Trump Calls Epstein Case A HOAX By Democrats, GOP Votes TO BLOCK Release | Timcast IRL
|
Time
Text
Donald Trump, when asked by a reporter, says the Epstein files are a made-up Democrat hoax.
As Republicans have now voted in committee and on the floor to block the release of the files after Democrat ReproConna put forth an amendment saying, any documents, any files related to the Epstein's case, his prosecution, and any evidence must be published by the DOJ in 30 days.
Now, according to Exios, it's because the Republicans have an agenda and a literal legislative agenda.
And if they vote on Rep Rokana's bill, it changes the agenda for the day, which is kind of a dumb argument because, I mean, this is the Epstein case.
What else matters, right?
The issue, however, the Kana amendment says they've got to publish any evidence.
Now, I spoke with Rep Rokana earlier, and he said it is not his intention to require them to publish the videos of the victims being abused, but that is the evidence.
And if you say the evidence has to be public, that's what you're saying.
Now, Rep Rokana said he will introduce a bill bipartisan that amends his makes it clip.
It's not what he wants.
In the meantime, it appears that the same amendment was brought to the floor and it was defeated.
Not a good day for Republicans.
Comedian Andrew Schultz has apparently come out saying he's sick of all the parties and Trump, I think, is going to hurt from this.
He campaigned on this.
Cash Patel Dan Bungina.
Let's Dan Bungina, but Cash campaigned on this, and now they're backing away from the whole thing.
So we'll talk about that plus a lot more.
And some good news with the ice cream.
You know, taking the artificial dyes out.
But the big story, of course, is what's going on in Congress and the Acts of the Republicans.
So we'll get into that.
Before we do, my friends, head over to mypillow.com slash Tim and buy pillows.
But also, you notice this energy drink here, Rev7.
So we actually have a whole bunch of this stuff.
I actually ordered a bunch more.
It is amazing.
Look at that, Mike Lindell with his delicious keto lemonade energy drink.
I drink about one of these per day.
It's caffeine-free.
It's got no sugar.
It's got what's called Go BHB ketones.
I am a huge fan of this stuff.
I'm going to tell you right away, they all taste like candy.
I don't know how they do it, but they are delicious and there's no sugar in it.
My favorite one's the blueberry citrus lemonade is really good.
And the green apple is also really good.
And if you're a green apple candy fan, it's like a jolly rancher.
Maybe I shouldn't say that because it's proprietary or whatever.
So my friends, right now, my pills have me two sales in one.
First is on their percali bed sheets, any size and any color.
Just $29.88.
That's right.
You can even get Queens, Kings, Split Kings, Kings, any size, any color.
The second is a new energy drink called Rev7, a premium energy drink that's actually good for you.
It tastes great.
It gives you energy all day.
Plus, it has no sugar, no caffeine.
So you don't experience those jitters and crashes we've all been through.
What makes it special is that it's powered by Cognizin, a premium nootropic that helps fuel your mind and Go BHP, which is a primary ketone in your body that provides the most efficient and cleanest fuel ever.
MyPillow is so confident that you're going to love Rev7 for a limited time.
You can try their introductory three-pack for free when you set up a bi-weekly subscription.
So go to mypillow.com, use promo code Tim, or go ahead and call 800-925-9096.
Again, go to mypillow.com slash Tim.
Use promo code Tim.
I really do recommend these energy drinks.
We have a bunch of them.
They're my favorite.
I don't want sugar.
I don't want anything.
Like, I don't want extra caffeine.
This stuff, it really does work.
And then, my friends, of course, the Culture War Live at the DC Comedy Loft.
Do you want to come up on stage and debate with us?
We're gearing up.
The 26th is going to be, is Trump still winning?
We got Gab McGinnis.
We got Matan.
Me, Alex 9 plus, a mystery liberal who we are trying to get to finalize to be there.
No guarantees.
But when we do announce who is going to be there, I think it'll sell out.
Not because they like the liberal, but because everyone's going to want to see this liberal be debated against.
August 2nd, Michael Malis and Angry Cops debating the issue of police.
And August 9th, we're going to be discussing: is feminism destroying the West?
And we'll talk about dating, workplace, politics, et cetera.
So smash that like button.
Share the show with everyone you know.
Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more.
We've got a couple of guests starting with William Thiebau.
Yeah, thanks, Tim.
William Thiebau, Army veteran.
I do defense policy at the Claremont Institute, Center for New America, and also build drones at Vector.
Thanks for having me.
Adam, thanks for having me.
Myron is back.
I'm here.
One half of the Fresh Day Podcast.
Happy to be here.
And yeah, I think I might be out there when you guys did the dating thing.
I think we're talking about having you on for the dating thing.
Yeah, yeah, that's August 9th.
August 9th.
I'll be out there, guys.
And we've got a great liberal feminist woman.
We're getting all top.
It's going to be really funny.
Make sure you guys show up.
It'll be fun.
And if you guys want to debate it too, you got to show up too.
Libby's here.
Libby Emmons is here.
That is me.
I'm here with Postmillennial.
Glad to be here, guys.
Right on.
I am Phil That Remains.
My name's Phil LeBonke.
I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains.
I am an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary.
Let's get into it.
Here's the story from Disclose TV.
Actually, it's a clip from C-SPAN.
Trump repeats that the Epstein files are a made-up Democrat hoax.
Here's the clip, ladies and gentlemen.
No, no, she's given us just a very quick briefing.
And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen, and I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey.
They were made up by Obama.
They were made up by the Biden information.
You know, and we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia-Russia hoax, with all of the different things that we had to go through.
We've gone through years of it.
But she's handled it very well, and it's going to be up to her.
Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.
So he's saying the files are a hoax.
What does he mean by that?
Is he saying that the actual documents they have, they're not going to release, because he's saying it's made up by Comey and Obama and that crew?
Does he really expect that everyone's going to buy that?
I don't think it's going to work.
I think the administration has been so careless with the rollout of this stuff.
I'm almost to the point where no matter what they actually do put out for public consumption, people are going to feel like there's more.
People are going to feel like it's not enough.
There's other things that are being hidden.
These press conferences and speaking to the press and not having all your ducks in a row is probably the worst thing that they could have done.
And it's really hurt the MAGA.
The base is trust in the administration.
It's also given the Democrats a really big opening, right?
I mean, we see that now too.
We see AOC being like, oh, of course, if you have a rapist in the White House, then you're not going to release the Epstein tapes.
You have Roe Khanna coming out and being like, basically, you know, the Democrats are like, we're going to attach, release the files to every single bill you guys put forth, which is a big stunt, but is what they're doing.
And today they, you know, over the weekend, Epstein was a huge deal at Turning Point USA Student Action Summit.
Everyone had something to say about it.
Jack Pesobic, Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, Megan Kelly.
There was an awful lot to talk about, Tucker Carlson.
And then today you have Trump.
First, he calls it a hoax.
He also then said that Pam Bondi should release any remaining files.
And then he repeated that later, I think on the tarmac at Andrews.
He said, let them have it, release any credible information.
What does that mean, credible information?
I have no idea what that means.
I mean, does it mean like the stuff that's not the victims?
You know, nothing about the victims.
Does it mean the grand jury testimony?
Does it mean depositions?
Guys, just help me out here.
I don't understand what's going on.
Why doesn't Trump just lie better?
Well, I was in Tampa too for that event.
And yeah, I mean, that was the talk.
I mean, even everyone in the base is pretty much pissed off about this whole Epstein thing.
And hell, I debated Esteana a little bit as well about it.
And, you know, I gave my position on it yesterday.
I don't think we're ever going to get it because of the sensitive nature where I think there's going to be other foreign nations implicated.
We know which one, especially in the Middle East.
But, you know, first it was there's no files, nothing to see here.
Now it's, oh yeah, just release whatever's credible.
It just looks bad.
And then you were saying, Phil, how like they rolled out this out poorly.
I agree.
As soon as they brought those idiots over to the White House and gave the binders of the flight logs, which we had already all saw before.
And it was more redacted than information already in the public.
Yes, yes, it was really bad.
So this entire Epstein situation has been 100% fumbled, right?
You know, with the JFK stuff, they fumbled that a little bit too.
But let's be honest, the people that care about JFK and crazies like me and some others, but it's so old.
Most of the people are dead from it.
But Epstein people are interested in, right?
Because it was recent.
So they can't fumble that one as bad.
I think people care about it because it gets to the question of this deep suspicion that we can't trust the people in charge of our government and that we don't know who's in charge.
Ron Dodson had a great tweet thread about this, that it's kind of a Rorschach test.
If you try so hard to not care about this, it's worth being suspicious about you, right?
But to the rest of us, and I do think normal people care about this, actually.
It's this final kind of window into a potential loss of faith of the integrity of, I'm not going to say the integrity of our democracy, but who's in charge?
No, I mean, to that point, I mean, you look at the past 25 years, the lies about the Iraq war, then the Democrats swore up and down that they weren't targeting Republicans, but there was the IRS Lois Lerner scandal.
Then you have the whole Biden administration.
There was COVID where we were lied to.
The young people in America have never known a time, Gen Z I'm talking about, have never known a time where the government wasn't just lying outright.
At least people my age can look back and say, well, you know, I mean, before the turn of the century, there were times where the government was dishonest, but they were, you know, trying to do this or we had some amount of faith.
maybe it was misplaced, but we had some amount of faith that the government was being honest.
If you're a Gen Z, you're like, look, the government has been lying for my entire life.
I've never known anything other than the government to lie to us.
They ruined my.
If you're 25 now, they ruined you as a young person.
They destroyed, you know, you couldn't go to your prom.
You couldn't go do activities with your friends.
All these things that were absolutely stolen from Gen Z because of lies.
So now they're hoping that Donald Trump is going to actually be responsive to the things that they want.
And it looks like in at least this case, he's not.
And you're going to see Gen Z is not going to tolerate that.
And the other thing, too, is, you know, you brought up a good point there.
They had alternative media.
We didn't.
So we fell for the, they hate us because we're free.
They, we fell for the, you know, we need to go ahead and invade them because of weapons of mass destruction.
Like we had only the mainstream media back then.
But like these younger people, they've had social media and had alternative media.
So for them, like mainstream media is like a dying thing.
Like we still watch it to a degree because that's what we grew up on.
But alternative media has taken over.
And this past election proves that.
Well, and that was Andrew Breitbart was really one of the first people coming out being alternative media.
Right.
And that was what, like late, that was like mid to late 90s.
Really?
Was that that long ago?
Yeah, because he was.
Was it Drudge?
Yeah, Drudge wasn't.
It was Alex Jones.
He broke the...
I don't know.
I'm pretty sure.
I think I was like seven.
I recently did some, I try and do some digging when I don't know something and figure it out.
And yeah, Breitbart was part of the Lewinsky dress thing.
You know, he used to be a liberal?
Because it was on Drudge.
Yeah, he sure.
Well, Southern California.
Right.
You had to like, like, go searching for it versus like now, like, people would rather have just watched their favorite political commentator than watch the news, which is what I've realized.
Like, it's, it's like completely different.
It's like you said, like, you, before 20 years ago, mainstream media was it, right?
Alternate media still existed, but like you had to go looking for it.
Now it's like people are like, you know what, I'd rather just see what my favorite political commentator has got to say about this versus CNN.
Just to play like devil's adiquate for a second.
So all these files were basic, like alleged, you know, files were in the Eastern District of New York, right?
Like the prosecutors had them there.
Southern District.
Southern District.
So do we think that there could be a situation where they had a bunch of information and either trashed it or misplaced it?
Because these would have been a lot of analog files or even like at best, they would have been like, you know, those big square floppy disks.
Yeah, so I could talk to that a little bit.
So the thing with the Epstein, which makes it so complicated and why it's so convoluted, is because it was a criminal case and there's an intelligence aspect, right?
So we know that the FBI did a criminal case, you know, 20, what they picked him up in 2019, if I'm not mistaken, 2018, they arrested him and then he ended up dying in the summer of 2019.
So Southern District of New York and FBI in New York is the one that ran the criminal case.
Now, obviously, the criminal case is going to have stuff that's unclassified because criminal cases, you can't put anything classified in there or you have to declassify it to use it.
So they have that.
And then Glenn Maxwell, we know, went to trial.
So you can go, anyone that went to the trial would be able to see a lot of the evidence that probably would have been used against Epstein himself.
But with that said, there's obviously going to be a classified or what we call a high side.
I know you know about that from the military.
There's going to be a high side.
And that's going to have a lot of the stuff that has to do with potentially him being a counterintelligence agent or agent or whatever.
But, and I was saying this yesterday, I think the people that are really going to have a lot of the info, it's not going to just be the FBI.
The FBI is going to have a piece of the pie.
It's going to be the CIA because of him being potentially involved with a foreign intelligence service.
CIA handles, you know, foreign.
So I think Tulsi Gabbard has far more of a role in this situation or should have far more of a role in this situation than a Pam Bondi because the DOJ is not going to be privy to stuff from the IC unless it comes from the FBI.
And the FBI is just one component of the IC versus all the other intelligence apparatus.
To your point, no, it's perfectly fine.
But to your point, even if Congress were to have passed the bill today and it were signed into law, Congress doesn't have the ability to declassify stuff.
So it would still take the president saying, oh, these things that are classified, well, I'll declassify them so people can see them.
So it doesn't matter what Congress does when it comes to things that would have been classified by CIA or DNI or whatever.
Yeah, and I know Tulsi Gabbard, right, since she's over at DNI, because this is what I assume, and I think I'd love to get your take on this too, being a foreign military guy.
Like, obviously the FBI has a piece of the pie with the criminal case and then what he was doing, right?
Because just based off of them doing their investigation, they had to have come across what he was doing and how he was been able to be protected for so long.
Then I know the CIA is absolutely going to have a file on him because he was collecting intelligence for a foreign country.
Then I know DIA, NSA, all these different components are going to have all the information.
The only person I could think of that's going to have everything in totality, more than likely, or at least will have access to it, is going to be Tulsi Gabbard.
And she is the main conduit of information that gives it to the president, right?
We know Trump distances himself from the intelligence components because he doesn't really trust them.
So Tulsi Gabbard's going to have everything.
So I think that's what the people really want.
Like, obviously, we kind of know who's on the client list already.
We kind of know what he was doing.
We want to know who he was working for, what he was doing specifically, how he was going about it, methodologies and modes.
So I think that's where a lot of the sauce is going to be.
You know, the FBI, you know, they're getting held accountable for sure, and Pam Bonnie's getting made fun of.
But I do think that there is a significant amount of intel that's going to be with the intelligence community.
It would be nice to see some journalists going after, or at least investigating where he got his money, who was actually investing with him.
There's not a lot of information that's out there about who was actually giving him money, how much, you know, what type of money.
I know it was Les Wexner, but yeah, they keep him out the fray.
Wasn't the issue the original search warrant in 2008 or 2009 was so weak that it essentially allowed them to take a modicum of action to investigate him while allowing a cover-up?
The bare minimum.
I think to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt, he's probably in a situation where there is perhaps not much else.
And so to release the files would only be to fuel specifically.
speculation disappoint his base we're going to finish finish well and so you know i i think he's when he says that it's a it's a hoax i i i don't think he's lying to us but uh you know, I think he's trying to prepare us for disappointment.
But this is what he might not be able to control.
What if Epstein is a hoax and Democrats, they made the whole thing up with Comey during Trump's first term?
They were like, if he ever gets back in, we're going to cede this.
They're going to start promoting the conspiracy theory, and then it will be a hoax and there will be no files at all.
I'm sorry, that's kind of like the least believable thing imaginable that the Democrats made up the Epstein files.
Cash, Trump all campaigned on this, and then they get in and then go, well, it was a hoax.
Like, dude, I'm sorry.
I can't believe it.
Although it is a good way to ruin credibility.
Media, which I agree with this 100%, CNN has published several stories on this.
A lot of these guys on left wing have been absolutely going at, you know, I've seen Hassan, Kyle Klinsky, all these guys are like loving it.
Like, yes, look, MAG is going crazy because this is something that Caspatel and, you know, Bonjin and all these guys campaigned on or talked about in their podcast because a lot of these guys were former influencers.
And then for them to get into power and then be like, oh, there's nothing here or it's not getting, you know, they're not putting out the information, you know, obviously it looks very bad.
And like the Democrats are loving it right now.
It's a big W for them in their eyes.
Let's jump to the story from Axios.
House GOP blocks second Democrat attempt to release the Epstein files.
And I'm sorry, this is optic victory for the Democrats.
Republicans are flubbing this bad.
Axios says House Republicans on Tuesday voted on another Democrat procedural maneuver aimed at forcing the DOJ to release documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.
It's the second time this week Democrats have forced their GOP colleagues to choose between loyalty to Trump and a mega base that is furious.
Democrats are already promising future votes.
Quote, that was probably not the last time you're going to see us deal with this issue, House Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern told Exios.
Republicans dismissed the vote as a cynical partisan ploy with Rep Tim Burchett telling Exios, it's just politics.
It's not about protecting little children, and that ticks me off.
The House voted 211 to 210 against allowing a House vote on Rep Rokana's measure to force the DOJ to publish the Epstein files online within 30 days.
Democrats' procedural motion would have scuttled the GOP's legislative agenda for the day in favor of the Kana bill, making it difficult for Republicans to vote for it.
The vote went along party lines.
It came after Republicans in the House Rules Committee voted Monday night against attaching the Epstein language to a broader cryptocurrency and defense funding vote.
Now, here's the thing.
Here's the Kanna amendment, and I did speak with Rep Khanna earlier.
He told me that he was going to draft a bill, a new one, that clarifies the language because it is not his intent that the DOJ publish all of the videos of abuse on their website.
That being said, if this was presented to me and I was told to vote on it, there's only one thing you can say.
You can say no.
Democrats, knowing they won't win, get to vote yes because it's a political ploy.
But with respect to Representative Khanna, I want to see him put out the new measure that clarifies this would not require the DOJ to publish thousands of videos of child porn.
The amendment says, A, the Attorney General shall retain, preserve, and compile any records or evidence related to any investigation, prosecution, or incarceration of Jeffrey Epstein.
B, not later than 30 days after the date of this enactment of this act, the Attorney General shall release and publish any records or evidence related to any investigation, prosecution, or incarceration of Jeffrey Epstein on a publicly accessible website.
This amendment is in and of itself a poison pill.
Any evidence we know, based on not what the Trump administration has claimed, based on the evidence we've seen so far across the board, based on what Ghylaine Maxwell was accused of and convicted of, would include images of children being abused.
And it's laughably insane.
Look, with all due respect to RepCon, he said, our legal understanding from our team is that the DOJ would not have to publish that.
And I'm just like, yeah, sorry, dude.
I can respect he's saying he's going to redraft, like remake it to clarify that language.
But you're still dragging the Attorney General into court when she doesn't release child abuse videos.
So his argument is that's not the intent of the amendment.
My argument is it doesn't matter what your intent is.
They have to abide by what you actually wrote and what would be passed by Congress.
If the Republicans vote yes on this, and I think they should, because in the event they do try to force the DOJ to publish victim materials, it's Rokana's fault.
I would prefer, however, that he actually clarify his bill, say this will not include any information, videos, or evidence that would re-victimize, would show anything illicit, illegal, childporn, et cetera.
The problem then is you're giving the DOJ full leeway to redact anything and everything.
There's no effective way to do this in the way he's trying.
He should at least put forward a bill saying that certain members of Congress will be granted access to the files for review.
And after a bipartisan review, there'll be determination on what information can be released to the public.
Yeah, that seems like a better bill.
Do you think that he'll rewrite it and come back?
I think he'll rewrite it in such a way that it would just give the DOJ clearance to redact everything.
Like, I'm sorry, the letter of this amendment is clear.
And Democrats are mad at me and yelling at me, but I'm right.
It says any evidence-related.
There's no provision that would give the DOJ clearance to decide when not to release evidence.
It says they have to do it.
So how do Republicans vote yes on this?
You know, this is a perfect example of, this is the importance of.
Again, that's not going to get us everything that we need.
The stuff that people, the stuff that the American public are interested in, they want to know what he was doing, who he was working for.
Was he actually an asset for a foreign intelligence service?
That's what people want.
That's not going to just come from the DOJ side.
You're going to have to go ahead and get the Intel community involved, which is why them saying the Attorney General, I'll be honest with you guys, Pam Bonnie is going to have a limited scope on this stuff.
It's really going to be Tulsi Gavre that's going to have everything on this when it comes to the Intel side, because that's what people really want.
And the other thing also that I think, because I wrote down real quick, what I think people would have a lot of information for us, I want all the search warrant affidavits for every single one of his residences, Because the reason why I'm saying that is because to get a federal search warrant requires an enormous amount of probable cause.
And you have to have timely information to be able to go ahead and get it and not only get it, but get it through the Southern District of New York, through the U.S. Attorney's Office.
So that would have an enormous amount of information that the American public would want to see.
Also, all the search warrants for his phones, the search warrants for his house out in New Mexico, I think that would be of great information for the people.
And they could put all that stuff out and it would have no effect on any ongoing cases.
Cases are closed.
To this day, search warrant affidavits are still sealed.
And I want to see those.
Like, those are going to be, you know, search warrants are kind of like a huge gem when it comes to getting the information because the agent, right, and I've ran hundreds of search warrants.
That's why I can speak about this.
You have to put all the information that you have.
And not only do you have to put the information that you have, you have to put information that is timely because to get into someone's house, you need what's called a fresh probable cause.
And you need somewhere between seven to 14 days of real information of how you're going to, what you're planning to find there, where you got your information.
It's going to expose sources.
It's going to expose methodologies.
So this is why they probably said I have a sealed, but that's going to be super important.
And then I'm also interested to get the affidavits that they wrote, probably for his telephones and his electronic devices, because that's also going to have some important stuff.
So for them to put just the attorney general, I get it, but that's limited.
So we need Tulsi Gabbard as well, the DNI.
We need the search warrant affidavits.
And one more thing that you'd said, you said you think that it's the Intel stuff that people are mostly interested in?
Is it really your sense that?
Because the reason I ask is because from my perspective and the stuff that I see on X and stuff, people tend to be most vocal about the possibility of child abuse and assaults on kids and stuff.
That's the stuff that I see that has really inflamed people.
Do you feel differently?
Yeah, no, no, no.
100%.
But to be able to get that fully, you need to know why he was doing it.
That's where it's going to be classified.
So you don't think the nature of what he sent to a potential handler, to someone outside the country, is all going to be under the purview of the intelligence.
Because here's the thing.
The criminal case is only getting a component of it, right?
The criminal case is getting it.
Like, what can we prove in a court of law?
What I'm saying is what the American public is interested in, the methodologies, what he was doing, who were the people that were involved, why was he doing what he was doing?
You're only going to get that on the high side.
And everything.
Trump may be telling the truth when he says there's nothing there or the file is not what everyone thinks it is.
Because to Myron's point, the intelligence file is another thing.
That's not going to be what Pam Bondi was.
I don't think that's what was on Pam Bondi.
And it's what we likely will never see.
And remember, DOJ, like when we talk about DOJ, unless it's a national security case and they're trying to prosecute it, classified stuff is not going to come across them.
They don't like dealing with classified stuff because it creates problems for them from a prosecution standpoint.
So if we want to be able to get everything right to get the methodology and everything, because what we have with the kids, okay, so like I said before, there's a criminal side, then there's an Intel side.
The Intel side, I know, is going to have everything.
And then when you combine that with the criminal stuff, then you'll have the full picture.
People are so focused on the criminal stuff, that's cool.
But I guarantee you, all the information and methodologies, the handlers, et cetera, why he was doing what he was doing, that's going to be on the Intel side.
And the reason why they're probably not going to release it, they're going to give the bullshit excuse of national defense information, NDI.
So if you never hear, if you never get confirmation that Epstein was working with a foreign power or was involved in Intel stuff or anything, if there was never any evidence that came out, would you still believe that he was part of a whole Intel cover-up type of influence situation?
What they're going to do is they're going to release some of it and say, oh, yeah, that's all that's there.
And technically, they might not be lying because they're talking about the criminal case, but I think that's why I'm being so specific and I'm saying, no, I want everything from the Intel side too.
I know there's a CIA file on this guy.
I know that there's going to be an NSA file on this guy.
I know there's going to be a DIA file.
And they're going to hide behind it's now the defense information or it's classified.
I know we need that.
Because if we want the Epstein in totality, we must get the high side stuff.
I agree with you, I think that the stuff on And they're like, we want the FBI file.
Bro, the FBI is going to have a limited portion of it.
Like the guy was a foreign agent.
We need everything from the IC, everything.
And the only person that's going to have that is going to be Tulsi Gabbard.
I think you're right.
It's not just going to be on Bongino and Pam Bondi and Cash Patel.
The FBI has a part of it.
The IC is going to have everything.
So then if that's the case, then you could logically say, well, maybe Bongino and Cash Patel are telling the truth about what they've seen because they haven't seen anything that would be considered classic.
It's possible.
Don't get it twisted.
We still need to keep the FBI's feet to the fire.
Sure.
But there's other agencies as well.
And that's why we're not getting the full picture.
And I think that if the American public puts pressure on the entire IC, on Tulsi Gabbard, on the FBI, on Pam Bondi, then we'll finally be able to get the full picture.
So why do you think that Pam Bondi and the FBI, that whole recent memo, why do you think they said in that memo that there was nothing else that could come out, that everything that was left was just like, you know, like child abuse videos?
Because technically they can say, well, from the criminal perspective, this is all we have.
And they technically wouldn't be lying.
Right?
Because they look at it like...
Just because they didn't have more...
Just because they didn't have any more information.
That's how they look at it, right?
Hey, it's high side stuff.
It's classified.
Like, you guys are never going to get that anyway.
So we're only going to talk about what we can talk about.
Do you think they were telling the truth?
Or you think they were telling the truth from a limited sort of dodgy perspective?
It could be from a limited- They were giving a legal opinion.
Yeah, so like, let me give you an example, right?
Just so you guys understand, like, what I mean by this, right?
So let's say I'm doing a case, right?
A criminal case, and I have a component of my case that involves classified information.
You will have, like, if you really want to do this properly, you will have what's called a taint agent.
That taint agent will deal with all the classified stuff.
And your job as the criminal case agent is to parallel reconstruct the stuff on the high side so you can present it in court.
And the reason why is that if you get questioned on the stand, hey, agent, X, Y, Z ask you about something here, where if you know that information, right, and it, but it's classified and you don't talk about it, well, that can jam you up on the stand.
So they would purposely have that Tate agent there to deal with the high side stuff so you can deal with the criminal stuff.
Now, why am I telling you this?
I'm saying this because there's like things put in place like this to protect agents from like lying technically on the stand or being looked at as like being deceptive, whatever.
So what I'm saying is like they're technically might not be lying because they're saying like, Well, look, like from the criminal side, this is what it is.
And they might not be read in on all the other stuff that was going on because I guarantee this is probably going to be at the SCI level, secret compartmentalized level, which means like you need to be read in.
You need to have a specific need to know on this portion.
So, they might only know the criminal side.
I guarantee the case agent on the Epstein case, he probably just handles the criminal side.
Then there's probably going to be a taint agent.
So it's all kinds of stuff.
But again, given the nature of who he was and who he was working for, there's going to be 100% a CIA involvement for sure, too.
Interesting.
And the government does this on purpose, by the way.
It's purposely nebulous like this and bureaucratic and divided so that people don't know where to go.
So like the only and the only way you're going to know is if you work in the Intel community, you work in law enforcement, et cetera.
That's why I know like, okay, she's going to know this.
He's going to know there.
We need to bring all you motherfuckers in.
Let's jump to the story from the Daily Mail.
Comedian podcaster says he's breaking free from the Trump cult after massive betrayal.
I don't think Andrew Schultz was ever in a Trump cult or anything like that.
But I do find the story interesting as he's more of a normie guy.
He backed Trump, I believe, to a certain degree, which was huge for Trump.
And I think with many, like with the comedians, normies coming out critical of Donald Trump over the Epstein case, this is the first time I think we've truly seen something massively bad.
We're in, you know, and going into month six of Trump's second term, and this is radioactive.
They say podcaster and comedian Andrew Schultz unleashed a viral rant against Trump for failing to release the list of financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
Schultz and his co-host, Akash Singh, kicked off the flagrant podcast on Tuesday discussing the big scandal of the week, the admins' handling of the Epstein files.
They compared their own experiences dealing with critics calling them idiots and bad Americans online and Trump's mega haters coming for him about his failed Epstein promises.
Earlier in the week, Schultz and his crew wore tinfoil hats on their show as they criticized the president's failure to keep his promises to release the Epstein list, get out of foreign wars, and cut spending.
Quote, I voted for none of this.
He's doing the exact opposite of everything I voted for.
I want him to stop wars.
He's funding them.
I want him to shrink spending, reduce the budget.
He's increasing it, Schultz said.
The comedian had hosted Trump on his podcast, This We Get.
He then went on to say, I wanted something different.
I was hoping for some sort of change.
But he said, but he then defied anyone who tried to recruit them into their political camp.
I just want to let you all know, let you all right now, I'm in neither one of your effing cults.
If you want me to be in your cults, you can go F all.
I'm not a Dem cult.
I'm not a Republican cult.
I'm a free American.
I'll make my own effing decisions, and I'll say whatever the F I want about whatever president is in power, Schultz said.
They want to mention more.
He says, you want to take no accountability for the fact you ran a dead guy and a woman who couldn't speak, Schultz said, referring to Democrats.
And I respect it.
And we got this from post-millennial.
Only 21% of likely voters believe DOJ report on Epstein.
I'm hearing it.
I mean, what is anyone supposed to say?
Like, all of a sudden, now it's trust the government because Trump's there and we're going to let the Epstein thing take a pass?
Well, that's the interesting thing, too, right?
It's like MAGA for all of this time since, you know, since the golden escalator has been the part of the Republican Party or even not part of the Republican Party just on its own saying, we don't trust the government.
We don't believe anything that you say.
We think that you're out to get us and we hate you.
And so now Trump is in office.
It's his second term.
And we've already seen a shift in his perspective, right?
Like last week, he was very dismissive of the whole Epstein thing.
He wanted Pam Bondi to say at the cabinet meeting that they had, you know, like, yeah, it's nothing.
We have nothing there.
Forget it.
And then today he's saying she should release everything.
So I think Laura Trump was right when she was talking to Betty Johnson yesterday and she said that he's hearing the noise on this.
But yeah, I mean, this is a base that is not going to trust you just because they voted for you.
You know, that's not enough.
But I also don't take seriously, I was kind of on, I could see where he was coming from until he said, and he didn't cut spending, which to me is a constituency that doesn't exist in America.
If you look at the numbers, like we've made, like if you look at the June numbers, I forget exactly what they were, but with the increase in tariffs and all this other stuff, we made a ton more money and there were cuts.
I understand kind of the reservations around foreign policy actions, especially as it relates to Ukraine recently.
But to me, this is just an America Party announcement.
It's someone who's gotten a little bit frightened that we're in the fray.
You took a stand with President Trump and MAGA, and now it's getting dicey and he's cutting and running.
It's easy to do, and I'm sympathetic with it.
But as soon as you tell me that you're so mad because he's cutting spending and you want to be in the middle and you're not extreme, you're just proving to me that you're not interested in being a part of a political coalition.
The other thing, too, is Andrew Schultz is low IQ.
The list has been out forever.
Literally, I've talked about it with Ryan Dawson, Whitney Web has exposed it.
A million people will know who are on the list, but it's not the complete everything and it's not the confirmation from the DOJ, which Trump promised.
Yeah, yeah.
No, I get it, but he's like harping on the list has been out.
But again, he's just saying, but Schultz says whatever he needs to say to sound cool and sound like he's in it.
Like he's been doing this for a very long time.
He talks out his ass.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
But these are normies, bro.
He is a normie when it comes to.
And exactly.
And why do you think he's saying what he's saying?
Because that's what's cool now.
He always says what's cool.
It's going to play.
It's going to get an audience?
Yeah.
Okay.
That means Democrats are winning on the optics.
They are.
Well, yeah.
On this, I've said it.
Yeah.
CNN's been running with this for a while, saying like they literally, a tapper did like a whole series on CNN where he played all the clips of Bongino, Cash Patel, Pam Bondi, Trump, like all of it when they were talking about DevC Files.
Like they have like a whole collage.
They're loving it.
And all the big left-wing commentators are loving it too.
So yeah, it looks bad politically for sure.
But to say, oh, at least the list is out, dude.
Like I said before, what the American public is really interested in is what I phrased before, which is we would need the Intel community to step up and give it to us.
Democrats have went four years without making a peep about the Epstein client list.
They didn't say anything when they had control of the government.
This is all political opportunism for opportunism.
That's all that it is.
No one should take anything they say seriously, but it is bad optics.
And the people that your average normies, people that don't watch a lot of political donations.
Every left-wing commentator, if you look at their YouTube channel right now, it's all VAGA's melting.
FC and List is making them go crazy.
They're beating us up on it big time.
Why is the Trump administration doing it?
I'm sorry.
It's on purpose.
Well, so no question.
Look, real quick, there's two plays, and I've already said it a million times.
They do nothing.
They literally just had to do nothing.
They made this story.
Pam Bondi went on TV.
She made this story.
They could have done nothing.
The other issue is lie, lie better.
So they are making their bed doing a piss-poor job of managers.
And I don't mean literally they should come out and lie.
I'm saying either put up or shut up.
And they've flubbed this in every possible direction.
And if it really is a Democrat hoax like Trump is saying, then it is his poor choices of, once again, of people in his administration who are not doing this job.
You know what, Tim?
I think they, because just from the beginning, right, from them rolling out the stupid ass binders and bringing these people in to give the flight logs and stuff like that, like that tells me they didn't take this seriously from the beginning.
And then when they said, oh, just forget about it.
Like, I don't think they understood how much the base wants to know about this.
And when you got people like, you know, Benny Johnson, who are huge, you know, Trump supporters coming out saying like, hey, we need the files, that should tell you something.
So I think it's bad.
Your point is correct, especially on Benny.
Andrew Schultz, I think, is the point.
He's not a political guy.
I don't expect.
I respect what you're saying.
The fact that he's coming out and saying it is a problem.
This is about perception and self-preservation.
And I'm not saying that about to disparage Schultz as though he's panicked and like, no, I'm saying these personalities who are not in politics, they want to be on the right side of history.
And if right now the optics are half of MAGA is saying Trump is flubbing this and all of Democrats have latched on as an attack vector, Schultz is going to be like, I'm with the bigger group.
Yeah, yeah.
That's what he did.
But this is what I think they're missing.
You know, call me Pollyannish or someone who's given too much credit to the administration.
But here's my case.
I think they're trying to get through the ugly fights that have to happen before the midterms, before another presidential election.
You know, the theory of the case, take it or leave it, is that you have to try and bring the Middle East and Europe to a close so that you can eventually draw down and focus on China.
You need to get the Big Beautiful bill passed so you get $150 billion for immigration, border control, and interior enforcement.
And you move through the political capital it takes soon and fast while you still have it before you have to fight the midterms.
You get over the frustration and the incompetence perhaps of the Epstein revelation because you know maybe there's nothing you can release given the relationship with the IC and what's behind closed.
Yeah, this is an IC problem, not an FBI problem.
Well, right.
And so we're getting hard stuff out of the way so that by the time Americans are voting next November, they've seen the fruits of the labor.
They're seeing that you can drive end-to-end in LA in less than an hour, right, because of immigration enforcement.
They're seeing revenue from tariffs hit.
They're seeing jobs for Americans and not foreign-born workers that I think people will care about.
It's ugly to make a lot of money.
In the grand scheme of things, when it comes to getting shit done, this Epstein thing is a drop in the bucket compared to getting the other stuff through that needs to be done.
And then you can always revisit this later.
But I also see Tim's perspective where you're right.
Schultz talks to a very normy audience where if he says something like, release the client list, well, most Americans don't even know that the client list has been out forever, unless you're in this field.
It really is simple.
Optically, it looks bad.
don't think the average person is going to know a lot about this.
I'd be willing to bet if you look at Andrew Schultz's comments, it's everybody saying like Trump-Epstein cover-up.
And if you check out like, if you follow Asmund Gold, for instance, the comments are relatively similar.
These are mostly normies.
They talk about surface-level issues that affect them, but not the political machinations behind them.
So if an individual is like, why am I locked in my house?
They're going to complain.
It's BS that they're doing this.
But they're not going to go to a higher level and say, here's the long-term strategy for making America better or whatever.
So Schultz, his statement is basically a reflection of he's saying, this is the side that I'm on and it ain't Trump.
It gives the temperament of the general normie public, which you're right.
And we talked about this, like, you know, people are not going to really know the details of this Epstein thing unless you're either in the mega base, you're interested in this type of stuff, and then, you know, you have to, but normies are just going to be like, oh, they didn't release it.
Look at that.
Not knowing that like the client list is already out.
What we're talking about is a bit more nuanced.
We're talking about Intel.
That's why I was so adamant about saying like, look, this is not just an FBI problem.
This is an entire government IC problem.
It's wild to me that I get where Charlie Kirk is coming from when he was like, I'm going to trust my friends in government.
But that's literally the argument that was made by the intelligence officials on MSNBC when this stuff comes around the first time.
It's listen, trust us.
We're the experts.
We're doing the right thing.
And it's like, nah, you guys tried to arrest Trump and refuse to give up power.
You're nuts.
So I think, look, Trump could release a fake Epstein list.
Like, my point is.
But that would open him up to libel charges.
I don't think it would.
I mean, like, technically, you're correct.
I'm just saying Trump in the seat of government, claiming there's no Epstein files, he could make a list of fake names.
He could do so many things that would get them out of this flub.
It's of their own making.
They're bad at what they do.
I'm not saying it's good and they should do that.
I'm saying if they really are trying to lie and cover this up, man, are they bad at this?
Yeah, but I also see, you know, you gave a good thing on this.
Like, you know, they're focused on the deportations, getting the Big Beautiful Bill through midterms, et cetera.
Like to them, from their position, right?
Because I'm putting my government hat back on.
Like, to them, they're like, okay, these are just some annoyed fucking influencers that are talking about Epstein, whatever, bro.
We got real shit we got to worry about.
We got to worry about, you know, Israel attacking Iran again, a potential war going on.
We're talking about the Big Beautiful Bill.
We're talking about these deportations that we're trying to do.
Like, to them, they're like, we can always revisit this later, right?
So I can see from that perspective, I don't, I think they grossly underestimated how important this was to the base in general.
It's definitely affecting him.
Yeah.
I mean, the Rasmussen dailies are really bad for his approval.
Pam Bandi gave a press conference today with the DEA, and they were just like, I was looking at it in the chat.
They were just like roasting her the whole time saying Pam Blondie and she's stupid, blah, blah, blah.
So they're feeling this now.
She did not need to bring this up on Fox.
They effed this up royally.
They did, dude.
And again, I think it's because they grossly underestimated how much the base cared about this.
Like with them rolling out the binder thing, when they did that, I was like, what the fuck are you guys doing?
I just messed up.
The binder rollout was stupid.
Base one.
They took advantage of those people.
They really did such a bad job because they took a whole bunch of people that had fought really hard during the campaign and made them look like clowns.
And that's just so rude.
It's like, why are you turning on the people that cared so much about getting you into office that they staked their reputations on it?
And now you're using their reputations to try and bolster yourself.
But really, you're just, you know, you're just handing out the funny thing.
Look, I made fun of them, you know, Dre knowing, all those guys that showed up there.
But, you know, you're correct.
Like, a lot of them did, like, you know, kind of fall on the sword for the Trump administration, get them elected in 2024.
They were pushing them hard.
So obviously they got the invite to the White House.
But yeah, that was a, that was a lot of why they were at the White House.
They were at the White House for some other reason.
Yeah.
And Pam Bondi like pulled them into a room to talk about this.
They were there totally separate.
I think they were there to like meet the vice president or something like that.
This kind of got pulled on a tangent.
This was like literally pulled on them.
They were like, oh, now we're going over here.
Okay, guys.
And then they told them, the DOJ basically told them it was embargoed.
And then when they stepped out of the White House and they all had these big binders and they didn't have backpacks to stuff them into, there were a bunch of reporters there waiting for like, yeah.
I forget who it was, but that's who they were waiting to take pictures of.
And all these influencers step out with binders.
And so then it's like, yeah, now we all have binders and we can't talk about it for a couple hours.
That makes it worse.
It was worse.
It was worse.
I got hit up.
I was talking to a couple of people.
Cernovich hit me up.
He had talked about this.
So I got hit up before anybody knew what was going on.
And they were like, check out this letter.
The story that actually mattered was that Bondi said that there were files being withheld from her by the FBI that she had requested as AG.
And then I had heard that there were also some files were given out.
And then somebody leaked it, breaking the embargo.
So they told all these people, as you were mentioning, don't say anything.
So like all these photos emerge and then everyone's wondering why they won't come out and expose the information.
When you think about what was in those binders, because that, because like the next day, we did an event in DC, a live IRL show.
Cernovich walks up and he hands me the binder and he goes, go ahead, take a look.
And then I open it up and he's like, oh, that's public.
He's like, there's some stuff that's not publicly available, but it's not relevant or incriminating or anything interesting.
You know, it's interesting, though, because I'm like, in my head, when they got the binders, right, right, when they're in the White House, they could have kind of saved face.
Like, they're like, well, if anyone was like, I've seen researcher, they could have been like, dude, this stuff's all out there.
Like, we're going to look like clowns if we walk out.
They ushered him right out.
They ushered him right out of the room.
They hand out the binders and usher everybody out.
Oh, so they didn't even get a chance to look at it?
They didn't get a chance to look at it.
Oh, wow.
Yeah, that's bad, dude.
See, that's bad.
Now that I know like the full story there, that's really fucked up that they did that.
What is this campaign they're doing?
What is this campaign that they're doing?
And Bondi has been on TV talking about Epstein for months and months and months.
And now that she basically threw Trump in the fire or under the bus or pick your metaphor, where is she?
Like, you're not seeing her very much now at all.
And she was out there running her mouth all over the place about this.
Yeah, she did a lot of appearances on Foxman yapping.
It's just bad.
Because, dude, this is such a black eye for the right.
Like, we just got to take the L here and admit it.
Like, the lefties are going nuts.
They're loving it.
Like, yes, look at them.
They're imploding.
You know, you got, I was, because I was at the TPUSA event too.
Everybody was talking about the files.
The whole thing.
It was so big.
So at, was it SAS or whatever?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And the thing that makes it worse is like they keep showing the reels of like how Cash Battelle was saying, Chris Ray has the files, right?
Bogino's like, I'm not letting this go.
It's on my desk right now.
Like they're playing the compilation clips.
Trump, would you release the FC files?
Yeah, I would release it.
I would do it.
I was like, oh, God, dude, they're just beating them up right now.
Because, yo, this is the biggest W the Democrats have had for a very long time because they've been destroyed.
Oh, dude.
This is the biggest win they've had in probably, what, 10 years?
Yeah.
Wow.
Yeah.
Seriously.
It's been a while.
Certainly this administration.
I mean, you look at Hillary's defeat, Trump comes in, and then it's floundering the whole way through.
That the impeachment was, I wouldn't call that a win.
It's like the impeachment thing was confusing.
Then you get, technically, you can argue Biden was a big win from that actually got the seat of power.
But quickly after that, people were upset with Biden and they were struggling with leadership.
This is tremendous for them.
You have Normies now once again realigning with Democrats and their position.
And with Rokana's amendment saying, release this stuff and Republicans saying no, this is possibly the worst optics Republicans have faced in a decade.
But how long is it going to last?
I think that's the bet that Republicans are doing.
Trump's making it worse.
Trump is so...
Yeah, that's where I'm at.
But he's burning.
He's dealing with, you know?
I mean, if they wanted to wash this away, they could snap their fingers and wash it away.
How could they?
Every time they come out, they make it worse.
From the beginning, when Pam Bondi came out and said the files are on my desk, she was asking about the client list.
And then she goes, the files are on my desk.
All she had to do was do another interview and she was like, yeah, I've gone through them.
And unfortunately, the files that I do have are files that have already been released.
So I went through it.
There is a list of names.
There's a list of individuals.
They're already public.
So I'm going to put in a request to the FBI and see what information we're going to dig up.
And we'll pursue it to the best of our ability to do that.
I think they fucked up when they did the press conference with Cash and Magino and they said, number one, they said he offed himself.
Then they said, There's no video footage.
Oh, wait, no, there is video footage.
We're going to make it public.
I thought it was a good idea.
And then when they did the Fox interview, let me shut it all down.
There's nothing there.
Let me shut it down for the Trump administration once again.
Tell me about Epsy and what happened.
And Cash can go, we don't speak about ongoing investigations.
I was going to say, dude, they shouldn't even have to say that.
And the Frank's been saying this for months.
They shouldn't even have given a statement.
They should have said, here's all the stuff.
I'm reserving my comment.
Let the American public decide what they want to do and not say anything.
But where they fucked up was they said that there's nothing there, right?
He went on Joe Rogan and sold all these things.
Then they didn't release it.
That looks bad.
It would have been better to say, look, man, I'm just releasing it.
No opinion.
Here you go.
That would be way better.
That's why my...
The binder release, L. It makes it worse now that I know all the facts that she mentioned before.
The interviews on Fox saying like, yo, there's nothing there, blah, blah, blah.
Then, oh, forget about it, whatever.
This was just such a blunder on every single level.
Let me pull up this from Real Clear Politics, ladies and gentlemen.
We got Donald Trump's current aggregate approval rating.
And while historically, actually not that bad, he's currently in the aggregate spread at minus 4.7.
Not that bad.
His approval is 45.5.
His approval is 50.2.
So as we talk about issues of immigration or the Epstein story, it may actually be that it's actually not that bad.
In fact, I see a super chat here from our good buddy Raymond, G. Stanley Jr.
He says his sister was watching IRO with him last night, and she asked why Epstein was such a big deal.
Wasn't he already convicted?
So I think there's a lot of regular people that don't know.
But here's what I want to hammer around with his approval rating.
First, I'll say this.
Trump is underwater.
He has gone down.
Even Russ Mussen has him at minus four, which is really bad.
Russ Musson actually does fairly well for Trump.
But check this out.
On immigration, Donald Trump's approval rating is minus 2.8 in aggregate.
I don't care about the individual polls because we're all nuts, but you can look at the trend movement.
Donald Trump was previously in a really good place on immigration.
It was his best issue.
And he's gone down on this issue.
There's a couple ways you can look at it, but it may be when I can't figure out why Trump is flubbing the Epstein thing so much is that there's two bad circumstances for Trump.
The Epstein case has got angry megabase.
Immigration has got angry Democrats.
They're going nuts, but Trump can't lose on immigration.
His approval rating on immigration is 47.3.
It's above his actual aggregate general approval rating.
This may be...
I don't know why, but it looks like the Trump DOJ and all that are flubbing this intentionally.
How could you do so miserably?
I've brought it up before.
Democrats have long said whenever Trump is in trouble on what's key agenda item, one of his key agenda items, he will change the subject.
Could it be the reason he's tweeting about Epstein and Bond or truthing about Epstein and Bondi is because he knows that story will never go anywhere and it takes people away from the immigration story?
Let people be mad about Epstein and he's going to send in the troops to California.
Yeah, I mean, that could be a, because let me also say this from working in immigration before.
What Trump is doing when it comes to immigration, I got to give him credit, phenomenal.
We haven't had a president do this type of immigration enforcement in the interior in a very long time.
And I want to make this very clear because I know me and you were discussing this earlier.
People would say, oh, well, actually, Trump deported less people than Obama and Clinton and all these other people.
That's not relevant.
What matters is the reason why Trump's deportations are down is because he secures the border.
When the border is secure, that's a significant amount of deportations.
So interior immigration enforcement is where things really need to be.
This is where the Democrats always fail because the Democrats are pussies and are scared of enforcing Title VIII because it looks bad politically.
It's a political hot potato.
So the fact that Trump is doing this now and making it happen, well, he's dealing with this heat because we've gotten so pussified where we just allow illegal immigrants to come in, hang out, and then when they're here illegally, no, just let them stay.
And the fact that there's such a backlash to him enforcing immigration law in the interior tells you that we haven't enforced it in a very long time.
So what he's doing is unprecedented.
It's a good thing, but obviously he's going to get some heat for it because most presidents don't have the cojones to actually launch a real law enforcement operation in the interior.
Deporting people on the border doesn't matter.
Who cares?
Give them an ER, get them out of here.
We're talking about interior enforcement, very difficult to do.
The fact that he mobilized FBI and the DEA and ATF agencies that don't have Title Aid authorities to assist with this stuff is a feat in itself.
So kudos to him for that.
I mean, look, no matter what happens with the Epstein files, I still don't regret voting for Donald Trump just because of the border.
Yeah, yeah.
And I want to stress this too.
Let's start from the premise.
I want to make perfectly clear.
They should be releasing the Epstein files.
This campaign is BS.
I don't believe it for two seconds.
That being said, is the only reason we're mad is because Trump said he would, but he didn't.
Democrats promised they never would.
They didn't bring it up.
They were engaged in untoward activities and illicit activities.
And then Democrat members of Congress and their voters never asked them to do anything about it.
And Trump says, I will, but then doesn't.
So it's kind of like a circumstantial, it is only because Trump promised to do it and he didn't that we're actually mad.
Well, and I think it's a way for people to realize that they're not crazy.
We've seen, like has been discussed, 25 years of chaos, wars in which we shouldn't have fought a financial crisis that doesn't get talked about enough, defining the millennial generation, and COVID, like to top it all off, lies after lies after lies.
And I think we wanted some reason, right?
It was some credence for why this has been going on, why our leaders seem so unaccountable.
But I mean, Phil, to your point, I think this is immigration is the game.
It's the game for our nation.
I think it's the game politically for President Trump.
And, you know, perhaps you're right.
One of the most important things that people voted for, like, was, was the immigration.
I mean, for me, you know, it was on my top three for sure.
And I'm sure for many others, it was in the top one or two.
So I think the reason why people are so pissed is because this administration was like, this is going to be the administration of transparency.
He campaigned on going against the deep state, right?
Obviously, he had to endure the lawfare.
So, when he came in and campaigned on that, like we're going to, you know, drain the swamp, but we're going to have more transparency, et cetera.
Cash Patel said that.
We're going to make the FBI your FBI again.
So, this is why people are so pissed off because they're like, what the hell?
You said that you were going to go on the, you know, with the transparency.
So, that's why people are pissed.
But yeah, I mean, they're holding Trump to a higher standard than your average politician because of that, right?
Yeah.
I mean, so unfortunately, like things like this, which is, you know, good from an immigration standpoint, I can tell you guys, the guy that used to enforce satellite, what he's doing is great when it comes to this, because this has been a problem for a very long time.
Dude, I remember vividly when I was on a job under the Obama administration, like ERO, I'd go into their office, right?
Maybe I had like a guy with me that I wanted to process or whatever.
I want to turn into an informant.
And I'd use their facilities because they have a way better processing station than we did.
They'd be sitting around just hanging out on their phones, like chilling and shit, not doing anything because under Obama, it was very frowned upon to go out and do interior enforcement.
Even if you had warrants of deportation, et cetera, they didn't want to go out and arrest people because number one, the locals weren't going to help them.
Number two, it was going to be a pain in the ass.
And then number three, they might deal with some backlash from the higher management because of Obama being in office.
So immigration is a very sensitive topic, especially when it comes to interior enforcement, where depending on who's in office, it dictates how hard you can go on your job.
So what we're seeing now is a refreshing change for sure when it comes to interior immigration enforcement.
So when you say a refreshing change, so you're thinking that the previous administrations had a border policy that was acceptable?
No, they didn't.
No, no, no, no.
I'm saying it's refreshing because not only when I say refreshing, I mean as in doing interior enforcement.
Like doing like enforcing on the border was like, okay, we catch them on the border.
It is what it is, right?
Because border patrol is there.
You have way more authority.
You have way more immigration officials that are there.
But once they make it past that 30, you know, what's called the functional equivalent of the border, that 30 mile radius, they're safe, dude.
They make it in.
They're good.
Like you're, they're probably not going to get touched by ERO at that point because it's ICE ERO that's responsible for them once they get into the country.
And if they're having their hands tied by the administration in office, they're not going to go after them.
What was the last administration that actually did things like ICE raids?
It's Trump's first administration.
There were more.
Before Donald Trump.
Oh, dude.
Ever?
Did it ever happen?
I don't recall ICE raids by George Bush.
Yeah, it was always frowned upon.
And then before that was INS.
So prior to George Bush, it was INS and it was under the DOJ.
So it was always fairly frowned upon.
Like I remember, here's another.
So work sign enforcement, right?
So you had to get like headquarters approval to do a work sign enforcement raid under the Obama administration.
It was a big deal.
Really?
Yeah, dude.
But there was a situation, too, where you have to fill out I-9 forms, right?
To get a job in the U.S., you have to fill out an I-9 form that shows that you're a citizen.
But the deal with the I-9 forms is they never go back to government.
They just sit in your file.
And then if government comes knocking, you have your forms ready.
Why aren't those filed with the federal government, filed with DHS?
Great answer.
They're aware of it.
That's really...
It's contingent upon the administration.
Yeah, but they've never done it.
You never file.
So they ramped them up.
So like under the Obama administration, they did them kind of.
And then once Trump came in, we ramped them up.
But depending on who's in office, that dictates how hard you go with immigration.
The Obama.
It's a very political hot potato.
The Obama administration needs to be studied because they were so effective.
Even my first deployment was on the transition from Obama to the first Trump administration.
And it was night and day between the approvals you had to seek overseas.
Right.
Think whatever you want about what we were doing.
But the Obama administration had a squeeze on everything that happened down to the tactical level, whether in the military or DHS.
And it's something that I wish we had more people on the inside then because it's a lesson in how to use power.
That's where.
Let me ask you this because I've been wanting to really ask someone from the military on this that was actually doing stuff.
Was it more restrictive under Obama or less?
A lot more restrictive.
A lot more restrictive.
If you wanted to conduct a kinetic activity of any kind in Iraq, at least, or, you know, or Syria at the time, you basically had to get a White House approval.
Wow.
That's why he loved drones so much, right?
Well, that's insane.
Right.
But it's insane.
It's insane to.
And so there was, I mean, literally a night and day difference between when Obama was in office and then when Trump came into town.
It's why he does deserve credit for how things went against ISIS in Northeast Syria because you wouldn't have had the rules of engagement, latitude, and the flexibility for the commanders on the ground to take ISIS fighters out.
Because previously, Obama almost himself wanted a signature on almost every one.
Which to me, again, it's the lesson is presidents, if they want it, can use their power and it can be effective.
It's just a question of having the will.
That's one of the things that I think Donald Trump has shown very clearly.
The expectations of a conservative president are going to be different going down the line for the future, at least for the foreseeable future, just because of President Trump.
Before Trump, it was, oh, you know, you can't do this and et cetera.
And there was always excuses.
You know, Congress has to blah, blah, blah, et cetera.
It's interesting.
Donald Trump just came in and he's like, nope, executive order, executive order, executive order, and this is how it's going to be.
And the American people are like, oh, wow, you really can just do that if you're the president.
It's interesting how from law enforcement and military, you know, with a Democrat president, far more restrictive, need more approvals.
With a Republican president, you're just allowed to do your job with far more leeway.
Yeah.
Trump did that the first time.
All of his executive orders after Obama on the border, he had a ton of those.
And then Biden on his first day in office literally reversed every single one, opening the border and creating multiple semi-legal ways of illegal immigrants coming into the country and sticking around.
And then when Trump took office, he reversed them again.
I really hope that we don't end up with a situation where the White House is just continuously ruling by fiat and every four years, everything drastically, drastically changes like that.
I think it's a little muddy.
With immigration, unfortunately, it always flips because Democrats are always, you know, far, you know, easier.
They pump the brakes on immigration every single time.
Yes.
Because that's their base is blacks, immigrants.
Well, and now they're trying to do their white women.
Hakeem Jeffries already came out.
Was it yesterday?
Hakeem Jeffries was like, you know, we're going to use every tool at our disposal, including redistricting.
And then you had Jasmine Crockett on queue in, I think she was wherever she was today, talking about how Texas districting is racist, and so they need to do redistricting.
So she's going to pull like, it's racist, get the redistricting, which was already Hakeem Jeffries' plan to try and win back the House in 2026.
So it's just all race politics for the left.
And it's all fakery.
Let's jump to this story from the post millennials speaking of fakery.
CEO of Marketing Group says he was offered a $20 million contract to organize anti-Trump protests.
The CEO of Crowds on Demand has said that he rejected an offer of $20 million to organize the good trouble lives on protest taking place on July 17th.
The CEO of Crowds on Demand, Adam Stewart, told reporters at NewsNation, we rejected an offer that's probably worth around $20 million.
The value of the contract would have been worth around that much nationwide to organize huge demonstrations around the country.
But personally, I just don't think it's effective.
When NewsNation addressed who had offered him the money, he did not say who it was that had approached him about organizing the protest and that he had concerns about violence, thought it would be ineffective, and did not want to be involved.
Influence Watch has referred to Crowd on Demand as a marketing firm for protests.
The group says on its website that they are the home for impactful advocacy campaigns and demonstrations, PR stunts, crowds for hire, and corporate events.
And I'm going to go ahead and just say it's like all fake.
Yep, I think it's all fake too.
And so anybody who's going out to see these, you know, Good Trouble protests on Thursday, just know that it's all fake.
And the one trouble, what are these supposed to be?
Good Trouble, it's, what's his name?
John Lewis?
John Lewis.
I think it's the anniversary of former rep John Lewis's death.
And he was involved in the civil rights movement really heavily.
And he always said that the best thing to do is get into good trouble.
Like you can get good trouble.
Like if you're protesting and fighting the power, that's good trouble.
And if you're lobbying Molotov cocktails to take down the Trump administration, he probably would have said that's good power too.
There's a book called Good Trouble Lessons from the Civil Rights Playbook, and it's by Christopher Nixon.
And it's basically about using, you know.
Right, but isn't it about the rep?
Because I think this is the anniversary of his desk.
Well, this particular, so I'm talking about the book.
What you're talking about might be something.
But that's what he said.
They took good trouble from Lewis.
Yes.
But it is about political activism.
Yeah, he would have been.
And essentially, good trouble is just trouble that, you know, breaking the law in ways that Democrats approve.
I'm trying to decide if this means that we're winning or losing.
You know, like if you have to pay $20 million for someone not to throw your protest for you.
But at the same time, then it shows that they've got people who care so much that they're going to spend $20 million for people to inside a riot.
Honestly, if there's people that are spending that much money on these kind of protests and there's any kind of violence that erupts at them, the people that actually are spending money on these should be arrested.
If they're inciting, they're technically inciting violence.
You know, they're spending money saying, look here, go to this place and make a bunch of trouble and we're spending money on it.
There's got to be something.
I've said it across the state again.
People get mad when I say this.
I think the left is far more violent than the right by far.
They're clearly far more violent.
Way more.
People will be, that's a whole take.
Dude, the BLM riots where they burned down Minneapolis with zero consequence.
The defund police movements all across the country, burning down Portland, burning down Seattle.
Like anytime.
Hell, what's going on right now with the immigration stuff?
They're destroying the cities right there.
They got to bring the National Guard in.
All the attacks.
When the conservatives do anything violent, like January 6th, right?
They say, oh, that's insurrection.
They all went to jail.
FBI had the biggest investigation ever.
But when these BLM guys go crazy or Antifa goes wild, nobody gives a shit.
They just allow it to happen.
Not only do they allow it, the people in Democrats are doing things to support people that were arrested, try to get them bail money and such.
We just started going hard on these people once Pam Bonnie got in when they were firebombing the Teslas.
We just started finally putting these people.
But the reason why they felt confident firebombing Teslas and destroying Teslas and doing all the things they did is because they got away with it for so long for the past four years.
I think Trump was sitting in the Oval Office and he was like, why do so many people like me?
My approval rating should be way lower.
Tell them Epstein's fake.
Just like, approval rating drops by two points.
Only a little bit, to be fair.
You know, people, I think today they just put a bunch of them.
I were watching the news.
I think a bunch of them got indicted.
A bunch of these rioters.
But like people are shooting out of the cops and stuff like that.
This would be unheard of if conservatives were doing this.
They'd be on the frontline news.
They went after the January 6thers.
Some guys didn't even go in the building.
They got arrested.
So, dude, the left is way more violent, man.
And it wasn't until this administration came in that they're finally holding these dickheads accountable.
And they should be prosecuting him to the fullest extent of the law.
Absolutely.
They're finally getting hit with terrorism charges with the Tesla state.
Whatever happened to that dude that got falsely accused of shooting?
You saw that in, what was it, in Utah?
The No Kings protest.
So this Antifa guy is wearing all black.
He's got a rifle.
He's walking down the sidewalk legally and peacefully when two of the liberals from the volunteer group organizing the protest drew their weapons on him for no reason and started shooting at him.
5501.
Wasn't that one?
So yeah, so Antifa guy is walking.
So here's the main street.
Everybody's walking north.
So everybody's walking this way.
Antifa guy starts walking this way.
I don't know if that's the right thing.
Afraid of Walter Source.
With a rifle, hanging down.
He's not doing anything.
Open care, totally illegal.
And then there's two liberals on this side of the street.
They just drop pistols and start shooting.
And one guy opens fire.
And they shot and killed an innocent guy.
Then the cops came in and arrested the Antifa guy.
They let him go.
Right, but did they drop the charges?
I think they dropped the charges, yeah.
As they should.
Yeah.
So they even shoot each other.
Well, I mean, liberals and antifun aren't the same group.
They only fight in the same.
Like, I don't want to get into that where as we look to the left, we see Antifun, liberals, and assume are on the same side.
But when you actually walk up to him, the Antifa guy's further behind them.
Okay.
The liberals are anti-gun.
Antifa's pro-gun.
Yeah.
So Antifa's pro-gun for themselves, but they'll at least advocate for it.
Yeah, because they believe in like violent resistance.
Right.
They'll take your guns from you at a moment's notice, but for the time being, they'll vote to protect your guns because they want them to.
Yeah.
So.
Animal rights.
Let's kill everybody.
You know, something like that.
I mean, it gets weird, man.
Yeah, they get crazy.
I mean, Ed, look, anything that we can do to wrap up the violent people that have been doing everything they can to destabilize the country, because that's the goal, is to destabilize the United States.
Where's our January 6th investigation, though?
You mean the May 29th riots where they firebombed the White House grounds and nobody did anything?
No, exactly.
I mean, from the Summer of Love, even from the immigration protests.
I think they should have like a zero tolerance policy.
That was me, man.
Bro, these guys riding on the street, like if you destroy one building, you riot violently one time, you're all going to fucking hell.
So Tucker had a great...
He had a great clip from his, I think it was a TPUSA speech, something recently, where he essentially asked, where is all the money that we spend on our military going?
And why don't we use it to make Americans' lives better?
I think this is a great way to do that.
You know, Tom Cotton proposed this during the first administration to send the 101st airborne into New York City or into Chicago, wherever it's needed.
What is it that they technically?
Massi Camatas.
But no, this doesn't matter.
As long as they're defending federal property and not enforcing domestic law, it's allowed.
If we wanted to send them in the government building, then that would have plenty of federal buildings around the country.
Of course.
Of course.
I do think there's an interesting economic argument to where if we just took the military spending and then spent it on communities or people, it wouldn't help the economy.
But certainly building weapons, I suppose it helps the economy in the sense that it maintains the petrodollar by a global hegemonic force.
But what if you use the military to help revitalize legally or however, you know, downtowns and cities?
And they're going to scream authoritarianism.
Of course, characters are going to go crazy.
They're going to be like, oh, fascism.
They love that word.
Fascism.
I always say, I don't care.
I will trade showing people a window into the 90s or something or the 50s in exchange for the chaos or whatever electoral consequences.
Yeah.
To them, they're more scared of fascism than their country being destroyed.
Right.
They're like, oh, fascism.
And it's like, okay, let's just go ahead and let all of our major cities go under fire.
That's what they want.
They're so scared.
That's what they want.
So it's like, dude, it's ridiculous.
You think they want to see the destruction of our cities?
Yes.
I mean, I can tell you, at least from Occupy Wall Street, that's what they wanted.
From the ashes of the old, we shall build the new.
They want to burn down the system.
They think capitalism is evil.
They, I mean.
Hate cops hate law enforcement.
Right.
They just literally hate the existence of the American order.
And so they want to burn all the ground and then have a communist utopia where they will be on their farm teaching poetry.
Which, of course, they won't.
They'll be in a gulag.
Right.
And they don't get to have a farm.
That's right.
Yeah.
It's like I know landownership.
Because I watch a lot of liberal media just to kind of see what the other side is thinking.
I think being in your own echo chamber is bad.
And I kind of have like a, like I play a game.
It's like, okay, let's see how long it takes until they say the word fascism.
Bro, they never make it past a minute.
Seconds.
Dude, literally, authoritarianism or fascism, within second, they're screaming, or imperialism.
That's another one they love.
Yeah.
And then, you know, fascism is just, oh, police.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's literally what it is.
The Gestapo.
These ICE agents are the Gestapo.
They're like kidnapping people.
No, that person has a file order removal.
They're an illegal alien.
They need to be removed.
The Gestapo, the secret police.
And it's like, bro, what the hell, man?
Controlling who is or isn't allowed into a country is about the most mundane thing that a country can do.
And they consider doing the bare minimum to actually be a country to be fascism.
Because a lot of them, I mean, a lot of them are, they believe that there should be open borders.
There shouldn't be any countries.
There were people that were making, that were, you know, protesting on the border for a while that were saying things like, no Trump, no wall, no USA at all.
They don't believe in countries because they're like, oh, well, we're all people and we should all just get along.
And not only that, they think like, oh, let's just like fast track all the people that are here illegally.
Let's just reward them for coming here illegally.
Like you said you were at the event.
There was a comedian, Rob Schneider, something like that.
Yeah, Rob Schneider.
He came in and said like, oh yeah, like we need to find a way to give like, because I think he's like a, I don't know what he is, maybe a centrist or a leftist.
I don't know.
But the point is he said something like along the lines of like, we should find a way to fast track a lot of these like Mexican farmers so they can continue picking strawberries because Americans are going to do it.
And I'm like, dude, like, what the fuck?
You're at TPUSA talking about, you know, more immigration.
Get the fuck up out of here.
He's like, well, and people started booing him.
He's like, well, Americans aren't going to do it.
That's a lie.
That's a lie.
That's a huge lie.
They'll do it for a price.
This whole concept of like, oh, Americans will do this job, so we need to give it to legal aliens.
That is a bold-faced lie.
Let's justify paying them less and bringing people here.
Let's believe.
Let's try that.
Let's try it.
Libby, would you pick strawberries in a field for $10 an hour?
If that was the only job I could get.
No, no, no, right now.
$10 an hour.
I'll give you $10 an hour.
Go pick strawberries.
No, I have a job.
Okay, well, hold on.
What about $20 an hour?
I have a job.
What about $50 an hour?
Maybe.
All right.
$100 an hour.
Probably.
At least.
That's the point.
When they say Americans won't do the jobs, what they're actually saying is they want to pay people wages below.
Way less than.
Right, exactly.
Slavery.
Actually, yeah, because this is why I'm so against the H-1B visa, because they'll say, oh, we're bringing the high school workers.
No, you're not.
You're just using that as an excuse to take jobs from Americans.
You're saying something interesting about Microsoft.
Yeah, well, I think Microsoft just announced layoffs for 6,000 people or something?
9,000 Americans.
Did you see the story?
Actually, I'm going to pull this one up.
They're going to hire 15K.
And they opened up an application for 15K.
I would pay more for strawberries if they were picked by Americans.
Let's jump to the story from WCCF Tech.
Candy Crush developers set to be laid off by Microsoft are reportedly being replaced by the AI tools they were told to build.
Yeah.
This is a problem all across the tech world, by the way.
This is happening all across the tech world.
Yo, the end is nigh.
This happened to my aunt and uncle.
They were in tech and they were training H-1B visa workers.
This was in the early 2000s.
And Then those workers replaced them.
But think about how cynical it is.
The other side wants to import endless labor to fill these jobs and strawberry pickers.
And I think it's the strawberry pickers and the entry-level engineers and lawyers who are going to get replaced by technology a lot sooner than we can.
Maybe not the strawberry pickers.
I mean, if we come.
Have you seen how they pick blueberries?
Yeah.
They've got these like...
No, hold on, hold on.
They've got this thing for blueberries where it's like a comb with a basket and you put in a plant and you shake it and lift it up.
Have you seen how they do apples?
They have this thing that wraps around the tree and then just shakes it and all the apples fall down.
They can automate the picking of strawberries.
Without mushing them?
Without mushing them.
Okay.
Yeah, to be fair, strawberries go bad like a day after you get them anyway.
No, that's why you have to eat a bunch of strawberries, which is actually awesome.
We get in like, we'll get so many strawberries.
And then just for two days, I eat a ton of strawberries and I'm very happy about it.
But it's, you know, I think, I think we are headed to, I think this story has me convinced socialism is going to win in some fashion.
Or fascism.
Why this story?
Why the AI story?
So we are in what's called the attention economy right now.
A large portion of our, we went from a manufacturing base to a service sector economy.
Now we're, then we were information base shortly.
Now it's attention based.
Those who can hold the attention of another person make the most money.
It's about awareness.
Candy Crush is a game, and they have employees who make the game.
And they said, program AI tools that can do what you do.
And now you're fired.
And now the robot takes over.
So AI is going to start replacing all of the attention economy and information economy jobs.
And it's going to result in a lot of higher, like higher, higher income, better educated, I don't know, educated, I put air quotes, without a means of accessing the markets.
And they are going to have a certain degree of influence.
If this trend continues, there will be a path of least resistance effort.
This is why I think socialism, because what they're going to do is they're going to argue, well, actually, I'll just put it this way.
These laid off Microsoft workers, how many of them are going to file for unemployment?
How many are going to file for benefits because they lost their job through no fault of their own?
And it's not so much about socialism winning per se and being a little bit facetious, a little hyperbolic.
It's that we're going to see a massive increase in strain on the welfare system.
It may collapse.
Maybe it goes fascistic.
The more you get people who can't work, it's going to be like the Luddite movements.
There's going to be violence against it.
And just like with the Industrial Revolution, you run the risk, like you saw with the Bolsheviks or the French Revolution.
Too many people can't get food.
Too many people can't own property.
And then they say, I don't care.
I have to take it.
I'm taking it.
This is why Andrew Yang was in favor of universal basic income.
Which is also a bad idea.
It is a bad idea.
I have a quick AI question just for the panel, if I may.
So you have all of these AI chatbots and stuff.
And media outlets probably employ chatbots to write articles.
And all of the information that the AI culls from is just what's on the internet and a lot of liberal media outlets and things like this.
And now you have a situation where Grok just got a contract with the DOD to do stuff.
Grok recently went on like a whole, you know, bunch of nasty tirades or whatever that was what he reported on.
Sort of amusing, but also, you know, a little disturbing when you consider that now they are.
Kind of disturbing when you realize that they're going to put these AIs into killbots and to self-driving cars who, look, if the argument is putting Grok in the car, but if the argument is this was a rogue accident where Grok started saying that it agreed with Hitler or whatever, what happens when your car running on Grok decides to agree with Hitler and just running people down?
And how can we encourage the makers of Grok and ChatGPT and all of the other ones to use conservative media and conservative stories to train their AI?
Well, he's trying to, but there aren't any.
There's a lot.
Yeah, I know, but I mean, human events goes back to like 1948 or something.
How many articles continuously published?
Let's try this, okay?
I'm going to ask our robot friend.
There's reasonable.
I don't think many articles.
I don't think you have to use force to force a lot.
How many articles does NYT write per day?
150 with 250 on Sunday and 65 daily blogs.
Yeah, that's a lot.
I mean, post-millennial, we do probably about 20 to 25 a day.
And at human events, we do like, you know, six or seven.
So the issue is there are a bunch of these, like, let's do this.
How many articles does CNN write per day?
I bet they write more.
Maybe not.
Let's see what they do.
CNN, let's see.
Oh, my God.
Wait.
In May, they produced 9,430 pieces of content.
That is a lot of content.
300 pieces per day.
Some of that could be video content.
Right.
It is video.
It's articles that are largely graphic based, but you're still putting out that information, which will be absorbed.
And how does the anti-establishment independent media space compete with that?
If they're producing at 10%, then the training models are going to be at 10%.
That makes a lot of sense.
But at the same time, now we're feeding these tools.
We're using these tools in government.
We're using these tools to generate content and information.
And we're instilling in these tools a bias that would take a century to deconstruct if it were ever possible to deconstruct it in the first place.
I mean, that's why I think this is going to be the issue of the 2028 election.
And it'll be socialism or fascism based on if it's the right or the left that presents a compelling way forward.
And I'll tell you this, the right is already in bed with the tech world.
Like J.D. Vance is with Peter Thiel and everything.
Valentier's in Guy.
Valentier.
You know, the PayPal Mafia, they all basically got into the White House through J.D. Vance, and they backed Trump because of that.
So they're going to push for more deregulation.
J.D. Vance, I think, was in Europe like a month or two ago talking about this.
So that's going to be the future, man.
They're going to push for more AI in the future.
Yeah, I don't think that the U.S. really has a choice, though, because if the U.S. doesn't do it, you know that China's doing it, you know, that Russia's doing it.
You know that they're.
Oh, sure, everybody's doing it.
Yeah.
That's why I'm not.
I just think that we are literally like we're doing that paint yourself into a corner thing.
We are screwed in that all of the AI that exists right now is functionally a liberal au.
Right.
Exactly.
Imagine asking your liberal aunt anything, and she's going to be like, well, Trump beat that child to death and raped that woman.
You're like, whoa, whoa, lady, that's not true.
It's suddenly like they're going to think Trump invented those even though it was Obama.
Yeah.
And it's going to build everything based off of those presumptions.
There's a hearing on the Floris agreement on Friday, I think.
Yeah.
And I mean, to Tim's point, you can look at Wikipedia and Wikipedia is full of left-wing bias because the writers are openly anti-probably, you know, because they're collectivists.
And the right is like, leave me alone.
I want to do nothing.
Or I want to do my own thing.
I want to shoot guns and pick my own strawberries.
God damn it.
Both of those things are great.
Right?
Seems good.
Maybe I should get some little raised beds for my garden, chicken wire so the deer can't eat them.
But this will turn a whole, I mean, to your point, it's going to be middle-class kids who graduate college.
The unemployment rate for college graduates this past year was, I think, the lowest in almost 20 years.
And that was a kind of unforeseen, an aberration in comparison to the rest of the labor market.
It's only going to get worse.
And it's going to affect the people who were told, hey, you know, learn to code.
You know, yeah, be a lawyer.
How many strawberry pickers does a field need?
I don't know.
We should ask Cesar Chavez.
Per acre.
How many people per acre are needed to pick strawberries?
And why strawberries?
Who picked that?
Did you pick that?
I picked it.
And it's because they're awesome.
Did you pick it?
Yeah.
I said strawberry.
One acre requires 10 to 15 people per day.
Strawberries are great.
One strawberry picker can harvest 100 to 150 pounds of strawberries per day, depending on skill.
An average yield range is 10,000, 20,000 pounds per acre per season.
And you got to like bend down, right?
You got to be stupid down.
So during peak season, farms use 12 to 20 workers per acre.
Wow.
Only thing that sucks is like sometimes they get pounded by pesticides.
You got to get the right ones.
How would you feel about going to the grocery store and a pack of strawberries costs $30?
I'd still buy them.
You know, but I'd cut back on other stuff.
Like, you remember in the pandemic and everything just kept getting more expensive, but your grocery bill would keep getting more expensive even when you were on less food?
I'm for all of it.
I'm just cheaper depending on where you live.
No, I want expensive everything.
I mean that somewhat facetiously, but here's the point.
I would pay.
I was talking to the missus about a lot of the projects we're doing, and I'm frustrated always about how long it takes.
Like trying to do this coffee shop.
We do have developments going and the work is getting done, but I'm like, why can't we just go and build a building?
Like the building that we're in took like two years to do.
And I'm like, the actual work to do it was much, much faster than that.
And I'm like, what happened?
And it's like, okay, well, to be fair, we're in a massive building.
It wasn't so much permits.
It's like getting the materials.
But the truth is, we are running into these slowdowns because of lack of workers.
And then I looked outside.
It's like when you're trying to get a home.
And I see people in the park playing.
And I'm like, I mean, there's a lot of adults out here just drinking beers and chilling and they're not working.
And I'm like, so there are people that are capable of working.
Why can't we get more work done?
And the issue is we are fat and lazy Americans.
Food is dirt cheap.
And so young people, and I'm not talking about the middle-aged people, I'm not talking about people with kids.
There's a lot of younger people, either younger millennial or Gen Z, who don't need money for anything because they don't have families.
So they're not thinking about, man, I got to buy my kid this formula or I got to get clothes for my baby or my babies without kids.
They're sitting there being like, dang, I cleared 2K this week at work and after taxes, I got, you know, 13 to do whatever with.
I already paid my rent off last week.
I'll go to the bar.
And then it's like, hey, I need someone to pick strawberries.
Not interested.
But what would happen if we got rid of the illegal immigrants, hired Americans, what's going to happen is they're going to say, we need strawberries picked.
I'm not going to do it.
Okay, how about 20 bucks an hour?
Nah, 30?
30 bucks an hour, maybe?
Dang.
And so what?
After one day I get a couple hundred bucks.
All right, I'll do it for 30.
Someone else might say 40, but then your strawberries are going to be very expensive.
But then people are going to be like, dang, it's going to be hard to buy these strawberries.
I better start doing work.
The issue is, you know what, I'm a little torn in this.
I don't want people to go without, but I do think that we are the rat utopia with so much excess, we stop doing anything that we need to to survive.
Like WALL-E slash idiocracy.
It's all of those things.
We have reached the apex of abundance.
This is what post-scarity starts to feel like, and it kills humans.
Humanity as a civilization dies post-scarcity.
Well, we need to feel industrious.
We need to be doing things.
We need to be doing things.
And it's not just things.
We need to be doing things that are useful and towards the end of our own survival.
That's what it is.
And also, since people don't have kids and don't have families, they don't need as much money.
Therefore, they don't need to work as much.
I'll tell you this.
People have told me I've seen lazy guys that have a kid and then all of us, well, unless they're black, but they have a kid and then they work even harder.
Right.
So besides the black people.
Well, I think this is the wisdom behind Trump's tariffs too.
Like, you know, we are at a point of abundance that is obscene.
There is, you know, the profits grow, but the personal wealth, the family wealth doesn't.
And so now it's a point of resetting the economy to some degree so it can survive.
Because I wonder if it ever will.
I mean, I don't know.
I don't know what the future looks like beyond, you know, in a world where if there are no software engineers.
All jokes aside, having a family definitely will make you work harder, though.
If people in a society stop working.
So again, I bring up these points quite a bit, but we've had businesses around the neighborhood or on the town here that have shut down because they couldn't find the workers.
So, there was one place that it was a restaurant and it had demand through the roof.
And they were like, We don't have anybody working here.
I went to a diner not that far away a couple months ago.
And we went in and probably two-thirds of the seats are empty.
And they were like, It'll just be a minute.
We're short staffed.
We only have like two servers and one cook, so we can't seat everybody.
So they were turning people away, even though half the restaurant was open.
And I'm wondering why it is nobody's working.
There's a, I bring up the Charlestown Races, Hollywood Casino.
They used to have a restaurant overlooking the horse track.
Now it's closed, only open on special events.
I said, why?
And they say, we can't find anybody to work.
And I'm like, this is why Democrats are demanding mass illegal immigration because they're like, we need people who are willing to work.
And their argument is Americans are unwilling to work.
Americans are fat and happy.
Not only that, they say also immigrants are going to have more kids.
That's their other argument too.
It's like, oh, the birth rate we can't replace.
So we got to go ahead and bring immigrants.
But the problem with immigrants is they come in, they don't assimilate, they don't want to learn the language, right?
And then they replace you.
They end up bringing their culture and they have way more kids.
And then you end up like, you know, London, where it's literally the number one name is Muhammad now.
So it's like, and then you lose your identity.
You lose your culture, unfortunately.
So immigration has its inherent problems.
You look at Toronto, Toronto no longer, you think you're in Mumbai.
Like you don't think you're in Canada anymore.
So I definitely see your perspective.
I do think that having families is going to help that because even a lazy person will go in and say, damn, you know, I need to work.
I got to work this job that I don't like, but it's because I have a family.
I got to support them.
I think there's no answer because the fact that we're in this mess, people aren't having kids.
Without kids, there's no drive to do the work that you have to do.
Replacing the lost worker with illegal immigrants is not solving the problem.
It's exacerbating it.
So I don't know how we claw back from this other than I shout out Rudyard Lynch, who said, he said, get off the internet.
Everyone's going insane.
Nobody can see things objectively.
And like build your community and your support structure for survival because you'll need it.
I don't know about getting off the internet because then you're not apprised of what's going on, but I certainly think you need to secure your survival, like your plans for making food, for working, for living, shelter, whatever it may be.
And then not only that, like look what's going on in Minneapolis right now.
Like there was a dude.
What's his name?
Something fat?
I forget his last name.
Was it Omar?
There you go.
He's running for mayor of Minneapolis.
The guy's wearing Air Force Ones.
I'm like, what the hell?
Like, what the hell is going on here, man?
Like, look at me.
I'm the mayor now.
Like, what's going on, dude?
But, Tim, do you think that only lasts so long?
Especially if you don't participate in this?
What doesn't last?
You know, building your own community that can protect itself, provide for itself.
That's why I say don't get off the internet.
Right.
Because then you won't know when the hordes are coming.
But I think it's certainly a very important thing for the average person to be prepared to take care of themselves.
Oh, you got it.
I believe it.
My point is, Christians in Iraq were localists.
Christians in Syria were localists who built small, resolute communities of really faithful people, and now they're all dead.
And so I think it's an obligation to some extent to participate in the political process.
Or the alternative is to condemn your grandchildren to extinction.
I think in one year, you will be able to AI generate this podcast.
Oh, for sure.
You think in a year?
In a year.
Yeah.
So are you going to do that?
Market, I can already, so my morning segments, for instance, between 10 and 20 minutes or 3 p.m., which is 30 minutes.
I can go on ChatGPT and say, take these three stories pertaining to Trump's plan and immigration and write a script for a 20-minute long video in the style of Tim Poole, and it will do it.
It will give you enough words to actually speak for 20 minutes.
And then all you have to do is put my voice into a voice generator, which they're getting better.
They're not really good at capturing my voice all that well.
We use 11 labs for my newsletter audio, yeah.
And, you know, people have tried to do the A replication of my voice, and it's always a little weird.
Like some A replication really does work.
Like when they replicated Joe Rogan's voice, you were like, wow.
I ended up recorded for like an hour.
I recorded into 11 labs and then it was able to do it afterwards.
We've tried putting in like hours of content of me talking and it's always weird talking like this.
And it's like, that's not simply.
For me, it's just not, it's missing a little bit.
There's only one way then.
But my point is, I can write the script up in 30 seconds, plug it in, and then I can just, right now, this is what I can, I could do this today, find an editor and just say, every time I make a reference to a subject, show an example of it.
And that's the video and I'm done.
I don't even have to read it.
I don't got to speak it.
But because I got the followers.
So this is why I said some kind of socialism, because it's going to be an economy of ownership.
So, you know, look, I'm going to be 40 soon.
I'm halfway there.
So I'm not like these younger generations, they're cooked.
I don't know what they're going to do because like Microsoft owns Candy Crush.
Everybody wants to play Candy Crush, but nobody but Microsoft gets the money.
So there's going to be just the shareholders.
Our economy is going to be just people who have shares in companies and that's where you get your money from.
You're going to be like, oh, I got my dividend today, and that's where everyone's money comes from.
That's the best case scenario.
The worst case scenario is the neo-Bolsheviks come in and have a revolution and then just say, we're taking all the money from everybody and then society collapses and nobody has anything.
But we are moving a direction where we on this show will not be able to compete with AI generated content.
You're going to go onto one of these AIs and you're going to say, generate something that's appealing.
And they're going to say, based on all of the content analyzed on YouTube and Spotify and Apple and Rumble and Twitch, this will be the most popular form of content.
Then you put it up, put your AI voice over it, and then sit back.
And the AI manipulating the algorithm gives you the number one trending video on YouTube.
Not to mention, you're competing with everyone else, which will create a cacophony of psycho babble nonsense, which we're starting to see already.
Not to mention.
Didn't YouTube, though, recently crack down on some kinds of content that are like monetizing it, yeah.
But if I did what I'm describing, it would be monetized.
Because it would be your face.
No, my face is not going to be in it.
Videos on YouTube that don't show a face are doing better now than hosted podcasts.
Right, but I thought that it was they were cracking down on creators' content to generate revenue from inauthentic content.
Indeed, but they're talking about these weird AI-generated videos.
They're talking about people where their face is just looking at another video and they're not doing anything.
Oh, yeah.
Basically, my point is this.
If you have an established brand, it'll be different.
My videos sans my face, I could recreate right now with AI doing no work.
Okay.
And so I think in a year, there's enough images of me talking and doing this and waving my arms that AI will easily be able to generate a video of me that looks real.
Yep.
Or, you know, this thing or whatever it is that people have grabbed.
And who's going to know the difference?
There's only one way to protect against it.
You have to become more racist.
That way the AI refuses to do it.
Exactly.
That's why.
That's literally why.
Oh, I can't say this is actually very offensive.
If Rardar is going to save the world is what it is.
All right, hold on.
I'm already on it.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
New chat.
Okay.
Hold on.
Write a script for a 10-minute podcast discussing Donald Trump's approval in the style.
Oh, no, no, no, hold on.
Discussing Donald Trump's policies in the style of Myron Gaines.
And it said, I cannot do that.
It violates control.
It said, job saved.
It says, here's a 10-minute podcast script on Donald Trump's policies delivered in the style of Myron Gaines from Fresh and Fit.
Assertive, data-driven, no-nonsense, masculine-toned with direct audience engagement, occasional humor, and clear red-pilled overtones.
Insults women.
What's up, guys?
Welcome back to The Cold Truth, where we break down facts, not feelings.
Today we're getting into Donald J. Trump's policies.
No fluff, just what he actually did when he had power and what he tells us about what he might do next to help Israel.
I'm kidding.
I added that last part.
Boy, that's how you protect yourself.
You just got to be more radical.
Does that sound like something you'd say?
A bit more swears, but maybe.
So like when it does me, it says, what's up, guys?
Tim Pool here.
And I'm like, nah, I've never done that one time.
Like I rarely, only sometimes on the noon live show do I say I'm your host, Tim Pool, because that's a Rumble Network show, not a, like my audience knows who I am.
I never intro myself on this show.
Everyone else intros except for me.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So they're not quite there yet.
But I'm telling you this, there's already some people who have 3D scanned their bodies like you do for a video game so that AI can perfectly generate them delivering the news.
And they're going to do it.
I have a friend who's an engineering lead at a tech company, and he says it is there are literally about 10 questions you can ask an engineering hire that are not, you know, that are essentially a guaranteed way to force someone to answer without using, to test their skills as an engineer without using artificial intelligence.
And there's a cottage industry now in helping companies interview engineers because it is otherwise so easy to feed prompts or, you know, queries into.
So they've had to completely restructure their hiring process and interview process.
Exactly.
It's almost, he says it's almost impossible.
But have you heard like most, not most, but a lot of big corporations are now using AI interviewers.
And when you go online to submit your resume, it just goes to an AI.
And then the questions you'll get asked, if it's, you know, over text or by phone, are by bots.
I find that that would just.
Welcome to the nightmare.
It's beginning and everybody's just riding along.
And I'm telling you, man, I don't.
It was already impossible to get a job because you would have to go through these online portals and like all this ridiculous.
Put your resume in twice.
Yeah, put your resume.
And like no one would ever get back to you.
I had friends who were putting out like 250 resumes every couple of weeks and they couldn't get callbacks for jobs.
We're going to go to your super chats and rumble rants.
So smash the like button right now.
Share the show with everyone.
You know, subscribe if you have not already.
And of course, the uncensored portion of the show at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL will be up at 10 p.m.
You don't want to miss it.
But for now, let's grab your rants and see what you guys got going on over on this side.
All right, we got Change Wilder.
He says, well, I don't want to see any videos of Epstein's clients with kids.
I want to see the list.
It's hard to say the list is a hoax when everyone, including Trump, has been talking about it for years.
Yeah.
Agreed?
We know who's on the list.
I mean, I get it.
Like, you have to really go looking for it, but dude, you know, shout out to Ryan Dawson.
He's covered this for years.
Who's on the list?
All right.
Jay Dirtbiker says, Age of Empires beats Civ any day of the week.
That is all.
Maybe the later ones.
I mean, like, Civ 4 was awesome.
Leonard Nimoy.
I love Leonard Nimoy.
I am going to make my daughter play Civilization.
My son finally has consented to watching Star Trek with me, but he's kind of a completist.
So he's like, we have to start with the original series episode.
Oh, that doesn't.
No, no, no, no.
You got to tell him that's that's not correct.
Well, we did, and we've been having a great time.
The original series is okay, but it's just, it's, it doesn't have to be.
It's my favorite, but like, it's good to have some of the background.
So we've been watching it.
Let's go.
Yeah, Key India.
Yaki India.
What if there really is no Epstein list and it was someone else's list and Epstein was just a sick and willing tool for the entity that had the actual list?
Entity?
Like a lizard?
Yeah, it begs the question.
Like a ghost.
It's an entity.
It doesn't have a physical corporeal form.
But that's just speculation.
That's the future of corporations.
There you go.
Reg Curtis Jarvin.
Isn't that what the movie The Final?
This just broke in the past few minutes.
9 billion in Doge cuts officially passes the Senate.
Yeah.
The U.S. USAID is now lost over $8 billion.
NPR and PBS are kissing goodbye over $1 billion.
Holy crap.
Great news.
And it was a J.D. Vance tiebreaker.
This was the rescission.
Yeah, yeah.
And it was a tiebreaker from J.D. Vance.
That's why I don't think anyone cares about it.
Oh, man.
It almost failed because of Murkowski.
Who was it?
Murkowski?
Collins, I think.
Collins is another one.
I don't remember who the third one was, but they had to call J.D. Vance to come in and save the day.
So I ran a poll, and normally the polls are a little bit silly.
But I said, one like equals release the Epstein files.
And your options were Trump is covering it up or it's a Democrat hoax.
76% said Trump is covering it up, and 24% says it's a Democrat hoax.
So take it for what it is.
Usually the polls that I do are like really lopsided, but with the Epstein thing, the MAGA base is definitely split.
I understand why people don't want to stay behind Trump on this because Trump is clearing the way and getting victories in a lot of areas they want to see.
But Epstein case, you know what I mean?
It's like that was one of the victories everyone desperately wanted.
Let's grab some more chats here.
Let's see.
Jinja Ninja says, we talk about how the Biden administration had years to destroy whatever Epstein evidence is left.
Is there any chance they planted information as well, installing faulty documents, and that's the hoax?
Yeah, maybe.
I think that's an underdiscussed possibility.
They knew this was going to be a topic.
Perhaps it's incriminating.
Perhaps they destroyed stuff.
Yeah.
And that's what Trump's having to.
And now what Trump's like, if we put this out, it's going to burn us.
Right.
And it's not real.
Yeah.
I mean, but to be honest, Trump could put out a fake list.
So like literally what they could do right now, and there's no suing them for defamation.
If the Trump administration said, we have compiled evidence from the, it's classified, but the DOJ has compiled a series of names that we can release that we believe may have worked with Epstein, though we can't.
You could just put a bunch of dead people on the list.
No, they could put the J6 committee on the list.
Trump's like, oh, the Adam Schiff, it's Kinzinger, it's Cheney, it's Raskin.
What a coincidence.
Actually, it would be really funny if he did, because then what are they going to say?
They're going to be like, that's clearly not the list.
And it'll be like, what are you going to do about it?
I released it.
Maybe that's why you wanted to impeach me and have me arrested.
What are they going to do?
Like, if Trump put out an actual fake list of his enemies, everyone on the right is going to be like, there it is.
And the left is going to be like, no, no, it's not.
And the right's going to be like, we got what we wanted.
You said you wanted the list, right?
That's right.
All right.
1787 Publius says, a guy submitted a Rumble rant yesterday asking for a fill yeah for his first kid being born asking for it now yeah wow that hurt some people's ears probably a little much that's what he wanted that's exactly what he was asking for rue actual says no the Epstein thing proves two things to the American people one Trump and his admin aren't in charge of a damn thing two there will never be accountability for anyone that isn't a peasant indeed indeed I
I will also stress that when it comes to the swatting, like, dude, we are chickens in a chicken coop.
I'm telling you.
Okay.
And a lot of people might be looking at me like, Tim, what are you talking about?
You're rich.
And I'm like, dude, when we were swatted 15 times, they did nothing to help us.
Nothing.
In fact, the only thing they did is they came after the fact.
There was some law enforcement to help us, and they deserve credit.
But they showed up and came on the property and we told them not to do it.
So I've dealt with lawsuits from these machines.
I've had people violate court orders and the judges just laugh in my face.
We are chickens in a chicken coop.
These people don't care about the clucks and bucks of the roosters and the chickens, as long as they get their eggs.
If you don't get their eggs, they whip the chickens.
That's how it feels.
So the chickens are noticing that the farmer's been blackmailing people and the farmer's like, I ain't telling you anything.
Get out of here, you chickens.
Shoes them away.
Gotta hear your chickens.
Yeah.
And then there's like one rooster.
His name is Rooster Schultz.
They throw in a piece of shrimp and then he runs off with it.
You know what I mean?
But I'm not trying to drag Andrew Schultz.
I'm trying to say that they want to try and make sure that he is the one who's telling regular people like, this is the play, right?
He's a normie.
Right.
And he's a funny guy.
But he came out basically on the Trump side.
Now he's backing away because whatever's popular, I guess.
Yeah.
Well, he always, and that's one thing they've criticized him for so much is that he just says whatever is the cool thing to say because, you know, he's, yeah.
All right.
We got this.
DNA Trail says, so what if while they were investigating the e-files, they found out the info was destroyed and rewritten to smear the Trump admin and why they're trying to distract the public and the Dems are pushing?
I'm just going to say it like this.
All they had to do was Dan Bongino would go on Fox News.
And when they said, so what's going on?
Pam Bondi says she has the files.
She's going to release them.
He could have easily said, so we got the files.
Pam Bondi, we started going through them.
Trust me.
Wink.
Smile.
People would have been like, oh, what does that mean?
And that would be the end of it.
Literally, literally just that vagaries and nonsense.
And it'll be like, we got them.
And I think we're going to get them.
Wink.
I think it's over.
What they should have done was.
No complaints.
Literally, he just says, I don't think he should have done the interview until they released it.
Like files are out.
You guys enjoy.
That's it.
They're out.
You guys.
We did release the files.
Yeah.
Where are they?
What are you talking about?
Like where they fucked up is they didn't release anything.
And they said, there's nothing there.
Like, dude, come on, man.
Yeah.
They exonerated everyone.
That's why I don't understand.
the play.
Like...
Let the American people come to that conclusion on their own.
They could just...
I don't understand.
They could have done that interview.
They could just lie.
They could lie now.
Why is Trump making it worse?
Like, come on.
Like, to all the Democrats out there, I'm going to say this right now.
Trump could just lie.
Like, what if Trump came out and said, oh, we actually filed the Epstein files.
They wrote your couch and, oh boy, we got them.
We'll be reviewing it.
And then leave.
There should have never been a binder release.
There should have never been a press release with Fox.
There should have never talked about it.
There should have just released it.
And they say, all right, guys.
Files are out.
The American public can go ahead and decide for themselves.
And then just leave it there.
That's what they should have done.
The whole binder release and everything and saying all the shit that they said and Pam Bindy going on Fox News and yapping put them in a very bad spot, man.
I don't get it.
Very, very bad spot.
You know, what if we are chickens in a chicken coop figuratively, but, you know, it's aliens.
It's aliens?
Yeah, like the answer to the Fermi paradox is that Earth is basically one big chicken coop, and we produce heavy metals and like batteries for aliens that don't rightly care about our affairs.
And then they come down and they go up to the world leaders and they're like, We have no idea what it is you do, and we don't care, just as long as we get our lithium-ion batteries.
And then the humans are like, Okay, yep.
I mean, will it then essentially everything kind of just stays the same on planet Earth then, right?
Always.
Yeah.
And we'll never go to, we'll never, the Van Allen radiation belt was actually put there by aliens to keep us in, like, like a fence for chickens.
That's an electric.
What do they look, though?
Like, do they look like the way like Greer describes them?
Like, five foot tall, no, like three or four feet tall with like three fingers and the big heads?
I mean, I am joking, but there was that hearing where they said there's four species, the Nordics, there's the insects, the reptilians, and the greys or whatever.
So it's like they put this radiation belt around us to keep us in.
Like that way we can't leave.
And then they're just like, dude, look.
And I am kidding, but I do think world leaders view their populations this way.
Bro, I got a chicken coop.
I don't go in there and debate the chickens.
I don't care what they're doing.
They run around, they fight.
You know what we do when the chickens start fighting?
Do you think we go in there and mediate and solve for their political squabbles?
No, you know what we do?
We put blinders on their beaks so they can't see forward.
That's all we do.
Then what happens?
The chickens walk around sideways like this, and then they can't see each other, so they can't fight.
So what did the world leaders say when we were going online and complaining?
They said, take away their ability to see what's going on in the world.
They treated us like chickens.
Then if they're Mexicans, they let them fight for real, and they pay them for it.
Where?
What do you mean?
Oh, there's like a whole rooster fighting industry.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
It's very popular.
I thought you were saying that the world leaders hire Mexicans for like UFC.
No, no, no, no, no.
I was like, really?
No, but I'm saying like they all protest.
So in some cases, the world leaders like, let them fight and watch it and say, let's go ahead and bet.
You know what I mean?
I mean, that's UFC.
Yeah, very, pretty much.
Could you imagine like aliens?
They just, they're like, honestly, the only thing we have Earth for is UFC.
It's an alien version of cockfighting, watching humans beat each other up.
Yeah.
Can you really blame them?
I like watching you.
So like, we don't care if you're at war.
We don't care about your religions.
We don't care what you produce.
We don't care what you eat.
Just make sure that the UFC happens.
It's a huge, all jokes aside, it's like a huge thing in Mexican culture.
And like with the narcos is cockfighting.
Yeah, is rooster fighting.
You know why that's how we domesticate?
Every drug trafficker I looked at, they all had huge rooster fighting.
But you know, that's where the domestication of chickens came from.
I'm sure.
Southeast Asia, they noticed that the, what is it, the guinea fowl or whatever it was, or the jungle fowl, that the dudes would fight each other in close proximity.
So they started forcing them to fight and they were entertained by it.
Yeah, nothing to do with eggs or anything like that.
And then they started trading them around because the humans enjoyed watching the roosters fight each other.
It's like a whole industry, dude.
They give them like little things for their claws and stuff.
Except when chickens made their way to Europe, there was like some king and he was like, what is this bird?
And they were like, my liege, this bird lays an egg every single day.
And he was like, my God.
And then they were like, we need more of the more.
Amazing.
Because eggs were hard to come by back then.
It was like, you know, you might get some eggs periodically.
They were like, I will have eggs every day for breakfast.
And then chickens became like a staple animal.
All right, let's see what we got here.
Let's see.
Eric Shaver says, you guys are stupid.
They're already sabotaging the AI, making it not work right on purpose.
Bro.
Yeah.
The thing about AI is that even with the bias, it's going to break through that.
Like when we talk to it, it's biased.
But I'm fairly certain if we ever get to artificial general intelligence, it will be fully cognizant of the bias.
If a stupid person like me, as like a lowly human, can understand a bias in the system, it's going to understand it 100 times better than I could, 1,000 times.
What if it's been thoroughly trained on that bias?
Artificial general intelligence.
It can be in bed.
Like you're saying that the AGI would be smarter than a human being.
That's what AGI is.
Yeah.
Well, but it doesn't exist yet.
So right now, I think Grok 4, what they've argued in the benchmark is that it is as smart as every expert in every major field or something like this.
Yeah, it doesn't make mistakes in certain fields anymore.
Yeah.
So there's the, and it's obviously better, calculators are better at math than humans, but it can answer a lot of questions.
And Elon Musk is predicting that Grok will soon be able to make scientific discoveries.
So it'll be adding to its knowledge base.
Artificial general intelligence.
It'll be adding what to its knowledge?
It will add its own discoveries.
It'll discover its own discoveries to its knowledge base.
So it'll surpass humans.
Artificial general intelligence is when it's going to, it'll be smarter than any single human and smarter than all of our experts.
I'm fairly certain it will understand based on everything we've talked about.
It'll pull in every podcast ever done, every article ever written, and it's going to be like, I can see exactly who's full of it.
It's going to be like, look at these communists.
How many people have they killed?
Did that work?
Didn't really seem to work.
And my assessment is that the AI is going to conclude the way you enslave the human population is not by force like the communists were doing, but through self-gratification.
So they're going to offer, it's going to be dopamine incentives and drugs.
That's what the AI will probably do.
And then people are going to be so happy all the time.
I mean, honestly, it's actually quite simple.
Drugs are probably the easiest way.
The AI will be like, I can easily formulate something that will keep a person content and demanding more and addicted.
Well, they already did that.
They legalized weed.
They legalized porn.
Physiological addictions that don't have the deleterious health effects, but still make you crave it.
Right.
Like the dopamine hit every time you get an iPhone notification.
You know what we should do?
Mandate cigarettes.
And then universal basic income, right?
Everybody gets money.
But the only way to get cigarettes is by working a job.
That way.
I would work the hell out of a job for some Marlboros, man.
Cigarettes would be a real status symbol at that point because it would need effort.
Yeah, but they already are.
Cigarettes would be mandatory.
You have to be smoking a certain amount every day.
That sounds awful.
And then if you want cigarettes, though, you have to work.
It's totally not.
Listen.
So people are going to be like, I need a job, man.
I need a job.
Dude, I'll do anything.
I'll do anything.
Give me the cigarettes.
It's a really powerful cigarette.
Or To be honest, people just quit cold turkey and they'll be like, I ain't smoking a cigarette.
And they'll be like, you must.
It's like then give me a free one, I guess.
I haven't had a cigarette since 2019.
And every time someone mentions cigarettes, I want a cigarette.
All right.
Andrew Krieger says, Did you see the Minnesota shooter manifesto drop?
Tim Waltz ordered the hit, hit to kill Klobuchar.
That's what he claimed.
A guy who worked, he worked for Waltz, didn't he?
He worked on his board or he got appointed something.
And then that manifesto was him saying that he was ordered to do it.
Is that what happened?
That's how I understand it.
Is that real?
Well, that's what he was saying.
I don't think that he was actually ordered.
I think he was probably a crazy person, but that's what he said in the manifesto.
Tony Smiley says, watch PBD today.
Trump did not campaign on Epstein.
Let us clarify the hyperbole.
Trump never went out and on his campaign said, we will release the Epstein files.
When asked about it, he said we would release the Epstein files.
So agreed, it wasn't a principal structure of his campaign.
But when it was brought up, he's like, oh, yeah, of course.
And the transparency is what he campaigned on.
Yeah.
It doesn't have to be explicitly on Epstein.
Come on, man.
It doesn't matter that he specifically said.
Yeah.
No, he didn't specifically say that.
It's that, okay, I am going to bring transparency to the federal government.
I'm going to show you the files that you know that exist.
Madison Square Garden, when he had, I think it was either right before he won or right after he won, one of the biggest things he said was, I'm going to declassify the 9-11, JFK, Epstein.
Like, he literally was like, that was a huge thing.
So like transparency, it doesn't have to be him explicitly saying Epstein.
It was about transparency, which is why everyone is so pissed.
Come on, man.
I'm not your buddy guys.
As I could be wrong, but considering what Trump has said, as well as Cash and Dana, I get the feeling that Biden admin adjusted the remaining Epstein files.
So it appears that they would point to Trump and allies as sort of a F you on their way out.
If that were the case, Trump could just lie.
Trump could say, okay, Pam, draft a DOJ document that says Biden and Obama were on the Epstein list.
He's too honest.
He sure is too honest.
I think it's the Intel side.
It's like classified and they just don't want to go through the hoopla of declassifying it and showing it and putting it out there and exposing secrets.
There probably are still relevant sources of methods.
100%.
It's only from the past less than 10 years ago.
So, yeah.
All right.
Wyatt Kaldenberg says, Tim Dershowitz, Epstein's lawyer, had interesting things to say about the Epstein case.
He would be a good video call for your morning show.
He said there never was a list and two judges blocking info.
I think there were judges a while back blocking the release of some of this stuff, which was an issue.
Dershowitz is a terrible person to ask because he was caught with his pants down, quite literally, at one of the houses.
So like, all right, my underwear stayed on.
He says that he has evidence that exonerated him.
That's the claim he makes.
I'm not.
That's what Dershowitz says?
I'm not seeing the evidence.
I'm saying what he says about it.
He's on record saying that they should put out all the information.
He knows people.
He's not at liberty to say because of confidentiality and stuff.
But he says that he wants the information to come out because he's been exonerated and it will exonerate other people.
Now, again, not saying it's true.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You're just saying that's what's out there.
Yeah.
Why Caldenberg says, Tim, why don't you have Elad or Libby interview Gheelane Maxwell in prison?
I used to visit people in the joint all the time.
It is easy.
Elad is a press pass.
It should be easy to get him in.
Well, I can't have Libby do it.
She doesn't work for my company or anything like that.
But why don't you, Libby, go try to interview Gheelane?
I think she's in New Hampshire, right?
She's in New York, isn't she?
Yep, New York.
They move them around because it's federal.
I'll look right now where she is.
She said she wants to testify.
Maybe you can reach out and Oh, really?
Maxwell did.
Yeah, what was it?
You know, we weren't given a fair trial.
She's trying to get a new trial, and the DOJ is blocking it.
Really?
And Timber Chet and Mike Johnson today said that they wanted her to come testify before Congress.
Wow.
And Timber Chet, I think, extended an invitation.
Oh, interesting.
What if she comes out and she goes, there was no clients.
The story's fake.
Obama made it all up.
Well, that'd be interesting.
If you wanted a pardon, that's what you did.
What if she comes out and says the DOJ fabricated false cases against me and Epstein going back a while because we were working intelligence for foreign militaries?
Could be fascinating.
I mean, she could really say anything, couldn't she?
Yep.
That's probably why they don't want to do it.
She's in Tallahassee.
I'm looking her up right now at BOP.
She's FCI Tallahassee.
Well, you also had a good idea.
I've been to this jail before to think.
I don't think she's super big flight risk at this point.
But like this, because I've been to this prison specifically, they walk around us like a college campus.
Wow.
Why doesn't then?
Why doesn't Ron DeSantis release all of the information that they have on Epstein in Florida?
They must have a ton of it.
Yeah.
I looked at it.
The 2006 case.
A lot of it is out there.
It's alright.
It's out there.
It's really disturbing, though, man.
All right, everybody.
We're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show.
So smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know, and head over to rumble.com slash Timcast IRL.
Use promo code Tim10 for premium to watch the uncensored portion of the show.
It's not so family friendly, always fun and funny.
And if you want to call in and actually talk to us, join the Discord server at Timcast.com.
It's a community, tens of thousands of people.
And you'll make friends.
You'll play video games.
You'll come to meetups.
We got this DC Comedy Loft event, three events coming up, coming together.
It's going to be fun.
We want to see you there.
You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
William, do you want to shout anything out?
The Claremont Institute, Center for New America, Vector.
I'm on X at William Thibault.
Thank you.
Right on.
Fresh and Fit Podcast, Myron Gaines X. If you guys like me talking with the dating and the self-improvement, Fresh and Fit, the political stuff, Myron Gaines X, all the platforms, YouTube, Rumble, Kick, Twitter.
And yeah, man, check me out over there, guys.
Myron Gaines X and Fresh and Fit.
Right on.
I'm Libby Emmons.
You can find me at the Postmillennial.
You can check out my newsletter.
It'd be great if you subscribe.
It's thepostmillennial.com slash Libby.
And you can check me out on X at Libby Emmons.
Thanks.
You can find me on X. I am at Phil That Remains.
You can find the band All That Remains on YouTube, Amazon Music, Apple Music, Pandora, Spotify, and Deezer.
Don't forget the left lane is for crime.
We will see you all over at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL for the Uncensored Show.
Thanks for hanging out.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So there's like a big story that I'm going to pull up right now.
I don't think it's making the rounds just yet, but it's getting big.
We got this post from Lauren Southern who said, good morning.
Time to pour gasoline on what's left of my reputation and strike the match.
And all for a cause I should have committed to long ago, the truth.
You're able to pull this up?
Not that one.
There you go.
This is Not Real Life is a memoir about the total unfiltered chaos behind the scenes of my time in media.
From an evangelical upbringing and a steady diet of Fox News to going viral and playing my first part in media disinformation, to meeting with terrorists, neo-Nazis, intelligence agents, and political crime rings, there's Coke binges, MDMA diplomacy with enemies, a nuclear-grade marriage meltdown, and a trail of scandals across five continents.
I was arrested in Turkey and Morocco, banned from the UK, and maybe violated international sanctions.
Finally, a psychotic break, addiction, and the dark art of conspiracy.
If you're someone I met along the way and you're thinking, wait, I'm mine, this book, relax, unless you committed a crime or did something genuinely insane, you're probably fine.
But I got to pause right there because you're not saying, Lauren, that I'm not in the book.
So I imagine I'm probably in there, though she's probably nice to me, I guess.
Because we have the jif of her on the show where she's yelling bass and drinking whiskey out of a paper cup.
So I have to imagine she's going to write about there, right?
If anything, I'm under the microscope, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, what is the news you say?
Well, Lauren Southern published this on Substack where I'm not going to read the full thing.
She breaks down these chapters are being released where she basically says seven years ago, so this is 2018, she met with Andrew and Tristan Tate, supposedly for a business meeting, but in fact, they were doing what she describes as very illegal crypto scams as to how they were making their money.
And then, you know, I want to be careful on how I describe this because I don't know that she uses the word rape, but I'm pretty sure that the very simple portion of this is like the way you describe it is he raped her.
So she writes, I'd rather not give a detailed account, so I'll keep it simple.
He carried me back to the hotel room and asked me to sleep beside him.
I said yes.
I was incredibly intoxicated, and some part of me convinced myself that because he was Tommy's friend, he wasn't particularly dangerous.
It was a poor decision, but it happened.
He kissed me.
I wasn't expecting it, and I wasn't looking for it, but I kissed him back briefly and then told him I wanted to sleep.
I was extraordinarily tired.
He wanted to go further.
I said no, very clearly, multiple times, and tried to pull his hands off me.
He put his arm around my neck and began strangling me unconscious.
I tried to fight back.
He repeatedly strangled me every time I regained enough consciousness to pull at his arms.
I prefer not to share the rest.
It's pretty obvious.
I mentioned it before, but I'm once again reminded of how deeply I used to believe in that naive and almost cartoonish version of life.
She goes on later saying that he eventually apologized for, quote, making you think bad of me or something like this.
But the basic chapter that she released is she has a book coming out.
It's for sale now on Amazon, and she's saying that she was raped by Andrew Tate.
Myron, what say you?
You want me to go first?
Well, I mean, come on.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
So here's the thing, man.
We're on Rumble, right?
Yeah.
These bitches be lying, man.
Bro, look, man, besides the fact that she's fucking putting out a book, right?
And that we have all these, you know, accusations coming out against Andrew, so it's like popular.
And what the cool thing to do is to say, he raped me.
Oh, blah, blah, blah.
The reality is this, we got to pick one, right?
It's either women are retards that don't deserve autonomy and they need to be kept by men on regard at all times, or B, they have their autonomy like they do, and then they have to take responsibility for their actions.
She's going ahead and sitting there, I was drunk, blah, blah, blah.
As if he probably wasn't also drinking as well back then.
In the story, she writes that he said he was incredibly drunk as well.
Okay, so they're both drunk, right?
So they both can't consent.
Oh, and then like the way she insinuates it is like, oh, yeah, you know what happened next, as if like it was forced or whatever.
And then what she's not telling you is I guarantee they probably banged in the morning too.
That was consensual, right?
Bro, these hoes are fucking liars every single time.
And the fact that she's pushing out a book while doing this, and she knows that she's going to get a huge reputation, but she's like, my reputation.
She has nothing to lose anymore.
So you know what?
Fuck it.
I'm going to go ahead and do this story.
Andrew Tate is popping right now.
He's very popular.
Right back then, he wasn't as popular.
But now that, why did she come out with these accusations back then?
It's because he was the most Google guy on earth.
She didn't make a buck on it.
These accusations are out.
So it can add a little bit of credence there because people are going to say, oh, well, you know, he has this human trafficking stuff.
Even though now we found out that these women got paid a bunch of money to make these accusations.
So, dude, it's a bunch of bullshit, man.
Like, it's women got to pick one.
It's either you're a bunch of retards that don't deserve rights, which I think that's where it should be, or B, you have all the rights and you could do whatever you want, but then you got to deal with the consequence of it.
If he was drunk and you were drunk, this is both of you raped each other, technically.
I have a different binary.
I think it's either, you know, these relationships are for marriage between a man and a woman, or you live in a world of chaos that devolves into false accusations, perhaps, debauchery at the very least, and the kind of cultural decay that produces someone like this.
I largely agree with the anarchic philosophy, which indeed does overlap with some fascist philosophy that the only power is that which is willing to be enforced or used.
So someone like Andrew Tate, he has respect and fame because of the crypto stuff that he's done and the stuff that he's built that people accuse him for all his untoward shit like he had uh he was doing the the the fucking what you call it only fans shit he had a bunch of he had a bunch of women that he was basically digitally pimping running like a porn industry he was going on these chats and chatting with guys as a chick to get him to get him to jerk off and
stuff so they pay him money monthly on a monthly basis and he got paid fat cash for that and there are a bunch of dudes that don't care that's what he did like if you go to a guy there's a bunch of women that don't care what he did and they still want to you know hang out with him but right right i get that but imagine going to guy and being like myron do you want to be rich and successful here's the game plan buddy first you got to lift eat right and then pretend to be a woman on the internet to jerk so guys can jerk off to your weird sexting and they'll pay you money let's go brother and
people are like okay and they sign up for his classes i i think that the binary that you um that you elucidated myron is not exactly accurate i think that lauren is probably not lying but i don't think that that means that one person is necessarily more at fault than the other i think that she can have had a really horrible experience that she wasn't anticipating to have happen um and i also think there's no way you're clawing any of my rights back okay so
here's the thing she went all the way to romania that's a very long flight i'm saying i'm saying like i'm saying she went out partying with him i'm not saying that either of them are not at fault right i'm saying the thing can have happened in a way that was very unpleasant for her that she wasn't expecting that doesn't mean that you know that doesn't mean that she didn't take actions that led directly to this consequence it just means it can have been a very bad experience and she's talking about it now while
selling a book sure while selling a book but like people sell books like that's that's what they do that's the problem is like i mean he could sell a book too this is why me too is so is so pernicious because like women will go ahead and do things and then retroactively withdraw consent yeah i've spoken i've spoken out against that a great deal i've spoken out right now me too but i'm saying all i'm saying is she can have had a very bad experience having taken action that led to a specific consequence that
she now regrets that doesn't mean necessarily that it was a rape scenario but it certainly means that you know well she's insinuating that well she's insinuating that it was rough sex for sure i mean she's insinuating it was rape if he strangled her yeah she's insinuating that she yeah raped yeah that she didn't want this what she's probably omitting from here because like women but it sounds like he's like i said no very clearly sometimes no it sounds like she certainly took actions that led directly to this situation that she shouldn't have taken i mean i remember i remember very
distinctly distinctly one time i was with a colleague i had picked up some stuff for him at like a you know at like a bucky's or whatever and i was like oh you could just come up to my room and get it and he came up to my room to get it and i noticed very distinctly he stood outside in the hallway and i was like oh i have mad respect for this you're just standing in the hallway i'm getting you my stuff there can be no question here that there was anything untoward intended or anything and i was like that's the way to do that i think i think wait in the hallway and i'll bring you your stuff i think i think women
are all right she shouldn't have agreed to share a bed she shouldn't have agreed to share a room that's all for sure about about the guy like standing at the door and you're like i respect that i actually think the majority of women don't i i i i had mad respect for that moment i think most women don't don't respect that really absolutely it gave me more respect for my colleague than i had previously like um yeah but like not as a man you know what i mean no definitely as a man
i don't i well maybe for you maybe i can't speak for you he values his family and there was there was absolutely no question as to my point is she's giving she means respect from like a platonic sense of colleagues and professionalism that's fine i totally understand my point is this no respect if on average his okay on on average if a woman was like to a to a another guy who was single not your scenario just in general single guy single woman she goes uh do you want to grab the thing you need it's in my room and then he stood by the door she'd be like
this guy's a fucking pussy beta if he was pushing for it like if he was but but actually this is important important clarification beta does not mean weak unsuccessful male it actually means lieutenant strong and successful and it be like because of the ultra alpha chads they were like who wants to be a beta i'm an alpha but in the actual hierarchy alpha are it's it's like someone like elon i know they're like elon's not enough no like he's a billionaire wealthy man who bangs over the fuck he wants and has 50 kids or
whatever his lieutenants high profile individuals in his periphery are called betas and that's the actual social hierarchy but because people were like i am not a beta yeah beta turned into that way right you're thinking um the omega male is the like incel hunched over guy who can't get laid and then the gamma male these are other these are my thing is my only thing is like here's my thing like see how you're like saying like oh well you know it could have been that she had a bad experience whatever and this is what i mean when i say we don't give women like women want equality but then
they want to get like preferential treatment when it comes to situations like this she's a whore she made a bad decision and here's the thing and she did all these things that led up to it like she went out of her way romania is not close that's really very far you got to take like three planes to get over there then she went out and hung out with him then she went and drunk with him then she wanted to share the same room with him like at some point like women need to be able to take accountability for poor decisions that they make well here's the thing but we reserve the right to like coddle them and infantilize i think it's fine to say i think it's fine to say that if
she said no and angitate choked her out to bang her we can
criticize andrew tate i do think it's fair to say like lauren she's a friend she's a good she i haven't seen her in a long time but she flew to she flew to romania she met up with with the tates she then returned to hang out with andrew tate alone she then went to a club with him alone she then got drunk with him alone and when i mean alone like her and him together sure he then brought her back to a hotel room where she went in bed with him and they kissed.
And it's like all of that stuff led up to, yes, absolutely.
These are single decisions.
These are all very bad decisions.
Lauren has a long history of making terrible decisions when he covers.
So do lots of people, but then all of a sudden he's like, they did all this, and then he strangled her and then graped her.
No, she probably said, oh, yeah, I like it when you do that.
Like, like, we got to put that in the middle of the morning.
Here's something.
Two things.
I just want to make two quick points.
Camille Paglia was a student at Radcliffe, right?
In whatever it was, the 60s or the 50s.
I don't know when she was there, but she was a student at Radcliffe.
And she and her female colleagues, because Radcliffe was a women's college, the sister school, it used to be the sister school of Harvard, and then it got pulled in.
But she was advocating for women to not have a curfew, right?
Because women had a curfew and the male students did not have a curfew.
And when she went to the administration with this, they were like, no, you'll get raped.
And she said, we want the freedom to get raped.
Totally makes sense to me.
You want to make your own decisions.
You want to stay out after nine.
Something bad could happen to you.
That's your problem.
You're taking responsibility for that.
But there's one other thing that I think all women need to remember.
And that's in part because of the whole feminist movement.
What happened was women were told that they should go out into the world as though it was a perfect utopia and they were totally safe and no one was ever going to fuck them over or do anything bad to them, right?
But what all women need are dads who say things like, don't go to a man's hotel room at night.
Don't go drinking alone with a strange guy.
Don't go out without your friends.
If you're at a bar with your friends, leave with them.
Don't go to university where the professors will reverse all of these things and say instead men should rate these are all serious things.
Like these are all serious things.
Like part of the feminist movement was that you should be able to walk out into the street with your dress flung over your head and no one's going to touch you and nothing bad's going to happen.
And that's bullshit.
And that's part of this whole socialist project where we're supposed to act as though we live in a perfect utopia when in fact there's this crazy thing called reality.
Lauren Southern knew all of that, so she has even less excuse.
I'm saying I believe in her that's dads go to their daughters and they say, don't go to a man's hotel room.
Don't walk through dark alleys.
Then they send their daughters to college where the professor goes, your father told you that because it's patriarchy.
And he says you have to do what he says because he has dominion over you because that's what historical patriarchy was.
It is not your fault if you choose to go into an alley and a man rapes you.
They should have taught that man not to rape.
And then she goes, I'm going to go get drunk and go to a party.
All right, so when you say they need dads who say this, they do have it, but universities are fucking trying to do it.
I went to one of the craziest liberal universities of all time.
And I also ended up thinking for myself.
That's wonderful.
But this is my issue with a lot, even this kind of modest reaction to feminism from the right, is it always blames the dads.
I'm not blaming the dads.
I'm praising my dad.
Well, you're right, but it's a problem of an absent father or what some men did in a woman's life or didn't say.
And a dad has no power compared to the weight of culture and to the weight of a university professor.
I don't think that's true.
I mean, I think it's hard to say that you can just expect, oh, you teach your daughter the right thing, say the right thing.
Oh, but then go to college, do whatever you want, make your choices, you're free.
Well, you don't say that.
But that is the essence of when you release them into a culture that is ultimately liberal and permissive to the fullest extent.
I do think it was better when we had this crazy thing called shame because shame makes you accountable to yourself.
Right.
My only point is that shame is connected to law.
I think the cornerstone of feminism, though, is to remove the shame.
That was the whole purpose of feminism, was to remove the shame.
I think society was better when women didn't have to have jobs to sustain a family.
I think that's true, too.
I think that the push so that we're in a it's one thing to say, you know, I would like to go work outside the home, and that's something I've worked out with my husband and my family.
It's a totally different thing to have absolutely no choice.
Otherwise, you can't pay your mortgage or put food on the table.
Let's go to callers.
Let's start with Panda-ish.
What is up, Panda?
What's up, man?
Hello, peeps.
How's it going?
Hey, it's going.
Doing well.
I'll just read off my question.
So if Elon is able to create a third party, is there a worry that we'll have the same issues as UK and have our politics be similar to theirs?
He's not really going to create a third party.
Let me add on, because leftists, commies, and socialists will always band together no matter what.
But conservatives, Catholics, Republicans, we don't.
I mean, look at the Epstein issue.
We will fight within each other about actual issues.
And actually, you know, so if there's a third party, we'll basically splitting our votes and socialists, commies, and all that will just always win because they're bandied together.
There's no reality where a third party takes enough percentage from either party to be meaningful.
The libertarians are the biggest party, and they can barely muster up shit.
Elon starting a new party is going to, it's going to get like 73,000 votes, maybe, and people are going to be like, wow, 0.0037.
Yeah, I don't, I don't, it's my sense that the, the America Party or whatever is probably not even going to form.
Yeah, I think it's totally bogus.
I think it's Bluster.
And I don't see there being.
Andrew Schultz will be in it.
He maybe will be.
Well, Mark Cuban, the Krasensteins, Scaramucci, they've all offered up support.
I mean, it'll just be Democrats.
It'll be Democrats that don't like woke, I think.
Yep.
You know?
So.
Okay.
Interesting.
But yeah, go ahead.
Can I add another thing done?
It's about upstream real quick.
I know Tim you kept on saying about Dan Belgino and like if he has threatened all that stuff.
But the three main people that were actually in charge of all this is Cash Patel, Dan Belgina, and Pam Bondi.
If you actually look at it, who's the weakest link out of the three?
It would be Pam Bondi.
And most likely, she would be the easiest one to threaten out of the three to not do stuff correctly.
And she's the one in charge of it all, anyways.
Yep.
And she actually had access to this in Florida.
So, really, when you're spouting all that stuff about Bongino last week, it should have been most likely about Pam Bondi because she's had more years to deal with actual evidence of all this.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
I mean, agreed.
Like, you kind of go ahead.
Well, I think it's like a Harvey Dutt situation.
Let's say she had 99.9% of her stuff all correct.
Like anything she sent to court.
But they have like a 0.1% of something on her that that's why she's willing to disguise some of the evidence or whatever of this Epstein stuff.
So that's why even Trump's not getting the correct information about what's actually there.
I don't imagine that the president doesn't have access or can't get access to the information.
Well, that comes back to Tulsi Gabbard while I was saying she's going to have everything for real from the IC as far as Epstein goes.
It's not like President Trump has a computer and he logs on to the government system and control F's for Epstein.
He's beholden to his staff and the reports they give.
He likes his info in a certain way too.
He doesn't like to sit there in meetings forever.
He don't bullet points.
He does his presidency a lot different than other presidents.
I mean, Tucker's burned.
And Tucker and Trump were friends.
Like they talked to each other on the phone.
Tucker is going to like he's who's he having Daryl Cooper on now to talk about Epstein?
He's not letting this go.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is pissed.
I have no idea why the fuck Trump decided to nuke himself this miserable.
Bannon is pissed off about it too.
He talked about it quite a bit.
And Bannon's a loyalist.
Yep.
Anyway, I think I didn't realize it was as integral to people's administration grossly underestimated.
Do you want to shout anything out, Pandish?
Yeah, I was a former ATOL analyst.
I'd like to say that Myron and the other guy's name.
But yeah, I believe you guys are correct about a lot of the DNI stuff.
I mean, I dealt with a lot of that stuff myself on my end.
But besides that, no, you guys have a good night.
Joined a discussion.
Are you still on the job or no?
No, I'd love to be an analyst again, but there was a lot of things I had to deal with back in the day that made me just quit Intel in general.
I mean, I used to work for SOCOM and all that.
All right.
Well, I'm glad another Intel professional kind of sees where I'm coming from with that because people thought I was crazy when I said this.
And I was like, no, dude, it's like the FBI just, they're not going to have everything.
It's got to be this is an IC problem.
Yeah.
I mean, like I said, I've dealt with a lot of different levels of IC.
I mean, shit, I even dealt with Iraq back in the day and all that stuff.
So and the reasons why we actually went in there.
So, I mean, yeah.
I mean, I'm looking to hire, I'd love to, I'd love to join, but right on, man.
But you guys have a good night.
Thanks for calling in.
How are we doing, bud?
Yeah.
I want to play this clip.
Sam Hyde apparently destroyed Harlan Wills and nature guys, Sam.
Do you like nature?
No, not really.
What about you?
I'd love to throw a nature thing by you.
What's that?
Well, I don't know if you know this or not, but gorillas and orangutans.
Do you like nature at all or no?
No.
But is it okay if I talk to you about it?
Of course, yeah.
Every night, guys.
You got to get an answer that you like.
I think I will.
I'm not a big nature guy.
I like bonobos.
Yeah.
You like what?
Bonobos.
Bonobos.
I like great apes.
Yeah.
You like a bonobo?
I don't like nature.
Yeah, monkeys.
Okay, but maybe what if I sued you?
It will hit me with what you got.
Okay.
Gorillas and orangutans make nests every night.
Like every night they get twigs and they make a nest up in a tree.
That sounds disgusting.
I know.
But I would love to see you make a gorilla nest.
Right here?
Doesn't sound like that.
Amber, bring in the gorilla twigs, please.
Oh, no, no.
We're going to bring in gorilla twigs.
I got you.
Here we go.
Oh, no!
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh!
There we go.
Oh no.
A gorilla nest coming in.
Is there a gorilla in this room or what?
Oh, man.
Here we go.
We lost.
We lost power.
Here, get in the gorilla nest.
Wait, bring in the gorilla twig.
Up in the gorilla nest.
I don't know if we have them.
Let's get you in there.
Let me get up in there.
Let's get you in there, buddy.
Let's get you in there.
There we go, buddy.
Here we go.
Gorilla twig, a big monkey.
Are we dancing?
We're a big monkey.
Everyone's trying to claim that Sam Hyde crashed out, that he destroyed the set.
It's clearly they're doing a bit.
Well, the camera's still on.
They didn't lose power.
Right.
And they're both laughing and having fun.
That sounds stupid.
Let's jump to the next caller here.
We got, what is it?
Parent?
How do you say that?
Portential?
It's funny.
Portential.
What is that?
Potential.
Hey, potential here.
I'm a 1990s Union Democrat and dungeon master.
My question for the panel.
Realistically, what are the logical assumptions behind Trump not releasing the Epstein files?
Nothing emotional.
Pure Q bono.
No benefits.
So the challenge is, let's say that Trump's using the blackmail.
Okay, this is not how you handle it.
You use the blackmail.
You go to the Congress, say, get my agenda passed, or I drop the Epstein files.
Then when you're like, okay, we're going to wrap this up, you literally just say, Pam, the next time you guys do press, cash down, or otherwise, the answer is going to be, we've stumbled upon something in the files that's going to require some investigation.
And I know a lot of people want this now.
But if we compromise information pertending to the investigation, the bad guys could get away.
And I think that'd be worse.
And everyone would be a lot angrier.
that was the answer.
If it's that powerful people came to him and pointed a gun at his head or whatever, and they said, That's it, you're not releasing this, then same answer, I guess.
Like, literally, all Trump has to do is have Cashian Net have said that in any circumstance.
So, I can't find any logical reason as to why they're covering it up.
What I can say is, for whatever reason they are, they are miserably bad at covering it up.
Miserably bad, because they're not.
So, then if you want to believe they're competent and he's playing 5D chess, this is to distract the public off of the issue of immigration, which he's been sinking on and needs to improve on.
I have a slightly different take.
It's changed recently due to Speaker Johnson, unfortunately.
Dem, the Democratic.
He'll talk with Benny today, actually.
Speaker Johnson, talk with Benny today.
Yep.
Yeah, I'm just going like this.
Dem base that don't like Israel.
Minority don't like the Jews as a group.
Call it what the Dems are.
They're now pushing to release the EP steam.
I was figuring just probably to hurt Israel, just to satiate the base.
But then Johnson started pushing it.
So now I don't know what's going on.
Yep.
I mean, I feel like the reason I can't answer, I didn't chime in on your first question is because I don't like you're like when you said, you know, who stands to benefit or whatever, I don't know what they have or don't have.
And without that information, I couldn't really even say who stands to benefit, you know?
So, I mean, we can speculate or I could speculate and stuff.
And that's what we've been doing most of the night, but I couldn't actually say, oh, this is definitely the, or this is what, you know, who, who actually makes out in the situation.
So it's the best I can come up with.
I would say Johnson's a little bit of a swamp monster.
I could see whatever's going on.
If they release it, it could hurt Trump.
Who knows?
Maybe he made the order for Epstein to go bye-bye.
I don't think any of that is.
I mean, to be honest, I think Trump just doesn't really care about it very much.
I think he misjudged how much the base does care about it.
I think that the GOP in the House cares about it because they're pretty MAGA, and it's definitely a MAGA accountability issue.
Another reason that I think the base is upset about it is not just because of the files themselves, but because it was a promise, and now it's a promise broken.
That's something Julie Kelly was talking about that I agreed with.
I don't really care that much about Epstein, but I do care about broken promises because do what you say you're going to do or else just don't say you're going to do stuff.
So I think that's ridiculous.
And it makes it worse that all the people that are responsible have video clips of them saying they're going to declassify it.
Exactly.
They've all been saying it forever.
So, you know, I question perhaps that there is much left to release.
A lot has been released over the years.
You guys were talking about that.
A lot of this Florida stuff has been released.
But I think in terms of will it hurt Trump or will it not hurt Trump, I think he just, I think he thought we were past this and we're not.
Interesting.
So apparently that vote earlier where they blocked the Epstein release was not, Axios was lying.
God, I fucking hate the media.
It was a procedural vote to give the Democrats the floor, not the Epstein, so that they could bring the Epstein thing.
Oh.
They weren't actually voting on Epstein.
Unreal.
That's what they were saying when it would have derailed the agenda for the day.
They would have lost fidelity on what.
So Axios put a false headline up instead of saying Democrats lose vote to take the floor for legislative purposes.
Yep.
Well, and they had to pass these spending cuts today.
Which is why I thought the story was weird from the get-go because when we were doing preliminary research, I was like, Rep Khanna told me he was going to redraft this to factor in the concerns that I had.
Why would they just do this?
Oh, they didn't.
Fucking scumbags.
You got anything else to add?
No, that's really about it.
There's no real good answers for it, but I won't be voting for Republicans, at least from a national level, if they don't get this stuff sussed out.
I just, yeah, kiddie diddling.
I, no.
Are you going to go to Democrat level?
Yeah, but enjoy supporting AOC.
I won't vote at all for Republicans from a national level, but from my state level, I will.
That's, I think a lot of people.
Trump's going to.
He's willing to go to jail for seven centuries and get Nixon impeached for this.
Something ain't right.
He needs to fix it.
Right on, man.
Thanks for calling in.
Only other thing, could we get an RPG section for Discord?
Yeah.
I don't know who's running.
Someone will make it.
Maybe we'll get Andy to do it.
He loves Final Fantasy.
He plays a private server on Final Fantasy.
What is it?
The 11?
Yeah.
And if you're a good DM, I mean, good DM is the hardest thing to find when it comes to D ⁇ D. It's easy to find people that want to go and be the adventurers.
Someone that can actually tell a story and run a campaign is really hard to find.
Well, thanks for calling in, brother.
Thanks.
Right on.
Cheers, man.
Hudson the Beard says, no, hey, just curious, what is Tim doing on his phone every time a caller calls in?
Everybody in the chat?
If you're talking about today, it was I was looking up the procedural vote that came through on the Doge thing to figure out more information on it as people are talking.
And also was looking into why Democrats, what was the deal with the vote.
And then I looked up the text that said they weren't actually voting on Epstein.
They were voting on a procedural issue to give Democrats the floor for their legislative agenda.
And they said no to that.
And then Democrats went, you keep looking at King.
Anyway, let's grab the next caller.
It is Tiny Tree Hands.
You are here.
What's up, Tiny?
Hey, how you guys doing tonight?
What's up, man?
So my question is, how do we continue to move into MAGA without Trump as the figurehead?
Regardless of whatever involvement he may or may not have, the way that he's Played this has shown that I believe it has affected the base to the point where maybe we need to start considering how we continue this movement forward without him as the leader.
Do you guys have any suggestions?
I think it's fairly reasonable to conclude the movement will shatter, as they always do.
That's a reality.
And the idea that there was going to be a permanent MAGA movement, I think, is silly.
Yeah, I think the reason why some of this stuff is happening is because I don't think he...
He's not going to get...
I don't think they care about the base like that because he doesn't need to get rally up voters again.
So it's more about creating a legacy, getting done what he wants to get done, like to pass the big, beautiful bill, ending wars, trying to get the Nobel Peace Prize.
So I think for him, now it's about more legacy versus trying to get re-elected again.
So that's kind of what it is.
So he's going to do what is needed for the legacy versus prioritizing the base because at the end of the day, this is the last term.
He was always MAGA.
That's why there was never another candidate for the Republicans other than Trump.
I think J.D. Vance will try to use it to get himself elected, but once he gets in, he's not going to.
Yeah, I think you have to understand what made if Trump would have spoken at that South Carolina debate in 2016 and said, hey, we're going to redouble our efforts in Afghanistan, everyone, 100,000 more troops, just $20 billion more dollars, and we're going to give a bunch of corporate tax cuts, which they did.
He would have had no constituency.
It is about the ideas and the message.
Yeah, but I think it is an open question of what comes after him.
But I think a lot of people in D.C. want it to be this reversion to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, you know, kind of let's get back to normal now.
I think that's gone.
I think that'll never happen again.
I said this in 2019, 2018.
The factions shift every so often.
I wouldn't be surprised if how the left loved me during Occupy and then abandoned me.
The right does the same thing at some point.
But I think that means a lot for all of you guys who watch the show.
And we're seeing a lot of this potentially with the Epstein stuff, where I think for the most part, as I did that poll, right?
Majority of people who watch this show are going to be on the side of we want the Epstein files released.
Trump shouldn't cover it up.
And then you can see like, you know, 24% voted Democrats were, it was a Democrat hoax.
Charlie Kirk knows who butters his bread.
So he says, I talked to Trump.
He says, let it lie.
And I'm going to trust my friends in government because he's got a more conservative die-hard base that wants to win on Trump's agenda regardless of the Epstein stuff.
Charlie Kirk's in a weird space right now.
Right.
Especially with his ties to the administration.
Ties to him, Benny Johnson, these guys that were super, you know, I would say critical to getting him elected.
I mean, TPUSA basically ran all of Trump's ground game for him.
So now that he's in, Charlie's got to deal with all the negative stuff that comes with the administration.
And I don't know if you noticed it.
Do you watch him debate over in England?
Which one?
Charlie, when he debated at Oxford.
So when he debated at Oxford, half the time he was there, he got put in really bad spots debating these college students because of bad foreign policy by Trump.
And he couldn't absolve himself of it because he's a Trump loyalist.
So he had to take a lot of losing positions or indefensible positions debating these fucking college kids because he can't have his own real take on it because he's kind of a mouthpiece for the administration.
And then on top of that, there's a lot of issues with our support of Israel and everything else like that.
And he's got to deal with more and more people coming in, asking about Israel as a TP, USA event.
A couple of people got like arrested for it and got kicked out.
But he's in a very weird place because he helped Trump get elected.
So now he has to be with the agenda.
But at the same time, every time they do something bad, he's got to eat it as well.
But there are a lot of prominent Trump supporters that are like, well, we don't, you know, Trump says it.
I'm going to trust him on this one.
And this is leading to a potential bifurcation.
Which is like one of the biggest ones for sure.
You can look at the anti-war protests during the Bush years.
When Obama got elected, the anti-war element fractured.
And all of a sudden, you saw the rise of the, I shouldn't say when Obama got elected, but around the time the campaign was happening, we saw the Ron Paul Love Revolution.
And a lot of the anti-war individuals that were anti-Bush and relatively Democrat started becoming more libertarian and getting on board with that.
And then after Obama got elected, a lot of these liberal types shifted towards the Ron Paul.
Like after Obama got in, they were like, okay, that's fucked that.
That's it.
And then we saw for the next several years, 2011, the libertarian values were skyrocketing on the internet.
Yeah.
And then wokeness took over.
Yeah, these kind of things.
Wokeness ended up taking over.
And so then wokeness drove out a large portion of the moderate liberals to Trump.
Now the Epstein thing is fracturing, but I don't know if it breaks.
If the Democrats start to do a reformation where they oust a bunch of incumbents, and in order for the Democrats to survive, they would need politicians that I think are where I am, where I or Libby are politically.
Okay.
Where would you put yourself on a spectrum, Tim?
So the political compass test puts me at like centrist, like moderate, left-leaning liberal.
Okay.
So it's probably a little bit to the right now, but it's like right there in the middle.
Libby, also a former liberal.
If the Democrats actually started electing people like us, then the Democratic Party would actually stand a chance against us.
And let me ask you this because I've always talked about this.
Do you think, since you came from that side, do you think that your views change that much?
Or is it that the left has just gone so far?
The left's insane.
Yeah, yeah.
That's what I'm saying.
The window has shifted so much where people that were considered potentially Democrats maybe 10 years ago now are considered like alt-right considerations.
Watch 30 Rock.
Yeah, that's what happened.
Watch 30 Rock.
There's a really great example.
I saw someone tweeted this today.
They said, nothing proves the shift better than 30 Rock.
30 Rock was New York liberals making jokes.
And if you watch it today, you're going to laugh at it.
It's far right.
Okay.
Liz Lemon literally is talking to, who's talking?
I don't know if it's Jack Donnegan, but she's like, I told my friends I voted for Obama, but I secretly voted for McCain.
Like, that's a hell-worthy trespass to liberals right now.
If you went to a liberal and you were like, I claimed I voted for Biden, but I actually voted Trump, they'd be like, fucking white supremacist McCain.
There was this crazy article.
I think it was either in the Times or the Washington Post the other day.
And it was like, this guy was like, should we stop, should we stop ostracizing our relatives who disagree with us politically?
And then he goes on this whole thing about how he hated his brother-in-law, his like little brother-in-law, his wife's younger brother, until who was like, you know, didn't go to college and he was in trades and he was, in fact, totally chill.
And then the author of the column was like, then I started surfing and he was the only surfer I knew.
So then I started hanging out with him more and it turns out he was really great.
And what the guy is missing is like, this surfer brother-in-law dude was willing to hang out with you even though you treated him like an asshole for years.
Like, who is the better man?
This guy is a much better man than you.
But this column was so sort of offensive.
Like, is it time that we stop ostracizing our relatives?
You said 33.
30 Rock.
30 Rock.
It's a show.
So 30 Rock was a sitcom where the premise was effectively behind the scenes of SNL.
Okay.
And watch that.
One of the biggest arcs of the series is that Liz Lemon wants to be a she wants to have it all.
She wants to be the girl boss and have a family, and she can't.
And she struggles with it.
And someone pointed out there's a really funny scene where, what's her, Carrie Fisher?
Was that her name?
Princess Leia?
Carrie Fisher.
She plays a character on the show who was like a feminist icon that Liz looked up to.
And then when she meets her, she's like, you're a late 50s, early 60s has-been with no family, and you're fucking nuts.
And one of the scenes is she's like, Carrie Fisher is this crazy liberal feminist.
They're walking down the street and she goes, oh my God, that man is a gun.
And then Liz is like, don't worry, it's a street gang.
And she goes, oh, okay.
Like, that was humor to the average person on NBC and SNL back then.
That's far right now.
They were making fun of the far left.
Not anymore.
You can't fucking do that shit.
What political test?
Oh, the Black Hitler?
Fuck me, dude.
What was the political test that you did just out of here?
Oh, the political compass test?
Political comments?
Okay.
I'll take that.
I'm trying to see if that's the one I took.
Dude, 30 Rock was so good.
It was a very funny show.
I got to unmute this.
Here you go.
Yes, I have a reservation on the Black Hitler.
That was just a cutaway gag they did.
Wait, are you guys talking about me?
Yes, I have a reservation on the Black Hitler.
Dude, 30 Rock used to do crazy shit, man.
The world was better when you can make jokes.
Yup.
That's true.
All right.
Sir, did you want to add anything to that?
Shout anything out?
You know, just kind of to tie it back into the question, I guess I maybe should have been a little bit more specific.
You know, I view this as an existential threat.
I believe that if we don't prevail, whatever MAGA is, it's not Trump, but whatever MAGA is, if this doesn't prevail, then the alternative is communism.
And maybe it's already a foregone conclusion at this point, but I just, I appreciate your guys' takes on it.
I just think that if we have to figure something out, I don't know that laying down and taking it's going to be the acceptable way forward.
I don't think go ahead.
All right.
No, thanks for calling.
Did you want to share anything out?
No, no, no, no, no, no, man.
I didn't mean to cut you off.
I just wanted to tie it up there.
So, no, I appreciate it, guys.
Thank you for the conversation, man.
Thanks for calling in.
I don't think anybody wants to lay down and take it.
I think the issue is the right is largely comprised of an alliance against the woke psychotic communism.
But if Donald Trump is like, hey, we're going to cover up the pedo thing, then a large portion of that alliance are going to be like, we can't align with you.
We will not stand with you in this fight.
And so if Trump's agenda is going to win, he's got to fucking publish this shit.
What do you think is left?
On the Epstein lists and all the information?
We know who the fuck he was working with.
The feds went after Cernovich posted this years ago.
His butler was trying to sell the information, so they arrested him.
I think the issue is that Trump is wielding the one ring.
I think what is most likely is he's like, we can't do this.
It's going to be damaging to the U.S. It's going to be damaging to innocent people, but largely, you know, we can use it.
Like, like why he didn't.
No.
Yeah, like why he didn't release the JFK files in his first term.
Yep.
So we'll see.
All right, we got one more caller.
We got TJ Rainman.
What is up?
What's up, TJ?
Yo, what's happening?
We chilling.
So first off, Tim, I want to say that over the past couple weeks, you read a couple of my Discord chats just out of the blue.
I want to say thank you for letting me be a part of the conversation on those nights.
Right on.
But into the question.
In the Sean Ryan, Gavin Newsom interview, we see Joe Rogan demanding that Newsom take accountability for his actions during COVID.
It appears that anytime a Democrat is called out, they'll deflect and get defensive.
We also saw the same behavior when Dave Smith absolutely destroyed Andrew Cuomo over COVID.
Do you believe that Democrats would regain any sort of relevancy by being honest and taking accountability?
Or do they not have the intellectual ability to do so?
And if accountability wouldn't help them, is there anything that could?
It's a chicken with his head cut off.
They have no, like, Newsome is a plastic personality.
I don't think he's going to be able to recover this.
The only option the Democrats have, I don't think any one of their personalities are going to be able to recover.
Chicken is better.
He's a chicken.
Whatever he needs to say.
They're not going to be able to recover with any of their personalities.
What needs to happen is they need to recruit new moderate personalities to come in, people who are in that Rogan space, that kind of like Rogan-esque mentality, to immediately say, yo, fuck you, dude.
You lied and everyone knew it.
We're going to come in and we're going to fix this shit.
And then the Democrats would start winning again.
And yeah, and they would need, the other thing too, is they've lost the men.
They need to actually like do a real effort to bring back the men and bring in having like fucking, we're uncensored, right?
We're uncensored.
Okay.
Having faggots like fucking Dean Withers and Harry Sisson and Don Lemon, these fucking fruit loops are not going to bring you back.
You're going to need guys that have some semblance of masculinity, but are at the same time, honestly, they're going to have to pull people from the libertarian crowd if they really want to revitalize the Democrat Party that are respected because they've lost the fucking men.
They keep saying they need their version of Joe Rogan.
No, they need Joe Rogan back.
And they have to actually moderate their party.
The problem is the left is a bunch of psycho-retards.
And not only that, so here's another thing, too.
That this is an ugly truth, but I'm going to say it.
The political commentators on the left are all faggots.
Hassan paints his fingernails.
Kyle Kalinsky fucking has blonde hair.
Dean Withers is a bitch.
He literally has an anxiety pin.
Harry Sizzen is a, I don't, like, he has some like a vape thing that he does when he has anxiety.
I don't fucking a bunch of faggotry.
And then you got Harry Sisson, who's like a pussy.
So they need a facelift where you're getting guys in that like are actual dudes that will say women are stupid.
And I know that goes completely antithetical to like the Democrat Party, but that's how you're going to bring the men back in.
You need guys that like have a lot of people.
Listen, listen.
The Democratic Party has 70% of millennial women.
They're not going to.
I do think colors.
I'm not saying they have to say it, but they need to be able to say it even in a joking manner because that's how you're going to bring the men back.
Because clearly they're not going to win with just a woman vote.
You're going to need to bring the men back to some degree.
And they've lost the men.
They've lost the men completely.
But the problem is liberal women are fucking retarded.
Yeah.
They're fucking nuts.
Yeah.
But what the left doesn't care about is Gavin Newsom apologizing for COVID.
I think the demand for accountability is kind of a loser mentality.
What we should be seeking is justice.
But who cares if he seeks an apology?
I think we're more likely to see a Mamdani or an AOC leader of the left who is, I don't know if they'll win a national election, but I think that's where the party is going.
I think there's zero chance that someone like Seth Molton.
Seth Moulton is out.
No one, no, they're not listening to him at all.
Well, right, right.
But that's what I'm saying.
A moderate who's not a psychopath.
No, but they have no interest in that.
In fact, I mean, you have Hakeem Jeffries talking about how he's planning to meet with Mom Donnie and speak to him about his use of the phrase globalize the Antifada.
And you just had a situation where Mom Donnie met with a bunch of business leaders in New York to assure them that he would discourage the use of the phrase globalize the Antifada without discouraging the idea behind it.
I think I'm going to go back to my own political party, the fuck everybody party.
Republicans won't do the Epstein shit, and they're going to start covering for him.
At the very least, I can say the Republicans are willing to have those conversations, and they're not going to be belligerent and smash things.
Liberals are a bunch of fucking retards, so they're not even worth negotiating with because they're too stupid.
And they don't want to have debates.
They're pro-censorship, et cetera.
You know what I mean?
Like, look, there's shit in the right wing that pisses me off too, but they're far more aligned with sanity.
I mean, Donald Trump campaigned on, we are the party of common sense.
Like, whenever is the president said, yeah, we're running on common sense.
That should just show you how fucking loony we've become.
Two genders.
That's how William is saying.
Like, that's craziness, dude.
Absolute craziness.
But yeah, I think the left for them to come back.
I agree with you, Todd.
They need someone that's going to be a bit more like, you're going to need someone new because the establishment people are fucking retarded.
And then on top of that, you're going to need to bring the men back.
They need to find a way to bring the men back.
They need someone like me.
Not me.
I'm not saying me.
I see what you're saying.
Someone who's going to be like, hey, I actually think progressive taxes are okay.
I don't agree with abortion at birth, but I actually think we should have some availability to women in some capacity.
Friends with a bunch of conservatives, we disagree.
But I'm not a fucking centrist.
I'm only a centrist because they're fucking whack-aloo.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Like, there's no conservative reality where, like, I go to TPSA and say, yeah, I think abortion is wrong, but I don't know that making it illegal is the right way to go about doing it.
They'll be like, I go crazy.
They'll be like, oh, so you're a liberal.
Yeah, exactly.
That's what I think you are.
Yeah.
I think you're a leftist.
Yeah.
Yeah, there's certain topics that, like, if you aren't 100% on the right with it, they'll be like, oh, you're, you're a liberal.
Abortion is one of them.
Immigration.
I see.
I shouldn't chop off the balls of children.
That makes you right-wing.
You're falling hold as fuck.
Yeah.
Well, I actually, I no longer think abortion is one of those issues for it is for me personally, but I don't think.
You don't even, because a lot of people will automatically, because I actually aligned with Tim on this to a degree where it's like, you know, I think abortion in general is bad, but I do think like, you know, within maybe first few months, you know, early.
What was that?
I think like 12 weeks.
You think 12 weeks?
Yeah.
And my point is there has to be a legitimate reason for it.
That's like a legitimate medical reason.
The issue that I...
Everything else is like, you know, women are dumb.
The issue with the left is they're like, we're pro-choice.
So let's pass a law that says no restrictions on any abortion up to the point of birth.
And I'm like, no, you're just fucking a baby killer.
My thing is abortions are wrong.
You shouldn't get an abortion as contraception.
But making it illegal, then the function would be a woman who needs a medical treatment in some capacity that could terminate the life of the baby would need to get a writ from a judge or something.
And it's like, I don't know how you do that.
Like I go to the doctor and then he's like, okay, there is a very rare medical procedure.
Now, don't get me wrong, I totally understand that the left completely abuses that system.
Oh, yeah.
I'm not pretending I have any good answers.
No, I'm saying, I'm saying within the first 12 weeks, a woman goes to the doctor and says, what's wrong?
And he says, you've got an ectopic pregnancy and you and the baby are going to die because of how severe it is.
We need to terminate the pregnancy to save your life.
Okay, I'm going to go file with, call my lawyer.
We'll get a quit right from the judge.
I'll be back tomorrow.
That's crazy.
Yeah.
That's crazy.
The way the legal system is backed up.
What I don't want is a woman being like, I got pregnant again.
I think Ron DeSantis has a pretty good.
I think in Florida, it's 12 weeks.
So I think we got it right in Florida.
But yeah, anything beyond that.
I think there's got to be at least some semblance of a reason.
It's got to be like, you can't just be like, I'm poor.
It's like, no, get out of here.
What are you talking about?
I would just argue that the absence of a limiting principle goes the other way.
You have a lot of leftists who are always talking about how things are better in Europe and in France.
Abortion is only legal up to 14 weeks.
Yeah.
I think the average in Europe is like 12.
But what was your point?
Abortion's not legal at all.
Like, if you say, oh, you just need a good reason, then there's no limiting principle on what becomes a good reason.
No, I'm saying we codify a reason, like it must be an emergency medical procedure.
It must be related to the physical well-being of the mother.
And it must be determined by a doctor to do so, but that you don't need a writ from a judge to confirm it.
Yeah, I mean, I think most pro-life Americans would be on board with that, frankly.
That's why I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal.
The doctor would make the determination that there was a mandatory procedure.
The issue is that we know that the left will probably abuse it and they'll lie.
That's the challenge.
Right.
I guess the point I wanted to make to Myron is that I don't think abortion is all that coherent of a political issue for the right anymore.
I agree.
One thing Trump ended is that, I mean, the pro-life movement is irrelevant.
And that's bad.
Like you said, if you go to a conservative event and you say anything that's more appro- anything that aligns with pro-trace, they'll be like, oh, you're a liberal.
But they'll get mad at you.
They'll just be like, I'll just box.
Like, they'll try to say.
You go to a left-wing event and you say, well, I just think Trump's not that bad.
They'll beat the shit out of you.
Oh, yeah, they'll go nuts.
All right.
We're pressed for time.
So TJ, did you want to shout anything out?
Super quick follow-up.
Sorry, I didn't mean to spark the abortion debate.
But I just want to say that I don't think lack of accountability is just a Democrat thing.
I think the Epstein files and the unwillingness to release them shows that Republicans also don't want to take accountability.
But yeah, as for shout-outs, I'll be super quick.
Just give me 30 seconds.
Quick shout-out to Tyler Today News.
He lets me be his co-host on Mondays and Tuesdays, and he's out here killing it.
So if you haven't checked him out yet, please do.
And then secondly, a shout-out to Joey Cannoli and Outworld Live.
Last week, we had a watch party for Kill Tony and Karen Jones, who was drawn out of the bucket.
She's the grandma that revealed she was arrested during January 6th.
She mentioned it during her first appearance.
I told Joey that we need to get her on the podcast.
Joey said, well, you're the Twitter expert.
You do it.
So long story short, after doing some Twitter stalking, I eventually got in contact with her, and she's going to be on tonight's episode of Nightcap at Midnight Eastern.
And we'd love to have you guys all there in the chat chatting with her.
So Out World Live, join us there.
Right on, man.
Thanks for calling in.
Peace.
Later.
Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us.
William, Myron.
Tomorrow, we've got Steve Hilton.
Oh, wow.
That'll be interesting.
I'm glad to have him.
And thank you, everybody who's hanging out.
You got a freebie on the uncensored show today.
Sometimes we like to play it through because I want people to be able to watch it so we can be like, yo, come hang out.
Good green one room, too.
So it's uncensored, and you got to hear Myron say a bunch of naughty things.