Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - GOP Declares Biden Pardons VOID Over Autopen, DOJ Announces Investigation

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 29, 2025 - Timcast IRL - Tim Pool

02:27:47

GOP Declares Biden Pardons VOID Over Autopen, DOJ Announces Investigation | Timcast IRL

Participants

Main voices

dave ehrenberg

36:19

seamus coughlin

07:06

tim pool

01:35:59

Appearances

tate brown

04:00

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The Republican Party has released their investigation into the Auto Penn scandal, and they are formally requesting the DOJ void or at least investigate.
		They're declaring void, and they're asking for the DOJ to invalidate pardons and executive orders from Joe Biden.
		Pam Bondi has tweeted, actually, they're already investigating it, and this information is great for them.
		So we'll see if this actually manifests in anything because the response from many Republicans is, call me when you've actually indicted someone.
		I think it's fair to say that Letitia James and others are currently facing indictment.
		So call me.
		I mean, it is happening, but I think a lot of people want to see a lot more action.
		So we'll talk about that.
		And then, of course, my friends, Snap Occalypse.
		That's right.
		Food benefits set to expire in just three more days.
		And there's fears of food riots and what might happen.
		Now, states have filed suit against the federal government saying you need to release or disagree with Snap benefits.
		But this makes literally no sense because who are you suing?
		If the political system doesn't allocate funding for Snap, you can't sue the executive branch into doing anything if they don't have the power to do it.
		So it'll be strange.
		Now, the Trump administration says they will not pull emergency funds as videos go viral of people threatening to loot supermarkets and steal your groceries.
		So it's going to get interesting.
		Now we'll talk about that.
		But before we do, we got some great sponsors for you, my friends.
		We've got Beam Dream.
		Everybody knows I love Beam Dream.
		It is a nighttime blend to support you as you are preparing to go to sleep.
		I drink this every single night.
		No joke.
		It's absolutely incredible.
		It's got magnesium, al-theanine, it's got melatonin, and no grogginess, zero sugar, only 15 calories, and they got a ton of amazing flavors.
		I need to try the peanut butter one.
		I love the pumpkin spice and the caramel.
		I recently bought the pumpkin spice.
		My sleep score improved.
		I was in the mid to high 80s consistently, and I started drinking a glass of this before bed every night.
		And I think it's a combination of things that's improved my sleep.
		It's one hydration, but I think the magnesium is really what I needed.
		And my sleep score is now in the mid to high 90s almost every single night.
		I'm a big fan.
		Go to shopbeam.com slash Timcast and pick up your Beam Dream today.
		And shout out to Beam Dream for sponsoring the show.
		Also, don't forget to go to castbrew.com and pick up some delicious cast brew coffee.
		Pool water coming soon.
		We're working on it.
		We, of course, have Mary's Ghost Blend S'mores, castbrew.com, and everyone's favorite Appalachian Nights, my favorite coffee ever.
		Easy for me to say because I'm the one who personally blended this.
		No joke.
		I grew up around coffee.
		My family in a coffee shop very briefly.
		We ordered a bunch of samples of various coffees that I knew I liked.
		We blended them in the right proportions, and this is what came out, and it's my favorite.
		But don't forget there's also low acidity in Graphene Dream.
		Check it out.
		But don't forget to also smash that like button.
		Share the show with everyone you know.
		Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more.
		We have Dave Ehrenberg.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Great to be here, Tim.
		I'm Dave Aaronberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, aka Florida lawman.
		I do legal analysis, and it's my first time here.
		Thanks for having me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		It should be great, especially considering this to hear your insights.
		So it will be fun.
		Tate is hanging out.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		What is up, guys?
		Tate Brown here holding it down.
		I am happy to be here.
		It's going to be a fun show.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		I'm Seamus Coglin.
		I'm the creator of Freedom Tunes.
		I've made over 600 animated videos and gotten millions of views with $0 spent on marketing.
		The left owns entertainment media in this country, which is why myself and my team are pushing back.
		We're currently working on a full-length animated show.
		We've already got the 25-minute-long pilot made.
		We're crowdfunding it.
		We're three weeks in and we've got three weeks left.
		We're over 50% funded, but I need you to help us get funded.
		If you want to help us create the future of entertainment, if you want entertainment media made by people who don't hate your values and are going to promote a positive message through good storytelling and jokes, go over to twistedplots.com, support us.
		You'll get access to the pilot and you'll be helping us build the future of entertainment.
		That's twistedplots.com.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right on.
		Well, let's get to the news.
		We got the story from Fox Baltimore.
		I don't know why I chose Baltimore as the source, but interesting nonetheless.
		GOP asks DOJ to invalidate some pardons and executive orders signed with Biden Autopen.
		The pardon of Hunter Biden by his father, former President Joe Biden, has appeared to get under Trump's skins that happened.
		But that pardon is just one of hundreds at the center of an investigation by the GOP Led House Oversight Committee, which argues in a brand new report that President Biden's so-called cognitive decline, combined with his use of AutoPen, warrants a second look by the DOJ, echoing sentiments from Trump.
		During a July 14th speech to military generals at Quantico, Virginia, President Trump said, quote, the auto pen is maybe one of the greatest scandals that we've had in 50 to 100 years.
		Trump even released a presidential portrait of his predecessor depicting an auto pen instead of Biden's face.
		They just released a report entitled, The Biden Autopen Presidency Declined, Delusion, and Deception in the White House.
		In addition, the committee has made public more than a dozen interviews with top Biden officials, as well as former White House physician Kevin O'Connor.
		In one video, Connor is asked, quote, were you ever told to lie about the president's health?
		In response, O'Connor pleads the fifth.
		On the advice of counsel, I must respectfully, respectfully decline to answer.
		At the center of the investigation are questions about who was actually making key policy decisions, including executive orders and pardons.
		Republican lawmakers assert in one report, as President Biden declined, his staff abused the AutoPen and a lax chain of command policy to affect executive actions that lack any documentation of whether they were in fact authorized.
		Now, we have this post from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
		She says, my team has already initiated a review of the Biden administration's reported use of the auto pen for pardons.
		James Comer's new information is extremely helpful, and his leadership on this issue is invaluable.
		We'll continue working with GOP Oversight to deliver accountability for the American people.
		Suffice it to say, this is unprecedented, right?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Totally unprecedented.
		Now, there's a problem here, though.
		First off, we don't know if he used the auto pen when he did the pardons.
		And secondly, if he did, there's no requirement that I know of that you have to sign a pardon.
		And also, you have this part of the Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, which gives the president broad clemency powers.
		So when the pardon goes into effect, it only needs to be accepted by the subject.
		Since the pardons were accepted by the subject, there is no mechanism to reverse them.
		So I know this gets a lot of people hot and bothered, and I respect the investigation, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Interesting.
		Well, I mean, listen, he has the legal perspective here.
		So I'm not an expert in law.
		I know that.
		Listen, as just cartoons.
		Yeah, just cartoons.
		But in my expertise as a cartoonist, I just feel that there's at the very least, even if not a legal issue, though, again, I don't know the law well enough to argue with you about that.
		It seems like at the very least, a moral gray area.
		Now, that the president could, you know, that we could have all of these pardons signed, even though the president wasn't actually necessarily consenting to them.
		We have no paperwork documenting that he was, and this was done again by the AutoPen.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That is, you know, I respect what you're saying, Chambers, about not having the expertise, the legal knowledge.
		Now, I also lack the legal knowledge to argue through, but I certainly have a ton of arrogance.
		So I would argue, I'm half kidding.
		No, I guess the question is, what the GOP is basically asserting is that Biden actually didn't authorize this.
		The problem, I suppose, is that is a nebulous argument.
		I mean, Biden says he did.
		And so if they're arguing that he was in cognitive decline, I mean, that may be true, but someone in cognitive decline can still tell someone to do something.
		It seems to me that the only thing that's going to matter in this is the willingness to use power in a way to benefit your side.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I mean, you make a good point.
		You don't need to be a lawyer to have the common sense to know that where's this going to go, right?
		I mean, how are you proving that this was a farce?
		Like, are you going to ask President Biden?
		Well, he said he was fine.
		You brought up the fifth, the guy taking the fifth.
		That doesn't tell you anything except makes him look bad.
		It makes the administration look bad as well, Biden administration.
		But where does it go?
		How do you prove that someone did something illegal or unethical?
		There's no way to do it.
		This is the smoke that President Trump wants.
		He wants us to be talking about it.
		It makes him look better.
		It makes Biden look bad.
		And it keeps us from talking about other things he doesn't want us to mention.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, but in theory, couldn't you actually prove that there was some wrongdoing if an investigation got a warrant to search the text messages or communications between any of the people who might have done that?
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		I mean, couldn't it potentially uncover that they stated an intention to do something even though the president never consented?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		You would have to get a smoking gun.
		You would have to get something that said, Biden knows nothing about this.
		I am signing this pardon myself.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But don't we actually, we don't have a smoking gun, but I think we certainly have probable cause.
		Wasn't there a statement from Zeins that we covered this a while ago where he said something like he responded 15 minutes after someone made a statement saying use the auto pen and do it?
		There was some story like six months ago where this was like the predicate for the investigation that the argument was Joe Biden could not have responded quickly enough and Zeince couldn't have sent the request fast enough before he instructed staffers to use the auto pen to issue some kind of order or pardon.
		Let me see if I can find this.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And while you're looking for that, part of the problem is that President Biden validated all of it.
		They asked him afterwards and he said, yeah, I did all this.
		So how would you now show that he wasn't aware of it?
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me ask you a question then.
		If what Tim's saying is correct, or let's create a completely hypothetical scenario.
		Like they either find this smoking gun, or maybe if it's not somebody who was dumb enough to explicitly write their crime and text and send it to somebody, you had a circumstance where it literally wouldn't be possible for the person to have communicated with the former president quickly enough to get the approval.
		Let's say you have that smoking gun and you are able to prove that this person acted without the president's consent, but the president later says, I'm fine with the fact that it happened.
		Where are we at there legally?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I think it's over.
		If he validates it, even after the fact, then it's a done deal.
		You'd have to show that he was totally in the dark.
		It went against his will, and that he hasn't endorsed it, validated it afterwards.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		So he can retroactively validate it, even if at the time he hadn't?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		He could say, I supported that.
		That's all he has to say.
		And he has.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		But I guess my question is if they were able to prove that he couldn't have gotten the communication in time.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		It's really impossible because you'd have to show that I didn't know about it at the time.
		I don't approve of it.
		Maybe that would get you somewhere.
		But if he said, no, I did.
		That's all you need.
		And he has said that.
		He said, yes, I did this.
		I approved it.
		That's all you need.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's see.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There's a couple of things.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		It would be very, very difficult to find any kind of smoking gun on this.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you'd have to prove that writing, and then you have to show that he still says that, no, I didn't know anything about it.
unidentified		What?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		What's going on here?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So the core issue is White House.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		He has said that before about a few things.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		What are you doing here, man?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Jeff Zeins authorized the auto pens used for documents, particularly on the night of January 19th, 2025, less than 14 hours before Biden left office.
		Emails show a late evening process after a meeting with aides ending around 10 p.m.
		An aide summarized Biden's decision and sought approvals.
		Zeins replied at approximately 10:31, stating, I approve the use of the auto pen for the execution of all of the following pardons, sometimes via his aide, Rosa Poe, who had access to his email and acted with his verbal permission.
		I think the ultimate question is: right, is it legal for the Biden to say after the fact, yeah, it was fine?
		Does that make it an executive action?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Yeah.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		It is not improper for him to approve of something after the fact.
		If the chief of staff says, we're going to do this, and then are you okay with that, boss?
		Yeah, I'm fine with it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let me ask you another question.
		If someone said, hey, go use the auto pen and pardon all these people.
		And then a day later said, hey, boss, by the way, I told them to go do this.
		Yeah, that was fine.
		Is it the same thing?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I would think it'd be okay.
		Like as far as overturning it, because there's no real process for overturning a pardon.
		It's so broad in the Constitution.
		Plus, there's no requirement you need to sign anything for a pardon.
		The person just has to accept a pardon and it's done.
		That's why I think this is much to do about nothing.
		You may be right that he wasn't all there at the end of his presidency, but as far as undoing pardons, no, that's not going to happen.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think the bigger question is just who has the willpower to enact their willpower.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Who has the willpower to enact their willpower?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's a question of, like, as we've seen over the past several years, the way the political game is being played is you can assert things without a factor basis.
		And as long as you're willing to tell men with guns to do it, it'll get done.
		So this, looking back at basically everything we've seen over the past eight years with the Russiagate scandal, with the arrest of Trump's lawyers, things that are unprecedented happen if people in power want them to.
		So we can make the argument that arresting Jenna Ellis and charging under RICO is unprecedented, unconstitutional, and downright insane.
		They did it anyway.
		We could argue that charging Donald Trump with 34 felonies without any underlying crime proven by the government is unprecedented and insane.
		But so long as people with power say, look, we're going to do what we want, the question then falls to here, can you make an argument justifying your actions to enough people to get it done?
		And I honestly think you don't even need the argument at this point.
		I think we're so far past that.
		Republicans are going to say, hey, team, we're doing it.
		And they're going to say, lock them up.
		The Democrats already did the exact same thing and tried to lock people up and did lock people up.
		So the Republicans are going to respond in kind.
		That's why this looks like to me, the GOP Oversight Committee, I agree with you on the functionality of Biden said he did it.
		You know what I mean?
		What are you proving that his brain didn't work?
		Well, you know, maybe, but what's the argument?
		The ultimate argument is going to be, we've now decided and we will ask the courts to assert that is not acceptable.
		And then they'll use that to go after Fauci, Schiff, or whoever else had received pardons for the unprecedented amount of time covering a wide array of unknown crimes.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Well, also, it's a little bit unprecedented as far as legal territory goes.
		Again, my understanding is a non-lawyer to have somebody in office who's so clearly steeped in cognitive decline.
		This is something people talked about this a little bit with Reagan, where they said former staffers came forward after his administration and said that he seemed to be losing it a little bit.
		But with Joe Biden, not only was it so far advanced that people were able to tell when he was president, I mean, while he was still running, during the primaries, people were talking about this, the fact that the man was clearly in some stage of except the media.
		So except for the media.
		But the media did what we knew what they would do, which is they said he's not in cognitive decline.
		And then as soon as he left office, they started publishing their books and doing their op-eds.
		And yeah, oh, he actually was in cognitive decline.
		And here's the esoteric knowledge I had being in the administration the whole time.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's another argument, too, and it was that, was it Jack Smith, I think, who made the statement?
		Was it Jack Smith who said it wasn't going to prosecute?
		It wasn't Jack Smith.
		Who was it?
		The reason they wouldn't prosecute Joe Biden is because he's a forgetful old man.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		It was, was it Robert Hurr?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Robert Hurr.
unidentified		Right, right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, sorry.
		Yeah, Jack Smith was in the Trump case.
		And many people pointed this out that it was hypocrisy within the DOJ.
		But how do you simultaneously say this man is effectively in decline and incapable of standing trial while at the same time saying he's certainly capable of being president?
		I understand the functional argument of, hey, look, the Constitution doesn't say if you're brain damaged in a coma or anything like that, you're not president anymore.
		I think the play Trump is going to make is the courts should rule that it is.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right, but I don't think it'll go anywhere.
		I mean, are you expecting when you say the courts should rule?
		So who challenges it?
		Is it Comer who has standing to challenge someone's pardon, a president's pardon?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, it would be when the DOJ brings criminal charges against Anthony Fauci.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		For example.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah, but I mean, okay, well, if they bring criminal charges against someone who's been pardoned, that's going to be a quick decision.
		The pardon power is so broad, so absolute, that it's not, I just think that'd be a waste of time.
		I don't think the DOJ does that.
		And they certainly won't bring criminal charges against President Biden for doing that because the Supreme Court has given pretty much blanket immunity to the president for any official action.
		So that's why I think like a lot of this stuff's just spinning our wheels.
		And it's fair to talk about cognitive decline.
		I mean, Democrats would talk about that after the fact.
		It's fair to talk about Robert Hurr because Robert Hurr did come out and say that.
		And it's a fair comment to say, well, how does he say that here?
		And how does it not apply there?
		But when Robert Hurst said that, he did that as a reason why they were not going to prosecute Joe Biden.
		They said that if he went on the stand, no jury would convict him because of that mental decline.
		You have to show intent.
		And he didn't have the intent to withhold those documents from the government.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let me ask you about, you're familiar with the 34 felony accounts for Trump in the case.
		Yes, sir.
		There was no proven secondary, or I should say primary crime.
		So they effectively have an aggravating crime of some sort.
		They have falsification of business records and furtherance of a crime, but the government never proved another crime.
		So this violates due process.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, they didn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
		You just have to show that it led to another crime, which was the initial one was the falsification of business records.
		And the other crime, they gave like three options.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And said, we don't need to prove it.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
unidentified		That's right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's unprecedented.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean, the government has to prove a crime against someone if they're going to accuse them of it, right?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		It didn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but they had to at least show the theory, and they did show the theory.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And then the jury, the judge allowed it, and the jury found unanimously that he had.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean, but is there in U.S. history a time where the government said, we're going to presume another crime did happen without proving it to then criminally charge someone with a crime that requires it?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I don't know about in history, I don't know all that, but I think it's a big ask, right?
		That's a big ass.
		I have to be a historian for that rather than a legal guy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		My understanding is most analyses of this has been for the first time in U.S. history, a crime which requires a proven underlying crime did not have one.
		And so obviously the falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, which was beyond its statute of limitations.
		However, they upgraded to a felony arguing that there was falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime.
		The implication being that's an add-on charge when you have an underlying crime.
		Like a mafioso is going to murder somebody and then falsifies records after the fact.
		They say we're adding this onto that charge of that crime you did.
		You have felonies that couldn't have happened unless the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the first crime actually happened.
		So that's my point with all of this is what may or may not be or what we want to happen or what usually happens clearly is out the window.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The intent to defraud here only required that there's an intent to commit another crime or to conceal another crime, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So the issue is the government has to prove in all instances if they're accusing you of a crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		You don't have to prove the commission of another crime, just that it was intended.
		And that's the difference.
		So they had to show that why did you conceal those documents, the business records?
		And the reason is to hide campaign finance violations or whatever they decided.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They're going to have to prove that crime.
		You know, my view is largely if our justice system says we can create crimes and charge you with them, that your penalty is upgraded because we implied without proof another crime happened, then our justice system is gone.
		This is unprecedented.
		The idea that the state is going to say, look, we're going to charge you with felonies.
		We can't unless we prove another crime, but we don't have to prove the other crime.
		It just, it's an absurdity.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, again, it's only the intent that you tried to conceal something else, like a campaign finance violation.
		You don't have to prove that you actually committed a secondary crime.
		You just need to show the intent to conceal it.
		And that's what they did.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So attempted robbery, attempted murder are also charges.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		if they're accusing trump of campaign finance violent like i'll put it this way if someone attempts to uh evade taxes or attempts to commit campaign violence violations are those crimes like with the doj go after you if you were if you were trying to attempted to commit election excuse me election violations yeah Yes.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		And when it came to the three possible crimes for Trump, one was that his intent in concealing the business records was to violate the Federal Election Campaign Act.
		A second one was a violation of New York election law that concerns unlawful conspiracy to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.
		And the third one was violation of New York tax law.
		Yeah, go ahead.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		All right, finish it up.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		What you're saying is, you don't like the fact that they didn't have to prove that there was a violation of any of those three crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, and that should be unconstitutional.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The courts are not.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I would argue it is.
		It is unconstitutional.
		Because let me ask you this.
		Can the government impose a penalty on an individual at any point without proving they committed a crime?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No, but here the statute says that you just have to conceal the records, which he was proven to do so.
		And that's just a misdemeanor.
		But to elevate it to a felony, you don't have to prove a second crime.
		You just have to prove the intent.
		You're doing it for a reason, for a bad reason.
		And when you ask me, are there other examples in the law where that is?
		I can't name it.
		But the courts have found that that is allowed.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So my understanding, and I'm not a lawyer, but I've just read the various legal analyses on this, both left and right, is that it is the first time in U.S. history an aggravated or add-on charge did not have a proven underlying crime.
		Now, maybe first time in history is a bold claim.
		It's an absolute.
		But my argument would be then, if it is to be argued that the U.S. government or the states have the power to expand or increase your penalties or charge with a crime without actually proving a component of what requires, then the Constitution is out the window.
		Then all gloves are off.
		No holds barred.
		Razor Y in the boxing glove doesn't matter anymore.
		The point is this.
		Falsification of business records is a misdemeanor.
		And if the government can prove you falsified your business record straight up, misdemeanor charge.
		If they know you did and don't pursue that charge, it goes beyond the statute of limitations.
		They can't bring those charges later on.
		If the government can say that falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime, the only, so let's put it like this.
		Let's segment this.
		Misdemeanor, falsification of business records, let's argue it's a misdemeanor, so it's maximum one year probably.
		On top of that, the felony charge after the fact, in furtherance of another crime, is an extra addition, right?
		So we've got the base-level misdemeanor, the upgraded felony expands the penalty.
		This would imply the government has the ability to impose penalties on you without proving you committed a crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, you're proving intent.
		So compare this to conspiracy.
		If you guys conspire to rob a bank and you actually don't rob the bank, but you had the intent to do so and you agreed and you did something like, you know, you bought some, you know, some rope or something to tie someone up.
		They can bust you for the conspiracy, even though they never proved that you robbed the bank, you completed it.
		And all this is about intent.
		This is in your mind.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Fair point, but the conspiracy itself is the crime.
		That's correct.
		So the argument would be threatening to murder someone is a crime.
		Murdering someone is a different crime.
		My point is the government has never proven there was another crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, remember, we're showing the intent.
		You don't have to prove another crime.
		You just have to prove there was intent for another crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right, I understand that.
		So my point would be the unprecedented case where they upgraded a misdemeanor to a felony to use against Trump.
		And just moving beyond this, we will also face the unprecedented nature of Trump, Trump's DOJ, attempting to go after in any way possible.
		Maybe even it's just to jam up the people who receive these pardons, Fauci being the principal example.
		They will use, let's just, I don't know, circuitous legal means to go after him in some way.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		There are felony statutes on money laundering and fraud, where if you have a crime of reporting violation, transactional reporting violation, a seemingly minor offense, but if it's used to do money laundering or fraud, then that too would raise the offense level, just like in Trump's case.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		There are other examples where, but I see your problem is that you don't like this whole area where unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a second crime, then they shouldn't be elevated.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, it would be like saying the government charged someone with money laundering, but never proved money laundering.
		They said he had a meeting where he talked about money laundering.
		We could never prove the money laundering happened, charged him, and convicted him.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, there are, when it comes to money laundering, if you're not reporting things properly, you can get hit with a lower level crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But if the intent is to do some major drug dealing and that's why you're concealing it, the intent there, without even proving the drug dealing, you can still get busted for a higher crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I suppose the issue with this is the upgraded charge requires the underlying crime as opposed to conspiracy, which is the intent.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, the intent is all you need in the upgraded crime.
		You don't need to show they actually committed the election violation beyond a reasonable doubt.
		You just have to show that the object, the reason why he was concealing, cooking the books, was because he wanted to spend more for the election than he was allowed.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I suppose we'll see because it's been floating appeal for over a year now, right?
		Like the judges have heard the case.
		They've not ruled on it.
		I think, and then we'll jump to the next story, Snapocalypse.
		My view of this whole thing, and the reason why I brought it up was because everything we're seeing is unprecedented.
		The Democrats going after the political opponents is unprecedented.
		The arrest of Trump's lawyers is unprecedented.
		RICO charges for soliciting legal services unprecedented.
		I think Trump had, it might have been like three or four lawyers who were arrested.
		And we've never seen anything like, look, I can't speak for the entire country for the entire history of the country.
		So it is a bit hyperbotic to say never.
		I would say in my lifetime, it is shocking and terrifying when the Democrat DOJ starts arresting the lawyers of their political opposition.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		What lawyers were arrested?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Jenna Ellis.
		There was, I think it was two lawyers from the Georgia case and one in Wisconsin.
		Jenna Ellis was the most notable because she ultimately ended up pleading guilty to RICO charges.
		And the RICO charges stemmed from her drafting a letter, Trump solicited her to draft a legal letter to pursue an election challenge.
		And they argued RICO because Trump's election challenge was a conspiracy to overturn an election.
		And because she participated, she was now had committed a crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, Jenna Ellis wasn't charged by the Fed, so it wasn't.
		It was by the state.
		It was the state of Georgia.
		That was Fonnie Willis's case.
		And that one was because they charged her with trying to overturn the election by writing letters and doing all that stuff.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Lawyers writing letters is a crime now?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, it could be, yeah.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Lawyers who, like concigliaries for the mafia, have been accused of crimes for many years.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is it illegal to challenge an election?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		It is not illegal to challenge an election through the proper channels, through courts.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But what you can't do is, you know, you can't call the Proud Boys to come to the Capitol.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Jen Alice didn't do that.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Oh, well, I'm saying in general.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So we can, you know, instead of, I'm not here to argue January 6th.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm arguing specifically the unprecedented action of arresting Trump's lawyers.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, if she committed a crime, just because you have a bar card doesn't give you a get out of jail free card.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		You know, you're charged with, she was charged with two felonies, and she actually took a plea.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		She pled guilty.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Indeed.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's less a crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Pleading guilty always implies the guilty party is guilty, right?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm a former prosecutor, so.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Of course not.
		There's the trial tax and Jenna Alice's fear that there was no defense apparatus from a legal machine at the state and federal level willing to arrest lawyers.
		So she cowardly bent the knee and cried on TV and admitted to things when all she did was draft a letter.
		She wrote a letter for Trump.
		They charged her with RICO.
		And the bigger picture, I think, in all of this is, show me the man, I'll show you the crime.
		And that's the ultimate point with the GOP Oversight Committee, with the pardons.
		We're looking at Letitia James on mortgage fraud now, Adam Schiff on mortgage fraud.
		And the argument from the other side is Trump is going after his political opponents.
		And I'm sitting here being like, and they went after him.
		What's the difference?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But you're talking about Fonnie Willis in Georgia.
		That's different than, right, that's not Joe Biden.
		That's not Mary Garland.
		You're talking about Jenna Ellis, who the reason why she was prosecuted was because she was participating in lies that Rudy Giuliani made before Senate committees.
		And so if you lie, if you commit perjury, you know, you're going to get bit for it.
		And that's why.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		She wrote a letter.
		I forgot it was to a politician in Georgia requesting access or something or challenging the election in some capacity.
		And this is the most egregious.
		They argue that, I mean, she was charged with specifically Rico, like a felony conspiracy involved in Trump's election schemes.
		But there was another lawyer in Wisconsin.
		It's ridiculous, right?
		So your political opponent, he's the frontrunner.
		Whatever the argument is, it is insane that they went after all of Trump's confidants, his staffers.
		And it extends, it does extend to J6, obviously not to anyone who was violent, but criminally charging people who weren't even there and giving them 20 years in prison, or even some of them that were for rioting, as well as people who got hunted down for misdemeanors.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's where the conspiracy comes in.
		We talked about that, seditious conspiracy.
		You didn't have to be there to be part of the conspiracy.
		I think you're talking about like Enrique Tario and people who weren't there on the scene.
		Right, right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's it.
		And so I suppose the issue is we have a lot of laws on the books.
		And if the Democrats say, let's rip precedent and throw it out the window, then Trump say Trump's going to respond with, I got a nuclear bomb waiting for you and I win the election.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I think what Merrick Garland, who's criticized by the left for being too timid and too weak, I think what he did was very different than what you're seeing now, where President Trump ordered Pam Bondi to prosecute his enemies.
		And then Bondi wavered on that.
		She didn't move forward on that because she's an experienced prosecutor.
		But then they, so Trump said, all right, I'm going to fire Eric Siebert, the acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, because I don't like what he told me.
		He says there's not enough evidence.
		So then he appointed Lindsey Halligan for the sole purpose of prosecuting his enemies, James Comey and Letitia James.
		And so now you have the prospect of these cases being thrown out because of vindictive prosecution.
		And that's where a president needs to be careful because when you directly order your prosecutors to prosecute your enemies, you're going to get a venture.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The Democrats are thinking.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But when did that happen?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So we've got the E. Jean Carroll case where they created a law specifically to allow just her to file a civil election.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's the state of New York.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's not feds.
		Indeed.
		Well, the argument is the Democratic Party is not just a federal organization or a state organization.
		They're in fact both, and their leadership operates across the board, state, and federal, and city and local and otherwise.
		But also you had the feds raided Trump's home.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		You had – Well, they had a warrant for that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		And then you've got the prosecution of Trump for documents where they actually staged photos and put cover sheets on documents they pulled from boxes.
		And then Joe Biden, who actually explicitly was found to have retained national security information for the purpose of making money, was not charged because they said, ah, well, you know, we couldn't convict him anyway.
		The American people aren't going to tolerate it.
		Whatever your argument's going to be for the legal reasons, the American people see a story of Joe Biden withholding documents at multiple locations and them saying we can't charge him and Donald Trump them raiding his home and saying, but him we can.
		The distinction in the minutiae of like the granular legalese as to why it makes sense or doesn't doesn't matter in a partisan environment like we have right now.
		You can't do it.
		And that's why historically, we've not seen a political party or political actors go after their top-level rivals.
		Like raiding the Frontrunner's home in any way is nuts, even if they did do something wrong.
		Well, I have Bolton too.
		Bolton, too.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, Bolton's a different matter.
		Bolton, I actually do think they have legitimate facts there.
		That's going to be tainted by the politicized prosecutions, Letitia James, and James Comey, though.
		It feeds into that, even though Bolton looks like that may be a legitimate case.
		As far as rating is home, I have to push back on the term rating because when they went in, first they got a search warrant signed by a federal magistrate showing there's probable cause that evidence of a crime existed in Mar-a-Lago.
		And then they didn't raid it.
		They went in there unarmed.
		They gave Secret Service a call in advance.
		They went in there with plain clothes and they searched the place and they recovered the documents that Trump and his lawyers said they didn't have.
		And so that was done the proper way.
		And then it went down.
		James, excuse me, Jack Smith could have filed that case in Washington, D.C. That would have been so much better for him politically because you have the liberal Washington, D.C. jury pool.
		You have the judges who are a lot more favorable.
		But instead, he filed it in South Florida where he knew that Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointed judge, would be there and would possibly get the case.
		And that was the beginning of the end for him.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It seems like there's always some unfortunate legal reason why they're not going to go after the Democrats on these issues.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		How so?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, like the Biden being the most, the easiest example.
		We can look at the general unprecedented nature of, like I mentioned, the E. Gene Carroll case, where you're familiar, they created a law, they passed a law saying we're going to allow people to resurrect claims beyond the statute of limitations.
		It was used just for Trump.
		Highly dubious story.
		Or you also have the civil fraud case, where with Trump, they claim he defrauded because he had documents, misstated the size of his penthouse from $10,000 to $30,000, even though the financial paperwork submitted had the disclaimer, you must do your due diligence.
		The numbers may be inaccurate, as all financial paperwork does.
		And Deutsche Bank even said we weren't defrauded.
		So they launch all of these things, and then we're told there's actually no legal mechanism by which we can find accountability for these unjust actions.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I want to give you credit for the New York case.
		I want to say that that one is something that I think a lot of people are now saying that was unduly politicized.
		That was the Alvin Bragg case.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The civil fraud.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The New York, the there's 34 felonies, civil fraud, and Egypt.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The 34 felonies.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They were all New York.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that one.
		I mean, first off, Alvin Bragg and Leicester James both campaigned on going after Donald Trump.
		They both said you should never have done that.
		So I grant you that.
		And I think that in retrospect, that the New York case seemed to be a case where the DA was trying to find something there, and they resurrected this 34-count case.
		And I think that looked bad.
		And that was the first case against Donald Trump.
		That was not the Biden Justice Department, but that was Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor, making that decision.
		And I got to say, it's been my experience that when you're an independently elected district attorney, you're not getting calls from the White House to do things.
		Because if you had, if that happened, I would have gotten calls because I had Mar-a-Lago in my jurisdiction.
		I never got a call from them and never even got invited to a Hanukkah party.
		But as far as the Egyptian Carroll case, that law that was passed in New York was not for Trump.
		That was done for sexual survivors.
		It was used against Harvey Weinstein.
		It was used against a lot of rich, powerful men.
		Trump did get caught up in it, and that statute was used against him.
		And, you know, it was interesting about that.
		That's how I first found out about you, Tim, in this podcast, because the jury selection, you remember when the jury selected?
unidentified		That's right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They said they watched my show.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That was unpolitical.
		It was.
		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, to be fair, he said he's seen an episode of it or something like that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And they tried claiming that he was a fan, but he just saw an episode one time or something.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The lawyers for Egypt Carroll said, you must remove this person from the jury because he watches Tim Poole podcast.
		And Tim Poole had talked about how bogus these cases were.
		And so the judge said, no, we're going to keep him on the jury.
		And then he ruled away with the rest of the report.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Because he wasn't really a viewer of the show, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		When you looked at what he had actually said, it's like, something to the effect of like he had seen episodes of my podcast, but it wasn't like he was a regular viewer or anything.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I thought actually it was a sign of America's strength that you have people who watch your show and then decide as a member of the jury, they're just going to follow the evidence and the law in front of them and then rule the way they did.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think it's fake.
		I think a highly partisan jurisdiction with an 80-plus percent Democrat base is going to find a jury to convict their chief political opponent, bringing up highly dubious cases like the 34 felony account, which is nuts.
		The fraud case, which as anybody who's ever done real estate knows, is an absolute absurdity to claim that because the square footage was misrepresented, that he had defrauded his lenders who straight up said he didn't defraud them.
		And the E. Jean Carroll case, where her story made no sense and she claimed she was wearing a dress that didn't exist at the time, according to various reports.
		Not to mention, Trump owned the hotel across the street.
		No one witnessed it.
		She got the years mixed up, apparently.
		She had no key to access the room.
		Somehow Trump got in anyway.
		The story is 30 years old and makes no sense.
		Yet the jury still said, sounds good to me.
		That sounds completely insane.
		And when you look at, again, the arrest of Trump's lawyers, it seems to me like, man, Democrats hate Trump.
		They viscerally hate him.
		And I mean, generally speaking, the aligned Democrat voter base and the politicians.
		So they are willing to bring cases that should not be brought and they can easily find juries that will convict or find liability.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, I would maintain that the federal cases brought against Trump were very legitimate.
		I think that the January 6th saw it with their own eyes.
		I think the documents, they gave him time and time again to return the documents.
		He refused to.
		They gave him a subpoena.
		He ignored it.
		Then they had to search the place.
		And then they charged him and they charged him in South Florida, a red state, a red community where they could have done it in D.C. Well, they didn't.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, so the challenge for me is that the Trump circle, his employees, they refute those claims.
		They argue they didn't try to withhold documents.
		They offered them up.
		This makes no sense.
		That they invited these people in previously, shut them around.
		And the Biden DOJ was fabricating a justification for why they went in the way they did.
		Considering they wouldn't charge Biden for a similar crime, I'm less inclined to believe their accusations against Trump.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, the difference is that it's not that you possess the documents, it's the refusal to give them back.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right, that's a lie, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And my point is.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, how is that a lie?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, Trump's refuted it.
		Trump, his team, his lawyers have said, no, we told them straight up what we had.
		We told them where they were.
		We put them in a room.
		They're fabricating the refusal.
		And my point is, we've got no evidence he refused.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		We do.
		His lawyer wrote letters saying that and handed over documents to the authorities.
		And those documents were only a small portion of what was there.
		And then he found all the documents.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But didn't Trump's team refute that they refused any documents?
		I don't know.
		The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
		The fact that a lawyer says, I'm going to turn over documents, doesn't prove he intentionally withheld anything.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The lawyers said that they turned over all the documents that they believed were released.
		The responses of the subpoena.
		Right.
		And then, but the lawyers weren't told everything.
		They were kept in the dark by their client.
		They gave everything.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How do we know?
		Trump's denied that.
		I mean, you're asserting his fact without proof.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, the proof is that they found all those documents at Mar-a-Lago.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It doesn't prove that Trump knew they were there.
		It doesn't prove the lawyers intentionally withheld them, or Trump did either.
		So when you have a staff of people— Trump said they're his documents.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Remember Trump's defense was that I have the ability and the right under the Presidential Records Act to keep these documents of the claim of refusal to turn them over, which is the point I'm bringing up.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I use this example pretty often for the people who believe the moon landing was fake.
		They say, how did we lose the technology to pass the Van Allen radiation bill?
		And I said, because it was in an office in 1970, the administration changed and people moved boxes around.
		I don't know where they went.
		The idea that Trump kept track of literally every single document all the time is silly.
		So when the DOJ goes or the Biden admin says, we want these documents and his lawyers say, here's what we have.
		And then Trump's like, I don't know, whatever.
		Trump's not monitoring that day-to-day operation.
		Like, I got a company here with 40 employees.
		And if every, you know, everybody, every time someone comes to me and says, hey, how do I turn the plumbing off because we're going to fix something?
		You think I know?
		So it's silly to argue that Trump was cognizant of literally every document he had and use it as justification to go into his house and accuse him of a crime when Joe Biden explicitly stated he kept documents that he did not have the authority to keep because he wanted to write a book and make money off of.
		Right off the bat, I'm going to say, by all means, maybe Trump did intentionally withhold these things.
		Biden did intentionally withhold them, and we know it's a fact.
		It was reported across the board.
		And they wouldn't prosecute him.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But when Biden was asked to turn the documents over, he did.
		He never kept documents after he was asked to return.
		That's the difference here because Trump we don't have proof of.
		Well, we know that Trump kept the documents and he admitted.
		He said, I didn't return them because they're my documents.
		I'm the leader of the fact.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So my point is this: they said, hey, turn over documents.
		Trump said, sure, whatever, I guess.
		The lawyer doesn't.
		They then raid his home, find a bunch of documents, lay them on the ground, put cover sheets on him, take a picture, and say, look what you found.
		And Trump says, hey, well, I'm the president.
		I can keep him.
		Can I?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, also, you had Walt Nada, his guy, moving documents around so that the investigators wouldn't see them when they came over.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Again, I think the principal issue here, and the DO.
		So here's what I see when I'm here's my perception of you.
		The DOJ said it, so it's true.
		Trump's DOJ says it can't be true.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No, actually, you know, I ran against Pam Bondi, and then she beat me, and then she hired me as her drug czar.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Actually, I'm not here to bash individuals at the DOJ.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm not saying you're bashing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What I'm saying is it seems like if the Democrat DOJ asserted as fact, you just say, okay.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But what is the false fact?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		What is the lie that the Biden DOJ said?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, Trump's team has refuted they intentionally withheld from the DOJ.
		They said they showed him where everything was, let him come in.
		And if the argument is after the fact, well, you can't hold these documents, you're taking what someone would like, crafting a legal defense.
		Well, even if I did have these documents as president, I have plenary declassification powers anyway.
		And you're using that to imply he intentionally withheld from the government.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I wish that they could have argued that in court.
		I wish that this could have been tried in court where both sides could have made their arguments so we can decided who to believe.
		But unfortunately, Aileen Cannon, a judge appointed by President Trump, dismissed this case based on an unprecedented legal theory that the special counsel statute was unconstitutional.
		And then when Trump won, he then dismissed the cases permanently.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I would argue that if they're not going to go after Joe Biden for a comparable case, both, it's moot.
		And so, like, we had, it was Joe Biden's ghostwriter who actually, I believe, didn't he destroy evidence as well?
		Was the, was the reporting that he had a recording of with Joe Biden where they were going over the story and over the book he wanted to write, where Joe Biden said he kept these national security documents because he wanted to write a book.
		He wanted to sell, he wanted to make money.
		He didn't say he could supposedly make money, but he wanted to write a book.
		So we know he had the intent to do it.
		And I believe the reporting was that the ghost record quickly destroyed the evidence of Biden having admitted to this crime.
		And so when I see that story, they're not going to go after him.
		Everything else is a lie.
		It's like, you know, why would I believe someone at that point?
		But we should talk about Snap Occultus, but I do want to add one more thing to this.
		You will never convince me of the credibility of Merrick Garland or the Biden administration because Merrick Garland did something truly unprecedented, held a press conference where he announced the indictment of two Russians no one ever heard of or had seen before to impugn personally my honor because we have a show on Friday mornings where we talk about theology and aliens and Bigfoot and things like that.
		He claimed that Dave Rubin was part of a Russian influence operation without any evidence because Dave Rubin commented on funny viral videos.
		That's the Merrick Garland DOJ.
		Now, the questions I have is, he never presented any evidence.
		It's conjecture in an indictment.
		He used it to smear me, Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin, and others.
		The case was dropped informally in December because the election was over, and my lawyers couldn't get them to move on it or publish a statement.
		These people, I'll make every polite argument I can logically, but my personal experience having been maligned by evil men using the power of government to destroy their political opponents, I've faced it personally.
		And when I get a call from journalists saying, explain to me why you're named as an individual in this Russia investigation, the Biden DOJ did a press conference where Merrick Garland comes out, makes a bunch of claims, never proven, and with zero evidence, but they wrote it in an indictment.
		And then I've got sponsors calling me up.
		I've got threats, death threats or otherwise, because we licensed a show to another company based in Tennessee called The Culture War, where Friday mornings we would debate various issues, which include flat earth, theology, interdimensional beings, a plethora of nonsense and cultural topics, which does include dating, like our next show we're still doing is going to be dating on November 8th, and routine interviews.
		Now, Dave Rubin is the most egregious example of how this was a fraudulent DOJ case to prosecute their political enemies in that Dave Rubin's contract with Tenet was specifically to look at viral videos of like cats and laugh.
		And Merrick Garland publicly and personally came out and said this was spreading Russian propaganda.
		So forgive me, but I don't think a video of a cat falling into a tub was Russian propaganda, nor my argument with the geocentrist on why the earth is the center of the universe.
		That was a lie.
		And worse still, I had to hire two legal teams because of this.
		And in December, my lawyer called me and said, the Biden DOJ has dropped the case informally and they will no longer be in communicating with us.
		And I said, no way.
		They cannot go on TV and spit in my face like that and then drop it all.
		It was political.
		The only reason they did it.
		So in December of last year, and they have never come out and done anything about it.
		Now, I'm not about to call the DOJ and say, guys, can we finally wrap this up?
		However, Lauren Chen issued a statement saying that in April, under Trump, the DOJ formally closed the investigation with no evidence or proof, yet still it is weaponized by the corporate press against me.
		And that was the Biden DOJ that did it.
		So these people are unrepentant evil.
		They are liars.
		And they did this to destroy their political enemies and media.
		And now we've got another story.
		Mike Benz reporting that the Atlantic Council specifically targeted me because in 2020, when the election fraud narrative was going around about Dominion and the right was claiming that fake ballots and all that stuff, I said that's ridiculous the whole time.
		And then I said the strategy used by Democrats in 2020 to win was ballot harvesting, which is legal.
		And that was the key to them collecting these votes.
		And according to Mike Benz, the Atlantic Council traced back the emergence of the ballot harvesting narrative, which ultimately resulted in 10,000 mules as a bunch of other and a bunch of other legal actions and said, Tim Poole is the progenitor of this theory.
		We need to shut him down.
		And what happened?
		YouTube came down on us with the hammer, banned a bunch of episodes, and suppressed my accounts and channels.
		The Biden DOJ personally went to various outlets and threatened to suspend and censor people.
		So we can have a debate on the merits of various legal cases.
		And that's me being nice because I think when you get to the bottom of it, Biden's DOJ were crooked as crooked could possibly be.
		And that's not saying anything about the Trump administration.
		It's just that I had to live through what those people did, the stress and the death threats I received still to this day because Merrick Garland is an evil, evil man.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, Rustoff.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Rant over.
unidentified		Sorry.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, no, I hear you.
		And I'm aware of what you went through, Tim.
		And when I looked at the indictment, it did not allege any wrongdoing by the influencers like you who created content for that company.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Fake.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Never did.
unidentified		Right.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		In other lives.
		They described you as an unwitting victim of it.
		In fact, I looked up the press conference itself, and in the press conference, Merrick Garland did say this: the company never disclosed to the influencers or to their millions of followers its ties to RT and the Russian government.
		So the only thing I'd say is that I know they never released any evidence.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They dropped the case two months later.
		The play here was simple.
		They did a press conference for what reason?
		For what reason to a press conference and then dropped the case a month later, a month and a half later.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I think the press conference was to call out the Russian actors for infiltrating and trying to influence the election, but they used unwitting influencers.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And I think that I understand why you're so pissed off at it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me ask you a question in response to that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What about a debate on modern dating in the United States as Russian propaganda?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Doesn't propaganda to me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It certainly doesn't.
		So why is Merrick Garland claiming that I was unwittingly sharing Russian propaganda?
		Because he's lying.
		And it's ridiculous that, listen, the challenge we have in this country largely is that there's a group of people that just believe these evil people.
		But for me to have to experience it, and I'm sitting here going, guys, we had a guy on who was a geocentrist, and we had another guy on who was a flat earther debating.
		I don't understand how this is Russian propaganda.
		Why did the AG go on TV and claim that I was doing that, unwittingly or otherwise?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And you've had people on here who talk about Ukraine on the Ukrainian side against Russia.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Tim Casty RL never had a license agreement with Tennant Media.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Tim Cast is different.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Culture Wars where they talk about an entirely separate company.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		But I'm just saying that I get why you're upset about it.
		I understand.
unidentified		He lied.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But I'm just trying to get in Merrick Garland's brain that Merrick Garland is someone who, remember, he appointed a special prosecutor who prosecuted Joe Biden's son.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that's something, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, because he pardoned him.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		He took, well, but not Merrick Garland didn't, but he actually prosecuted Joe Biden's son.
		That's meaningless.
		Well, also, Matt Gates, who was investigated under the Bill Barr Department of Justice, Merrick Garland took that investigation over and then dropped the investigation.
		He also allowed it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Because it was bunk.
		Well, so the issue here is this.
		I'll say the same thing.
		Just like that, Merrick Garland dropped the Russian influence investigation into tenant.
		He does a press conference, says, look at this bad thing that happened.
		And then two months later, he says, we don't care about that.
		Would it have been prudent of him to come out and say, we have no evidence, we were wrong, and so we're stopping the investigation.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, when they announced the indictments, they came out and said, here's why we're doing the indictments.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And they made clear that the influencers themselves, like you, were not involved in that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's not the point.
		The point is he claimed that I'm an idiot who was sharing Russian propaganda through Russian propaganda through a show that is largely apolitical.
		And then when he decided there was no evidence and they weren't going to pursue it, he said, let him stew and rot like whatever.
		I'm going to avoid swearing.
		Maybe it would have been professional for a man who did a press conference asserting that several high-profile conservative leaning individuals or politically on the right, you want to malign them and impugn their honor.
		And then you find out you're wrong.
		Maybe you then hold another press conference and say, I'd like to formally apologize to these individuals who worked for this company.
		We will not be pursuing this case.
		We don't have the evidence to do it.
		Thank you.
		Goodbye.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, first off, prosecutors never do that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is it common for the AG to do a press conference maligning individuals like that?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The only time that they speak is at the four corners of the indictment.
		They announce the indictment and then the stuff goes away.
		And that is something that in the prosecutorial profession, when people are investigated, they often don't even tell them that the investigation is over.
		So as far as what happened at the end of the investigation, I think he didn't feel the need to apologize to you because he came out and said you were not involved in this.
		And so for him, he's thinking, that's all I need to do.
unidentified		But that's why I don't know what was the crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The crime was the use of dollars to infiltrate the to meddle, essentially, by the Russians.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The Russians had this influence operation and it was undisclosed and it was through RT.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why publicly announce it?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Because it was an indictment.
		You announced it at the time of the indictment.
		It's unethical to talk about it during the investigation.
		You have to do it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Every indictment has a press conference?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No, just the major ones.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And so why drop a major investigation?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Why do a press conference on a major?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why do a press conference for what you would ultimately have no evidence for and would drop?
		Is that common?
		Maybe it is.
		I don't know.
		They say we have a major investigation into this Russian thing.
		And then a month later, like, no, we don't care about that.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No, they do.
		When they have an indictment, not an investigation.
		They weren't announcing an investigation.
		They were announcing an indictment.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
		Yep.
		And the funny thing.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		It's unethical if they announce an investigation like James Comey did right before the 2016 election.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, you know, it's funny because I end up with two legal teams and we're begging them, like, guys, we need to understand what happened here because I want a full breakdown of this.
		I want, we'll provide the DOJ with whatever they need, and then we can issue these statements and show these documents and prove what was going on.
		And then we'll prove the cult, like in this, in this pursuit, we'll show the culture where which we license is a relatively apolitical show.
		We've done feminism and politics, modern dating.
		We've done geocentrism, interdimensional theory, time.
		We had one guy in talking about MH370.
		Usually, like last Friday, we had a political debate, but it's, you know, 80-20 if that.
		And instead, I get a call saying the DOJ has no interest in pursuing this case at all, and so you have nothing to worry about.
		And I said, I'm not worried about them not pursuing it.
		I said, I'm not worried about them pursuing it.
		I'm worried about them dropping it after accusing me of spreading Russian propaganda.
		And they said, you know, you know what the assessment is?
		The real intent of Merritt Gollin's press conference was an October surprise.
		It was launched at the end of September to malign Donald Trump and conservatives to imply that the moral worldview we shared was actually a manipulation by a foreign government.
		And as soon as he lost, they dropped it, walked away and said, eh, we're done.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's currently still charges against the two employees of the Russian state media outlet RT.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		So it's not totally dropped.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So here's informally, they dropped it because it's, I guess you'd argue that's a cold case now that they have no interest in pursuing it.
		Why would they do that?
		Why would they launch a press conference?
		Look, I talked to my lawyers about it.
		They said it makes no sense for the AG to launch to have a press conference on an unprosecutable case.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right, but it hasn't been dropped.
		I mean, it's there.
		Now maybe it's dormant because you have a new DOJ.
		You have new people.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, they dropped it in December.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They told my lawyers it was over and go away.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But not against those two individuals, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no.
		Yes, that's what I'm talking about.
		I contracted two different legal firms because their case, pursuing these two individuals in Europe, needed our assistance to prove the communications, money laundering, or otherwise.
		But there isn't any and there never was.
		And so my lawyers told me, Tim, you need to understand there is no reason that an AG would launch a criminal indictment against two people they cannot prosecute.
		These men are not in the United States.
		They don't know where they are.
		They don't know what they look like and they will never be found.
		The only reason you have a press conference about two people you can't even begin to prosecute is for political reasons.
		And you will likely get nothing from this.
		And then sure enough, in December, they said, your final invoice is in.
		We've been instructed.
		It's done.
		And I said, are they closing it?
		No, but they're done.
		I was like, what does that mean?
		It means there is no case.
		They were never going to prosecute these guys.
		They can't prosecute them and they won't be pursuing it further.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, but they've done this before.
		So the reason why they prosecuted these RT employees is because of election influence operations.
		But also in 2022, you know, they also, the DOJ also charged Russians for infrastructure, energy grid meddling, trying to target them.
		This is some of the GRU people.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And yet it can't hold the predicate of their case against these two individuals is that I, Benny Johnson, and Dave Rubin, spread Russian propaganda.
		No, no, he's not claiming we did something wrong.
		If Tim Poole, Benny Johnson, and Dave Rubin did not spread Russian propaganda, then there is no influence operation.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I think that Merrick Garland wanted to make sure that you were not being targeted by it as far as that.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I was the only one.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, the three of us were the only ones targeted.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right, but no, he wanted to.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No one's going to go try and send death threats to two random Russians numbers.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's the problem.
		He wanted to make sure that you were not brought into this, that you were not intentionally trying to do anything.
		And I know what you're saying, but you didn't do it anyways.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How could there be a Russian influence operation if the individuals in question who are unwitting never actually shared Russian propaganda?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		As far as Russian propaganda, I don't know what was shared or what was not.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		As far as like, but Dave Rubin was accused of a lot of this stuff and whether or not the show that was licensed and produced through Tennant for Dave Rubin was funny viral videos.
		That's it.
		This is the absurdity.
		And look, again, you are blindly just believing that the DOJ did something right for no reason.
		I don't live in that world.
		I live in a world where we didn't spread Russian propaganda.
		I've never accepted money from a foreign government.
		We don't even have investors.
		We licensed a show that we owned wholly, that we produced internally to a third-party company out of Tennessee for live streaming rights.
		And then he claimed that we were being paid to spread Russian propaganda because he's a sick, twisted, evil man.
		That's why.
		There was no Russian propaganda.
		No one ever told me what to say.
		Still to this day, no one tells me what to say.
		I can say, screw Israel.
		I can say, screw Russia.
		I can say Putin should be removed from power all day and all night.
		I can say Slavo Ukraini.
		So why is he claiming there was Russian influence and propaganda being spread by me, Benny, and Dave when it never happened?
		But I don't need to keep saying it over and again because I think you understand.
		We should talk about Snapocalypse.
		I don't know if, but I'll give you the final word on that if you did want to have it.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No, you went through hell and back.
		And I'm sorry you got death threats and had to spend all this money on something where, you know, that's why I'm trying to say that.
		The one difference you and I have is this: it is not unusual for DOJ to held press conferences where they announce indictments, and that's what they did here.
		Also, Merrick Garland, I just don't think he came out of it, came into this with a nefarious motive.
		I think he came into this saying that we have identified $9.7 million of money that was funneled here to try to influence an election, and we're going to call these RT guys out for it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You got to say it right before they announced the indictment, the tenant media, tenant YouTube gained 200,000 subscribers just seemingly over a day.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So how does that happen?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right before they initiated the indictment.
		Well, nobody knows for sure, but it certainly sounds like a psyop.
		A channel with 80,000 subscribers that gets no views, that has a variety of random shows about this, that, or otherwise, some on-the-ground interviews, cultural issues, viral, funny videos.
		And then all of a sudden, overnight, it jumps to 300,000.
		And the staff go, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's going on right now?
		And then as soon as it hits 300, he comes out and says, look at this major influence operation.
		It's clearly to those of us affected.
		How about this?
		When I told my lawyers, guys, will they issue a statement?
		No.
		Can we ask them to issue?
		No, they won't do it.
		Why would they do this right before an election?
		It is the utmost naivete to assume this was anything other than a political move to help Biden win an election and malign opposition media.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, Joe Biden didn't like Merrick Garland.
		So if Merrick Garland was using his story to help Joe Biden, that would be news to Joe Biden.
		I mean, Merrick Garland didn't try to help Biden.
		Merritt Garland tried to help Joe Biden or Kamala Harris win an election by appointing a special prosecutor who then embarrassed Joe Biden, Robert Hurr, by saying that he didn't have the mental faculties.
		By the way, that didn't have to be put out there.
		Merrick Garland made the decision to allow that report to be public, and that was very damaging to Joe Biden.
		That's why I don't think that Merrick Garland came into this thinking that he's going to help a Democrat get elected.
		Merrick Garland takes great pains to try to be apolitical.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He is disliked by the left.
		These are all like personal, non-fact-based statements.
		I can't, there's no debate on how you feel about what Merritt Garland does.
		I can only talk about what he did.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but he prosecuted the president's son.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Who got pardoned, though?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But the fact they prosecuted, you wouldn't see this DOJ prosecute Donald Trump's kids.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Criminals and ne'er due wells often go through circuitous means to cover up their crimes.
		It's politics.
		You want to win points.
		You say, no one's above the law, Hunter.
		And then Joe's like, look, we'll do this.
		Just pardon him later.
		And then Joe said he wouldn't.
		And he did.
		We all knew it was going to happen.
		Nobody was blind to this.
		Look, we live in a world where everybody but seemingly people in the corporate press and Democrats knew Joe Biden's brain was cooked.
		The first time he said bad a calf care, Trinidad of pressure, most of us were just like, okay, this guy ain't all with it.
		Yet they kept going on TV being like, no, no, everything's fine.
		So at a certain point.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Sharp as attack.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, indeed.
		At a certain point, I'm just going to be like, these people are lying, and there's no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
		But we should talk about Snapocalypse.
		And I'm sure it'll be just as fun.
		So we've got this from CNBC.
		States sue Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits during government shutdown.
		A group of states sued Trump admin in an effort to maintain funding.
		The U.S. Agricultural Department has suspended SNAP benefits as of November 4th, the lawsuit noted.
		The suit was filed four days after the Trump admin said it would not use $6 billion in congressionally appropriated emergency funding to maintain benefits during the shutdown for SNAP, which provides food stamps to more than 40 million people.
		So we have that from NPR.
		Okay.
		This is why I hate the corporate press.
		So this article earlier today was titled, Trump Says Emergency Funds Will Not Be Used for SNAP benefits.
		But because the corporate press has no journalistic ethics, they do what's called stealth editing, where I refreshed the article and they rewrote it.
		So bravo, NPR, on being unethical in journalism.
		But there we go.
		So the question, I suppose, is what authority would any court have to make the Trump administration release money for SNAP?
		Is that possible?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		They do have standing.
		The states have the standing to sue.
		Now, whether the courts will go along with it, I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is remedy possible?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		States have sued the federal government for SNAP before.
		It's just this is different because this is during a shutdown, and this is a choice by the federal government to say, all right, while we're shut down, we're not giving you the money.
		And aside from the political unpopularity of it, I think the states can sue.
		I just don't know which way the courts are going to go on it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I recognize standing makes a lot of sense, right?
		Do the states have a right to sue over this?
		It seems the answer is yes.
		The question is, would a judge have the authority to make a political move like that?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
		Oh, yeah.
		Why not?
		I mean, the courts do have oversight over it.
		I mean, you're talking about technical rules of funding and states' rights and federalism and all these things that come into play.
		But that's why it's tough because I'm not aware of this happening ever before in a shutdown where the administration says that we're not going to release the funds for food.
		You would think if anything is emergency funding, it would be this.
		But again, with that said, there's no guarantee which way it would go.
		I mean, the Supreme Court has given a lot of deference to executive power.
		So I can see the Supreme Court siding with the president on this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is it how long would you think?
		I don't know if you would know, but how long do you think a court case would take for something like this, right?
		Because the reality is we have three days.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		What we found is generally the lower courts, the district courts, will be more favorable to the plaintiffs against the White House.
		But then as you get higher up towards a Supreme Court, they have a greater sense of deference towards executive authority.
		We saw this with the National Guard in the streets, that even the once liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California has been ruling for the president and deferring to his authority.
		So I think initially you'll see a court perhaps saying, no, you got to release it.
		And then it'll get stayed on appeal by the appellate court and eventually get up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
		And by the end, this shutdown should be over, and then this thing will be moot.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I guess my question is, it's just, it looks like they're going to file.
		There may be an emergency injunction of some sort.
		Trump's going to file for appeal.
		And in the meantime, he's not going to move these funds.
		And there's no way it's happening in three days.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Agree.
		Yeah.
		Yeah, you and I are in agreement on this.
		Question is, where does this play politically?
		Is this caused people to start getting the pitchforks out and saying, hey, let's fix this problem?
		I mean, both sides are getting what they want out of this shutdown.
		Yeah.
		And I just think I would hope that government is not as dysfunctional as it appears to be, that they can actually open the doors and turn on the lights again.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think that the political divisions in this country are so pronounced that it's just, it doesn't matter what either side wants from either side.
		Go ahead, go.
		I've been talking too much.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		No, I just think that what we can all agree on is we have the liberty to drink Coca-Cola.
		Not paid to say this whatsoever, but these brave Democrat states are standing up for our rights to drink Coca-Cola.
		Like on SNAP benefits, yeah, yeah, because I mean, I've been under good authority that it's a huge limit on our liberty if they cut off our access to Coca-Cola with government money.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Man, I think they should.
		But I saw a clip earlier of Mike Johnson, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was something to the effect of we don't want anything.
		There's nothing that we want from Democrats.
		We've proposed this to them.
		They can vote yes.
		So there's no reason to negotiate.
		And that right away, I'm like, well, there is.
		Democrats want something.
		Mike Johnson's effectively saying we're happy with the government shutdown.
		So why would we bother doing any deals?
		Like it's a win-win for them.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And he doesn't have to seat the member of Congress from Arizona and then vote to release the FC.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, that's how government shutdowns have always worked: the party demanding something is always really blamed for it.
		I mean, going back to the previous shutdown, I mean, The contest is over border wall funding, et cetera, and people blame the Republican Party.
		But this is what's so fascinating is this is unprecedented where the media is still siding with the Democrats, even in spite of the fact that they're the ones demanding something in this instance.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, why do you think that is that the public seems to be supporting for the first time the party out of power when it comes to shutdown?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Is it because of the health care issue that that's an issue that resonates?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if that's true, though.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		As far as the polling?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, it's, it's, I, polling's impossible right now, right?
		I mean, we're, we're, it's wild swings.
		You know, I'm looking at Real Clear Politics average.
		I try to use aggregates because individual polls are going to have their bias or whatever there, but it's nuts.
		I mean, one poll's like Trump plus eight, and then a day later, another poll's Trump minus eight.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I don't know which one's right and which one's wrong.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		You go to like Real Clear Politics and they show all the different polls and they're all over the place.
		There's like a 20-point spread between the polling.
		It's like, how I can't determine.
		I can't parse information.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		They have the ratings of certain polls, like the letter grades for the certain polls.
		Why even give the F polls or the bad polls?
		Why show them?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Like RMG two weeks ago had Trump at up four and then for the same time period, relatively the same time period, it was minus 14 with Knipiak.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is 16 to 20 and 15 to 22.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's his approval rating.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		What about who's winning the shutdown?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Like, who's right?
		My point was like, this is the easiest way to look at in aggregate because they poll so often that polls are effectively meaningless for the most part.
		I used to do segments all the time on my morning show where I'm like, look at the poll's current trend and here's what people are thinking.
		But now I've stopped because it's nuts.
		Minus 14, minus four in the same time period is meaningless.
		So when I look at one poll from, say, it's like Gallup or something, or Quinnipiac being a better example for more current polling, I can't believe if it's like, yeah, Democrats are winning this one.
		I'm like, are they?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Well, I also think it's really difficult to poll on who's to blame for the shutdown because this story is like, I think a lot of people don't even realize the government's shutdown.
		I mean, the news cycle's been so insane that I don't even think the press has much appetite to like cover this in depth.
		I mean, like when NPR reports on it on their daily podcast, they're just like, oh, yeah, okay, we have to talk about this, I guess, because it seems important.
		But I think the American people are just the news cycle's been so cooked that there's just not even really that much interest in the drama over the shutdown.
		So it's really hard to determine polling.
		It's really determined to gauge interest.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Here's Quinnipiak from a week ago.
		Who is more responsible for the government shutdown?
		Voters blame Republicans slightly more than Democrats.
		They say 45% of registered voters think Republicans in Congress are more responsible for the government shutdown, while 39% think Democrats in Congress are more responsible and 11% volunteer.
		They think both parties are equally responsible.
		However, at the same time, Quinnipiak had Trump at minus 14 for a similar time period.
		I don't believe Trump is at minus 14 in the polls.
		I don't necessarily believe that he's at plus 4 either.
		I certainly know a lot of people don't like Trump, but minus 14 is very heavy.
		In aggregate, he's at 44.9 approval to 51.9 disapproval.
		Minus seven seems relatively plausible, but Quinnipiak seems to be heavily biased.
		So this is why it's hard to track.
		I've read a handful of polls showing that Democrats are largely winning this, but I don't, the reason why I find it hard to believe is that Republicans would not keep up a fight that risked their success in the midterms.
		So there's a few ways to look at it.
		They don't think this will matter in the midterms because a year is an eternity in politics.
		They don't care about political blowback because the rewards they're getting from it are massive and they'd rather have political victories, which I don't think so because I think the blowback from loss of snap is going to hurt them politically.
		They must genuinely believe they're winning politically, that the perception is beneficial to them.
		And Democrats must agree.
		So what I think is the polls are so divergent.
		Republicans are probably going, guys, we're winning.
		And Democrats are going, guys, we're winning.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Well, yeah, I think like both parties are galvanizing their bases right now as well.
		And that's primarily what's driving like both sides not really interested in negotiating here.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I think that's right.
		I think the Republicans are taking the long game thinking they can just wait out the Democrats that people will start to really feel the pain and start to blame the Democrats.
		So we'll see.
		But also, if the Republicans thought they were looking good going into the midterms, they wouldn't be trying so hard to gerrymander some of these districts.
		I do think they see the trends as far as history, the historical trends that the party out of power generally picks up seats in the House, and they want to stem that.
		But, you know, we'll see.
		We're an uncharted territory here, and I hope they can open it up.
		But the longer this goes, will the trends change?
		Will the Democrats start getting blamed for it?
		I don't know.
		People are worried that their health care premiums are going to double if this bill, a clean bill, goes through.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I kind of just think we're well beyond the political argument phase of what's going on in this country politically.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, you look at the celebrations for Charlie Kirk's assassination.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Obviously, we can say, you know, like the Clintons, Obama, high-level Democrats and liberals said this is wrong and this is bad, and my heart goes out.
		And you can see that trend actually in the polls on political violence where the older generations are averse and say, no, we can't do this.
		The younger generations are like ready and waiting, locked and loaded.
		So when you see these younger liberals and leftists coming out on social media, dancing, celebrating, mocking, I mean, even 40-year-old liberals, like that woman who was like pointing in her neck, there's one young guy, Gen Z, with the guy, his Halloween costume, was a dead Charlie Kirk.
		That's where I'm just like, I hear you on the premiums and medical and all those things and SNAP benefits, but I really don't think that if you're 45 and under, you care about this in the majority, or I would say the majority cares about it.
		So I would estimate that there's many people who are in their 40s, younger 40s, older millennials, who are concerned about the cost of medical because they have kids.
		However, millennials largely didn't have kids.
		So they don't care.
		The issue of medical costs are largely for the older generation.
		And as you get to the younger generation, you're less and less likely to find someone who has a family or even believes they would get medical care in the first place.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Well, and on top of that, right, part of what Obamacare does is because it limits the amount that you can increase premiums based on age, it redistributes money away from those younger people to older people so they actually benefit financially from those measures being withdrawn.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Young people are ready for this whole thing to go belly up.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right?
		Telling young people to pay taxes to boomers for Social Security, and they're going to be like, revolution win?
		Like they literally are.
unidentified		Yeah.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Well, and yeah, the fact that like social media now drives information, the polemics are driven by young people, and most young people have given up on institutions across the board.
		And so it's like really tough to really, you know, drive up a lot of interest in a government shutdown.
		And a lot of people have just tapped out anyway, or they just don't think that this is an institution they can put faith or trust in whatsoever.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's jump to the story from the New York Post.
		Fuming SNAP recipients threaten to loot if food stamps are cut November 1st.
		Stay the F out of my way.
		Quote, I'm going to tell y'all straight up like this.
		I just got that text that the link is definitely cut the F off for November.
		Y'all better stay the F out of my way in these stores because I'm walking out with carts and I'm not paying for ish.
		Another added, you know what?
		Since they want to take food stamps away, I'm going to go to effing Walmart, grab anything I damn want, put that ish right in the basket, and walk right up out that B. I'm not paying for a damn thing, said another.
		42 million people, and you don't need 42 million people for instability.
		So they're saying straight up, I don't know, man.
		I mean, is this what's going to like come November 1st?
		This is literally no benefits for anybody.
		And so they're just.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		It's time to deputize the Walmart greeters.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I think it's the way out of this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Imagine this.
		Imagine if the Republicans, let me first say, I have no idea the political play here for Democrats or for Republicans.
		Democrats could certainly come out and vote yes in the Senate.
		Seven votes.
		They turn it, they speak it back on.
		Actually, I think they need, yeah, right.
		I think one Democrat defected, one Republican defected.
		Seven votes, and SNAP is back.
		But Democrats must believe that whatever they're doing is going to benefit them.
		Republicans must believe the same thing.
		So I'd have to assume the Republican play is: let's piss off as many SAP recipients as possible and blame the Democrats for why they didn't get their food stamps.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, that's a very important voting block for the Democrats.
		Historically, people have always seen this as the Democratic Party being the party that's going to promise benefits to people that's going to essentially allow them to buy gifts from the Treasury with their vote.
		And so this has always been something people have been aware of.
		And Democrats cannot afford to upset that particular demographic in the same way that Republicans can.
		Though that's probably changing.
		I think the last two elections have shown us that higher-income people are starting to vote Democrat more often and lower income people are starting to vote Republican more often.
		But I think the stereotype generally still exists.
		And I still think there is some truth to it.
		So the Republicans know this is going to hurt the Democrats way more than it's going to hurt us.
unidentified		Yeah.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		And kind of like what you're saying, where we are really in uncharted territory, I think that's what's driving a lot of this is a lot of these consulting groups, a lot of these policy institutes, they don't really know what to do.
		They don't know what's so the only message they can really signal to their to the parties is just like, I don't know, just dig your heels and like hopefully the country just blames the other side because they don't know what to do.
		These are, these are the class of people that usually are calling shots here and they say, okay, it's very clear if you do this, you're going to get this outcome.
		I think people are scrambling in these in these, yeah, like these consultancy groups and policy institutes.
		They don't know what to do.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Food riots?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Oh, man.
		Like what's a, it's a dystopian, one of those movies that you see.
		It's like a, I'm a robocop.
		Am I dating myself with RoboCops?
		I had pretty much the same type of thing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		When was Rotocap?
		Like RoboCop?
		Late 80s?
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		80s, I think.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I am dating myself.
		Wow.
		I used to be the youngest person in every room.
		Now I'm the oldest.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's what happens.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean, hey, hey, I mean, look, they're all younger than me.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		You guys are now.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I've never seen RoboCops.
unidentified		I'm going to start.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to fire everyone younger than me and hire only old people.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, good.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Consider me, I hear the cost of living is low here in West Virginia.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh, dude, it's not anymore.
		It's getting nuts.
		It's funny because I had someone, I can't remember browsing an interview or something, and they were like, how do you think the economy is doing?
		I was like, it's bad.
		And they're like, oh, you like Trump.
		I thought you'd say it was a good one.
		I was like, nuts?
		Bro, the cost of houses is skyrocketing out here.
		It's insane.
		There was a property out here three years ago that was like 200, and it's like 550 now.
		And it's a bungalow.
		And I was like, how the what is it's crazy, not to mention gold and silver through the roof.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's not, that's not because good things are happening.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		No, it's true.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Now, what people need to understand about Snap, and again, I'll say this: I'm for just cutting it off.
		It's not the preferable system.
		And I wouldn't even argue that I'm largely for it.
		It's like a 50.1%.
		Let it happen, I guess.
		But this is going to impact not just the recipients, but all of the stores.
		There's going to be areas of cities.
		People need to understand this.
		It's going to be geographic.
		There are areas in cities that have high-density welfare recipients.
		And the stores there probably can't exist without these food benefits going to the area.
		So the government basically says, we're going to distribute these resources in this way to these people, however it's done, whether it's legit or not, otherwise, whether people are fraudulent or otherwise, they do.
		And then there are impoverished neighborhoods that get a large, a lion's share of these benefits.
		Wealthy areas don't.
		The stores there disproportionately rely on people with EBT cards buying goods.
		So when this cuts off, you're going to see a bunch of bodegas vanish overnight.
		They're going to be like, we're cooked.
		We can't sell products.
		And then what's going to happen is there's going to be a ripple effect where these small stores, if they shut, so you're going to see a variety of things.
		Supermarkets in general will see a margin drop, which will result in every distributor that supplies them seeing a margin drop.
		It's going to result in a ripple effect.
		I mean, it is a freight train slamming into a brick wall, stopping at once.
		And you know what it's like?
		You guys ever see the movie Hancock?
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Will Smith.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Remember when he stops the train?
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Can't believe it didn't get the Oscar that year.
unidentified		That one.
unidentified		I know.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		That's really amazing.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Superhero, a train's coming to save the person.
		He just stands there and he's like, Superman, the train hits him, and the whole thing just flips over because that energy's got to go somewhere.
		So bodega's shut down, corner stores shut down for those who know what a bodega is.
		And all of a sudden, the local distributors are like the money that we're receiving was largely coming from, you know, 15, 20% was EBT.
		So now we just lost 12 of the stores we supply.
		What people need to understand about margin collapse from something like this: supermarkets operate on a 3% margin typically, which means if they lose 3%, they go to business.
		When they're negative, I mean, they've probably got emergency coffers.
		They'll probably stay afloat for a little while.
		But we saw this during COVID when they shut down restaurants.
		The restaurants, like, we've got $20,000 worth of perishable goods.
		When they shut us down, even for a week, we lose $20,000.
		We will never get back.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Well, yeah, the other thing to consider, too, is my understanding is: yes, grocery stores have around a 3% profit margin, but it's even lower in low-income areas where more people are likely to lose SNAP, which means, I mean, you could be talking closer to like a 1% to 2% profit margin, which really exacerbates the problem.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, Snap Okalypse.
		That's why I'm looking at this like there's no way they actually let this happen.
		But at this point, we're three days out.
		Is it, I suppose the only remedy at this point would be for Trump to release the $6 billion?
		Was that the only?
		Because I don't think they could reopen it and pass this fast enough, could they?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Not this Congress.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Indeed.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		You know, it used to be, and Seamus, you said this, that this was a Democratic constituency.
		But we saw things turn on its head in this last election where generally lower income voters have flocked towards Republicans.
		And so I think maybe this is something the Democrats say, all right, you're going to take food out of the hands of the poorest.
		Well, it's going to affect your voters as much or more than ours.
		And let's see who they blame.
		So that's the question.
		Who will they blame?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I was thinking this, that, look, Stephen Miller is a very smart man.
		You have to like him or agree with him, but underestimate him at your own peril.
		And I have to imagine he's sitting there in the room with Trump and he's like, let Snap expire.
		Because what's going to happen is the people, the principal recipients of this are not Republican Trump voters.
		And so it is not going to be your base that is hurt by it largely.
		The Democrats will see a backlash because people don't know or care why the system doesn't work.
		They blame the politicians.
		So, what happens?
		In Democrat areas, there is outrage over the failures of their member of Congress.
		It will disproportionately impact Democrat congressional districts going into a midterm election.
		And that's all they need.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's a big question.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Whether that's true or not, we don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll put it like this.
		EBT benefits are disproportionately, 40% go to white.
		The rest are non-white.
		25.6, I think, go to black.
		Their attitude is like: look, if it's even 2% detriment to the Democrats, it's worth doing.
		So I think the general common sense approach is going to be: yet it's urban areas with high densities of EBT recipients, less likely to be in rural areas, more likely to be minorities.
		Meaning, when you look at the math, Democrats, it's not about who's right or wrong.
		It's about how many angry people per district.
		And so the Republicans are going to say, we are going to increase the amount of angry people in every Republican district by 7%.
		Democrats will increase the amount of angry people by 13%.
		That's good for us.
		It destabilizes their elections.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But that's why they're suing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Sue.
		Now they take the initiative saying, see, we're trying.
		We want the speaker to be turned back on.
		Blame the Republicans.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But it doesn't matter because the voters don't know or care.
		They only want no results.
		You go to the average person and ask them about the granular policy implications, actions, otherwise, they're just like, huh?
		All I know is my card's turned off.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But they know who's in power.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And who's in power is their member of Congress and their senators.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if most people even know who their member of Congress is.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Trump's not up for election.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Trump's not up for election.
		And that's the point.
		When they go to vote next year, Trump's not on the ballot.
		So in Democrat districts, you're going to have more anger than in Republican districts.
		And it's going to be bad for Democrats running for election, particularly in swing areas.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The Democrats are counting that Trump will be on the ballot, not his name, but his presence.
		He sucks all the oxygen out of every room.
		And they're going to think that, hey, this is a referendum on Trump.
		And so that's why the party in power often loses seats in an off-term election.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's true, but let me pull this one up.
		I love this.
		Let's see, which one is it?
		Which party will win the U.S. House?
		Caul Shi's prediction market has it near toss-up territory.
		So shout out to Caul Shi for sponsoring the show.
		Wait a second.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Is that a toss-up?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		It looks 58% to 42.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Uh-huh.
		Prediction market, not polls, have the Democrats at 58% likelihood to win control of the House.
		Republicans with 42%.
		Now, considering the historical trend of opposition parties winning, this was actually in May 82.5 to 17.5.
		No one thought it possible Democrats would lose.
		And then a variety of things happened.
		And now it's, that's why I say near toss-up territory.
		I mean, 58 to 42, it was briefly 55 to 45.
		This is, what, a week ago?
		So Democrats improved a little bit, dipped down a little bit.
		It should not be anywhere this close.
		So I'm making the bet the Republicans' attitude is: listen, when SNAP benefits go up, a lot of rural working class poor people are going to be celebrating.
		The Republican message is going to be: those people that are mad were stealing from you.
		And I think a lot of conservative people are going to be like, yep.
		And then a lot of people in the urban environments are going to be like, I don't know what happened.
		All I know is you're supposed to have fixed this.
		And so even if, I'll put it this way, in New York, in a D plus 30, is Trump really worried about losing voters?
		But it's going to hurt Democrats.
		In a swing district, maybe, but Trump may be betting.
		In a swing district where a Democrat is currently in office for Congress, people are going to say, I'm voting for the other guy, regardless of which party it is.
		I'm voting for the other guy because what's happening is bad.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		And I think that bump for the Republicans there, I believe that's because of the SCOTUS looking like they're going to take on the Voting Rights Act.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The initial decline appears to be, like you can see over the past several months, generally related to the public sentiment, the working class, et cetera.
		And then this bump that happened right here is when news broke that SCOTUS was likely going to overturn the voting, was it the Voter Rights Act?
		Voting Rights Act?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Voting Rights Act.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		They were going to overturn that one.
		And that's allegedly going to give Republicans 20 more districts.
		I'll put it like this.
		When you're at the point in politics where in order to win, you're just blatantly redistricting, we are well past the point of arguments.
		I'm looking at it like the Republicans.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I agree with that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The Republicans' attitude right now, like even with going back to the DOJ stuff with the pardons and voiding them, they're going to do it.
		Like, maybe I'm wrong, but I think Trump's attitude is all that matters is you win.
		As we had on Arn McIntyre last week, and he said, I forgot whose quote this is, the sovereign is he who makes the exceptions or the exemptions, whichever.
		And so right now, I'm assuming that the Republican Party's attitude is, who cares?
		You can just do things.
		That's it.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Probably.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Nobody, like, there was a period maybe 30 years ago where the conversation was, let's figure out where we meet, compromise, and then work together.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		We're way past that.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There's no accuse Trump of being a Russian spy.
		You know, impeach whatever by any means necessary.
		Get him out and launch investigations.
		And then with Trump, you get the election is fake.
		You get January 6th riots.
		Nobody, this is why I said this in 2020, that people were going to, I said people are going to storm the White House.
		Not exactly correct, but close.
		Because the arguments every year, the argument, you know what it is?
		It's actually really simple.
		Let me say it like this.
		The argument only matters to the older crowd.
		The older you are, the more you're concerned about winning an argument.
		The younger you are, the more you're just like, crush them.
		And we see that with the celebration of Charlie Kirk's death.
		You see it with, I mean, Nick Fuentes getting more and more popular among younger generation, going viral on social media among these younger Gen Z guys, Gen Z skewing right.
		I don't see a remedy to the track we're on.
		I think it goes in one direction.
		Y'all know that.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, you have the ability.
		You have millions of listeners and followers, and you have the ability to help shape the debate.
		That's why I'm here is because you'll have someone like me on it, Tim.
		And that's something where you're not on the extreme where you're generating hatred.
		And there are people who, you know who they are, who that's how they make their money in doing that.
		But that's not who you are.
		And that's why I think maybe there's some hope if we can have this type of debate, this type of dialogue.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I agree with you.
		And I think it's been Graham.
		I'm really glad that you came and I hope you come back.
		It was fun.
		Even though I just got really heated and started yelling.
		But I would go back to that, what got me so heated, and then say to the millions of people who follow me, who trust me, what do you think they think?
		How do you think they feel about what Merrick Garland did to me?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I think they hate it.
		And that's why I understand your indignation about it.
		I understand why you're upset about it because you had to hire lawyers.
		You've had death threats.
		You still have death threats, I'm sure.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But because it was fake.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's a lie.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The difference that we have on this is not that I think you shouldn't be upset about it.
		I think the difference is that I don't think Merrick Garland went in there thinking, I'm going to screw over these right-wing influencers and I'm going to help the Democrat win the election.
		Just Merrick Garland is not like that.
		He's got his faults.
		And the people on the left, they are really down on him because they think he dragged his feet after January 6th, didn't want to get involved in going after Trump.
		Didn't even put a special prosecutor into place until it was too late.
		He went out of his way to make sure Biden's son got prosecuted.
		Biden was embarrassed by Robert Hurr.
		He dropped the case against Matt Gates.
		This is Merrick Garland in the Democrats' mind.
		So where I'm coming from is that I don't think he came in there thinking, I'm going to screw over Tim Poole and the Republicans.
		He may have made mistakes, but I don't think it's because he intentionally tried to hurt you or the Republicans.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why didn't he then reconcile the mistake he made?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		As far as the case, remember, you said that you heard from your lawyers that they dropped the case in December.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Informally.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Informally, right?
		But I haven't seen that.
		Like, it's not reported.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no, but it's informal.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And that's the point.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The case or against the case against the RT people.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So here's the timeline.
		Press conference.
		This thing happened.
		Tim Poole, Benny, Dave did nothing wrong.
		Immediately, we were attacked by every political actor imaginable, threatening our sponsors, trying to get us banned, death threats.
		There's no way Merrick Garland was unaware that would be the case.
		The argument made by Merrick Garland was that we disseminated Russian propaganda.
		That's factually incorrect.
		The shows that were licensed were not in any meaningful way Russian propaganda.
		People tried claiming that because of comments I made about a German indictment of a Ukrainian cut out of context, that was Russian propaganda.
		Germany indicted a Ukrainian guy for bombing Nord Street 2.
		I said, if a Ukrainian bombed Nord Stream 2, they are an enemy of this Ukraine sanctioning this would make them an enemy of our country, trying to drag us into war.
		So then they say, aha.
		So a totally different company, a different show.
		And then they try to make some circuitous argument.
		But the point is, Merrick Garland had no evidence, issued an indictment against two individuals that could never be prosecuted, falsely claiming that the prominent key players were unwittingly disseminating Russian propaganda, which is false, never apologized for his error.
		And then in December, the feds, the DOJ, instructed my lawyers that they would be informally closing the case.
		That is, it will remain open.
		We will not tell anybody, but we will no longer pursue it, and we no longer need your correspondence.
		And I rejected that and said, absolutely not.
		What do I have to do?
		And that's when I was instructed.
		Tim, this was for the election.
		There's nothing you can do.
		The DOJ never had any intention to prosecute two men from a faraway land they can't prosecute.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, they've done that before, though.
unidentified		Sure.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		There are several.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And they did it right before the election.
		And so my point is this.
		Not to rehash that whole argument.
		My point is to the millions of people who do watch this show, who know that I've disparaged Russia, but I've also disparaged Ukraine and don't rightly care about either because they're not America.
		They know Merrick Garland lied.
		They know that it caused us damage.
		They know that it put us at tremendous risk politically, financially, and safety.
		And the view is Merrick Garland is a portent of what's to come.
		This is what you get from the boomer class trying to destroy you.
		He didn't mean to try and destroy my family's life and put us at risk and have every political actor and faction trying to dish rip us to shreds.
		He didn't mean for that to happen.
		He just did it on accident.
		So the response is: okay, these people are either so brazenly inept, they're dangerous, or they're malicious.
		And now the presumption is wholly it's malicious, considering Jenna Ellis being prosecuted.
		I mean, whatever your argument over what you think Jenna Ellis did, it is bold to criminally charge a person's lawyer.
		Local prosecutor did that, right?
		But it doesn't matter.
		The Democratic Party is not a separate entity.
		The Democrats work at the state and federal level all the same.
		And the prosecutors are once again aligned with these political parties, federal or otherwise.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The fact that she pled guilty to a much lower charge means that they threatened her life and she begged them to leave her alone.
		But also, now it's getting there where the initial charge of RICO seems to be an overcharged.
		When you charge someone with such a serious crime as RICO, and then a few weeks later, they plead guilty to almost nothing.
		That to me is a problem.
		Then it does seem like an overcharge.
		But, you know, you talk about Merrick Garland, who comes out before an election and has his press conference.
		But don't you think that James Comey deserves the same thing when he violated FBI policy to announce that he was reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation just days before the election.
		And that, then he closed it right before with very little standfare, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It was obviously political.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And I think Hillary Clinton should have been criminally charged for the destruction of public records.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But the Comey part, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The fact that we have an overtly political DOJ and always have.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Whose side was he on then?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		He was hurting Hillary Clinton.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Indeed.
		Yeah, indeed.
		I can't speak to the motivations of James Comey.
		I don't like the guy, nor do I trust him.
		And there's a million and one reasons we can assume, but I can say I don't care if it's Comey or Garland or anybody.
		An October surprise is an obvious October surprise.
		You're playing games.
		We get it.
		Now, the issue with Hillary Clinton is that she should have been charged over the emails thing a long time ago.
		But if the president is, we're not going to do that, we're not going to play that game, they shouldn't have gone after Trump.
		They shouldn't have gone after Trump for documents at Mar-a-Lau.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Those are, I mean, apples and oranges, the documents.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I think that is legit because, again, well, we already talked about that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		So, so to the Comey issue, the apples is that it is dangerous for parties to swap targeting each other when they switch power.
		So, for Trump to be targeted by Obama and Yates and Comey and whoever else, Biden, with being a Russian spy as he entered office, is terrifying, right?
		As Trump is campaigning, they accuse him of being a traitor.
		He enters office with this weight over him.
		And then, for a variety of reasons, which I believe are largely Trump's fault, not so much that he did it to himself, but that he didn't know what he was getting into.
		He ends up with the Mueller investigation and all this ridiculous nonsense.
		Then you end up with these individuals, these holdovers in the FBI, the DOJ, putting pressure on social media organizations to censor people, which is a fact.
		And let me just succinctly wrap this up.
		I accurately reported a long time ago that social media companies were censoring conservative voices and pro-Trump voices.
		And every Wahoo in the corporate press said I was lying.
		I'm a conspiracy.
		It's admitted up.
		Gizmodo was the organization that initially reported this.
		I cited them, and then I get accused of lying.
		We now know that all that was true.
		We now know that Biden's DOJ was sending letters, had illicit access to big tech platforms through back doors, through threats against these companies.
		Zuckerberg came out and said, we resisted, but they forced us to do it.
		I mean, what Biden did is evil.
		Now, maybe Trump did evil stuff too.
		But to the main point before we go to our super chats, is that nobody should want conflict or crisis.
		Nobody should want war.
		It will be the worst thing you ever see come to pass.
		And these young people, largely these urban lefty antifatypes that are celebrating violence and revolution, they are going to be the first to weep if it ever actually happens because they're going to be like, why can't I eat food anymore?
		I think conservatives are largely going to be like, we mostly live in the middle of nowhere and we have chickens in our backyard.
		So it will predominantly impact urban individuals who lose access to these resources, but everybody will be lesser because of it.
		Unfortunately, neither side will back down.
		There are two distinct moral worldviews that have been described as the multicultural democracy of America, the Democrats, the liberals, the left, and the Constitutional Republic of America, the right, the conservatives, et cetera.
		Neither of them will accept the proposition of the other.
		That is, Democrats have proposed abortion up to nine months.
		States like Colorado, it happens.
		Unrestricted.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, you're from.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but does that really happen?
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It does.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		It doesn't literally happen.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But you can't let nine-month abortion happen unless there's a threat to the health of the mother.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		It does happen.
		Well, no, no, no, but this is actually to call that an abortion.
		Here's why this is complicated: because when the woman is nine months pregnant and there is a medical reason why the baby needs to come out, you just induce labor and she gives birth early.
		To perform an abortion on top of that is never a medical necessity.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But let's put that aside because that actually doesn't, that argument is not to the point I'm making.
		And if, you know, by all means, Seamus can argue with you and show you the facts on this and we can disagree.
		My point is, neither will accept the proposition of the other.
		So in Colorado, when they said we would like to legalize abortion unrestricted up to nine months, conservatives and moderate liberals even said, why?
		And they said, well, it doesn't happen anyway.
		I don't care what you think happens or doesn't happen.
		Don't legalize it.
		They've also proposed child sex changes.
		Put these people on TV.
		There is no reality where a conservative accepts that proposition.
		The conservative argument is drag shows for children are felonious and should be shut down immediately.
		And Democrats say we should have drag shows for children.
		What's the problem?
		Both sides saying that is an existential threat to my moral worldview.
		There's no reality where the Democrats and Republicans come to compromise on when children can get sex changes.
		It's an absolute, there's no middle ground.
		It's either you allow it or you don't.
		So I don't see a reality where moving forward, either side will negotiate a middle ground between the two.
		It's just not going to happen.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I do worry that we're so dug in and people are not talking to each other.
		Now we have different social media sites.
		I mean, you have Blue Sky and Twitter separate, and you have podcasts, and people have all this confirmation bias.
		That's why I come on shows like yours, and I've been on Megan Kelly and other shows because I just think you're one of the few who does allow for that dialogue.
		You think Nick Fuentes does?
		That's not the same.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, he tries.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but that's.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He does.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He would love to go on liberal shows.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Oh, my God.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But here's the thing.
		So I respect it.
		I appreciate it.
		We're glad to have you.
		Liberals don't do these shows.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's a problem.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Charge money.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Don Lemon said $50,000.
unidentified		Wow.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		He's worth every penny.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I know, Don.
		Don, the good guy.
		That's surprising because shows do not pay.
		That's the thing.
		No, shows don't pay.
		So it's not like it's just you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No shows pay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I shouldn't say every, but 80% of the liberals we ask come back with a fee.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Really?
		Well, you know, Bill Maher, who I like, he says the same thing you do.
		He says that I invite the Clintons and liberals on the show.
		They don't come.
		Only the Republicans seem to come.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bill Maher's right-wing.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, he's considered right-wing.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		He's actually considers himself old school liberal.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But Bill Maher and I largely agree on a lot of things.
		And I had a great time.
		I grew up watching his show when I was a kid.
		And the problem is, what largely divides Bill Maher and I, and I told him this, and with all due respect, is that he doesn't know what's going on.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Were you on a show?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh, on Club Random.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that's cool.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I've not gone on real time.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		You got a drink with him on a show?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		And I don't really drink, so I had some tequila because I'm not like alcohol bad.
		I just don't do it for health reasons because I just try to eat healthy, right?
		I got a good BPM, all that good stuff.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I try to get caffeine, like a caffeinated beverage here.
		You don't even have that.
		I'm impressed.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We do.
		We have Yerba.
		We have Tonzi Verba.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No, I didn't see it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's downstairs.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Oh, man.
		No, I didn't.
		I'm here without any caffeine.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So here's the example of Bill Maher because Bill Maher is right-wing.
		Several years ago, he had on Dennis Prager.
		And Prager mentioned that in bathrooms, they're putting tampons in the boys' bathroom because they're claiming that men can menstruate.
		And everyone on real time laughed at him.
		And Bill said, no, they're not.
		They put him in there for their girlfriends.
		However, the interesting thing, the story cited by Dennis Prager, and this is, I think, 2018, was actually a three-year-old story.
		So various college publications and blogs had already written about, yes, men can menstruate.
		And yes, colleges are putting tampons in men's room.
		Three years after that story breaks, and we are all discussing it, Prager on real time says it is a lie to claim men can menstruate.
		And Bill Maher laughed and said, Dennis, what are you talking about?
		This is crazy.
		I've never heard this.
		So I believe that Bill Maher, you know, he's almost 70, and I'm a fan.
		He gets his news probably from corporate cable TV.
		So he's not going to be apprised to everything that those of us who are reading the news all day every day are.
		So what happens is he's three or four years late to the conversation.
		And if you were able to sit down with Bill and show him a piece of media, for instance, I won't play because I do all the time, but the video from I Am Jazz, are you familiar with the show?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I don't think so.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Jazz Jennings was seven, socially transitioned at 11, got surgeries, and puberty blockers or whatever, not surgery, just prebioty blockers, has a show, and I think it's TLC.
		And there's a viral clip where Jazz Jennings' mother says that Jez, a biological male who is trans, doesn't use the dilator.
		So she will wake Jazz up in the middle of the night, take the dilator, lubricate it, and say, you stick this in your vagina, or if you don't, I will.
		And that if Jazz leaves and doesn't do this, I will wring her neck.
		You show that to a conservative and they are going to scream bloody marketing.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Child abuse.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You show that to Bill Maher.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Like one of the most horrific incidents I've ever heard of.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You took a prebubescent child, surgically removed his genitals.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Dude, I can't even hear about it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And then when the child is an adult and says, I don't want to do this anymore, you say, if you don't do this, I'll wring your neck.
		You show that to Bill Maher and he's going to go, this is abhorrent and shouldn't be allowed.
		And the question then is, why are you voting for the party that is making it possible and putting it on TV?
		And he's not, I don't know, because Trump is bad, because Trump's lewd and lascivious and self-interested and enriching his family.
		And I'm like, dude, make every political argument in the world that you want.
		Fine.
		If you come to me and say, you can have the mafioso who's going to get rich off crypto schemes and build golf courses and golden ballrooms, or you can have the guy who's going to surgically amputate a child's testicles and then put on TV a woman threatening to jam a foreign object up inside of him if he refuses.
		And I'm going to be like, ah, give me the mafia guy.
		And that's where we're at.
		We got to go to chats.
		We got to go to chats.
		So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know.
		You can follow me on next Instagram at Tim Cast.
		We got a great sponsor because we got to read a sponsor post.
		Guys, TaxNetworkUSA, T-N-U-S-A.com/slash Tim.
		Check it out.
		Do you owe back taxes?
		Are your tax returns still unfiled?
		Did you forget to file for an extension?
		Time's running out.
		You haven't gathered all your documents or made any estimated payments.
		You can still be targeted by the IRS and they can garnish your wages, freeze your bank accounts, or even seize your property.
		And rest assured, my friends, even though the government is currently shut down, all of those IRS agents are sitting there rubbing their hands, looking through the files.
		The moment they come back, they're jumping on those backlogs.
		So there is hub available.
		Tax Network USA, a nationwide tax firm, has helped taxpayers save over $1 billion in tax debt.
		They filed hundreds of thousands of tax returns and assisted thousands in reducing their tax burdens.
		And they can help you too.
		Don't wait.
		Visit tnusa.com/slash Tim or call 1-800-958-1000 for a 100% free consultation.
		In one short call, the experts at Tax Network USA will guide you through some simple questions to determine how much you can save.
		Take action now before it's too late.
		Visit tnusa.com/slash Tim.
		And now we're going to read your chats, which should just make it more of a debate.
		Kid Funky says, if Trump says after the fact that he did unclassify the documents, were they unclassified?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That was his argument.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But it's.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If Biden says after the fact that they were pardoned, does that make them pardoned?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, it means that he didn't do any wrong for both plenary powers of the president.
		No, no, these are two different things.
		If Biden afterwards affirms the pardons, said, Yeah, I pardoned them.
		That's what happened.
		I proved this.
		Then there's no problem here.
		If Trump, after the fact, says, oh, these, now I unclassify them, well, no, deeds already done.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What's the process by which a president unclassifies something?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's actually a good question because remember Cash Patel was saying, yes, I was there when Trump said, I declassify.
		It's like Michael Scott in the office.
		Can I use that reference when he says, I declare bankruptcy?
		It doesn't work like that.
		There's a process.
		Exactly.
		Especially for nuclear secrets, there's a process.
		So I appreciate the argument.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		That person who wrote in would be a good lawyer, but there's apples and oranges as we if executive privilege exists for the president.
		Isn't that a red tape argument at that point?
		You're not actually talking about him doing something nefarious.
		You're just saying he didn't go through the proper procedure.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Well, but there is a statutory procedure, especially for nuclear secrets.
		You just can't say, I declassify.
		Trump was actually saying, in my mind, I declassify it, which is not a thing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Seignich says, respectfully, I'd rather have Chet GPT be my lawyer than this guy.
		But I read that because I want to push back.
		Are you nuts?
		This guy's doing great.
		He's arguing his positions very well.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		I think that's the best chat I saw.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's why it took 40 minutes to get through the first segment because you do a good, great, good job, Article.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		And I must say, I would like ChatGBT to be my lawyer, too.
		I mean, that, right?
		You can't get better than artificial intelligence.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, what's happening is that they're degrading.
		Yeah, because they're consuming their own refuse.
		So what's happening is the way they learn is they read the internet, but the internet is now half AI-generated content.
		So they're reabsorbing it and going insane.
		Chat GPT has gotten particularly bad, like really bad.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I'm a Gemini guy personally.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, I didn't like Grok for a while, even though Elon's raving about it and I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
		I try it.
		As of right now, I give Grok the lead.
		Grok Grok watched my podcasts.
		Like, I was, I opened Grok and I was like, give me the timestamp for this in the podcast.
		And it just like, it knew instantly on a two-hour podcast what I was looking for.
		Very great.
		Chat GPT couldn't function because I had a typo in a sentence.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's great.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		So see, Grok is doing a competitor to Wikipedia?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They did.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Grock a pediatric.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I think that's great.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Wikipedia is just totally defunct.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Totally.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And full of Jew Israel haters.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So Wikipedia says of me that it insinuates I pretend to be a liberal to feign authenticity.
		And I'm like, that's an opinion statement.
		Why is that in an encyclopedia?
		It's not.
		Wikipedia is just crazy.
		And to be fair, my Wikipedia entry is not that bad.
		But for like RFK Jr., it says an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist.
		And it's like, those are just insults.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, like, why is that in there?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		You don't have to do it.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Every prominent conservative commentator is just pejorative, pejorative, pejorative.
		And then like, then they give his resume.
		It's like, what are we doing here?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I still think he would make a good lawyer, ChatGPT.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, actually, there's been a bunch of cases where ChatGPT has cited false precedents.
		It manufactures precedents.
		That's true.
		And then they get caught.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		All right.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Good point.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Spork Witch says they didn't even have to agree on the alleged crime.
		What crime was covered up?
		Why do we think something was covered up?
		If you can't agree on the alleged other crime, you've got nothing.
		It was bunk.
		So another person pointed out that they never actually brought up the underlying crime until jury deliberations.
		So there was actually no burden of proof on intent either.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The writer is right that they don't have to agree.
		The jury could choose any of the three secondary crimes, and they don't even have to agree on it.
		It just has to be any of the three.
		They did mention those three during the trial.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But so that is just a circuitous way of saying the government can punish you without proving a crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No, they proved the underlying crime, which is the misdemeanor crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, no, they didn't prove the underlying crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The underlying crime was the three, you know, choose your own adventure.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No, the underlying crime was the falsification of business records.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no.
		Falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime implies as an underlying crime for which they were intending to commit.
		It was semantics.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Okay, maybe it's semantics, but.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So the argument is falsification of business records in furtherance of a crime.
		Furtherance of a crime implies there's an underlying crime crime.
		Right.
		And so the government never proved it.
		So the argument is if the government can imprison you based on the presumption of an underlying crime, but they've never proven what that underlying crime was, they have imprisoned you in violation of your due process.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But that's not what the courts say.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The court says it's okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		So this is the fascinating thing about, it's a good lesson for people, and it's about the exertion of power.
		You can just do whatever you want.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No, it's just not an element of the crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So that means we can make a law where we say you're being criminally charged for gloating over a crime you committed, and it's the gloating for which we are charging you because, or it's like attaching to any crime, like, I guess my point is Jay Walking in furtherance of another crime, 25 years in prison.
		Whoa, whoa, whoa, jaywalking's not a felony charge, but you were jaywalking because you were intending to do something bad.
		Prove it.
		I don't have to.
		I don't.
		I can just make up a charge and claim you were doing something evil that I don't have to prove or that you wanted to do evil.
		I mean, this is pre-crime.
		It's literal pre-crime.
		Jaywalking in furtherance of a crime.
		He's going to go to prison now for 34 felonies because he jaywalked back and forth 34 times.
		But hold on, jaywalking is a petty crime.
		It's a petty offense.
		You get a ticket for it.
		Not went in furtherance of another crime.
		What crime was that?
		Doesn't matter, does it?
		If that's the country we're going to live in, then I am ready.
		Because I say Trump should just start locking everybody up he doesn't like because he can just do whatever he wants.
		We don't got to prove it anymore.
		Campaigning in furtherance of a crime.
		Campaigning is not illegal.
		Oh, but in furtherance of a crime, it is.
		You're going to prison.
		But what's the underlying crime I committed?
		Nothing, but you were campaigning in furtherance of one.
		Prove it.
		I don't have to.
		I don't have to prove there was anything other than at some point you wanted to do wrong.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Indeed.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		Right.
		But you have to show that there was intent.
		You have to prove there was intent, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No one in the jury agreed on what the intent was.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		As long as they agreed there was another crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		They don't have to be on the same one.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So that means I can say in the process of campaigning, Seamus Coughlin approached a street.
		He didn't look both ways.
		He raised up a foot and we arrested him.
		I do not recall furtherance of a crime, jaywalking.
		Jaywalking is a crime.
		And I can prove to a jury, right, that he intended to jaywalk.
		Or at least the intent was there to jaywalk.
		He said, I'm going to jaywalk.
		So we arrested him and charged him with falsifying documents in furtherance of another crime.
		And it's a felony now.
		This is the craziest thing.
		Like, if we're going to live in that world, I also want to give a shout out to Kanye West because he criticized the 13th Amendment specifically because it legalized, it codified slavery.
		People who don't, and this is, it's funny because the poor man, you know, for all of his faults, criticize him.
		But for the poor man, this all started when he said we need to repeal the 13th Amendment.
		And the left and the corporate press, not actually reading it, said, Holy crap, Ye wants to bring back slavery.
		Ye got pissed because he was like, What?
		The 13th Amendment says if you commit any crime, you can be made a slave.
		Any crime.
		We can't have that.
		And he's correct.
		Literally, according to the Constitution, you could jaywalk and then they enslave you.
		It doesn't say slavery is banned.
		It says only upon conviction of a crime.
		So that's what our country does.
		Now, however, we being sane rational people are like, no, we're not going to enslave people, right?
		But if the argument is we can put someone in prison for a thing that is not a crime, so long as it's just so wild to claim.
		It's just, I'm ready.
		If that's the game we're playing, just as long as everybody knows, okay?
		Jaywalking in furtherance of a felony.
		Can you prove they committed a felony?
		I don't have to.
		I don't.
		I'm just going to say the guy had a knife on him.
		Seems like he wanted to stab somebody, right?
		Who carries a knife around?
		Well, we agree.
		Okay.
		Your jaywalking charge is now a 20-year felony.
		That's just nuts.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, remember, you still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had the intent to conceal the violation of a secondary crime.
		That's it.
		So you do have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
		What is that secondary crime?
		It's up to the jury.
unidentified		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, but you can prove concealment of an unknown crime very easily.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I saw Seamus shove a book under his coat and run off.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		It's got to be a crime.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Which crime?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, they gave him three options.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And so I can be like, oh, Seamus, listen.
		Like, bro, come on.
		Are you hearing yourself?
		Let's try this argument.
		I see Seamus in a trench coat grab a book and shove it under his jacket and then run away.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		You know me, you know I would never do that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He's now concealed a book, right?
		In this book are financial transactions.
		I then say I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he concealed this book of financial transactions.
		Here's a video of him doing it.
		So he concealed these records in furtherance of another crime.
		What was the crime?
		Well, honestly, I can't prove he committed the crime, but it's possible that those documents were him laundering money.
		And so it was either money laundering, he was defrauding an old lady, or he was stealing lottery numbers.
		You pick.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		You know me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But you saw him conceal it and he was looking pretty suspicious as he exited the building, hiding that booklet.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I can prove he was up to something.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		I would never do that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He was up to something.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		You know me.
		You know I would never do something like that.
		You know me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think to me and to everybody else, the statement here is just literally, you can just do things.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll give you this.
		It is a matter of debate.
		You're not the first to bring this up.
		And this is a New York thing that allows them to do this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's never been done before.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, the courts have upheld it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, actually, it's a.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		The Supreme Court could overturn it if it wasn't.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The appellate court has not issued their ruling.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They've held it for a year.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But as far as the ability to have a statute like this where all you have to do is prove that I could be wrong because I don't think I know everything.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm not a genius.
		But my understanding is this is the first time it has ever happened.
		This is unprecedented.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I would disagree, but I don't have that pressing on me.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But this is not the first time that statute has been used.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And no, but used underlying crime.
		So the statute's been used as an addition to other crimes, saying the guy laundered money and he falsified business records.
		This is the first time there's been nothing else other than he falsified business records in furtherance of other crime that we've not proven.
		That's why it's controversial.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think that this has been used as a felony statute in the past, and that's why.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		With other crimes.
unidentified		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, yeah, but there's the first time it doesn't have another crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, there are other charges.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		There are three possible other crimes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He's never been convicted of.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So this is the first time this has been used as a standalone charge.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		We'll have to look that up because I thought it has been used like that, but we can look that up.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And by all means, I'm open to being wrong about this.
		Has there ever been a case in Illinois where I'm typing this in?
		It's hard to type in.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		It's going to be hard to get a quick answer on that one.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Hey, you said you wanted AI as a lawyer.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Now you've got your wish, buddy.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Fair enough.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm asking Grok.
		So Grok has the ability to do these really long answers, which are really impressive.
		So I'll let it cook and I'll grab some of your super chats.
		But we're having fun.
		All right, let's go.
		Brian Dayton says, this guy's gerrymander comment just proves he's a political hack.
		Like, dude, Democrats have consistently only gerrymandered for decades after panic-firing excuses for Garland in the face of personal experience.
		Well, he's allowed to disagree, but I would more politely assert the point being made.
		Blue states are insanely gerrymandered.
		Illinois is a joke how badly gerrymandered it is.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No debate there.
		And thank you to the fan, my new fan.
		I'll put him down as undecided as far as I'm concerned.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Swing voter.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Swing voter.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Here's the difference.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Depends on how you redistrict him.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Has there ever been a time when the party in power has intentionally redrawn the lines in the middle of the decade solely to gain a political advantage?
		I don't know.
		To the point where, do both sides gerrymander?
		Of course, but has there ever been none like this?
		I don't recall that.
		I think this is a first.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I agree.
		I think that's true.
		And I think what we are seeing is both sides just saying, I'm going to win.
		I don't care.
		I haven't read this.
		Grok just spat it out.
		Quote: Yes, the conviction is widely viewed as unprecedented in this regard.
		My question: Is it unprecedented that Trump was convicted without proving an underlying crime?
		Yes, the conviction is widely viewed as unprecedented in this regard by legal critics and by Trump's legal team as the prosecution elevated the charges of two felonies under New York Penal Law 175.10 without proving a specific underlying crime, such as a federal campaign, finance violation, or tax fraud, as a standalone offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
		Instead, they relied on proving Trump's intent to conceal another crime framed as a violation of New York election law, through a scheme involving the payment with multiple possible unlawful means, blah, blah, blah.
		Presented to the jury without requiring unanimity on any one theory.
		Jury instructions allowed conviction if jurors agreed on the falsification and the broader intent to violate election law, but not on the exact secondary violation, which defense appeals argue dilutes proof requirements and introduces legal error.
		While 17510 has been applied in hundreds of prior cases, those typically feature clearer, directly evidenced underlying offensive.
		None match this novel bootstrapping of the state falsification charges onto uncharged federal election issues in a presidential context, leading to appeals, leading appeals to challenge it as an overreach without concrete proof of the elevating crime.
		The May 2024 verdict stands pending appeal, but the lack of an explicit underlying conviction has fueled claims of a zombie case revived unconventionally.
		So that was my point.
		I believe I'm correct.
		They have never before used this aggravating charge without any other crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		There was one sentence in it that I think they make the distinction that never before when it comes to a federal election offense.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Is that what they said?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		None matched this novel bootstrapping of state falsification charges onto uncharged federal election issues in a presidential context.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right, right.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		See, that's limited.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Comma.
unidentified		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Leading appeals to challenge it as an overreach without concrete proof of the elevating crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		But what they're saying is they've never seen a state law that's been elevated to a felony based on a federal election violation.
		Right.
		But what about if they decided that the state election violation law was violated?
		Excuse me, that the state law was violated.
		And if they did, by the way, that would mean two misdemeanors equal one felony, which is weird, but it happens.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Or theoretically, if the underlying crime, I think under this charge, you could have the felony falsification of records attached to a misdemeanor.
		So if you committed a misdemeanor and falsified records, you now have a felony.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Which is weird because if the underlying offense is also a misdemeanor, since when does two misdemeanors equal one felony?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		in new york they allow that uh they i am incorrect uh Charges in New York, falsifying business records to the first.
		Okay, no, no, no.
		Okay, this is incorrect.
		No.
		I knew that.
		I knew that what it wrote didn't apply.
		We're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show so I can write this again.
		I thought I think I may be incorrect.
		I'm not entirely sure, but I'm going to have to ask Grock again because it's talking about the underlying misdemeanor and it says misdemeanor.
		I'm talking about the felony, so I have to ask it again.
		My friend, smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know.
		Stay tuned.
		The uncensored portion of the show is coming up at rumble.com/slash Timcast.
		IRL.
		You don't want to miss it.
		It's always fun, not so family friendly.
		Did I say you can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast?
		Sure.
		Dave, you want to shout anything out?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, thanks.
		I'm on Substack now.
		So all my fans out there, or I should say fan, you can find me at Dave Aaronberg, D-A-V-E-A-R-O-N-B-E-R-G.
		Please, I'd love to hear from you, even if you disagree with me.
		I'm also on X at Aaronberg.
		And you can find me also and LegalAF on YouTube.
		Thanks for having me.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Follow me on X and Instagram at Realtate Brown.
		Deputize the Walmart Greeters.
		We're ready.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		I'm Seamus Coughlin.
		I'm the creator of Freedom Tunes.
		The left has dominated entertainment in this country for decades.
		They've slowly chipped away at your culture through propaganda.
		Myself and my team are fighting back because you cannot win a culture war without making culture.
		We're working on producing a full-length animated show.
		We already have the 25-minute pilot done.
		You can watch it by going to twistedplots.com and supporting our cause.
		I've got the team, I've got the experience, and I've got the track record.
		Give me your support, and I will be unstoppable.
		Help us to create the future of entertainment.
		Twistedplots.com.
		We need your help.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Grock, you're giving me the business.
		It keeps giving me, well, what can you blame AI?
		How can you not blame AI for being dumb?
		What am I trying to say?
		Guys, we'll see you over at rumble.com/slash Timcast IRL in about 30 seconds.
		Thanks for hanging out.
		All right.
		Well, obviously, I'm mostly questioning, why is Grok giving me the business?
		Oh, shit.
		Okay.
		I think I'm right.
		Let me say this.
		I don't know everything.
		I read the news a lot.
		I read a whole bunch of legal analysis on the case, and I read probably 17 articles where they were all saying, like, never before has New York brought this felony charge without also charging an underlying crime.
		Because the claim of falsifying business records in furtherance under the crime is an attachment.
		It's an add-on.
		Grock has given me the business, and I may have to ask it again.
		New York prosecutors have never brought a charge under penal law 17510 without alleging another crime element in the indictment or charging instrument, because failing to do so would render the felony allegation facially insufficient as it omits a core statutory requirement.
		It explicitly demands the falsification occur with the intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit.
		Indictments must plead all elements under New York criminal procedure.
		I don't think it's answering the question I'm asking.
		I think.
		Okay, I'm going to try this again.
		Hey, you guys talk about that while I type this in.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Poll reveals warning signs for Democrats ahead of the midterms.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Uh-oh.
		Democrats polling lead ahead of the 2026 midterm elections is showing warning signs in their efforts to reclaim the majority in the House next November.
		Well, look at that.
unidentified		What specifically are the polls showing, though?
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		That's what I would like to know.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, are these factoring in the redistricting and the Supreme Court case?
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		There's a lot.
		A lot here.
		I mean, yeah.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		We've gone through the whole podcast without talking about Mondami.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		I got to believe our best friend.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're for him, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're a big fan.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I think this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're right-wing then.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that makes him right-wing.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		My gosh, I was not just right-wing, dude.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		You're a fascist, actually.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		He's great for Florida.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		He is good for Florida.
		He's helped the property values in Palm Beach County.
		I think that has something to do with it.
		In November, that people see him and he will be made the titular head of the Democratic Party once he's elected.
		And it's not good for the Democrats.
		He doesn't sell outside of New York City.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Yep.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
		I mean, listen, one thing people have been saying, and it drives me crazy, is, well, you know, if he just wins, then people will finally learn their lesson about socialism.
		It's like, yes, this time, this will be the one that does it for sure.
		Not the hundreds of millions of people who died in the 20th century.
		It's like, it's going to be New York.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, like the rating the treasury is the point.
		That's what they're voting for.
		They're conscious of what the outcome will be.
		It's about vindictiveness.
		It's about.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		I mean, the economic policy is all window dressing, as they say.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, because pathological.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I say it a lot, but it's just true.
		It's like, you know, everyone's combing through his website, Zoran, for New York, and they're just like, none of these policies make any sense.
		There's no cohesiveness.
		And it's like, because that's not what's on the ballot.
		What's on the ballot is retribution against the American people where all these new arrivals in New York feel like they've been wronged for a variety of reasons.
		And so this is like an anti-vote.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		And it's, yeah, exactly.
		It's resentment.
		That's all it is.
		I hate the system.
		I hate the people who made it.
		I hate the white man.
		I hate my dad.
		Honestly, it's like, I hate my dad.
		That's what all of it is.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		You can't really reduce a lot of modern leftism down to I hate my dad.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		So like, I hate my dad or women rejected me, something like that.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Yeah.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Well, I said on the show, you actually both.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We are, we are both simultaneously wrong.
		I was more right.
		It's a very strange thing to ask this question.
		The question is, has New York State – so first of all, we know they have never charged someone under this falsification of business records as a felony while the intended crime was federal jurisdiction.
		That's never happened before.
		That's the immediate unprecedented.
		However, there have been many people who have been criminally charged solely under this one criminal statute.
		That is, in one case, a guy was committing tax fraud, but they never proved the tax fraud.
		They proved falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime as a standalone charge.
		However, this case with Trump is the first time ever they have charged someone with falsifying business records in furtherance of another crime without alleging the further crime in any way.
		And in the deliberations, it is additionally the only time they've ever given a menu option of potential crimes he may have intended to commit.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, yeah, because I remember that was the commentary at the time: if they're so confident on the conspiracy, why wouldn't they bring it forth as a charge and let the jury decide for themselves?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I have asked it a litany of questions so it could break this down for me.
		It gave me several examples of cases, such as let me pull one up.
		It's, where is it?
unidentified		It's right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Where'd it go?
		People versus people v.
		Jason Hawley, people v.
		Jose Aguilar.
		So I was partially wrong, but I was more right than you.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		How so?
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		That's kind of partially wrong to be.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So New York has charged people solely under 1750.10 falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime.
		However, in every instance, they've alleged explicitly a crime that they were accusing the individual of in the indictment.
		There's two unprecedented cases.
		One, where the underlying crime was a federal jurisdiction.
		And two, it's the first time they gave the jury a choice of potential crimes he may have intended to commit.
		So in every other circumstances, of which I think there's five, unanimity was required.
		Okay, so, okay, here we go.
		Where it's unprecedented specifically is that every other case where they've tried this, unanimity on the underlying crime was a requirement, but not necessarily a required charge.
		So I was call it 99% wrong.
		I don't care.
		I was largely wrong.
		I thought they had never solely charged one person under this.
		I am mistaken.
		And I'm glad for the fact check.
		They have never charged someone under this without requiring unanimity and alleging the underlying crime.
		So Trump is the first time, just to clarify, the first time they have brought this charge with no direct underlying crime asserted and no unanimity requirement on the charge.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Not asserted in the indictment.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		The indictment was very vague.
		I read that indictment.
		It didn't give a lot of meat.
		But in the trial, they did mention the three underlying crimes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Unprecedented.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Never.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Where it was never mentioned in the indictment?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		So in all instances, okay, according to Grok, and I've asked like five different ways to make sure it's right.
		Every time, so you've got Medicaid fraud, concealing drug proceeds, tax evasion, food stamp fraud, insurance fraud.
		In every circumstance, the 17510 felony charge asserted in the indictment specifically the crime they were trying to conceal and required the jury to agree that that was the crime.
		There was an individual specific crime they were trying to conceal, which I would argue is due process.
		You are asking a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, were they concealing this crime?
		With Trump, the issue is they said, you choose.
		We don't know which crime.
		We've not proven those crimes.
		It's the first time it's ever happened.
		And then additionally, it's unprecedented that the state ever tried to elevate a charge with a federal jury with a federal crime that they don't have jurisdiction over.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		I thought our debate was whether the intent, proving that beyond a reasonable doubt, would be enough or do you have to prove the second crime beyond a reasonable doubt?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And what they're saying is you don't have to prove the second crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but you have to identify.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no, they do.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I would argue that if you say Seamus jaywalked to hire a prostitute and we're charging him with elevated felony jaywalking, I'm being kind of facetious.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		You know me, you know I'm going to do that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It is unanimity on the intended concealment is a requirement, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt.
		So if the jury is shown evidence and the jury all agrees, that boy was trying to get a prostitute.
		You have proven proof of it.
seamus coughlin ▲ ● ▼		And they don't know me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If you say, look, maybe it was for a prostitute, maybe it was to buy drugs, maybe it was to buy a gun, you pick.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You've not proven beyond a reasonable doubt he was intending to commit a crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But remember, our dispute was about whether you could piggyback in that way, whether you had to prove the other crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
		And what Grok is saying is that it's never before happened where the jury isn't told specifically which crime it is.
		And here in some point, there are three choices.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's unprecedented.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		They never have to prove the second crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's even in other cases.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's what I'm saying.
		So I'm actually making the argument that you do.
		And my point is in all other cases, they required unanimity.
		That means the jury all agreed beyond a reasonable doubt, this individual was intending to conceal this crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And that's because they listed the one crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		They mentioned this here.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's a requirement.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		But here, the statute says you only have to prove intent to commit another crime.
		And if, and so.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to tell you what your argument really is.
		I'm going to tell you.
		To all the Gen Z people listening, you may as well be saying go buy a gun and shoot your political opponent because we will make up any justification to use the monopoly of violence against you.
		If the argument is never before has a person been convicted of a felony in this way without proving beyond a reasonable doubt the intended crime, you're basically saying, I will make up an argument to destroy you and then I will levy the state power against you.
		Look, it's already bad enough for young people, I'd argue.
		Like I've certainly got my grievances that I've told.
		So I'm driving out of Chicago.
		I get pulled over.
		I get a speeding ticket.
		I wasn't speeding.
		It's bullshit.
		What the fuck am I supposed to do?
		If I take off work, I'm going to lose, I'll get fired.
		So I got to pay the 75 bucks or take off work.
		I lose a day of work regardless of what I do.
		The system's fucked.
		So anyway, I end up going to visit my sister and I have the tickets got to be paid in three months.
		And I said, I can go back to Chicago.
		She was in Colorado.
		I can pay the ticket off.
		I'll just pay the ticket off.
		My sister said, don't even worry about it.
		I'll pay the 75 bucks.
		I'll pay it for you.
		Little did I know that was an admission of guilt, which suspended my license because I was 20 years old.
		And if you get two moving violations under the age of 21, they suspend your license.
		They never tell you that.
		They don't make you sign an agreement saying that.
		They passed a law and then said ignorance of the crime is not a problem.
		So I wasn't speeding and I was going to fight it.
		But I said, hey, fuck it.
		What's $75?
		I'm driving back to Chicago.
		I get pulled over, arrested as soon as I, a mile from my mom's house.
		And I'm like, this is fucking insane.
		I don't understand.
		Like, I didn't do anything wrong.
		I never got a notice.
		I was visiting my sister because her brother-in-law was in Iraq in combat.
		Why am I being targeted this way?
		When I went to court, the prosecutor told me to fuck myself and he would put me in prison.
		He'd put me in jail for a year on a Class A misdemeanor unless I'd plead guilty.
		And I'm like, why are you doing this to me?
		Why are you treating me this way?
		So that's what it was like 20 years ago for me.
		This is, you know, about 20 years ago.
		And that's how all of my friends grew up in this system being like, I think the reason why we are where we are, where people are looting stores, stealing whatever they want, is because they're like, bro.
		You walk into that courtroom and they say, go fuck yourself every fucking time.
		And I show up wearing a suit with glasses on, no hat, by the way.
		And he said, you have a lawyer?
		And I was like, I can't afford one.
		I made $10 an hour at the airport.
		I'm taking off work to come here.
		I wasn't a dick.
		I was like, no, I can't afford a lawyer.
		And he said, okay, well, tell me what happened.
		And then I said, I just got home from visiting my sister because her husband's in Iraq serving in combat and she was distraught.
		And I paid off a parking ticket, which I got suspended my license.
		I didn't know.
		And so when I got home, before I even got to my house, I got pulled over.
		I didn't even have a chance to go in the mail.
		And he went, okay.
		So you've admitted guilt.
		That's one year in jail, $2,500 fine.
	And I'm going to pursue it.
	I'll tell you what.
	If you plead guilty, pay $150 and tell the judge you were wrong.
	And he's like, and I was like, okay.
	And I went to the judge and the judge said, your name, you're pleading guilty.
	He says, has anyone coerced you into making this plea?
	And I said, yes, Your Honor.
	And he went, what?
	I said, yes, Your Honor.
	And then I told him the story.
	And he said, go to a lawyer and come back.
	And then my lawyer said, you're fucked.
	And the lawyer costs $800.
	And that's the shit that people go through.
	So side quests out of the way, the point is this.
	People already feel like the system's fucked and that you get bunk-ass tickets.
	They do sobriety checkpoints out here, which I believe are unconstitutional because it's a fourth and fifth amendment violation.
	They demand you answer questions.
	And if you don't, they'll penalize you.
	And taking from what you're saying to the extreme end, I'm making a huge leap 20 years in the future.
	To the young people who are hearing what you're saying, never before has the government been able to criminally charge someone without proving that there was a specific crime being committed.
	This is the first time.
	They argue there's some intent, but we don't know what he did wrong.
	It must be something.
	Never happened before.
	All I hear is: if we want to fuck you, we'll make up why we can fuck you.
	And so the end result is going to be young people saying, burn it down.
	And I think that's what we're seeing.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But the underlying crime was committed, which is the falsification of business records.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And you have to have the intent to commit a second crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And then the principal charge, falsification of business records in furtherance of a crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, falsification of business record.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's a misdependent.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		That's a misdemeanor.
unidentified		Right.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		To elevate it to a felony.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Indeed.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		You have to show that it was intended to commit another crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And in every single circumstance, unanimity on that crime was required, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury has asserted that crime was intending to be covered up.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And if that's what Grok said, then I defer to Grok.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And maybe it's wrong.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		But remember, when you, and that's what makes this different.
		I guess the argument that we had, I thought, was whether you can elevate it to a secondary crime unless you prove that secondary crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
		I'm saying in every instance.
unidentified		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I understand what you're saying.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		This thing is.
		The one thing that I do, I'm sympathetic to is that I do think that the prosecutors should at least identify the crime.
		Whereas in the indictment, they didn't identify the crime and they left up to the jury.
		Well, they have to prove intent.
		They have to prove intent and they left up to the jury with that other crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It was impossible to prove Trump intended to commit any one of these crimes.
		They could not get a jury to agree on any singular charge.
		So they went with the menu option.
		And then when the jury, without unanimity, said this, that, or otherwise, it shows they could not agree that Trump was intending to cover up a specific crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Even in all those other cases, never had to prove that the defendant actually committed that second crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Indeed, they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, there was a specific action the man had taken.
		And the point.
		So, so, so he falsified records, and there was for some specific reason he did.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		In the Trump case, there is no specific reason he did.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		No, they said there are three possible reasons.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, I could argue three, I could argue 15.
		What's the point?
		If there's no singular thing that Trump did, the point is this: the moment you go from one to two, you are telling me, I believe if I asked a jury, if I asked 12 people, did Trump cross the road to get to the other side?
		You would say, I don't know.
		So, what if I said this?
		Trump crossed the road maybe to get to the other side.
		Some of you believe that.
		Maybe it was because he dropped his car keys.
		Some of you believe that.
		Okay, now we got him.
		Now we got him.
		That's not.
		That's a psychotic government out of control.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		If you and the guys here conspired and agreed to shoplift and to commit a murder, even though you didn't actually accomplish it, the intent that you had would get you busted.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The point is this.
		Not a murder.
		A murder, a robbery, or a car theft.
		We don't know which one.
		We can't prove which one you were going to do.
		And we normally require that you were in the process of committing that crime.
		What they are telling us with this: if Bragg went to the jury and said, did Donald Trump falsify these records in furtherance of federal election violations?
		He would have been acquitted.
		Or a mistrial at least, because the jury couldn't agree on that specific intent.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, we don't know because they weren't asked that question.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So the issue.
		So my point is, Bragg was telling us he does not believe a jury would agree that Trump intended to commit a crime.
		The point is, you've proven intent.
		You're arguing he's proven intent.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right, which is all the statute requires.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But he's not.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He's not proven intent.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		He's not to commit another crime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Which crime?
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, but remember, the statute says intent to commit another crime.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		And what you're saying is you've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what that other crime is, identify it and prove it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And so my point beyond this is: I understand what you're saying.
		The message taken by Gen Z will be: strap up, lock, and load.
		It's time to start killing.
		Because the argument is, we will write the words in any circuitous legal jargon we can to justify why we're destroying you.
		It doesn't matter if you actually were committing this crime, that crime, or otherwise.
		And it doesn't matter if we can prove it.
		The point is, you've got four jurors who thought Trump intended to commit this crime, four who thought that crime, and four who thought that crime.
		Which means if you asked 12 people, did Trump intend to commit election fraud?
		Acquitted.
		Did Trump intend to commit tax evasion?
		Acquitted.
		Did Trump intend to commit state election violations?
		Acquitted.
		But.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Well, we don't know what they found.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		We don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm saying that Bragg is basically saying this.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		He's saying that you can choose, you have a choice A, choice B, choice C, and you can choose.
		By the way, I think you have a legitimate point.
		And I think on appeal, I think that is going to be a legitimate argument for Trump, saying that you can't do it this way.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		My point is.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Which is why people are freaked out.
dave ehrenberg ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		And so I think you made a valid point on that.
		I think that the argument I'm making is that the intent, that's all you need, the intent to commit another crime.
		But should the prosecutors have detailed that crime more specifically?
		Would that be fair to the defendant, right, to a fair trial, due process?
		Yes, that would have been better.
		Do the courts allow this type of thing to happen?
		I thought that it's pretty clear in New York courts that they did, but what you're saying on Grok is that that's never been done before.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And if that's all documented cases of 17510 all require unanimity.

▲