. | ||
| I don't think you can argue that within the span of two seconds, he calculated exactly what the car was going to do as it turned to face him and he was walking to his right. | ||
| So the point is this. | ||
| Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, right? | ||
| But that's an analysis that is going to require debate. | ||
| It's not an objective fact. | ||
| So when you say he violated the policy, I say, actually, that's the debate. | ||
| Why did that happen? | ||
| The second thing you say he violated was that he shouldn't discharge a firearm unless the vehicle was acting in a manner that threatened his life. | ||
| That is, again, an argument. | ||
| It accelerated towards him. | ||
| And by all means, you can argue it didn't and he may be wrong, but we are not talking about a fact statement. | ||
| We're talking about an opinion statement. | ||
| And this is why this case will be so difficult to prosecute, because what you've seen here is a microcosm of what the trial will be like. | ||
| The defense lawyers will say, look, boom, boom, boom, all at once. | ||
| It's a split-second decision. | ||
| And the prosecution will say, slow down the tape. | ||
| Here it is. | ||
| Boom. | ||
| And then she's pulling away. | ||
| It's not a threat. | ||
| Boom, boom. | ||
| And that's the problem with this case as a prosecutor is that because you can debate this, it's going to be hard to convict beyond any reasonable doubt. | ||
| How are you going to get a jury? | ||
| How are you going to get a jury to unanimously say guilty? | ||
| I just don't see it at all. | ||
| Especially with this photo right here. | ||
| For the last two shots, I think that there's a good chance that you could get some like a jury to say that there was no need to apply lethal force in that instance, that it's not reasonable from, you know, neither a subjective, in my opinion, or objective perspective that he could have believed that his life was in imminent danger and she needed to be shot that second and third time. | ||
| I have a better argument. | ||
| As she's turned away from him. | ||
| Actually, I have a better argument, actually. | ||
| I don't think any of those arguments are real. | ||
| I don't think, I mean, to us they are because we're actually trying to figure out what happened, right? | ||
| I think the reality is then you. | ||
| So if they do Minnesota and the jury is composed of liberals, the prosecutor need only say one thing to get a conviction. | ||
| She was a liberal. | ||
| And they say guilty. | ||
| But it won't be all liberals. | ||
| This will be a jury panel from the whole state, not just from that liberal area. | ||
| You know what you're going to see? | ||
| You're going to see, as we already did in the Trump case, you're going to see liberals who claim they're not liberals. | ||
| And they're going to go through jury selection and they're going to say, I don't watch the news. | ||
| I don't know much about it. | ||
| I'm not political. | ||
| And then after the trial, you're going to find out they have a whole wall of Facebook posts about how they're liberals because that's already happened. | ||
| So we'll just get a hung jury. | ||
| Well, it could be. | ||
| I don't think you get a jury at all. | ||
| By the way, in the Trump case in New York, one of the jurors later on revealed that he was a devotee of the Tim Pool Podcast. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What? | |
| That is incorrect. | ||
| That's the story. | ||
| He said he was a fan of Tim Pool. | ||
| No, he didn't. | ||
| He said he had seen one episode one time. | ||
| Okay, so that's it? | ||
| He wasn't. | ||
| Yep, he wasn't a fan. | ||
| He wasn't a fan of the family. | ||
| This is what we have to deal with all the time. | ||
| Like I was having a conversation recently with a guy who said he was a liberal. | ||
| And I said, what does it mean to be a liberal conservative in this country right now? | ||
| It means you either know what's happening or you don't. | ||
| And he said, I actually don't watch the news at all. | ||
| And I'm like, I know, because my policy positions are like pro-choice, pro-progressive tax, and would align with any normal liberal worldview, except when I say a thing happened, they go, you're a conservative not for having said that. | ||
| Being conservative just means you believe a set of facts. | ||
| And liberals tend to be people who don't watch the news or get their news through lies. | ||
| For example, the photo that's being shared far and wide by the left is this. | ||
| The officer pointing his weapon at the side of the vehicle, which certainly did happen, but is after-the-fact context. | ||
| They're taking this screenshot and they're saying he walked up to the car and executed her. | ||
|
unidentified
|
When in actuality, what context justifies that? | |
| What context justifies those two additional shots? | ||
| See this video right here? | ||
| That's after the shots were already fired. | ||
| And he's claiming that they screenshotted that. | ||
| High-profile A-list or celebrities, and I've already highlighted some of these on my show, are saying he walked up the car and shot her in the side of the head. | ||
| And so what happens is, Normie Libbs, people like Seema Liu, this is not when the shot is happening. | ||
| This is after the shots. | ||
| He didn't walk. | ||
| And they're taking a screenshot after the shots and claiming he walked up to her car and shot her. | ||
| On Wikipedia, they wrote that she was turning her car around, was executed, and was shot in the head. | ||
| The reality is much more nuanced, and there's certainly an argument to be made about whether he should or should not have shot. | ||
| But the fact is, she accelerates towards him. | ||
| She strikes him with the vehicle, and then he makes three rapid shots. | ||
| So what's the argument that he shouldn't have up to her and just execute her? | ||
| What's the argument to you that he shouldn't have shot? | ||
| The argument to me is that I have been in life or death situations. | ||
| That he shouldn't have shot. | ||
| Because you said there's an argument to be made to be a significant person. | ||
| Yes, he shot. | ||
| What's that argument? | ||
| So let me finish. | ||
| My argument is, having actually been in life or death situations where I've been shot at, my reaction would not have been his to fire these shots. | ||
| However, I am not him. | ||
| He is someone who experienced trauma. | ||
| Therefore, I think this is an easy dismissal. | ||
| It's a tragedy, shouldn't have happened. | ||
| However, in law, if you are committing a felony, attempting to evade arrest and put an officer and commit an assault on an officer, which this is, you will face lethal force from a litany, from a spattering of various officers. | ||
| Not every officer would react the same way. | ||
| If it were me, I wouldn't have shot. | ||
| That's just me. | ||
| Maybe I'm wrong. | ||
| But he got hit. | ||
| Now, can we talk about the fact that all of this is happening because the left is doing a national campaign to obstruct law enforcement? | ||
| I mean, this is really what's behind all of this. | ||
| But specifically, look, the debate over this shooting exists only among those who are trying to fix this country, and liberal activists are trying to change this country. | ||
| So if you are a revolutionary or you believe the system is so corrupt that you would celebrate Luigi Mangione or the assassination of Charlie Kirk, you don't care what the facts are. | ||
| You care about winning. | ||
| And I'll say, let me say about these people. | ||
| The people who were calling for hanging, Christina in New York City, I think it was yesterday, last night. | ||
| The man leading that protest, you can look him up. | ||
| His name is Manolo de los Santos. | ||
| He's originally from the Dominican Republic. | ||
| He leads a Marxist group in New York City called the People's Forum. | ||
| It's the same guy who organized the protest calling for the liberation of Maduro. | ||
| Oh, God. | ||
| Wait, wait, wait, it gets better. | ||
| He got arrested at the Colombia pro-Hamas protest, too. | ||
| Yeah, I'm shocked. | ||
| All the same people. | ||
| I'm shocked that he's also pro-Hamas. | ||
| Oh, he's a personal friend of the dictator of Cuba. | ||
| He was just in Cuba hanging out with his pal. | ||
| Now, these are the Marxist groups organizing destruction. | ||
| You're trying to be reasonable and assess a singular moment. | ||
| The activists are lying to try and force a change of this government. | ||
| All right. | ||
| I hate doing the both sides of them because that's always lazy thinking. | ||
| But let me just say this. | ||
| I don't disagree with you, Dan. | ||
| And my concern is that when Christine Dome came down, the first thing she said was, this is a domestic terrorist. | ||
| That's not a domestic terrorist. | ||
| Oh, her, I'm not sure. | ||
| Her, I'm not sure. | ||
| She relates the fucking title. | ||
| I can tell you that there are groups that are definitely the closest that I have ever seen to domestic terrorism that are funded by foreign tyrants who are trying to destroy America from the inside because they know they cannot beat us militarily. | ||
| You know what you fall victim to? | ||
| You're waiting for an over-the-top attack, but any true subterfuge will never present that. | ||
| Meaning, she was trained by a group called Ice Watch. | ||
| She is not from Minnesota. | ||
| We know that she is not a fan of her. | ||
| She was trained and she was 100%. | ||
| Let me come from Colorado. | ||
| So she drove from Colorado to do that? | ||
| We don't know that. | ||
| may have moved there. | ||
| I think we have this from New York. | ||
| She was trained or whatever with that. | ||
| She trained to resist feds, part of a group called Ice Watch. | ||
| She was an Ice Watch warrior. | ||
| The point is this. | ||
| What we see with left and right over the past 10 years is that the left engages in a sustained campaign of what I would call blunt force terrorism. | ||
| What you see associated with the right, but not part of any right-wing movement, is what I would call acute high-incident terrorism. | ||
| So let me break this down. | ||
| Since Trump got elected, we have had a string of hundreds per year of physical assaults on Trump supporters. | ||
| Blair White, a trans woman, most famously walked through LA with a Trump hat and was beaten and had one of her nails bloodied, like ripped off in the attack. | ||
| That's blunt force, low-level terror. | ||
| When you are scared to go outside saying, I want to vote for a guy because people will physically attack you, when Nick Sortor can't go to Minneapolis because they're threatening to kill him and the police won't help him, that is literal terrorism, but it's not acute. | ||
| So when you see the Christchurch shooter, you see an individual who's saying extremist white supremacists or other things. | ||
| This makes the news everywhere. | ||
| Everyone's talking about it. | ||
| They then say he was right-wing. | ||
| Now, there's two problems with this. | ||
| So long as the left maintains subterfuge and what I would call low-level blunt force terror, but at a high degree, national news will never cover it. | ||
| CNN's never going to run a headline, 9 p.m. Anderson Cooper, about a guy who got punched in the face. | ||
| But they will run a story about a guy shooting a bunch of people. | ||
| That will get more attention than anything. | ||
| The second problem with this is that when you see this debate over left and right acts of violence, it's a total fabrication. | ||
| Because the terror that you see on the right, like a white supremacist beating his wife, is registered by the ADL as like a racist attack or a white supremacy attack. | ||
| The mainstream Republican Party eschews all of this. | ||
| And Charlie Kirk kicked out white nationalists from his event. | ||
| You're saying that being a racist is right-wing when it's really not. | ||
| It's not. | ||
| When Turning Point USA says Jenk Uger is allowed on our stage to debate, but Nick Funtes is not, then you can't claim that white nationalists and white supremacy is part of the quote-unquote right because the right rejects it. | ||
| However, on the left, they're literally the people, the activists are saying Charlie Kirk deserved what he got. | ||
| AOC went on the floor of the house and said, don't celebrate or defend him because he was awful. | ||
| Nobody should die that way, but he was a bad guy. | ||
| So there is an alignment on the left from the extreme. | ||
| And only that is why the Atlantic and organizations are finally saying the left is more violent. | ||
| But going back 10 years, going back, my experiences on the ground at all these protests, I have been to hundreds of leftist protests, and I've been physically attacked dozens of times. | ||
| I have been to an equal amount of right-wing protests. | ||
| I've not been physically attacked by a conservative ever, ever. | ||
| So when you look at the data, I would argue this. | ||
| Are individuals aligned with Democratic politicians and the Democratic Party engaging in violence? | ||
| Yeah, it's low-level, but it's consistent. | ||
| We see the Chaz Chop. | ||
| We see these protests. | ||
| We see Andy No getting beaten. | ||
| We see Nick Sortor getting death threats. | ||
| We see the corporate press acting toward that same ideology. | ||
| Okay, do we see this level of violence on the right? | ||
| Naturally, no. | ||
| I mean, fringe wackos on both the left and the right will engage in violence, but there are fringe leftists that are not aligned with any political party, and there are fringe right-wingers not aligned with any political party. | ||
| It makes no sense to lump them into the greater, the bigger picture. | ||
| You said you've never been assaulted by anybody on the right or like harmed? | ||
| I've never been physically attacked at a conservative protest by the way. | ||
| By the way, well, I was going to say the shooting as well, but I saw a video of you years ago where that guy, Millennial Matt. | ||
| Pulled my hat off. | ||
| Pulled your beanie off. | ||
| And don't put that on par with being punched in the face or being shot at. | ||
| But he was on, I'm not putting it on par with being punched in the face or being shot at. | ||
| I don't consider my hat pulled off being physically assaulted. | ||
| I consider someone trolling me, and I got pissed. | ||
| And the reason why I didn't strike him at the time is because he didn't attack me. | ||
| He just grabbed him. | ||
| But he was on the right, right? | ||
| He was on the right. | ||
| It's not a physical assault. | ||
| But he was conservative, right? | ||
| Millennium Matt was the only person. | ||
| And as I said, I've never been physically assaulted by a conservative. | ||
| What about the shooting at your compound, right? | ||
| That was probably a Candace Owens supporter. | ||
| We don't know that, and the death threats we've received are all from the left. | ||
| But what do you think this is? | ||
| And Candace Owens is a liberal. | ||
| Yeah, but she's on the right. | ||
| She cosplays as far, right? | ||
| No, she doesn't. | ||
| She's a liberal. | ||
| No, but she's trying to take over part of the movement. | ||
| And certainly her audience considers themselves conservative. | ||
| No, that's not correct. | ||
| You don't think so. | ||
| Shanna Kasparian is not considered herself a conservative. | ||
| No, the audience of the person. | ||
| Yes, Anna Kasparian is a conservative. | ||
| I wouldn't consider her the audience. | ||
| She went on a show and said, I'm a big fan of Candace Owens and watch her all the time. | ||
| Well, I can tell you, I know who watch. | ||
| No, no, it's a Candace Owens. | ||
| Candace has adopted a liberal moral framework. | ||
| She's not advocating for universal ownership because that's not what liberal is. | ||
| But if you're saying Trump is bad and you're attacking Turning Point USA and you're claiming Israel is the problem, you are aligned with the liberal ideological worldview. | ||
| I agree absolutely with you. | ||
| What I'm trying to say is that there are influencers, there are bad people, opinion leaders, unfortunately, who consider themselves part of the right, whose audience considers themselves also part of the right, and they are causing a lot of problems. | ||
| They're not equivalent to what the Marxists are. | ||
| My point is, Candace Owens is pulling people towards the left and adopting liberal frameworks. | ||
| I agree. | ||
| Her audience is now mixed between liberals and conservatives. | ||
| It's a general conspiracy theory audience. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| She's not focused on any policy positions. | ||
| She's specifically talking about conspiracies that apply to left and right with Israel being the enemy. | ||
| I don't know if you saw our June Institute poll on extremism on both sides and how young people, but also people who consider themselves extremely conservative, especially who are young, believe on anti-Semitic conspiracy theories at the highest rate. | ||
| So it's a problem because these influencers are changing the opinions. | ||
| I'll tell you exactly what I think. | ||
| Barry Weiss is hired by Larry Ellison at CBS and asserts herself as a proud Zionist. | ||
| CBS begins cleaning up its act and abandoning wokeness to create what appears to be a more rational media ecosystem. | ||
| And I agree it is. | ||
| But this now erasing woke activism from corporate press is going to make moderate individuals and people like me say CBS is doing a good job, which I did say. | ||
| However, it's a proud Zionist leading that charge, which creates a positive environment in that perception. | ||
| YouTube at the same time is putting people like Candace Owens on the front page and boosting her views, which is now pushing conservatives into a Zejus position. | ||
| It's where the New York Times did a positive picture and everything of Nick Fuentes. | ||
| Right. | ||
| They want that. | ||
| They want the right to be. | ||
| So for the past 10 years, the left has has entertained things that are weird. | ||
| Child sex changes, tuck-friendly bathing suits. | ||
| The Bud Light campaign caused massive economic damage. | ||
| They realized that censorship and this activist advocacy was actually reducing their power and fomenting anti-Israel sentiment. | ||
| I believe they're overtly pro-Israel. | ||
| So here's the plan. | ||
| Everybody's pissed about wokeness. | ||
| Barry Weiss, proud Zionist and anti-woke, give her the reins of CBS. | ||
| Moderates will then say, this is what we always wanted. | ||
| Israel being a sidestep because your average middle American doesn't care about the concept of Israel, but you've now created a news organization that is not going to be anti-Israel, is going to appear more reasonable. | ||
| Then you promote whack-a-loons who say the Jews are everywhere now to get me. | ||
| And the right starts adopting it because they're grifters, not all of them, but many of them. | ||
| They're going to get views. | ||
| Now they sound like retards. | ||
| And they'll go to a working-class American and say, you know why you got a flat tire? | ||
| The Jews did it. | ||
| And they're going to say, you're nuts. | ||
| Then Barry Weiss is going to say, these people are crazy. | ||
| You're flat tires from a nail, right? | ||
| Okay, Israel's great. | ||
| Tim, this is why you had like all these people. | ||
| I read people claiming that Israel is the reason that we are taking on Venezuela. | ||
| Believe it or not, Israel doesn't have to deal with everything in the world. | ||
| Well, so this is what I mean by liberal. | ||
| The core element of a lot of these protests has been anti-Israel. | ||
| The social media has been largely anti-Israel. | ||
| And you're allowed to be critical of Israel, but it makes no sense when literally everything is Israel. | ||
| So then when you start seeing prominent conservative personalities who I will leave nameless for the time being, just we'll see where things go in the next few months. | ||
| But they're claiming, they're defending Renee Nicole Good overtly with liberal talking points. | ||
| And by all means, you're allowed to believe. | ||
| I think I know who you're talking about. | ||
| There's a handful of them, though. | ||
| But the point is you're allowed to have nuanced opinions. | ||
| Sometimes your opinion might be more aligned with liberals. | ||
| Like I agree with Joe Biden on getting rid of the ATM fees. | ||
| I thought that was great. | ||
| I agree with Joe Biden on prosecuting the Somali fraudsters in Minnesota. | ||
| He got 62 convictions. | ||
| That was under Merrick Garland, who I do not like, but that was a good thing. | ||
| However, there are a bunch of conservatives that all of a sudden are Trump is bad on foreign policy. | ||
| They're saying, like, they're taking the side of the liberal activists in this regard. | ||
| And they've been consistently criticizing ICE, which appears, whatever you want to say, I'll tell you straight up my opinion. | ||
| I think that after the killing of Charlie Kirk, many of these prominent conservatives realized they're going to have to go into hiding. | ||
| The left has put out a list of people to murder. | ||
| I'm one of these individuals. | ||
| These other higher-profile conservatives are on this list as well. | ||
| And all of a sudden, they've stopped talking about the core political issues that got it to this point, which is the culture war divide. | ||
| They've started focusing heavily on things that do align with the left, particularly Israel and Zionism. | ||
| So now they've sort of sidestepped the death threat targets because they're anti-Israel along with these liberals. | ||
| I think they're doing it specifically because they think Trump is going to lose and they don't want to get hanged. | ||
| Or maybe they're accepting Qatari money like Tucker Carlson. | ||
| No, I think that's an easy, it's a cop-out. | ||
| I think that's an easy answer. | ||
| The idea that Tucker one day just decided, pay me money and I'll change my opinions doesn't make sense. | ||
| The fact that Tucker Carlson fled his home in D.C. to an undisclosed location to do his show is more indicative of his fear of death. | ||
| And so I don't, but I'm not saying that's why he did it. | ||
| And I believe he's moved since then. | ||
| But I can tell you that there are many conservative personalities. | ||
| Look, I'll be more public about it. | ||
| We're clearly not at the Tim Cast IRL studio. | ||
| We're in Florida because of the shooting. | ||
| But there are many conservatives who are already in hiding. | ||
| You just can't tell because they've either replicated their studios or you may notice some studios have changed. | ||
| It's a new studio, they say. | ||
| Well, why is it a new studio? | ||
| Because they moved 100 miles away from any city and they're in the middle of nowhere with Starlink because they don't want to be murdered. | ||
| That's sad. | ||
| It is terrible where we are right now. | ||
| And I agree that the death of Charlie Kirk really precipitated. | ||
| That is what was the spark that caused the right to have this divide and melt down and cause fear. | ||
| And maybe that changed some people's views all of a sudden. | ||
| They don't want to get killed either. | ||
| It's all awful. | ||
| I would say, though, you've seen far-right violence too. | ||
| Nancy Pelosi was attacked in her home. | ||
| That wasn't right-wing. | ||
| Excuse me, Nancy Pelosi's husband. | ||
| But that wasn't right-wing. | ||
| Well, it was a guy who was broke into the house and hit him with a hammer. | ||
| But it was conservative. | ||
| But he was going after Pelosi for a reason. | ||
| Yes, but liberals don't like Pelosi, too. | ||
| So this is the problem with saying it's right-wing. | ||
| A guy who shows up to a Charlie Kirk event is not breaking into the police house hitting with a hammer. | ||
| A guy who shows up to an AOC event is the people who are going to AOC rallies made videos celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder. | ||
| Oh, and I condemn all that. | ||
| The point is, you can't compare progressive activists who engage in direct action with a whack-aloon drug addict who believes stupid shit. | ||
| Well, that's not right-wing. | ||
| What about the Vance Butler guy, the guy who killed the people? | ||
| Yeah, that's not a right-wing thing either. | ||
| Or in Minnesota. | ||
| I understand how on one hand you're going to say that Candace Owens can now be considered a liberal because her criticisms align with some liberal and left criticisms of the right in this country, the GOP, Trump, etc. | ||
| But then when it comes to somebody attacking Nancy and Paul Pelosi, which obviously aligns far more with the right, you're not going to say that. | ||
| Someone attacking someone else does not indicate political position. | ||
| Not necessarily, but in this particular case, this guy who attacked politically wasn't an activist. | ||
| He wasn't a campaigner for any right-wing causes. | ||
| He doesn't have to be an activist to be politically motivated in your shooting. | ||
| Okay, then let's stop right here. | ||
| Let's pause real quick, and I'll make sure we all understand the distinction. | ||
| Violence from the left is often from ideological individuals trying to advance a cause. | ||
| What you describe as violence from the right seems to be random. | ||
| If that's the distinction we're making, then that's the same thing. | ||
| But when you say that, you're still conceding that it's violence from the right. | ||
| You're making it sound like no violence from the right. | ||
| So I'm giving you the language to say this. | ||
| Let's clarify. | ||
| Followers of Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump rarely are going out and attacking people for their ideological cause. | ||
| Sometimes a conservative may attack somebody. | ||
| We had that attack at the church in Michigan, and the guy was a conservative, but he did not attack the Mormon church for conservative reasons, for ideological reasons. | ||
| He did it because of debts and some personal beef he had with the Mormons. | ||
| But he's got an American flag and a Trump sign on his car, and they say, see, right-wing violence. | ||
| Hold on. | ||
| Sometimes right-wing people attack other people quite a bit. | ||
| Sometimes left-wing people attack people quite a bit. | ||
| Political violence, I'm clarifying right now just for the sake of the argument, is when an individual engages in advance for the purpose of advancing an ideology. | ||
| Cesar Sayak is very similar by that. | ||
| Cesar Sayak. | ||
| He's the guy who lives in a van in South Florida who mailed bombs to prominent Democrats and members of the media. | ||
| It does happen, indeed. | ||
| So when you look at these charts, let me show you this from the ADL heat map, my favorite example of this. | ||
| Or where they classified Islamic terrorism as right-wing, wasn't that one? | ||
| Let me show you the narrative machine. | ||
| Here's why I have a problem with how this is all described. | ||
| The Anti-Defamation League has their heat map, hate, extremism, anti-Semitism, and terror, I believe it is. | ||
| Ideology. | ||
| Right-wing is white supremacist. | ||
| Wait, wait, hold on. | ||
| Why is white supremacy right-wing? | ||
| Racial identitarianism is irrespective of your policy positions, and the left have racial identitarians as well. | ||
| So why is that? | ||
| Left-wing. | ||
| They actually say for simplicity's sake, it also includes black nationalist extremists. | ||
| No, no, no, hold on. | ||
| Now, hold on. | ||
| Like, a black nationalist who wants a nation of black people who believes in Christianity and that women shouldn't be allowed to vote is left-wing? | ||
| No, no one's going to accept that. | ||
| This makes no sense. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So you've got right-wing white supremacists, right-wing other, right-wing anti-government. | ||
| They actually, in some circumstances, will put anarchist left anarcho-communists as right-wing. | ||
| So this is the problem. | ||
| If you have three categories of what right-wing is and you include specifically racial identitarianism and anti-government, you're just inflating a list of what you describe as right-wing. | ||
| But if we want to actually understand what is left and right, I would argue it like this. | ||
| How about we call it Democrat-aligned, Republican-aligned? | ||
| And I say aligned because I don't like the Republican Party. | ||
| I think they're trash, but clearly I'm Republican-aligned. | ||
| If there is somebody who aligns with the political ideology of the Republicans and they engage in violence to pursue those ends, I would call that right-wing. | ||
| If there is somebody whose political ideology aligns with the Democratic Party and they engage in violence for the purpose of pursuing that ideology, I'd call that left-wing. | ||
| I think that's how we'd break it down. | ||
| If you break it down that way, you will find that the right commits substantially less violence than the left. | ||
| How does it compare if you put the right-wing anti-government, which I think is fair, you know, like anti-government? | ||
| Patriot movement, oath keepers, sovereign states. | ||
| How many of those are there actually? | ||
| Just those. | ||
| Anti-government survival. | ||
| Click apply. | ||
| Click apply. | ||
| Two. | ||
| No, no, three. | ||
| Let's see. | ||
| Actually, those dots are actually. | ||
| So that is how many anti-government ones are. | ||
| Does that include January 6th? | ||
| No. | ||
| That's the thing that I was going to ask next. | ||
| We're talking about how the right doesn't engage in political violence, and we just had the- I didn't say they didn't. | ||
| I said it's just less than the left. | ||
| Oh, sorry. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Yeah, I think the riots are not going to be the same. | ||
| Regardless of how the ADL classifies these things and their methodology, the more important thing to me is not long after the Charlie Kirk shooting, I remember there was an article from The Guardian that the Trump admin on a .gov website had quietly deleted a, it was some sort of study aggregating political violence in this country that had found there was disproportionately more political violence coming from the right than on the left. | ||
| And why did they delete it? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| But the point is that the findings show there was more violence on the right. | ||
| Because it included a white supremacist who punched his wife as a case of right-wing political extremism, which is the point I'm making. | ||
| There is no value presented to the American people by creating a list where you're going to claim a white supremacist redneck in a trailer punched his wife, so we're going to put it on a map of right-wing extremism. | ||
| That doesn't inform anybody else. | ||
| But it doesn't inform people about what our threats really are. | ||
| Regardless of that, the Atlantic has already published the left is more violent than the right as of this year. | ||
| So by whatever metric you want to go by, currently the left has taken the case. | ||
| What did the Atlantic publish? | ||
| The left is now more likely to engage in violence. | ||
| Let me pull it up. | ||
| And it's not even about the Atlantic. | ||
| Oh, it's not even the Atlantic. | ||
| It's tons of other sites. | ||
| You got the Atlantic. | ||
| You've got CSIS. | ||
| On the Rise is different than saying that it's coming from the United States. | ||
| For the first time in more than 30 years, attacks by the far left outnumber those by the far right. | ||
| Subhead. | ||
| What's the methodology? | ||
| Do you mind scrolling down and reading a little bit? | ||
| Oh, no, no, we don't care about methodology because, like you already said, if a white supremacist punches his wife. | ||
| No, I care about methodology. | ||
| That's not the study from the students. | ||
| No, you don't. | ||
| No, you don't. | ||
| When the White House cared about methodology, you said he should have taken it down. | ||
| So the study sentence is a very important thing. | ||
| When the White House touched down flawed methodology, you disagreed with it. | ||
| I don't think that the White House should be in the business of unilaterally taking down. | ||
| Yeah, not when they personally disagree with the findings, unless those people that authored the study have a reason to retract their findings or have some sort of methodological error that they find themselves or some sort of peer review comes in and sees an issue with it, then I could see the argument to take it down. | ||
| But partisans within an administration, whether it be a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, should not be concealing data from the American public simply because they have personal disagreements with that. | ||
| Then I think this should be on every Democrat politician's website, too. | ||
| What is this? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'll read it. | |
| Combined variance rates. | ||
| Combined violence rates. | ||
| Oh, violence. | ||
| My surmise. | ||
|
unidentified
|
This is a lot of people. | |
| Isn't that like a Chad GPT created thing? | ||
| This is a graph that I made, regardless of where it comes from. | ||
| Yeah, because Chad GPT makes a lot of mistakes. | ||
| So I want to say that. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| It's my data. | ||
| I just had a graph made by GPT. | ||
| Okay, what's the data? | ||
| The data is that when you combine the sum of all cities in the United States, you will find that Republican cities have 858 instances of violent crime and Democrat cities have 21,765. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Does the methodology matter or not? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Well, to me, though, because we're being honest. | ||
| But when the White House says we've got flawed methodology that claims a guy punching his wife is an instance of terrorism, that's not real methodology that enforces it. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| Sure, you're talking about crime in like Democrat-controlled cities versus which makes kind of sense. | ||
| Because most cities are Democrat, right? | ||
| That's so obviously— You say Democrat cities, like the mayor isn't a Democrat. | ||
| Is that the right thing? | ||
| Yes, if the mayor and the police are controlled by Democrats, you'll see substantially higher crime than if they're controlled by Republicans. | ||
| Those are wrong. | ||
| You're going to see higher crime in urban areas than cities anywhere. | ||
| Indeed, and there are some conservative urban environments too. | ||
| And they have substantially less crime. | ||
| I've seen a lot of analyses that really, if you just adjust by racial composition, there is actually no difference. | ||
| I mean, I think the question of crime is actually a very easy question. | ||
| Is that we're just going to enforce the law and put people in prison? | ||
| My point with this post is that the position that I occupy, which has typically been like moderate independent, but according to liberals is far right, is that there is a truth and reason, and we're trying to figure out how these things, how these things work and how we can solve for them. | ||
| The problem is Democrats lie about literally everything and Republicans are fucking losers. | ||
| Well, we cannot turn into liars either. | ||
| We kind of turn into limits. | ||
| I'm amazed at that. | ||
| I completely agreed. | ||
| My point here, and this is factually correct, when you compare violence rates depending on the political party in the sum of cities, you find substantially more violence in Democrat-run cities. | ||
| The perception of this and the proposed community notes is it makes people think that Democrats are individually as Democrats committing violent crime. | ||
| The point of this, when I said, how fucking weird am I, right? | ||
| When you get rid of fringe wackos and count crime by party control, which literally says party control, looks a lot different. | ||
| Democrats lost their minds over this because this is true. | ||
| Because when they create hate watch, like the ADL does, which I just showed you, they're going to claim that white supremacy is the same thing as Charlie Kirk. | ||
| Would you mind if I pull something up from? | ||
| Well, when Charlie Kirk kicked out a white nationalist from his event, when there's viral videos of him saying you don't belong here and you are anti-American, for what reason does it make sense to claim that Charlie Kirk is the same political movement as neo-Nazis? | ||
| Just if you wanted to pull this up, because this is by one of some of my colleagues that did an analysis and they said, MI, Red State Violence, Manhattan Institute. | ||
| You'll find it. | ||
| You want to make a point? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Chris Ray and the FBI at their annual report said that the greatest threat to national security was white supremacist, right-wing white supremacist violence, but this was by the way. | ||
| This is retarded. | ||
| But this was, this was a few years ago. | ||
| I do think that in recent years, I think you have a point that you've seen a surge on the far left of political violence, and it's something that you have to take seriously. | ||
| I'm going to make the point I made earlier again, just in this context. | ||
| It's because you aren't paying attention to the ground. | ||
| You are looking at top-level national news and ignoring the thousands of blunt forced tear that's been occurring across this country. | ||
| So when you have Andy No get beaten in the streets, it finally makes it to the national news. | ||
| And this is why intentionally, far-left direct action facilitators, whatever you want to call them, try to avoid killing or maiming. | ||
| In the violence they engage in, they want to punch you in the face and break your nose, but they don't want to kill you because that will make national news. | ||
| So when you say, well, it used to be that the right was more. | ||
| No, I've been on the ground for over a decade. | ||
| For 15 years, I've been covering this stuff. | ||
| And when I would go to a conservative event, see a bunch of old ladies waving flags, I'd be like, there's nothing going on. | ||
| In fact, when I'd go to a white supremacist event, they would insult me and call me a global citizen for being mixed race, but not a one of them would put a hand on me. | ||
| When I brought Darrell Davis to an event to denounce racism, Antifa showed up and threatened to burn the theater down. | ||
| And when Daryl Davis said, this is what I do, I talk with extremists. | ||
| When he went across the street, they threatened to kill him too. | ||
| The problem is CNN won't cover it. | ||
| The New York Times won't cover it. | ||
| So then you, watching the surface level news, only ever hear about some fringe right-wing extremist and think, wow, white supremacy is bad. | ||
| But how many white supremacists actually exist in this country? | ||
| Hard data that we saw from Vox was that there's around 11,000 self-proclaimed white supremacists of any kind of organized faction. | ||
| But there are hundreds of thousands, as we've seen from Occupy protests, from George Ford rights, self-proclaimed left-aligned extremists. | ||
| Now, I'm not going to say that Nancy Pelosi is a threat to my personal freedom or anything like that. | ||
| I think she's a scumbag who's doing insider trading. | ||
| Mitch McConnell, I think, is also a do-nothing scumbag. | ||
| I think the Unit Party largely just wants to maintain the status quo and they want to profit from it. | ||
| But when you actually go on the ground to all the various protests and riots, what do you find? | ||
| The left is more likely to beat the shit out of you, but they intentionally hold back from killing you. | ||
| The right, like Charlie Kirk, the turning point, I'm sorry, and Turning Point, as well as the Tea Party, you're never going to get physically assaulted at one of these events. | ||
| Never. | ||
| It's rare. | ||
| And people are very nice. | ||
| At Patriot Prayer in Portland, when a guy showed up shouting the N-word, conservatives kicked him out and told him to get lost. | ||
| When a white nationalist showed up to Charlie Kirk's event, he kicked him out. | ||
| When Nick Fuentes tried getting into an attorney appoint event, they kicked him out. | ||
| And recently, Myron Gaines and the Fresh Infit podcast were temporarily banned from Turning Points event, although they were ultimately let back in after the fact. | ||
| No, that was pretty shameful, and they need to be better at banning that type of person. | ||
| Well, I don't know if you want to ban people with bad ideas. | ||
| Well, I wouldn't have you in my event if you're wearing a shirt, mucking the hull up. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah. | |
| So we're not going to be able to do that. | ||
| My put is ultimately this. | ||
| For the people that sat back and didn't pay attention to the ground-level violence, they're like, what do you mean the left is never violent? | ||
| For people like me who've been on the ground, I've only ever been shot at by people on the left. | ||
| What about January 6th? | ||
| January 6th was very bad, and sometimes it happens. | ||
| How did you feel about, one, I don't think sometimes it happens or whatever when you're talking about an insurrection, but two, what did you think about President Trump pardoning all 1,500 of them? | ||
| Including the violent ones. | ||
| Absolutely correct. | ||
| The violence is absolutely correct. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Indeed. | |
| Once we were assaulting officials, how many years in prison do you get for assaulting an officer? | ||
| You get a lot. | ||
| Like first offense, assault an officer, what are you going to get? | ||
| If you're physically violent with an officer, you're going to serve real prison time. | ||
| How many years? | ||
| It depends on your rap sheet. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| First offense, you are at a riot and you're hitting or shoving and just generally fighting with cops. | ||
| How many years in prison do you get? | ||
| I think you should go to prison. | ||
| I think maybe 18 months to two years for a first offense. | ||
| It's two years a long time, but if you're fighting a cop in a riot, you should go to prison. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So you're saying that the new shouldn't have pardoned them. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| No, no, no, no, we're going somewhere. | ||
| Do you think two years is a good amount of time or not enough? | ||
| No, it's whatever the federal government is. | ||
| I'm asking you personally. | ||
| Two years? | ||
| It depends on the rap sheet. | ||
| Do you think a first offense, assault on an officer, no rap sheet, they got in a riot, attacked a cop, do you think they should go to prison for two years? | ||
| It depends on how badly they assaulted the copy. | ||
| Did they push a cop or did they choke him and use the taser against him? | ||
| Yeah, let's say shoving and pushing a cop at a riot. | ||
| How long should they go to prison for? | ||
| Again, it depends on the power of the public. | ||
| I'm asking you what your thoughts are. | ||
| As a human being outside of the law, should someone go to prison? | ||
| If it's a first-time offender with no prior rap sheet and it was just a push of a cop, let's say a consistent scuffle where they're shoving back and forth. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Yeah, two years seems to be fine. | ||
| Okay, so when these guys were in prison for three years, I think a pardon is fine. | ||
| But that's a good idea. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The jury and the judge. | |
| Why are they interfering with the sentence? | ||
| Because that's what he does. | ||
| That's what the presidential pardon power is for. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But then there's no power whether he is. | |
| Who's going to go to prison for 20 years for a first-time assault on an officer? | ||
| And how about this? | ||
| They're talking about seditious conspiracy. | ||
| That's different. | ||
| That's a different crime. | ||
| Who committed seditious conspiracy? | ||
| Enrique Terrio. | ||
| Okay, what did he do? | ||
| He helped plot an insurrection. | ||
| I know, what? | ||
| What did he do? | ||
| That's a general overview, I suppose, of the claim against him. | ||
| Literally, what did he do? | ||
| He was convicted by a jury of his peers. | ||
| He wasn't convicted. | ||
| What's the political makeup of DC? | ||
| When you're saying a jury of your peers is a jury that is vetted by the prosecution and defense both to make sure that there's no biases and they look at all the evidence. | ||
| But we're being silly. | ||
| And I think the problem we have in this country is that you live in a textbook reality and not reality, right? | ||
| So if I went before a court of French people, is that a jury of my peers? | ||
| It would be a problem. | ||
| What about a Republican or a Democrat to believe that he was engaged in conspiracism to January 6th? | ||
| He wasn't even in D.C. By the way, I just don't want to say political makeup of D.C. Biden won 92% of the vote in 2020. | ||
| So all of the D.C. convictions are illegitimate? | ||
| Against conservatives for political reasons, there is a high probability they're going to be illegitimate. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Well, let's talk about Derek Chauvin. | ||
| The judge in the Chauvin case said there is no jurisdiction in Minnesota where he will get a fair trial. | ||
| What is the process by which the United States handles a case where a judge admits there will not be a fair trial for a defendant? | ||
| Do we prosecute him? | ||
| Wait, the judge said they would not get a fair trial. | ||
| They wanted to move venue, the defense did, because they said in Minneapolis, the jury will be biased against him. | ||
| We should put him somewhere else. | ||
| And the judge said there's nowhere in Minnesota you can go where you're going to be free from this bias. | ||
| Oh, well, that's different than saying that they're not going to be able to have a free or like a fair jury. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right, right. | |
| What he's saying is a fair jury of the world. | ||
| But he's saying that like no matter where you move it or within the state, you're going to. | ||
| Yeah, but that's always true. | ||
| By the way, the jury's not biased. | ||
| The jury may have learned of the case and they may have their biases, but the key is that can you set them aside and follow the evidence and the laws of the world? | ||
| So let's all go back to January 6th. | ||
| I don't want to lose that point. | ||
| What about the people who got 18 months in prison for a first-time misdemeanor? | ||
| Or solitary confinement. | ||
| No, no, no, no. | ||
| A specific question, because I know some of these people. | ||
| There were two individuals that I met. | ||
| They approached the backside of the building after the riot was cleared out. | ||
| So this is around like three or four o'clock. | ||
| The doors were open. | ||
| There were people milling about in the grass. | ||
| They had just left Trump's speech and walked to the Capitol by themselves. | ||
| They entered the building and were inside for about two minutes. | ||
| They walked through open front doors, looked around, didn't really know what was going on, and left. | ||
| Their home was raided in Maryland, and they were sentenced to 18 months. | ||
| Should they have been pardoned? | ||
| Look, you're bringing up the- I'm asking this question. | ||
| I'm asking for your opinion. | ||
| I don't think it's fair to give me a situation unless I actually see, I want to see the specific charges. | ||
| I want to see the publication of the. | ||
| And let's make it all that. | ||
| Two individuals who stumbled two hours after a riot to a building and didn't know what was going on. | ||
| Should they go to prison? | ||
| Oh, well, it depends. | ||
| It depends on if they were at the Capitol and they went inside. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| That's trespassing. | ||
| And they should be punished. | ||
| And they should not have punished. | ||
| None of these people. | ||
| I think it's a good question. | ||
| So let me ask you a question. | ||
| If I walk on a private property, can I be arrested for trespassing? | ||
| After you've been warned. | ||
| Ah, okay. | ||
| So if these people weren't warned, they can't be charged. | ||
| The Capitol grounds, they were warned. | ||
| There are signs up. | ||
| Nope, the signs were all removed by the rioters. | ||
| They didn't know that they were improperly entering. | ||
| And were they busting trespassing or improperly entering government building? | ||
| That's also a different charge. | ||
| So they got charged with the obstructing an official proceeding charge. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And they got the misdemeanor trespass charge. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And they weren't allowed by the judge to present evidence proving that they were only there for two minutes and had just walked up and didn't know what was going on. | ||
| The judge actually barred them from video evidence that they had where they were like, we're just walking down D.C. | ||
| It's like, we're going to see what's going on. | ||
| There's people at the Capitol, I guess, and they didn't know what it was. | ||
| Why should they be in prison? | ||
| And the fact that you can't clearly and plainly say innocent people who got caught up by accident should be free to go is what's wrong with this country. | ||
| But they had a trial. | ||
| Because this is the banality of evil. | ||
| And the judge didn't let them present evidence. | ||
| But that doesn't matter. | ||
| I'm curious about a trial. | ||
| I don't care about trials, okay? | ||
| I care about, are we going to be a mechanized state that imprisons innocent people? | ||
| You say yes, I say no. | ||
| The only way that I can determine that is using trials. | ||
| No, you can't. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What do you mean by the way? | |
| What other people do? | ||
| So in that case, the capture of Maduro was completely legitimate. | ||
| It was a legal process by which Trump was allowed to do it. | ||
| Yeah, there you go. | ||
| So there was an indictment and the DHS and the DOJ went and got Maduro, all legal. | ||
| Can I say something since you mentioned that? | ||
| I am very happy about the capture of Nicolas Maduro. | ||
| I went to the courthouse where he was arraigned and I saw the people who were calling for his freedom. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| You know I really disagree with you. | ||
| I think I disagree with you because your defense of Nazis and how they prosecuted Jews, I think, is a bad thing, but you agree with it. | ||
| So, I mean, the Nazis had trials. | ||
| And they had indictments and arrests of Jews, right? | ||
| So that makes it illegal and just. | ||
| Do you think that because I'm defending the principle of intentionally to make the point that just because an authority figure says it's true doesn't mean it's true. | ||
| Just because a government official says it's legal and allowed doesn't mean it's a good thing that should be allowed. | ||
| And when the Nazis laws are moral correct. | ||
| You said the only way we can do it is through a trial. | ||
| I said, no, you can't. | ||
| Well, what's your alternative? | ||
| The presidential pardon power. | ||
| So instead of a jury of your peers, you think that power should be achieved. | ||
| Because you're sending a jury of your peers to make a political manipulation. | ||
| The president, and that should live with the executive. | ||
| There's a reason the president has the ability to pardon. | ||
| I think he's saying that. | ||
| I think he's saying that the presidential pardon power exists to fix the errors that happen sometimes in trials. | ||
| I'm not saying that in this case it was justified, but that's why it exists. | ||
| It was absolutely justified. | ||
| The people who went to prison for violence deserved to go to prison and did. | ||
| And they were in prison for three years, and I think that's good. | ||
| The people who didn't know a riot was happening should not have been charged at all. | ||
| All of these people have gone on to reoffend since he has pardoned them. | ||
| And they should go to prison. | ||
| Well, they were already in prison. | ||
| If he hadn't pardoned them, then they wouldn't have reoffended. | ||
| I don't know in the first place. | ||
| They're going to 20 years in prison. | ||
| I'm sorry. | ||
| So if an activist punches a cop, they should go to prison for 20 years. | ||
| Depends on the circumstances. | ||
| Like Dave was saying, I would need more information to know because it's going to depend on, is it their first offense? | ||
| First offense. | ||
| Well, get the black pattern again. | ||
| Let's say a person's first offense, they're at a riot and they punch a cop. | ||
| Should they go to prison for 10 years? | ||
| They punch it for 10 years. | ||
| If that's the sentencing guidelines, but again, if that's the sentencing guidelines and they have a trial and they're found guilty, then, yeah, I believe the law should be followed. | ||
| And then from there, they can appeal. | ||
| But I don't think that the president should come in. | ||
| Well, then the solution, by the way, the solution would be a commuting of the sentence if you believe. | ||
| Which is what Trump did for the violence. | ||
| Oh, he was a commuting. | ||
| Commutations. | ||
| I think our target is a commutation. | ||
| To appeal decisions and overturn decisions. | ||
| And the presidential pardon power exists for a reason. | ||
| It does, but there can also be abuses of those powers. | ||
| And I view the just blankets. | ||
| Like Cardi 16 had pardoned every day before he left office in political sources. | ||
| Well, he wasn't even in D.C. | ||
| But I think bigger is commuted. | ||
| But I love everything you're saying because it proves the point I made earlier. | ||
| You don't care about what's true. | ||
| You care about advancing your ideology. | ||
| So if an argument exists that a far leftist who punched a cop shouldn't go to prison or accelerated a vehicle towards an officer, they didn't do anything wrong. | ||
| I don't think they should go to prison for 10 years. | ||
| That sounds excessive. | ||
| I look forward to every single Antifa getting 20 years in prison. | ||
| Every progressive activist who obstructs an officer for the first time and pushes or evades in whatever way, maximum motherfucking ass penalty. | ||
| That's why you're all sentencing guidelines. | ||
| That's why you have sentencing guidelines to make sure it's a little more formal. | ||
| I actually think that a progressive activist who gets involved in a riot and hits a cop shouldn't go to prison for longer than a year. | ||
| I actually think if there is a cop at riot control and there's a riot happening, they're not even getting charged. | ||
| If an activist shoves the cop, I think seven months, eight months, house arrest for a first offense. | ||
| And the reason we do that is we say, you got mixed up in something bad. | ||
| Don't do it again or the penalty will be worse. | ||
| But with the J Sixers, and it was a very serious event, deserved years in prison, in my opinion. | ||
| And they got it. | ||
| And so for Trump to pardon, so the issue is violent individuals went to prison for years. | ||
| Some got solitary confinement and they deserved it. | ||
| The individuals who trespassed and didn't know what was going on and walked peacefully through the velvet ropes shouldn't go to prison for years. | ||
| They should probably get community service and maybe like 12 months of probation or something like that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's what I'm saying. | |
| I know everybody got years in prison just because of their participation in January 6th. | ||
| You said one more time? | ||
| I don't know that everybody who was at January 6th actually ended up being given sentences of like two years minimum. | ||
| Right, but the point is some did. | ||
| And those people should not be in prison for simply walking in an open door. | ||
| I don't even know if they are. | ||
| I don't even know what they're saying. | ||
| They got prison for that. | ||
| They just walked in. | ||
| They didn't release people. | ||
| And they were sentenced to prison. | ||
|
unidentified
|
18 months. | |
| But the answer to that, if you disagree, is to a few it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You're fascists. | |
| No, but the answer is you have to. | ||
| You have to have a system and treat everyone consistently. | ||
| So you appeal it. | ||
| They didn't. | ||
| But then you appeal it. | ||
| Or Trump pardons them. | ||
| Yeah, but that's what it's for. | ||
| And I disagree with that, but he does have your fascist. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He should apply his heart to the business. | |
| Do you know who else you're about to put in? | ||
|
unidentified
|
He wasn't even tailor abortion. | |
| Do you remember those? | ||
| I know one of those cases. | ||
| That's exactly right. | ||
| That Biden also put in prison the people who were simply protesting and praying in front of abortion clinics. | ||
| Oh, true, they're obstructed. | ||
| I know. | ||
| The Biden administration DOJ. | ||
| Wait, can I present you with a hypothetical? | ||
| No, no, but this is a real case where Trump also pardoned them and it wasn't very good pardon. | ||
| You should look up the case of John Hincho. | ||
| I know his family. | ||
| So if Joe Biden, during his last term, had decided to find 1,500 individuals that had been imprisoned because of participation in BLM riots, arson, et cetera, and he pardoned them because he felt the same way. | ||
| That, oh, these people have, you know, this is their first time. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I wish Trump had their low-level defenses. | |
| You know, I think that I'm going to find 1,500 individuals and pardon them because I think BLM is a righteous cause. | ||
| You would support that? | ||
| Well, I don't know that Trump said the word righteous cause. | ||
| So I'm not going to go to the middle of the morning. | ||
| No, this is my hypothetical. | ||
| So let's say that. | ||
| I'm saying that that's, I guess, Biden's motivation and my hypothetical. | ||
| If Biden is saying that these people I genuinely believe are doing wrong, but the wrong benefits me, that's a bad thing. | ||
| But if Biden were to pardon 1,500 individuals who were engaged in a violent riot where they received exorbitant terms, I would agree with their pardon. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| So yes, you would agree with Biden pardoning 1,500 violent BLM rioters. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| But I think that it would have been great. | ||
| Have you put you in prison for three years, which they didn't? | ||
| Yeah, the issue is we saw multi-billion dollar damages in the George Floyd riots. | ||
| And instead of arresting the criminals who murdered people, they raised money on their behalf. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| So if the Biden, if Biden's DOJ or the Trump DOJ, let's say the Trump DOJ during the George Floyd riots rounded up 1,500 people and gave violent riders 20-year sentences, I'd be saying, holy shit, dude, 20 years? | ||
| Like, come on. | ||
| Some of these people are just retarded. | ||
|
unidentified
|
A year ago. | |
| The president shouldn't be in the business of unilaterally deciding any individual person's sentence. | ||
| But that's what the pardon power exists for. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What? | |
| The pardon power exists to be a check on what is, I guess, supposed to be a miscarriage of justice, but it ends up being abused. | ||
| You have Biden pardoning his son, which is flagrantly corrupt. | ||
| You have Bill Clinton pardoning his brother for coke charges right before he leaves office. | ||
| That was corrupt. | ||
| You have Trump giving pardons out left and right. | ||
| He just pardoned the Honduran drug cartel fucking dude. | ||
| Though we're hearing that that reason may be that now he's going to testify against Maduro, so it may be part of a deal. | ||
| This is why we need to like receive it. | ||
| You think he was thinking he's playing 4D chess on this one? | ||
| He pardoned me because he likes, that's the political party he's favors in Hunter. | ||
| No, no, no, I know it. | ||
| But like we need to let the story play out a little bit more. | ||
| The trial of Madurai's March 17th, it begins. | ||
| I think that's a good question. | ||
| I think we may get a little check on it. | ||
| And we may get a deal because of that. | ||
| I think all that really matters is what you described to me and the way I perceive your worldview is if it is legal, it'll happen. | ||
| And maybe it's not just, but we're going to let it happen. | ||
| I view you as an ideologue who will say whatever you have to to advance a political ideology, but there is a reality to what is going on. | ||
| And some things are good and some things are bad. | ||
| And some people are innocent and some people aren't. | ||
| And we live now in what I call the machine state, where an individual will be arrested on fake charges or trumped up charges. | ||
| And your worldview says, so be it. | ||
| And I've been victim of that. | ||
| I think your worldview is the system is corrupt and should be burned down by any means necessary. | ||
| Neither of which are good for anyone who lives in this country. | ||
| Well, I'm literally criticizing the president for going against what I view to be like the spirit of the law by mass pardoning 1,500 violent anarchy. | ||
| How is that? | ||
| I'm saying that the law ought to be enforced and that their convictions ought to be. | ||
| And their sentences ought to be carried out. | ||
| Conveniently, when a woman accelerates her vehicle into a cop hitting them, you're magically on her side. | ||
| I assume innocent until proven guilty. | ||
| So that is a default for literally every single individual in this country that is not available. | ||
| What does that have to do with hitting the top of the car? | ||
| For one. | ||
| And for two, because you just said that I believe, how did you characterize my defense of the money? | ||
| You will say whatever you need to to advance your ideology. | ||
| And you won't. | ||
| You just said that. | ||
| You just said that. | ||
| You criticize Trump endlessly. | ||
| I said Trump was wrong. | ||
| I said Trump lied. | ||
| I said Trump shouldn't have gone in Venezuela. | ||
| Yeah, I'll say it all the fucking time. | ||
| I am not here to advance an ideology. | ||
| I'm here to figure out what's really going on. | ||
| You don't think Trump should have done the thing on Maduro? | ||
| I say 45%, yes. | ||
| So like 55%, I'm against him going in. | ||
| And the issue is, as much as Maduro is a scumbag and he's illegitimately in power and he's oppressing and hurting the Venezuelan people, there's two big questions. | ||
| Why should the U.S. create these risks to itself? | ||
| We have internal priorities. | ||
| So it is a priority for us because there are foreign policy ramifications, but it's low on the list as far as I'm concerned. | ||
| The second thing is, are we going to see destabilization in the region, which makes the problem substantially worse? | ||
| And there's a good probability that will be the case. | ||
| Do you mind if I make a quick case amount of that? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Well, I don't think that this is about just like justice, in which case, I mean, obviously it's justice because it's a grand jury indictment. | ||
| So it's a law enforcement operation of capturing him that went really well. | ||
| But this is really when the left says, oh, this is all about oil. | ||
| Actually, that's not a bad thing. | ||
| You know, Venezuela used to be a major oil producer. | ||
| Now it's not producing oil because of the socialist regime. | ||
| If we can manage to increase oil production and take it away from Russia, from China, from Iran, which is where all these boats were headed, then that's lower gas prices for us. | ||
| That's number one. | ||
| Didn't Trump literally say it was about oil, though? | ||
| Yeah, but I'm saying it's a good thing. | ||
| Number two. | ||
| I know when you say like, oh, but the left is saying this, it's like, no, but he literally said that. | ||
| And they're saying it as if it's negative. | ||
| Number two, the drug issue. | ||
| A huge chunk of cocaine, not fentanyl. | ||
| That's not cocaine. | ||
| Comes from Venezuela. | ||
| It's used to fund terrorism, including Hezbollah. | ||
| And number three, the illegal migration. | ||
| Venezuela is the largest refugee crisis peacetime in human history. | ||
| 9 million. | ||
| And it's because of the Major regime. | ||
| The reason why I say I'm lukewarm on it and lean away from it is we don't know what the ramifications are going to be, but there's infinitely more arguments for someone in our backyard across the Gulf who's aggressing upon us and aiding our enemies. | ||
| We tried sanctions. | ||
| It didn't work. | ||
| So we try the carrot. | ||
| It doesn't work. | ||
| You get the stick. | ||
| That being said, it was a masterfully pulled off, precision snatch and grab. | ||
| I'm impressed by all of that. | ||
| And Trump has proven in the past he can do these quick in-and-outs without lasting damage towards stability. | ||
| Without boots on the ground. | ||
| Without boots on the ground. | ||
| But my concern is if Venezuela destabilizes, we're going to see narco-terrorists getting to the bottom of the street. | ||
| I'll tell you about the whole Venezuela thing. | ||
| A lot of people say, well, you know, this can be like Iraq. | ||
| Venezuela is not a Muslim country. | ||
| Number one, Venezuela doesn't have ethnic or religious or language divisions, right? | ||
| And the civilians are unarmed. | ||
| So it's not going to be like we're going to get insane guerrillas that already exist, by the way, in Colombia. | ||
| What about FARC? | ||
| FARC already exists, and it's in Colombia. | ||
| But no, but I'm saying that. | ||
| Actually, I just saw the headline yesterday. | ||
| The military of Colombia is saying that the FARC and the ELN guerrillas are now fleeing out of Venezuela into Colombia because they're pissed out of Trump's military action. | ||
| My concern would be that these cartels are going to see a power vacuum and say, now's our chance. | ||
| And then we're dealing with some changes. | ||
| The problem is that the regime is the cartel. | ||
| Yeah, right, right, right. | ||
| Like, they literally are. | ||
| The issue I have with it is the issue I have with literally everything is I have no problem calling out literally anybody. | ||
| I've criticized Megan Kelly. | ||
| Tucker, I'm a bit lukewarm on. | ||
| I have questions, but he's allowed to have his opinions. | ||
| Well, he says that Venezuela thing is about gay marriage. | ||
| I mean, that's ridiculous. | ||
| He literally said that. | ||
| It's about a new term that I had never heard before, global homo. | ||
| That's why we terrible. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| Global homo is a very old term. | ||
| Oh, really? | ||
| It means global homogenization. | ||
| Oh, really? | ||
| I thought it was global homosexuality. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| No, he did say we went in because he's very culturally conservative, Maduro, and we want to impose gay marriage. | ||
| Maduro literally funded BLM in the United States. | ||
| Global homogenization. | ||
| So the reason why I think the Israel narrative has emerged so strongly is that this is a standard intelligence manipulation. | ||
| So when you're dealing with a group of people and you want controlled opposition and they're on the right track, you need to give them the wrong track. | ||
| So what I see as happening is over the past 10 years, the right in this country has been heavily focused on the World Economic Forum, the Swift Payment System, the International Monetary Fund, what's called the Liberal Economic Order, which was created by the United States and Western powers following World War II. | ||
| And the right has largely hyper-focused on that. | ||
| This is really, really bad if you're part of these corporations and these nobility, royalty, house of lords, things like that, because you basically have a population pointing directly at what you're doing and obstructing you. | ||
| So what happens when everybody online says the great reset is a problem? | ||
| The World Economic Forum deletes it from their website and deletes it from their Twitter. | ||
| What happens when people say, hey, look, you will own nothing and you will be happy? | ||
| The World Economic Forum deletes it and they scrub it. | ||
| What happens when we start talking on the Council on Foreign Relations and the Liberal Economic Order? | ||
| The reason why we took out Saddam Hussein, because he wanted to get off the petrodollar or Mohammad Gaddafi, same reason. | ||
| The book, The Confessions of an Economic Hitman, how the U.S. and Western powers will remove a politician if they oppose the petrodollar system, which is clearly what we are seeing with Venezuela. | ||
| Which, by the way, but also, the question is what's good for the United States. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So the point ultimately is you have this extra-national group that consists of, it's largely the NATO nations. | ||
| They have an economic agenda where they create the North American economic bloc, the European economic bloc. | ||
| We can see the conflicts in the Middle East with Syria up to the conflict in Ukraine largely predicated upon what's called the liberal economic order. | ||
| How do you stop these fucking people from pointing at what we're doing and destabilizing it? | ||
| You promote Candace Sowens and get her on the front page to scream the Jews. | ||
| Now, when someone says something like there is an extra-national group that is imposing its will on European and American countries and North American countries, they go, you mean the Jews? | ||
| And I go, no, I'm talking about corporations, oil executives. | ||
| Do you know actually, I think the actual threat and the people promoting people like Candace Owens and even what Tucker is doing is this evil alliance of regimes, including Russia, including China, including Qatar, including Venezuela, Cuba. | ||
| The Manola Los Sancho, they got calling for the hanging of Christian Norm was trained in Cuba. | ||
| Not in Ukraine or in Germany. | ||
| It was in Cuba. | ||
| I think it's a red herring. | ||
| I think what we're seeing is Barry Weiss is the voice of reason, and she's pro-Israel, and now she's fixing CBS. | ||
| So the middle-of-the-road people like Elon Musk, where he shows that meme from Colin Wright, where it's like the left went so far left, he's now considered right-wing. | ||
| Barry Weiss is your exit. | ||
| She's your point of egress. | ||
| You can now say, thank you for doing regular news. | ||
| This means she's going to earn the favor of all the moderate individuals, and she's a proud Zionist. | ||
| So it creates a positive political environment for someone who's overtly a proud Zionist. | ||
| You then promote the most whack-aloon conspiracies against Zionists from Candace Owens. | ||
| So the people who follow her like a Pied Piper are going to go out in public and say retarded things that scare people. | ||
| Who do you think is promoting her, for example? | ||
| Oh, YouTube has on the front page every single day. | ||
| But who do you think is behind that? | ||
| YouTube. | ||
| YouTube. | ||
| Yeah, no, I think it's a coordinated effort from what we've described as the establishment in this country. | ||
| So what happens? | ||
| So you think there are rich people who are doing that in the U.S. Like rich is a bit reductive, but let's just say powerful people from various governments, corporations, or otherwise. | ||
| How do they gain from it? | ||
| Okay, so let's go back to 2016. | ||
| Donald Trump should not have won. | ||
| In the leaked emails from WikiLeaks, the Democratic Party said Donald Trump was the Pied Piper candidate. | ||
| They wanted Donald Trump to march all the conservatives into the sea to their deaths, figuratively. | ||
| That by having him be the nominee for the GOP, Hillary Clinton would get a slam dunk. | ||
| Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is massively detestable. | ||
| And Donald Trump was actually able to pull off a win. | ||
| This was largely due to what the Democrats and even the Republicans missed. | ||
| The Republicans did not want Trump to win. | ||
| They were fighting against him. | ||
| The Democrats didn't want Bernie Sanders to win. | ||
| But the internet allowed for a bubbling up of a generation of populists. | ||
| On the Democratic side, they used super delegates to push out Bernie Sanders. | ||
| On the Republican side, they had no such mechanism, and Trump wins. | ||
| Well, what happens next? | ||
| They accuse Trump of being a Russian asset, of colluding with Russia. | ||
| In reality, it's the worst thing that's happened to Russia. | ||
| Things that were all just silly and nonsensical. | ||
| They impeach him, and they wage all sorts of political ... | ||
| They did impeach him. | ||
| Well, Vladimir Play. | ||
| I don't think Trump's the worst thing that's happened to Russia. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, I do. | |
| I do. | ||
| I think Russia is very much in trouble. | ||
| We're seizing their boats, the illegal oil boats, destroying their oil boats. | ||
| Let me wrap up this chain of thought just so we can move on to those points. | ||
| Donald Trump winning was outside of the plan, and it was only possible because of the media, social media, the ability of user-generated content, which had just for the first time emerged. | ||
| Barack Obama famously used Facebook in his first two elections, but ubiquity was not there. | ||
| CNN was still getting 5 million viewers every single night, and social media was in its infancy. | ||
| But around Trump is when the flip started to occur, which allowed for a media environment where people were promoting Trump, and he actually crossed the finish line. | ||
| Political lawfare was then waged, trying to stop Trump. | ||
| He was, again, accused of being a Russian asset. | ||
| He was impeached. | ||
| We spent millions of dollars doing it, all of which turned out to be silly. | ||
| He never had Hooker's pee on a bed. | ||
| All just utter nonsense. | ||
| So eventually you get the 2020 election, and he does lose for whatever reason you think he losed. | ||
| But then something happened. | ||
| Joe Biden was massively unpopular. | ||
| His presidency was miserable. | ||
| The Afghanistan withdrawal was the turning point in which his popularity collapsed. | ||
| And it's very difficult to maintain Democratic enthusiasm going into 2024 when Trump gets to point the finger and say, I was the right choice. | ||
| And so what happens? | ||
| Thanks to the work of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump wins. | ||
| And I believe almost entirely Charlie Kirk. | ||
| Of course, there were many efforts by people like Scott Pressler. | ||
| Elon Musk funded a lot of this. | ||
| But Charlie Kirk's $160 million organization went to high schools and colleges and got a generation of young men to shift rightwards and create these trends. | ||
| How do you stop an emergent phenomenon? | ||
| Well, there's a couple of ways you do it. | ||
| First, Charlie's got to go. | ||
| You cannot have this leadership that is guiding a generation. | ||
| So he's dead. | ||
| Whoever did it, whatever it may be, maybe it's progressives. | ||
| That's what the FBI is claiming. | ||
| Maybe it's Donald Trump. | ||
| There's a Brainwash generation. | ||
| The point is, presumably the kid, it's Robinson who killed him. | ||
| Either it's left-aligned advocates who are like, he's making Trump win and must be stopped, or the deep state, whatever you believe, Charlie being gone is a major advantage to those who never wanted Trump to win in the first place. | ||
| The next thing we see is the overt demonization of everything he built. | ||
| Turning Point was one of the most powerful organizations making young people vote right-wing. | ||
| And those young people are entering their 30s. | ||
| Gen Z is now about to be 30 years old. | ||
| They're trying to buy houses, and they are leaning rightward. | ||
| So Charlie Kirk gets eliminated. | ||
| Then you need to eliminate Turning Point. | ||
| Well, what do we do? | ||
| Candace Owen starts chasing the narrative. | ||
| Turning point intentionally killed Charlie Kirk, or at least knew about it. | ||
| So if you are an elite establishment, a liberal world order guy, you say she needs to be the most prominent individual for conservatives, put her on the front page of the music. | ||
| Nick Fuentes is banned, but they have on Instagram blasted him out loud. | ||
| Oh, I know. | ||
| Crazy. | ||
| And so the presumption now is based on what we're seeing. | ||
| If I was intelligence and wanted to make sure JD Vance does not win, Well, you've got Nick who hates JD Vance, and you've got Candace, who also hates JD Vance. | ||
| But Candace is accusing JD Vance of weird things that are off-putting to a suburban middle-aged woman. | ||
| YouTube puts her on the front page and makes sure that new users on air gap machines are going to get her show and she gets 120,000 concurrent viewers, making her the biggest live stream in the country. | ||
| You now are creating the Pied Piper who's going to lead conservatives, either through a desire for money, clicks, or because they believe her, into sounding like retards. | ||
| We call this the retard right. | ||
| Because if you want to win for your worldview, going to a person walking down the street and asking them if they believe that Erica Kirk is a literal machine built by the deep state as an actual robot to control the minds of people and that Turning Point has betrayed Charlie's behind it and the Zionists invaded Venezuela, they're going to look at you like you are fucking retarded and you will earn not a single vote. | ||
| And I'll tell you, there are a number of people who believe that it's crazy. | ||
| You mentioned CBS News and so I did something with the free press a month ago that just got published where we talked to Mandani voters in the street in Washington Square Park and I'm from Venezuela socialism. | ||
| So these kids ends up telling me at the end of the conversation, unprompted, oh, well, but you know, the Jews control everything anyway. | ||
| And so what do we have now? | ||
| There was a repulsion towards woke, Bud Light Effect, Target. | ||
| These companies lost massive amounts of money. | ||
| And the corporate press largely attacked Donald Trump for years, damaging their credibility. | ||
| I talk about the time when I stopped watching CNN. | ||
| I used to watch CNN 24-7. | ||
| It was always on. | ||
| Because if news broke, CNN would have it. | ||
| This is true. | ||
| In 2018, I had a projection. | ||
| I thought you were just telling me. | ||
| 10 feet. | ||
| This is true. | ||
| No, it's not. | ||
| A story would break and CNN would be like breaking news. | ||
| There's an earthquake in Southern California. | ||
| I'd be like, wow. | ||
| One day, I saw online if there were riots in Iran. | ||
| And I said, whoa. | ||
| And then I looked up at the screen and they were talking about Trump. | ||
| It was a midday panel about Trump. | ||
| And I said, well, I got to find this story. | ||
| So guess what? | ||
| I flipped to the news, Fox News talking about Iran. | ||
| So I left it on. | ||
| After the story was over, I went back to CNN, went back to my computer. | ||
| Then a few days later, there was a hurricane, a big story about a hurricane or something. | ||
| And I look up at this projector screen, panel talking about Trump. | ||
| And so I waited for a minute and said, okay, I need to figure out what's going on. | ||
| So I turned on Fox News talking about the hurricane. | ||
| And then I posted a video on Instagram and said, let's play the CNN challenge. | ||
| At any given moment, if there's breaking news, we'll see talking about the news or Trump. | ||
| And I switched between the two and I said, I will never watch CNN again. | ||
| The efforts here by the establishment was to create the perception that Trump was bad, but they didn't realize it was a Chinese finger trap problem. | ||
| The harder they pulled out, the tighter the trap became. | ||
| They destroyed their credibility, freaked people out, and pushed people to Trump. | ||
| They finally figured it out. | ||
| Censorship does not work. | ||
| And embracing wack-aloon bullshit doesn't work either. | ||
| Maybe that's why they have to make them the wack-aloons and us the reasonable ones. | ||
| So now what do you have? | ||
| Barry Weiss leaves the New York Times, launches a news organization. | ||
| It's anti-woke. | ||
| It's reasonable. | ||
| And she's very pro. | ||
| She's an overt Zionist. | ||
| They then give her $150 million, which is an insane purchase for her organization, to put her in charge of CBS, where she has begun to weed out the activism, which I'm a huge fan of. | ||
| She's done a fantastic job. | ||
| I agree. | ||
| Now you have someone finally giving us real news at a corporate news outlet, and we're all going to praise it. | ||
| Elon's going to praise it. | ||
| I'm going to praise it. | ||
| And it's all coming from a Zionist who's being reasonable. | ||
| All I saw was the Erica Kirk town hall that was being like shoved down my throat, even though I'm like, why is this being shoved down my throat? | ||
| This is not even like the top 100 thing. | ||
| So one important thing specifically about CBS News ran an article about the Somali daycare fraud where they mentioned that Merritt Garland, the Biden DOJ, prosecuted and convicted 62 individuals in Minnesota. | ||
| And I said, wow, I pull up CNN. | ||
| What do they say? | ||
| Minnesota said, a Minnesota investigator say daycares are running legitimately. | ||
| And I'm like, sure, I'm sure they're saying that. | ||
| But CBS runs a story that says, here's what we know about the fraud. | ||
| They say Nick Shirley published a video. | ||
| Biden had prosecuted these individuals. | ||
| Here's the details of the prosecutions. | ||
| It was very boring, neutral, and straightforward. | ||
| Here's what happened. | ||
| CNN's doing the, we're on one side of this thing. | ||
| So I ignore CNN, but the chair on top, the final point is a circumstance has been created by a corporation where people like me are going to be happy to once again read the corporate press run by a proud Zionist. | ||
| At the same time, Candace Owens sounds like a retard, and she's blaming Zionists for literally everything. | ||
| So the middle of the road people that sway these elections are now going to say Candace is nuts and sounds like she's crazy and Barry Weiss the Zionist sounds reasonable and acceptable. | ||
| What did you think of her decision to not run that 60 minutes episode on Seacot? | ||
| It's exactly what I'm talking about. | ||
| It was beautiful. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| I mean, they're going to run and they're just modifying it. | ||
| I thought the reason made no sense to me because she said, well, we didn't get it. | ||
| We reached out to the White House and we didn't hear from them. | ||
| So we felt like we can't give a complete story without them. | ||
| But they can obviously run a story if the White House declines to control. | ||
| The story was that they did receive a response from CCOT and the White House and the editors chose to omit it. | ||
| She also further criticized them for rehashing old talking points that weren't relevant to the current developments on CCOT. | ||
| And it's a very neutral thing to do for a news organization to say, guys, this story you're putting in, large chunks of it, already reported. | ||
| So why are you including it? | ||
| And we've got a statement over here that you can include. | ||
| I don't understand why you're not doing it. | ||
| And they freaked out because they're activists. | ||
| When Tony Docopol, Docopol, how do you pronounce his name, ran a story saying on the anniversary of January 6th, Donald Trump claims the Democrats are presenting a false narrative on what actually went down. | ||
| Well, Hakeem Jeffries says that Trump is trying to rewrite history. | ||
| End of story. | ||
| They said that he was both sides in the issue. | ||
| And I'm like, no, he said, it's normal news report. | ||
| Trump said this, they said this, Mort 11. | ||
| And they're attacking him as if he's the activist. | ||
| So I think Barry Weiss has done a beautiful job. | ||
| But more importantly, to break it all down, the real point of this is not to debate the minutiae of what CBS is doing, but that my view of what they're doing is it's a coordinated effort to make people who hate Israel look like retards. | ||
| And to be honest, a lot of them do look like retards. | ||
| I mean, they generally are. | ||
| And to pull the middle-of-the-road people who feel the media betrayed them back into the fold of supporting the American foreign policy machine. | ||
| Very interesting. | ||
| That's what I do. | ||
| Hey, I like Barry Weiss, and I think that's great. | ||
| We should give her time to try to fix things that you're saying it's already fixed, but it takes time. | ||
| There's a lot of institutional issues there. | ||
| I've been reading, I've been pulling up CBS News articles impressed that they're actually reporting the news. | ||
| And I'm glad they hired Barry Weiss. | ||
| While I can point out I think there's a strategy behind everything they're doing, some might view this as malicious. | ||
| I'm not saying it's good or bad that they're doing this. | ||
| I'm saying it's what appears to, it appears to be what they're doing. | ||
| And by they, I mean powerful politicians, corporate interests. | ||
| I think YouTube is intentionally putting Candace Owens on the front page. | ||
| What I mean by front page is new users who don't follow politics are being recommended Candace Owens because they're trying to tell conservatives. | ||
| It's a brilliant strategy. | ||
| There are a lot of people who are conservative who are actually only espousing these opinions because they get views and they make money. | ||
| We saw this with the emergence of the white nationalists on YouTube years ago, but they got banned. | ||
| It didn't get rid of their movement. | ||
| Nick Fuentes is just more popular. | ||
| But if you can convince people who are chasing an algorithm that sounding like Candace Owens is the way you should bring your career, in five years, these people will not have careers anymore, I guarantee you, because they sound like retards. | ||
| Their views are being propped up by recommendations that won't exist. | ||
| And there's some individuals that I know that are friends of mine that have shifted their narrative from powerful corporate elites and governments are manipulating us and stealing our money, like big corporations, and they're not paying their taxes to now it's actually the whole time it was the Jews. | ||
| And I'm like, well, when in reality, it's the Somali daycare owners. | ||
| You mentioned the CBS getting better. | ||
| I did not find this story in CNN on CBS or anywhere really except Fox News, which is Jim O'Neill. | ||
| And I mentioned this before the show, I think he's deputy secretary of HHS. | ||
| He confirmed that the Somali UN permanent representative, his name is Abukhar Dahir Osman, has ties. | ||
| He's listed for progressive healthcare services in Cincinnati, which is one of the fraudulent daycares. | ||
| And it gets better because this is the president of the UN Security Council right now who was calling a meeting to condemn President Trump for arresting Majuro. | ||
| So we have the immigration story in Minneapolis, the daycares. | ||
| You know, that's why we have the riots. | ||
| That's why this person died. | ||
| We have the Somali daycare itself, the fraud. | ||
| We have the UN. | ||
| We have Venezuela, all connected. | ||
| And I think it speaks to the idea there is. | ||
| No, no, no, I just found this on CBS. | ||
| U.S. seizes fifth oil tanker. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| Oh, yes. | ||
| And they're publishing the videos, which I find really violent. | ||
| I will say this as an aside on the Venezuela thing. | ||
| People need to understand that in 2006, Chavez stole American oil infrastructure to the tune of billions of dollars. | ||
| My family's gas station actually was a British petroleum gas station. | ||
| And they seized it. | ||
| And I don't mean even like the gas stations for sure, but there was oil refineries, wells. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And these were owned by American oil interests through a legitimate agreement. | ||
| And Chavez said, it's mine now. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| Not just oil, not just oil. | ||
| Mining, car manufacturers, like everything you can imagine was seized. | ||
| I think people need to understand that after we had billions of dollars of infrastructure seized by the Venezuelan government, the U.S. did not engage in kinetic retaliation. | ||
| We largely just said, man, you mother. | ||
| And then for 20 years, sat back as they utilized our investment. | ||
| And destroyed it, really. | ||
| Well, but yes. | ||
| It's been destroyed. | ||
| That's mismanagement. | ||
| Yeah, well, but that's what happens because the government doesn't have the incentive to make profit only to win elections. | ||
| So they give everything for free. | ||
| They didn't do maintenance. | ||
| The refineries that you talk about exploded. | ||
| You should look them up. | ||
| It's called El Palito. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I know. | |
| They didn't want them to. | ||
| Of course, it's bad for them, too. | ||
| I think my prediction for the next few years, based on everything we're seeing, is that the right, the retard right is going to fizzle out and burn out. | ||
| These are the people who think the Jews are responsible for everything because that worldview can't do anything. | ||
| If you genuinely believe the Jews control everything, what is your mission to better this country? | ||
| Quite literally, there isn't one. | ||
| Well, it gets very dark. | ||
| And it doesn't stop with the Jews. | ||
| It always goes to then Western civilization. | ||
| Like what Tucker Carlson's doing. | ||
| He starts with the Jews, but then now he has a place in Qatar. | ||
| Now he's saying that we should all— Oh, he actually said that there's never been anyone, any American, killed by Islamic terrorists. | ||
| Since 9-11, he said, and since 9-11, he had a daily color person who got beheaded by ISIS. | ||
| He found a delete. | ||
| How about the people of the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando or San Bernardino, California? | ||
| So, yeah, I do think, I wonder where that eventually leads. | ||
| Listen, listen. | ||
| Like, it is so absurd to say. | ||
| I've not seen Tucker, but on the surface, presuming he says that. | ||
| So I'm not trying to. | ||
| He did, right? | ||
| I'm not trying to define it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He did, he did. | |
| He did. | ||
| That's insane. | ||
| It's insane. | ||
| And when you go to a regular, go to any random liberal or conservative and say that to them, they're going to be like, that's retarded. | ||
| So my point is this. | ||
| If you want to win an election, I need to go out, you know, find a random person and ask them, what do you need to do to get them to vote your direction? | ||
| They're going to say, make my rent lower, get me milk. | ||
| That's why Mamdani won. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| Mamdani is an evil activist who wants to destroy the police. | ||
| I mean, he has really bad intentions. | ||
| I actually don't buy the whole thing good intentions for him, but he was a very good campaigner on it. | ||
| And now we're going to see him, what did he do when Maduro got arrested? | ||
| Oh, this is a violation of international law, an act of war. | ||
| The same dude who wants to arrest Netanyahu, right? | ||
| I call it. | ||
| So what are you talking? | ||
| So you want war with Israel, actually. | ||
| And it's okay. | ||
| Let's just say this. | ||
| What policy position can you make to benefit the life of the swing voter by blaming Israel for all of their problems? | ||
| No, It's not a rhetorical question. | ||
| No. | ||
| If I were to believe that Israel was actually secretly controlling everything and was the root of all of our problems, what would I say to a person walking down the street to vote for me? | ||
| Would I say, trust me, I am going to cut off all the ways. | ||
| They say they're going to cut off foreign aids. | ||
| Now, if you want to cut off all foreign aid, I think that's fine. | ||
| That's a principled argument. | ||
| I think it may be one of yours. | ||
| That's fine. | ||
| I agree with it, yes. | ||
| That's principled. | ||
| Nobody's going to vote for you. | ||
| Right. | ||
| But to say you're going to just cut off Israel 3.8 billion, but not everyone else who gets billions, even more than that. | ||
| Wait, isn't the pitch for this to like, you know, to get the swing voter concerned about Israel, the whole thing is that like the Zog meme or whatever, the Zionist-occupied government. | ||
| So what they say is like the reason why there's an affordability crisis in all of this is because Zionists occupy the government. | ||
| And so if I come in, then I'm going to eliminate those forces from within the government. | ||
| And then all of a sudden everything's going to be a conky-dory for you. | ||
| And that's what you would have. | ||
| So that is your worldview. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's right. | |
| That's your pitch to the swing voter. | ||
| And their response is going to be, what? | ||
| No, that is increasingly more and more people because more and more people are like flocking towards Candace Owens, towards Nick Funtas, and Candace Owens. | ||
| Well, and the schools are not. | ||
| YouTube wants clicks. | ||
| So I don't know if that's going to be. | ||
| I mean, I know people within YouTube obviously have to be aware of that. | ||
| Mr. Beast gets clicks. | ||
| And the reason why is because YouTube makes him default for new users. | ||
| So the algorithm tries to find what you're going to watch. | ||
| The other day on X, and I got questions about Elon on this one. | ||
| In my feed, actually, let me just pull this up because I want to show everybody and prove it. | ||
| So I'm going to pull up the image. | ||
| I got a post from Candace Owens. | ||
| I don't follow Candace Owens. | ||
| And so I screenshot it saying, this is really weird that X is putting her in my page when I don't follow her. | ||
| Maybe a lot of people you follow are interacting with the person. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Most. | |
| Look, I get people who are following the following. | ||
| This is my following feed. | ||
| I don't follow the topic. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, this is a follow-up. | |
| This is a post on Candace Owens that is not a retweet, nor is anyone responding. | ||
| Did she pay for an X? | ||
| And no, it would say promoted, and it would say retweeted, and there would be a comment. | ||
| And I do not follow her. | ||
| X put her in my following feed, even though I don't follow her. | ||
| And so this is why I don't just blindly say they are actively pushing her worldview. | ||
| And again, I agree more and more people are adopting this worldview, but it's not swing voters. | ||
| It's people targeted by YouTube. | ||
| Right now it's not swing voters, but I think increasingly as that becomes a bigger faction within the right, the Republican Party, they're going to start coming for swing voters. | ||
| Absolutely not. | ||
| Yeah, of course. | ||
| They're going to want to increase their vote share. | ||
| There's not going to be ever a swing population where Israel is the principal issue. | ||
| It's just not going to happen. | ||
| I don't think Israel is going to be the principal issue, but I think it's going to be more of the kind of America-first isolationism. | ||
| That's an esoteric. | ||
| And they're going to contrast themselves against what Trump is doing now because Trump with his FIFA Peace Prize award actually, you know, not going to start any new wars. | ||
| I completely gotten involved. | ||
| There's the Argentina bailouts. | ||
| There's Israel-Iran. | ||
| There's the Venezuelan people. | ||
| I mean, I got to make this point. | ||
| You are correct. | ||
| Just intervention is my point. | ||
| And then they're going to contrast themselves and be like, no, I'm going to be the actual anti-war candidate, which is why Tulsi and JD Vance have been pretty quiet on the silence throughout all of this. | ||
| Let's flesh this out. | ||
| What you're describing is the right conservatives adopting a new worldview, not middle-of-the-road people who don't pay attention. | ||
| You have to actively choose to watch political news in order to adopt this worldview. | ||
| But if you go to Times Square, if you go to Orlando or Studio City, if you go to LA, go to Hollywood, most people are going to say, I don't know where Israel is. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, I don't think they're not. | |
| Candace Owens is appealing to normies. | ||
| Candace Owens, at this point, sounds like a targeted individual. | ||
| She literally sounds like a woman who, if YouTube didn't exist, she would be screaming at traffic, in my opinion. | ||
| And this is like YouTube is choosing fed out to normal people that are going to become radicalized just by watching. | ||
| I will bet you $1,000 that if we walk down the street and ask people what their biggest issue is, Israel ain't going to be one of them. | ||
| No, I don't think it's going to be like any economy. | ||
| But I also think that there's like a tension between what voters state is their top 10 priorities versus what actually motivates them subconsciously. | ||
| I want to clarify. | ||
| What you're missing on this is swing voters are not involved in any of this conversation. | ||
| So when you go to Ohio and you see some dude like, and he works for, he's a garbage man, he's going to be like, I don't watch politics at all, at all. | ||
| So there's no Candace Owens. | ||
| He'll say, I don't know who that is. | ||
| No, they still watch that, but then they don't even think of it as political. | ||
| No, my point is you're describing political factions. | ||
| Swing voters tend to be nothing. | ||
| Like, I said every story, whenever I talk about, like, whenever I have a story about talking to someone, it's always a poker table. | ||
| You play poker? | ||
| I play all the time. | ||
| And so when you go to a poker table, you've got either it's nine players or eight. | ||
| So there are seven people around me. | ||
| Everybody's talking. | ||
| And I would say 80% of the time, people go, I literally don't watch news. | ||
| And I'll say, do you know who this person is? | ||
| No. | ||
| What about this person? | ||
| No. | ||
| They'll say things like, I was literally just playing out here at One Eyed Jack's card room. | ||
| It's beautiful. | ||
| And literally a guy next to me, it's like two days after Maduro is captured. | ||
| It's the biggest story in the world. | ||
| And he goes, who's Maduro? | ||
| Of course. | ||
| That guy is not voting based on Israel. | ||
| That guy's voting because his. | ||
| I don't think that Venezuela is any American, certainly not the swing voters' top issue. | ||
| Of course not. | ||
| But they can, when you poll people, they know who Maduro was. | ||
| That's the point. | ||
| He's like, who's that? | ||
| That's because mine votes on how many outs there are on the table. | ||
| He barely understood poker. | ||
| If I go to someone and say, do you know who Benjamin Netanyahu is? | ||
| They're going to say no. | ||
| Don't say that. | ||
| Tim, that's actually the more reason to pursue the right policy rather than the popular policy. | ||
| Given that most people are uninformed, you want to do things that are going to improve their lives. | ||
| I agree. | ||
| And so what improves their lives? | ||
| Things that lower their cost of living. | ||
| For example, increasing production. | ||
| For example. | ||
| You mentioned the Argentina bailout. | ||
| That's like a left talking point to smear Trump on something that was super successful to stop communists from taking over Argentina. | ||
| They're a cost to watch. | ||
| Regardless of whether or not it's successful, if he positions himself as kind of the anti-war, anti-intervention president. | ||
| Understood no war. | ||
| I'm not going to say that. | ||
| I think he's pursuing her interest. | ||
| No one wants all of that. | ||
| People are uninformed, so they kind of see this stuff and they see it as like a highest approval rating is on foreign policy. | ||
| And it's stamping him. | ||
| What's stamping him? | ||
| His approval rating is above Obama's and Bush's for the same time period. | ||
| It is Iran. | ||
| That's America First, but his best ratings are his foreign interventions. | ||
| In fact, if you look at it. | ||
| Because they're America First interventions. | ||
| Well, but if you look at the polling, when you ask people, should we go and remove Maduro? | ||
| It was overwhelming. | ||
| No, do not. | ||
| No, it's yes. | ||
| And now it's the opposite because everyone likes to be able to do it. | ||
| He's the winner. | ||
| Because the military is just the best in the world. | ||
| So I tweeted. | ||
| And I think that the reaction of Venezuelans is actually helping of owning the libs. | ||
| And you have the Venezuelans saying, yes, screw socialism and the libs. | ||
| I'll make one last point because we're just about out of time. | ||
| But going back to the original argument I was making about a good portion, I'd say the majority of liberals will say whatever just to be aligned with a group and not actually for something. | ||
| I tweeted after Maduro is captured, the American economy is about to boom because we're about to get a whole bunch of free oil. | ||
| And I get all these liberals saying Tim Poole's a hypocrite who now supports intervention. | ||
| And then the Kresensteins post a series of quotes from me where I say I oppose regime change and intervention and then claim I'm a hypocrite. | ||
| And I'm sitting here being like, it is a fact statement that we are going to take the oil from Venezuela and it's going to boost our economy. | ||
| And it is a fact statement that I disagree with the intervention, but they are lying. | ||
| It's all one big political game. | ||
| They don't actually believe anything. | ||
| They said, I can misconstrue what he's saying to make it sound like he supports the intervention. | ||
| It is all fake. | ||
| Everybody's lying. | ||
| The conservatives who have flipped the retard right are doing it because they're either scared of dying or they want to make money. | ||
| Those are my final thoughts. | ||
| Do you guys get any final thoughts? | ||
| Wait, do you don't support it? | ||
| Support what? | ||
| You said it was 45, 55, something like that. | ||
| No, I do not believe the US should have gone to Venezuela. | ||
| Okay, wait, really quick. | ||
| Do you think it was constitutional? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| Yes, it was a law enforcement operation. | ||
| It was absolutely constitutional to do. | ||
| Constitutional. | ||
| It's a ray area. | ||
| You're going to argue both ways on it. | ||
| Yeah, sorry. | ||
| Just to give my final thoughts. | ||
| Real quick, I agree with you on that. | ||
| This is a situation where it's largely an argument. | ||
| And I believe there are very strong arguments for it not being constitutional. | ||
| But I think based on constitutional precedent, what we have seen in terms of Supreme Court rulings on what the president is allowed to do, it would ultimately be decided as constitutional. | ||
| That being said, we shouldn't have done it. | ||
| I appreciate the economic movement. | ||
| I appreciate the oil. | ||
| Venezuela has aggressed upon us to a great degree. | ||
| I think we are about to face, and I could be totally wrong on this one, unintended consequences, as we often do, destabilization. | ||
| And you might argue that basically putting a stop to our adversaries taking from our region and being benefited is the greater good. | ||
| I think we might actually see instability, which causes a problem in our own backyard. | ||
| I'll say just my final thought. | ||
| I think President Trump didn't run on isolationism. | ||
| He ran on America first. | ||
| And that includes interventions that are in the interest of the United States, such as destroying the nuclear arsenal of Iran that he did and didn't cause World War III, or taking Venezuela's leader, who is a narco-terrorist, who has sent drugs to here, who has sent us to Nendaragua, who have killed Americans, who has destroyed our oil industry. | ||
| Hold on, hold on. | ||
| You're saying all those things, but there was one thing he did that's more grease than the rest. | ||
| And it's when he was addressing a starving nation, he pulled an empanada out of a drawer and took a bite. | ||
| Oh, man, I saw that one live when I was actually living there. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| That's true. | ||
| No, no, no, I think I'm kidding. | ||
| That was the worst thing. | ||
| And Chavez used to say being rich is bad with a Rolex on his wrist. | ||
| I mean, this is how Marxist leaders are. | ||
| So I actually think this is going to be very successful. | ||
| I think Secretary Rubio has done an incredible job. | ||
| I mean, he's going to go down if this finishes well this year as the best secretary of state in U.S. history. | ||
| And I really, I'm really grateful to President Trump for what he's doing. | ||
| He will be found guilty. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Who? | |
| Maduro? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Maduro. | |
| Oh, he will be found victim guilty. | ||
| I guess he's going to be first. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I do. | |
| Let me say something. | ||
| Let me say something. | ||
| The military industrial county is blocking him. | ||
| He is guilty. | ||
| Number one, he is guilty. | ||
| Number two, Ron DeSantis, very smart. | ||
| He's going to put state charges. | ||
| So no matter if we've got a Marxist president in 10 years that wants to pardon Maduro, he's going to prison in Florida here. | ||
| And it's the Venezuelans who are going to be the jury. | ||
| I don't think the state charges will stick, but I do think he's found guilty at the federal level. | ||
| At the federal level. | ||
| My final words would be, we haven't mentioned Iran at all here. | ||
| And it's amazing that you see the yearning for freedom from the Iranians to be freed from the Ayatollah and this oppressive government. | ||
| And to bring back Tucker Carlson, it's interesting that his comments, his podcast is being played by the Ayatollah's right now to try to, as part of government propaganda. | ||
| You know, you're on the wrong side of present and history when the Ayatollah's are playing you for propaganda. | ||
| Very socially conservative. | ||
| Haven't you heard? | ||
| I don't agree with that. | ||
| I think in America, there's a plethora of opinions and they're allowed to have it. | ||
| Just because somebody agrees with you on one thing or you agree with them one thing doesn't mean that it's intentional, it's bad or you're wrong. | ||
| There are going to come many times when, you know, the world opposed what we did in Iraq, right? | ||
| There were protests all over the world in countries we are allied with and countries we are enemies with. | ||
| And I think history shows that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and basically everybody agrees. | ||
| So if you were coming out in the 2000s saying this is wrong, we shouldn't do it, they'd be canceling you. | ||
| They wouldn't invite you onto these TV shows. | ||
| And so sure enough, you're going to see in foreign countries them praising you for having called it out. | ||
| We'll see what happens. | ||
| Tucker may be right on some things. | ||
| He may be wrong. | ||
| I'm lukewarm on Tucker right now because there's some things I've seen where they seem to be contradictory, like when he claimed he didn't know Tommy Robinson was, which is like what you've interviewed him like two or three times. | ||
| He's famous. | ||
| There's a few people. | ||
| That being said, I don't think Tucker has done the overt, cowardly or evil things we've seen from others. | ||
| So I say I'm lukewarm. | ||
| You saw he brought a FARA registered agent of Venezuela into his show and he didn't disclose it, right? | ||
| Robert Amsterdam got paid $4 million by the Maduro regime. | ||
| Yeah, but that's the episode where Tucker said Maduro is actually socially conservative. | ||
| I see no difference between Tucker and Candace. | ||
| Yeah, I think that's a good idea. | ||
| I think there are two sides of the same question. | ||
| Well, Candace might be more mentally ill. | ||
| Yeah, I mean, Tucker's not coming out claiming that Erica Kirk was a robot built in the middle. | ||
| Or that Brigid McCronyton just asked questions. | ||
| He doesn't actually come out and say it. | ||
| Right, right, right. | ||
| Tucker has opinions and a focus that many people think is backed by an agenda. | ||
| I'm lukewarm on it because I think people ought to have opinions. | ||
| Do you have to disclose someone's far if you interview them? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I think it's fair to criticize, though. | ||
| Candace has said psychotic shit. | ||
| Like, Charlie came to her in a dream. | ||
| I'll make it personal. | ||
| She claimed, quote, the shooting Tim Poole survived was committed by his brother. | ||
| That is just making shit up. | ||
| She said that. | ||
| Yeah, she said that. | ||
| And it's just not real. | ||
| There was never a shooting I survived committed by my brother. | ||
| There was never an incident where my life was in danger because my brother was trying to kill me. | ||
| This is not reality. | ||
| It's fabricated. | ||
| And that's very, very different from what Tucker does. | ||
| Tucker just seems to have a bias. | ||
| And you can disagree with it and say he's hyper-focused on issues that are bad for us, whatever you want to think. | ||
| Candace is just saying psychotic shit that makes no sense. | ||
| But we're out of time. | ||
| We're out of time. | ||
| So if you want to nail some final points, or I don't know who did or who didn't, whatever, I don't know. | ||
| I think I said what I wanted to say. | ||
| Definitely, you know, I'm Daniel DeMartino for the people who didn't hear it before. | ||
| You can follow me on Instagram and Twitter. | ||
| Just Daniel DeMartino. | ||
| And I'm Aaron, aka StreetRaider at StreetRaid underscore on everything from Twitch, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter. | ||
| I do political commentary and React streaming. | ||
| I'm Dave Erenberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, aka the Florida lawman. | ||
| You can find me on Substack at Dave Ehrenberg and on social media. | ||
| Thank you all so much for hanging out. | ||
| We're going to be back tonight with Timcast IRL. | ||
| Don't miss it. | ||
| It'll be at 8 p.m. | ||
| It's going to be fun. | ||
| We'll see how things go. | ||
| I think there's going to be a lot more protests and riots across the country. |