Jussie Smollett Just Got Hit With A Special Prosecutor And Could Get Charged AGAIN
Jussie Smollett Special Prosecutor Could Recharge Smollett AND Others. A Judge ruled that the fake recusal of Kim Foxx warranted a special prosecutor to start the investigation into his hoax.Smollett now faces two separate ongoing investigations into why he had 16 felony charges dismissed but one will be much more serious.The special prosecutor is tasked with investigating more than just Smollett and may actually charge other people involved in corruption in this case.Recently we heard that the fallout from Jussie's hoax were severe. Empire is being canceled and even for the last season Smollett was fired. This story is far from over.The attempt to protect the celebrity is backfiring and could result in serious charges. But as this story reignites I have to wonder where the far left is? All the people who cheered for Jussie, all the social justice activists coming to his defense, where are they now?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A judge has ordered a special prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case.
It is not over.
Apparently, there was a mishandling of how the prosecution was supposed to go.
Quick rehash for those that just missed the story, because it was the biggest story, maybe you live under a rock.
Jussie Smollett was accused of staging a hoax hate crime against himself, and boy did it go downhill from there.
Eventually, he's kicked off his show, his show's getting canceled, but strangely.
After 16 felony indictments, the charges were dismissed.
They called it an alternative, you know, dismissal or something like that.
But in reality, it seems like a conflict of interest meant to protect the elites, including Jussie Smollett, a man who wanted to smear Trump supporters to generate sympathy, according to police, to increase his salary.
But now we are in a big breaking update moment.
Chicago Tribune, let's read the story.
Judge orders special prosecutor be appointed to look into Smollett controversy.
And we have this woman here, former state appellate judge Sheila O'Brien, apparently has been leading the charge and is victorious.
A Cook County judge on Friday ordered the surprise appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the short-lived prosecution of Jussie Smollett, saying it may have been legally invalid from the very beginning.
Judge Michael Tooman ruled that state's attorney Kim Foxx had the right to withdraw herself from overseeing the prosecution, but held no legal authority to delegate that responsibility to her top deputy.
Basically, she recused herself because she had some connection to the family.
They were trying to get Jussie Smollett Off from committing this crime.
She says she recused herself, but what she really did was she took one of her top aides, her top, you know, what do they say, her top deputy, and put that person in charge.
That is not a recusal.
A recusal would have seen a new office take over.
How can you say there's no conflict of interest simply because Kim Foxx, the DA, was stepping aside, but her office was in charge?
Yeah, they take orders from her.
That's not a recusal at all.
It was smoke and mirrors.
But now Jussie Smollett is in for a wide awakening because guess what?
This special prosecutor is going to have a wide purview.
This may go deeper than just Jussie Smollett now.
Perhaps.
I could be wrong.
I don't know.
I'm just saying.
Maybe this looks into the corruption from a, you know, wider view and may have a bigger impact than just Jussie Smollett.
A complete and total backfire.
Let's read on.
They say, With a deputy holding no real authority, the Smollett case made its way through the court system without a prosecutor at the helm, the veteran judge said.
There was no master on the bridge to guide the ship as it floundered through uncharted waters and ultimately lost its bearings, Tooman said.
The unprecedented irregularities identified in this case warrants the appointment of independent, excuse me, of independent counsel to restore the public's confidence in the integrity of our criminal justice system.
Bravo.
Spot on.
I agree.
The special prosecutor, yet to be named by Tooman, will have a wide mandate.
The individual may investigate the actions of any person or office involved in all aspects of the case, Tooman said, and could recharge Smollett to bring an indictment against anyone else if there are reasonable grounds to do so.
It would seem that the attempt at being corrupt to get your buddy off has backfired and this could, it could result in more people getting charged, not just Jussie Smollett.
Tooman made the decision even though the county's inspector general's office is already investigating the decision by state's attorney Kim Fox's office, To look into the controversy.
Fox herself, however, agreed to that probe.
But I'm sure she didn't expect a special prosecutor.
Now, for those of you that have followed politics, you know that Donald Trump himself dealt with, for, you know, nearly two and a half years, a special prosecutor.
Well, the Russiagate conspiracy.
But for an extended period of time, he was under the investigation from a special counsel, Robert Mueller.
It is not a fun thing.
And Trump was very aggravated, at least according to many reports.
Well, now this is going to fall onto Kim Foxx.
And Jussie Smollett may find himself once again facing trial for staging a hoax hate crime.
Let's read on.
Former appellate judge Sheila O'Brien has spearheaded the effort for a special prosecutor arguing that state's attorney Kim Foxx's actions created a perception that justice was not served here, that Mr. Smollett received special treatment.
County prosecutors opposed the move, saying a special prosecutor would duplicate the efforts of the county inspector general's office.
Yes, but maybe that's what we need.
I'm, you know, I get it.
If, you know, but I don't trust, you know, uh, we'll put it this way.
There's a fox in the hen house.
Are you going to trust that, you know, there could be any one of these foxes dressed up like chickens?
Let's, let's, let's, let's double down on this one.
How does that sound?
Independent counsel, not just more people who may already, you know, have a, have a bone, like may have something to gain by covering this up.
They say, Fox's office dropped all charges against Smollett at an unannounced court hearing in late March, less than three weeks after he was charged with staging an attack on himself.
Smollett also faces a lawsuit from the city of Chicago seeking to recoup the cost of police overtime for investigating the matter.
His attorneys have been sued for defamation by the two brothers who claim Smollett paid them to help stage the attack and he will not return to his role on the Fox series Empire.
It all fell apart.
He wanted to make more money.
That's what the police said, okay?
Allegedly.
And then it all fell apart.
The show's getting cancelled and he's getting the boot.
I got those stories pulled up, but let's read on.
In her petition, O'Brien highlighted how Fox's office said she recused herself early in the investigation after communicating with a Smollett relative, only to later claim that it was not a recusal in the legal sense that would have required the entire office to withdraw from prosecution.
She did it, presumably, my assumption, because she wanted to avoid negative press.
When everyone heard her say recusal, they assumed it was formal.
And then it turned out it wasn't, which means she never accused herself.
She just, you know, delegated one of her deputies to run this how she wanted him to.
And then, sure enough, an emergency hearing got it sealed.
Got the court case sealed, got all charges dismissed, and then Justice Millett came out and said he was innocent.
And said, see, they dismissed the charges.
And everyone was outraged.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
That's not what it is.
But he claimed it was, and he danced around and he had his victory.
But you know what?
He committed a crime.
So let's see what they find.
They say communications later released to the Tribune showed Fox had asked Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to turn over the investigation to the FBI after she was approached by Tina Chen, a former Chief of Staff to First Lady Michelle Obama.
A spokesman for Fox's office said at the time that a Smollett relative was concerned about leaks from Chicago police to the news media.
Further communications turned over last month include texts from Fox saying she was advised to recuse herself only because of false rumors she was related to Smollett.
Smollett, who is African-American and openly gay, found himself at the center of an international media firestorm after he reported in late January being the victim of an attack by two people shouting horrible things, we'll put it that way.
But Smollett was charged with 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct after Chicago police determined that he had agreed to pay the two brothers he knew to stage the attack.
Well, now it is a day of reckoning.
The story seemed to have kind of died off.
He seemingly got away with it.
Assuming he did it, right?
We're back in the allegation territory because the charges were dismissed.
Even though many people in, you know, in law enforcement And in the prosecutor's office, we're saying, no, he's not innocent, right?
So we've got a couple things I want to run through here.
Just some updates.
And I want to make a point about left-wing racism.
We'll get to it.
So Charlie DeMar has been one of the reporters in Chicago who's done a really great job of covering the story.
Oh man, I switched to Twitter and you can see the light drop.
And he's got the conclusion drawn up.
It's actually kind of funny because it makes a lot of, like, boat references for some reason?
Don't ask me!
The conclusion says, in summary, Justice Mullet's case is truly unique among the countless prosecutions heard in this building.
A case that purported to have been brought and supervised by a prosecutor serving in the stead of our duty elected state's attorney.
Duly elected?
Who in fact was appointed to a fictitious office having no legal existence?
It is also a case that deviated from the statutory mandate requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor in cases where the state's attorney is recused.
And finally, it is a case where based upon similar factual scenarios, resulting dispositions and judgments have been deemed void and held for naught.
Here, the ship of the state ventured from its protected harbor without the guiding hand of its captain.
There was no master on the bridge to guide the ship as it floundered through uncharted waters, and it ultimately lost its bearings, as with that ship, in the case at hand.
There was no duly elected state's attorney when Justice Smollett was arrested.
There was no state's attorney when Smollett was initially charged.
There was no state's attorney when Smollett's case was presented to the grand jury, nor when he was indicted.
I think that's like, you know, found, like, nullified.
I could be wrong.
was arraigned and entered his plea of not guilty and there was no state's attorney in
the courtroom when the proceedings were nulliprost.
I think that's like, you know, found like nullified.
I could be wrong.
It's been a while since I've gone over this.
Really really interesting judgment.
So, what has happened to Jussie Smollett in the meantime?
Well, this is huge news moving forward.
Many people who've wanted justice may actually get it now.
And at the very least, the appointment of a special prosecutor is a heavy burden on Smollett's shoulders, so I'm sure there's going to be a bit of a catharsis for many Trump supporters who were smeared by his actions where he claimed it was Trump supporters who came and attacked him.
And it turns out, according to police, he staged the whole thing.
Vindication, as it were.
But, we have a few updates here.
Empire is coming to an end.
This story from last month, I didn't really cover it because it was, you know, just a tidbit, but because we're here now with Jesse Smollett facing the, you know, further ramifications of his actions, we have some things to go over.
There were no plans for Jussie Smollett to return, and according to Deadline, Empire is coming to an end.
The show was a hit.
That's my understanding.
The show was a big hit.
He not only destroyed his life and his career doing this, allegedly, but he may have just harmed the careers of his cast and co-workers and the people who worked on the show.
There are people who work on the show, probably a PA, making 15, 20 bucks an hour out of work because one guy wanted to play it up and be selfish.
And this brings me to my bigger point now.
So for those that were interested in what's going on with Jesse Smollett, there you go.
I didn't want to make a video on this, but I wanted to highlight this issue going into politics with Coleman Hughes, the call for reparations.
And trust me, this does make sense.
There is an overlap here between these two stories.
How many people rushed to the defense of Justice Smollett, claiming that there are people who are bigoted and hateful in this country, and he staged it, according to police?
Coleman Hughes is incredible.
I've interviewed him before, and he just continues to inspire me.
He testified before Congress on the issue of reparations.
Now, you may be asking, hey, Tim, these things don't necessarily make sense.
They're not connected.
They are.
Following his testimony, which was brilliant, absolutely brilliant, he opposes reparations, and he talked about... But he's not just, like, on one side of the issue.
He brings up the nuance.
In the time that's, you know, that's passed since the era of slavery and Jim Crow, he talked about how, at one point, reparations made sense, and he was very intelligent.
And now, he is being attacked by the left, and they're calling him racial slurs.
So this is the overlap I wanted to bring up.
When it's Jussie Smollett, who may have staged this whole attack, they rush to his defense.
They say, oh, look at all these bigots.
When it's Coleman Hughes, who speaks intelligently and passionately and brings up the nuance in these issues, they use racial slurs.
And that shows me the complete hypocrisy.
The complete hypocrisy.
It was the world to these people.
Celebrities standing up.
You had Ellen Page going on what show?
I can't remember what show.
Colbert or something.
And she was just like, why?
In our country, yeah!
Where are they now?
You had the cast of what?
I can't, what was it?
Big Bang Theory or something?
Coming out and saying, what happened?
It was wrong.
Where are they now?
When people come and attack Coleman Hughes with racial slurs over his informed opinion and his personal thoughts on an issue, where is the defense of people who are calling him a slur?
I'm not going to read.
Absolutely not.
Where are these people at?
It's obviously one-sided.
It's obvious hypocrisy.
So you know what?
I'm glad to see there's a special prosecutor being appointed in the case of Jussie Smollett.
If not, if for just one reason, Justice.
If it turns out Justice Millett really was innocent, then good.
Good for him.
But you know what?
People aren't buying it.
The police aren't buying it.
There were witnesses, there was corroborating testimony, and it was Justice Millett attacking and accusing Trump supporters of being the worst of the worst.
If that's not true, then the people deserve to know, and justice must be served.
If dismissing the charges was not the right call, and many people say it wasn't, then perhaps a special prosecutor and the other ongoing investigations will truly shine a light on all those who have done wrong.
But I want to say one more time what really, really frustrates me.
You know, I did a story on reparations the other day.
I don't believe they would be effective in today's day and age because there are too many people who are... Like, let me say this, right?
We'll deviate a little bit from the subject of Justice Millett.
Just hear me out.
There are people today who might present as, like, blonde-haired, blue-eyed white people who have a great-grandparent who was a slave.
And what happens then when the government says, yep, you're a descendant, therefore we're gonna, you know, give you money?
They might be like, you know, 5%, 2%, 3%.
There are people who look completely white who don't even know they have ancestors who may have been slaves way back, you know, hundreds of years ago.
Coleman Hughes brought up some really smart points about how, at the time, it made sense, and today it doesn't, because he grew up in an affluent suburb, he's successful, he's not a victim, and it doesn't make sense to give him money.
And I look at that and I say, here's an intelligent young man who's presenting his case, and what happens?
They boo him.
They boo him.
And now people online are calling him a slur.
And where's the left to say that's wrong?
I was on the ground at protests.
They were Proud Boys, they were Trump supporters, conservatives, whatever.
This was in LA, right?
And the left-wing protesters were yelling racial slurs.
I was in Portland.
And the left-wing protesters were yelling racial slurs.
There is a video of left-wing protesters yelling racial slurs.
Where is the left when these things happen?
I'll tell you what.
They line up in droves when Jussie Smollett's story happened to prove Trump supporters are all the worst of the worst.
But when they do it over and over again in all of these instances, and they're all public.
I published a video about LA.
I published a video about what happened in Portland.
We've seen it.
There's video published about the other Portland incident where they're yelling racial slurs.
And where is the left?
So this is why I feel like it's complete hypocrisy, you know?
And this is why there are many other people, not just me, who have always found themselves on the left, who are now more confused as to why the left is claiming to fight for justice, to fight against bigotry, and they're not here.
Look, I'll say this, because I don't want to be a complete dick, right?
There are people who did come out and slam Jussie Smollett.
Trevor Noah did an absolutely hilarious takedown of Jussie Smollett.
It was great.
It was really well done.
But there are people who love to pretend to be fighting for social justice, and in opposition to racism, who absolutely aren't.
And those people, they break my heart.
Because I'll say it now, I'll say it again.
There is real social justice.
There is.
And it's just justice.
There are bad people.
There are bigots.
And we want to end that.
But there are people pretending to oppose racism who are absolutely standing behind it.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
The next video will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Comment below on what you think.
I'll see you on the next segment.
Josh Hawley proposed a bill that would strip Section 230 protections away from big tech giants, social media companies, unless they submit to an audit.
I did this story on my main channel a few days ago and it's an interesting conundrum because the argument over whether or not you should sue a company for a libel doesn't necessarily mean you're going to do anything about censorship, right?
So, Will Chamberlain, for Human Events, has argued this is the wrong fight.
Who cares if you can sue YouTube because someone said a bad word about you?
However, one way to view this is that by forcing them to either be liable for libel or be neutral means they'll default to being neutral.
I saw this story from Vox, and it's complete nonsense.
For some reason, these people who work for these digital outlets don't do any fact-checking.
It's probably shocking to no one if, when I tell you, they don't do fact-checking.
The story says, Washington's first attempt at regulating big tech is a joke.
New legislation proposed by Senator Josh Hawley that's intended to rid social media of supposed political bias ignores the platform's real problems.
Well, it's not supposed to be political bias.
We know.
It's a fact.
Did you bother doing a Google search?
This is what's mind-blowing.
Gizmodo published the story a couple years ago.
A Facebook employee said they routinely suppressed conservative news.
Instead of doing any fact-checking, what do they do?
Argue nonsense from a nonsense position.
Here's the thing.
Actually, let me read some of their arguments.
They're actually hilarious.
In one of the arguments, he says, My Vox Media colleague, Casey Newton, has a nice summary of why the quote, Facebook, or whatever, is out to get conservatives meme is a silly one, unsupported by any useful data.
How about Quillette?
That looked at 22 high profile suspensions and 21 were on one side of the culture war.
He says, here's the money paragraph, quote, The truth is that social networks have been a boon to partisans of every stripe, conservatives especially.
A conservative social media star became the President of the United States, and a liberal social media star seems well on her way to a higher office.
Despite being in her first term in Congress, the real bias of social networks, as Mark Zuckerberg has acknowledged, is towards the extremes.
That's true, and doesn't change anything.
Here's what's happening.
Yes, it is true.
They're biased towards the extremes, okay?
And then, when it comes to those who aren't the most extreme, or either side, who gets policed the most?
The conservatives, plain and simple.
There are people on the left who get censored.
I've talked about them, too.
I made a video just defending David Niewert, who wrote a book, and he got suspended from Twitter, and Twitter had context, doesn't matter.
Okay, there's me calling out the censorship.
But guess what?
It doesn't matter if conservatives are doing better or worse.
It doesn't matter who is getting the benefit, extremists or otherwise.
It matters that when it comes to enforcement, it's typically against conservatives.
Plain and simple.
Now, some may argue.
Well, maybe.
So, I can't remember who argued this to me.
Those in the past few months said, maybe it's just because conservatives tend to break the rules.
And I said, if you create rules that typically target behavior associated with conservatives, wouldn't that imply that your rules are biased against conservatives?
Right?
Like the misgendering rule I often bring up.
So, we get this over and over again, and the reason I want to talk about this is that I get so annoyed every time I read a story where they don't bother doing any basic fact-checking, and this argument here has nothing to do with what the argument actually is.
They said, it's not true that conservatives are... Like, imagine this argument.
This is what he's saying.
They're saying it's not true that social media is biased against conservatives because the extremists are doing great.
That's a non sequitur.
It makes no sense.
None of that follows through.
How about this?
Extremists are reaping the benefit of social media.
Conservatives are being suspended the most.
Those are two different things.
So, he does actually bring up some good points, right?
It doesn't necessarily make sense to strip Section 230 protections.
It might work.
So here's what he says.
Lots of people say they want Washington to take a firmer hand and start regulating Silicon Valley's most powerful companies, which have had almost zero oversight for years.
I think that's true.
That's fair.
But what if our elected officials can't hack it?
They probably can't.
That's my- I'm adding that.
Regulating big, complicated companies can be a technical challenge.
But Washington already regulates all kinds of complex industries.
The real issue with regulating tech may be that our leaders aren't really serious about regulating it.
Case in point, new legislation proposed by Senator Josh Hawley that's supposed to rid Facebook, Google, Twitter of supposed political bias.
The idea is the federal government will strip away protections that shield those companies from being held accountable for their content, their users upload and they distribute, and will only restore those protections if they can prove they're neutral, right?
So I'm paraphrasing.
I agree that you can't prove you're neutral.
It's like, I mean, you can sit down and they can audit a series of people who've been banned and then say, we found, you know, X, Y, you know, or Z. But the problem is you can't track every person who's been banned.
Right?
What are they going to do?
Submit a list of here's every account we've banned.
Here's every tweet we've deleted.
Now you go through them and determine whether or not they're left or right.
Is that the audit you want to do?
I mean, maybe.
How many people you got to hire to do that?
It doesn't necessarily make sense.
There are some things you can easily point to.
The misgendering policy.
Hate speech policy.
Perhaps the real answer is, are you politically neutral?
Do you support free speech?
Period.
Because there are people who have, you know, First Amendment protected views that are not fun views.
Here's what I want to do.
Right, we'll read a little bit more of this.
But I want to tell you, I want to show you the perfect example of how these people on the left live in a bubble and can't understand what the hell is actually happening.
Take a look at this tweet.
It says, How are they funny without being offensive?
First of all, there's a such thing as wholesome jokes.
There are jokes that are funny that aren't offensive.
They're not meant to be offensive.
They're not political.
Okay?
You want to do comedy that's not offensive, it's easily done.
You look at George Carlin, okay?
He could be really offensive or not.
He had the hippy-dippy weatherman sketch.
You remember that?
Trust me, this is going somewhere.
In this video, you can see them making fun of BMXers and skateboarders.
I could be offended by that.
I'm a skateboarder.
How is this not offensive?
No, they just don't care who they're offending.
That's the point.
You can also see- They make references to colonialism and white supremacy and all these other things, and it's like, listen, that is still offensive to some people, and I'm not talking to people on the right.
Some people on the left would say, you shouldn't bring up these stories.
So here's what I'm trying to point out.
When you see these stories where they're talking about how there's just no bias against conservatives, no.
The issue is, they're on the far left.
To them, there are extremes on... I don't know how further left you go.
I don't know what they're thinking.
You know, I don't know.
Communist revolutionary, I suppose?
They look to their right.
And they see a conservative and think, oh, but they're fringe nobodies.
So therefore it's not a bias to ban them.
You look at these comedians and they say, we're not offensive.
We are not offensive.
And then you look at their comedy and you're like, dude, your comedy is very offensive to a lot of people.
But they say, I'm not offensive.
That's how they view the world.
I know a dude who's far left, like further left than Bernie, and like ridiculously far left activism, and he told me that, he said, I was a conservative, me, and that he was a centrist.
And I was like, bro, you're like, you're a socialist.
And he was like, right.
And I was like, socialism is as far left as you can go.
Like, the scale goes from socialism to laissez-faire.
I'm in the middle.
I think we need to balance.
You want full-on command economy social control, that's as far left as you get.
You don't get further left than complete governmental, you know, public control of everything, of every resource.
And he's like, no man, I'm in the center.
That's how they view themselves.
So what happens is...
For one, you have that bias.
You get stories like this and they're unwilling to actually do any legwork to research the fact that it's not about supposed bias, it literally exists, and I... Why do these companies even get funding?
This is ridiculous.
And then you see the argument doesn't even follow through.
There's no bias against conservatives because social media companies support extremists.
It's like, those sentences don't connect.
It's like there's nothing there.
But I will say this.
I don't think the bill makes a lot of sense, so we can agree there.
But I really would appreciate if these people actually did some, you know, real journalism.
Another thing they do is they like to claim that all conservatives are literally every single person, right?
They'll find one conservative they think is a bad person, and then they'll say all conservatives.
And people do this to the left, too.
People just do it in general.
I'm not a conservative.
Neither is Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang, who have decried big tech censorship.
Please.
Yet, when it comes to these arguments, I'm always bewildered.
They'll say, well, conservatives are claiming X. And it's like, but so is Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
They've decried censorship too.
So where are you at?
They're living in tribal world where they claim it's everyone else and not them.
But yes, everyone is a part of this game.
Everyone is a part of this problem.
So anyway, long story short, I'm going to wrap this one up in a little bit.
I'll end with his final thoughts.
He says, it would be an interesting thought experiment to imagine what would happen to these platforms if they did lose their liability protection.
Their business models rely on an endless supply of content uploaded free by users who don't have to ask for permission first.
But maybe the giant platforms are now so enormous, and they don't need to distribute infinite amounts of content anymore.
Maybe they could survive by bringing in enormous but manageable amounts of content, which they could actually review before publishing.
Kinda like a media company.
This used to be an unthinkable thought, and still seems to be if you talk to people who run the platforms, but maybe that's where we are headed, like it or not.
I agree.
I do.
I think YouTube is going in the direction on purpose.
And I think they're manually reviewing all the channels on purpose.
So, it's possible my channel gets deleted.
We'll see what happens.
But I'm not surprised that, you know, once again, we get more proof, we get more evidence, and more action, and the left is outraged.
Stick around.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
Senators are being briefed on UFOs as speculation grows surrounding naval sightings.
It's time to have a fun segment where we talk about UFOs.
No, it doesn't mean aliens.
It just means Unidentified Flying Objects, which we don't know what they are.
But interesting things have been on the horizon because we're hearing more and more from mainstream press about how pilots, credible Navy pilots, are seeing UFOs.
What could they be?
They often describe weird little tic-tac things that move as though they're defying the laws of physics.
I love this stuff.
I love it for a few reasons.
One, there are secrets out there.
As X-Files would say, the truth is out there.
Well, there are a lot of things out there we don't know about.
And this means that we haven't yet discovered everything.
There's a meme that people share where it says, born too late to explore the world, born too soon to explore the galaxy.
But I disagree.
There's, you know, it's defeatist to believe there's nothing else to find.
There are people who believe we've discovered everything, and then who knows what's next, and it's like, no, no, no, man, you gotta go find it.
Somebody found it.
It was difficult.
They didn't know it existed.
It was discovered.
Let's read the story.
From Fox News.
The Defense Department reportedly briefed Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner on Wednesday along with two other Senators as part of what appeared to be heightened efforts to inform politicians about naval encounters with unidentified aircraft.
Warner's spokesperson indicated that the Senators sought to probe safety concerns surrounding unexplained interference Navy pilots faced, according to Politico.
The outlet reported more briefings were being requested as news surfaced that the Navy revised its procedures for personnel reporting on unusual aircraft sightings.
As part of a program investigating the issue, Navy personnel reportedly told Pentagon officials that they encountered aircraft that appeared to defy the laws of physics and aerodynamics while in military airspace.
Navy Strike Group pilots also reported seeing strange objects flying above 30,000 feet at hypersonic speeds with no visible engine or infrared exhaust fumes, according to the New York Times.
Is it possible that there is some kind of weather phenomenon?
Maybe.
You know, ball lightning apparently is a thing.
I'm not an atmospheric scientist, so maybe I'm wrong.
But apparently, yeah, balls of energy can fly through the air.
Could it be just a natural occurrence?
It could be aliens, I guess.
I really doubt that's the case, because I think, as I've stated time and time again, it's the most likely thing is classified black ops technology, like US government technology they're not telling you about, or foreign adversary.
And that's where it gets scary.
Although many people want to believe it's aliens.
Let's just, let's see what goes on.
Since that program started, military officials have reportedly briefed President Trump and other government figures on the sightings.
When Trump acknowledged the briefing in an interview released on Saturday, he doubted that Navy personnel actually saw UFOs.
And this was really funny, I didn't make a video about it at the time, but Gizmodo essentially ran a story saying, if Trump's always lying, and then he denies UFOs exist, perhaps he's lying about this and UFOs do exist.
Let's read on.
He said, quote, I did have one very brief meeting on it, but people are saying they're seeing UFOs.
Do I believe it?
Not particularly.
Maybe he's saying he does believe it.
Asked if he knew if there was evidence of extraterrestrial life, Trump said, I think our great pilots would know.
And some of them see see things a little bit different from the past.
We're watching and you'll be the first to know.
Christopher Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, has said that the U.S.
knew UFOs existed.
We know that UFOs exist.
This is no longer an issue, he said.
The issue is why are they here, where are they coming from, and what is the technology behind these devices that we are observing?
Are they saying aliens?
Because I gotta say, here's the thing.
I do not believe if aliens came to Earth, they would make contact with us right now.
What are they gonna do?
They go to the U.S.
and say, hey, you're a big country with weapons, we're gonna talk to you.
Well, what, do you think all the other nations are gonna just sit there happily?
No.
And if aliens did come, and they didn't speak to everybody, somebody'd spill the beans.
So, no, I don't think aliens are here, and in the extremely rare, like, you know, unlikelihood that they do, they probably wouldn't talk to anybody because it could trigger, like, serious concerns.
People would panic.
We're still a very religious planet.
He brings up a good question.
Where are they coming from?
What is behind these devices that we're observing?
So maybe they're not devices.
Who knows?
We don't know what it is.
It could be weird interstellar life of some sort.
I have no idea.
I mean, not an alien, but something that exists in outer space.
Well, the Navy didn't immediately comment on Wednesday.
It previously told Politico in April that it briefed officials on reported safety hazards.
In response to requests for information from congressional members of our staff, Navy officials have provided a series of briefings by senior naval intelligence officials, as well as aviators who reported hazards of aviation safety.
I have to wonder though, why haven't any of these things actually collided with our aircraft, right?
Is it possible then that they are being intelligently piloted?
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who requested the Pentagon's program investigating the matter, pushed in a June interview for Congress to learn more about the issue.
They would be surprised how the American public would accept it, he said, referring to the military.
Reid, who was able to get $22 million in funding for the study of military sightings of UFOs, said that his office produced a plethora of reports on the subject, that money was spent developing page after page of information, where people in the past had seen things, and not one person, but hundreds of people.
As a result of that, there's been a lot of activity since then.
So it's interesting that the federal government and that the Senate is now getting involved, right?
But we do have another story.
This one's from CNN, and they ask, why are pilots seeing UFOs?
Well, I can't answer that, but I can read what they think.
They say, Don Lincoln is a senior scientist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
He is the author of several science books.
This is the guy who writes this.
He writes, Over the past 70 years, more than 10,000 similar reports have been made.
Most reports were eventually debunked as weather balloons, the planet Venus, or even oddly shaped clouds.
Some accounts simply arose from nothing more than fevered imaginations of UFO enthusiasts.
But not all reports could be dismissed so easily.
In 2004, Navy fighter jet pilots operating from the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier reported seeing UFOs off the coast of San Diego.
And more recently, other military pilots flying with the US Theodore Roosevelt in the Atlantic made similar claims.
The news of those accounts became public knowledge from a story in the New York Times and a new miniseries on the History Channel.
And you know why the History Channel is running this?
Because they make so much money off ancient aliens.
The question that comes to mind are these aliens.
Sadly, for anyone who is a fan of the television show The X-Files, it is simply far, far more plausible that what these pilots were seeing is something with a more ordinary explanation, whether it be an instrumental glitch or some other unexplained artifact.
And that's basically what I'm saying.
Given the professionalism of the pilots who reported the sightings, I am fairly certain that they did indeed see a UFO.
The problem is that many people jump directly from unidentified to flying saucer.
And that's just too large a jump to be reasonable.
There is simply no credible evidence that the Earth is being visited by aliens.
There are no artifacts, no clear photographs, no captured aliens, no alien bodies, nothing.
And even if they were aliens, maybe they don't exist in the same kind of medium we do and they probably can't even talk to us.
We can hear things.
Right?
Hearing is built upon air and water, the medium in which we live that can convect vibrations.
And then our ears have evolved to pick up and sense those vibrations.
There are some...
There are some animals- That was a weird thing.
Wind.
There are some animals that can sense electromagnetic waves.
Like, um, what are they called?
I forgot what they're called, but like the echidna and the platypus, I believe, can do this.
We can't even perceive that the way they can.
How do they sense it?
I don't know.
Maybe it feels like sound to them?
No idea.
Like, maybe they hear it in a different way?
So, if aliens did come here, why would- Why would we even bet they could talk?
Like, maybe they can't even make noise.
Maybe they can't even exist in our atmosphere.
That's probably true.
And maybe they don't even think the same way we do.
Right?
We just don't know.
Well, let's read a little bit more.
The reports of UFOs are from eyewitnesses or poor resolution photographs or videos.
They say they are from.
Ask a criminal prosecutor about the value of eyewitness reports.
They have contributed to a majority of the convictions that were later overturned by DNA evidence.
An eyewitness can be an unreliable source of information, and in the case of something as extraordinary as the observation of alien spacecraft, pedestrian evidence simply won't do.
As Carl Sagan often said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The reality is that unidentified means just that.
And so I think that's, you know, the sad reality.
I'm not going to go on for a million years with this video, because I just wanted to mainly point out that we're seeing this more and more.
That senators are being briefed about UFOs, the Navy is taking them seriously, and I think among, you know, for anything else, foreign weapons technology, in fact, it may even be American weapons technology that is just classified.
It could be, like, listen, If our weapons, you know, you know about the fighter jets, you know of the missiles.
You think that if, like, if you know about it, you think Russia doesn't?
Of course Russia does.
Russia probably knows about way more than you do.
So think about what America's actually been able to keep under wraps.
I'd be willing to bet whatever it is we're seeing is just well beyond the pay grade of, excuse me, even our fighter pilots, but...
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'm trying to get the tech sorted in the van.
It's been really complicated, and it's a challenge.
But I've got to work out that workflow, and we're getting there.
So forgive the hiccups through the past day.
You can see the lighting has changed.
There's been some bugs.
But stick around.
I will see you tomorrow at 10 a.m.
for those on the podcast.
It'll be 6.30 p.m.
every day.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all next time.
The Dirty Dirty Smear Merchants.
That's what Carl Benjamin referred to the press as when he was running for Member of European Parliament in the UK.
If you're not familiar, he's a YouTuber, he's anti-feminist, he's a liberalist, you know, he's very much for a liberal democracy.
And he referred to the news as Dirty Smear Merchants.
Because they are, unfortunately.
Not all of them.
I know some good journalists.
But we're going to look into how a smear campaign works because the Epoch Times, which I think is a pretty damn good source for the most part, there's some criticism to go around, they received some questions from NBC News and wrote this open letter calling out loaded questions designed to smear the Epoch Times.
I think I'm pronouncing that right.
So first, whenever I do a story, I make sure, for the most part, it's certified by NewsGuard.
You can see this up in the corner.
Let me see if this actually pops up.
It doesn't always pop up for, um, okay.
Assuming you can see this, because it's a plugin, sometimes it doesn't appear in the screen grab.
NewsGuard is, in my opinion, a biased source.
But of course, you're going to get some kind of bias from various groups, because everyone kind of sees things differently.
But I think they try to do a good job for the most part, but still lean left.
And that's just because mainstream journalism, as it stands, leans left 100%.
The criticism they have of NewsGuard, this X right here, you can see it says handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly, is specifically because they don't run negative stories about Trump.
I kid you not.
And we'll read that.
And it's not even true they don't run negative stories about Trump, it's just that they frequently run neutral to positive stories about Trump, which in no way means anyone here supports the president.
But let's take a look at the smear campaign.
How this stuff works.
This is from Stephen Gregory.
I don't know why I said Stephen.
Our response to NBC News's inappropriate questions.
He said, Dear readers, Last week we were contacted by two NBC reporters who posed a series of highly inappropriate questions.
The NBC reporters questioned the religious beliefs of some of our staff members, sought to discredit their beliefs, attacked our journalism based on personal opinion rather than objective analysis, and even sought out information on the personal lives of our staff.
Why would they do that?
You know, I've gone over journalistic ethics.
Minimize harm.
Why would you target the personal lives?
Clearly, this seems to be a hit piece because Epoch Times doesn't fall in line with the mainstream narrative.
But let's read.
In responding to NBC with this open letter, we're not only defending the Epoch Times, but also journalism itself, freedom of the press, and freedom of belief.
And I want to stress, this source is rated positive 90%, you know, like almost entirely by NewsGuard.
And they even, NewsGuard even says, and I'll show you this tab, that Epoch Times upholds a standard of honest and fair and balanced journalism.
So these questions are kind of crazy.
He says, as a fast-growing independent media, we proudly uphold the high standards of journalism.
The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 with the goal of bringing truthful and uncensored news to people around the world.
Our founders personally experienced the horrors of communism in China.
In our reporting, we have continually exposed the crimes of communism against humanity.
For doing this, we have sustained ongoing attacks.
Ten of our staff members were arrested in China and given prison terms ranging from three to ten years.
Unfortunately, the bane of journalism today is the all too common practice of writing news to conform to a pre-existing narrative or agenda.
This is what the Epoch Times has sought to avoid in all that we do.
The best journalism of the past had the truth as its standard, not political advantage.
I completely agree.
NBC's questions seek to dig out what they assume is our agenda by asking about our coverage of President Trump and our relationship with the spiritual practice of Falun Gong.
It certainly does appear that NBC has an agenda with respect to covering the Trump presidency.
A study by Harvard Kennedy School Shorstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy found that NBC's coverage of Trump's first 100 days in office was 93% negative.
The plain truth is that because the Epoch Times coverage of Trump differs from that of NBC, two reporters have sought to hunt for an agenda that would discredit us.
And the story they have in mind is no small undertaking.
For weeks, ex-staff members have been contacting us to let us know NBC had been asking about their work at the Epoch Times.
What a great deal of effort has been put into this story.
Check this out.
NBC asked about having an agenda with this question.
Much of the Epoch Times recent coverage has focused on the promotion of President Trump's policies, interviews with surrogates, and a deep state conspiracy to spy on his campaign during the 2016 election.
Do you feel like this is a fair characterization, and do you consider the Epoch Times to be pro-Trump?
There are a lot of people who are tracking the spying of Trump.
Notably, Bill Barr, the Attorney General, has made comments about how he believed this happened.
Just because you report on developments in this area doesn't mean you are pro-Trump.
And I've made this distinction for many people, even Oliver Darcy at CNN.
Simply because he reports on Alex Jones and Facebook not taking him down doesn't mean he's trying to get him taken down.
Simply because I've reported on certain, you know, far-left websites doesn't mean I'm trying to get him taken down.
Now, I do think, personally, Oliver Darcy crossed the line when, you know, he continually says things about, you know, why are they still allowed?
He puts his opinion out there.
He's getting into that space.
But more importantly, he said the media pressure got Jones banned, and you start to cross a line when, you know, there's one thing to tell a story.
It's one thing to say, Facebook won't take down, you know, people who break the rules, notably people like Alex Jones, etc.
Instead, it's just story after story after story.
We see CNN go after Mavic Media.
They're just targeting independent press.
Now, why is NBC targeting the Epoch Times?
Because the Epoch Times isn't following in line with their anti-Trump narrative, it would seem.
You know, it's two reporters, to be honest.
But asking about whether or not they're pro-Trump, That's what's interesting.
Now it gets even creepier when they said other questions want to draw conclusions from the private lives of our staff.
Check this out.
They asked, Is the Epoch Times predominantly staffed by volunteers?
Do some Epoch Times interns, volunteers, or employees live in a shared home?
He says this is simply inappropriate.
What bearing do individuals' living arrangements have on the journalism of the Epoch Times?
Would NBC ask New York Times journalists if they share an apartment?
Guess what?
I assure you there are a ton of people at Vox and BuzzFeed and Huffington Post who share apartments.
Straight up.
Why are they asking?
Because they're going to try and paint them as fringe extremists who are supporting the president.
That's the game they play.
So let's take a step back and talk about loaded questions and polls.
I did a video the other day about Ocasio-Cortez's polls being down, or I should say unfavorable.
And I wanted to stress the questions are everything.
So what do you think would happen if you went to someone and said this?
Recently, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez led a campaign to remove Amazon, the new headquarters from New York, costing 25,000 jobs for New Yorkers.
Do you support her?
What does that question imply?
Am I asking if you support her actions?
Am I asking if you support her in general?
Well, guess what?
The way I framed it by bringing up this really negative, horrible thing, people are going to assume I'm asking if I support her in that action.
But then what happens is the poll comes out and it says, you know, when asked if people supported Cortez, they said no.
That's the game they play.
And you can see that coming out here in how they frame journalism as well.
They're asking questions that have no bearing on the credibility of the Epoch Times.
Why?
If you don't like the stories they're writing, talk about the stories.
But this is what they do, ad hominem.
They want to target the institution to discredit stories they don't like.
Let's read a little bit more of what they asked.
They said, in one question, they asked about the spiritual practice, which is also, in my opinion, inappropriate.
Asking, it seems that all or most of the Epoch Times reporters and editors are also Falun Gong practitioners.
How does the practice of Falun Gong inform or influence the Epoch Times coverage?
Why would it?
Why would you ask that?
The answer is, it doesn't, right?
I don't know.
So here's what I want to do.
I don't want to, uh... I don't want to, you know, read through every single question.
I'll read the final thought from them, but I want to show you why the Epoch Times is rated with... It's got one red X about news and opinion, and I kid you not, it's because they don't like the fact that when NewsGuard said, So, look, you don't have to like the Epoch Times.
I've used them for a few different stories.
At the end of the letter he says, our free press has special privileges in our society, as
suggested by the term the fourth estate. In order to defend those privileges, the press must
show it is acting in a responsible manner. In response to NBC, the Epoch Times seeks to vindicate
our media, and in doing so, the role the press should play in our society.
So look, you don't have to like the Epoch Times, I've used them for a few different stories,
but here's what I want to do.
This is NewsGuard.
NewsGuard is a third-party independent rating agency for news outlets.
I really appreciate the work they do, but I feel like they don't... I do not necessarily agree with their system, but I appreciate that they're trying to do this work.
I have a different idea that I'm starting to work on, and we're hiring people out.
The goal is to take a random sample of a hundred articles from the past year or so, From various news outlets, and then fact-check them, and then if there's any violation of journalistic standards that are clear-cut, we give them, you know, a negative, a mark.
Then we say, X out of 100 have, you know, were bad.
I've talked about it before.
And so instead of saying, we think they're honest, we don't, we're not gonna do it.
We're gonna say, you know, 17 out of 100 stories contained factual errors, 13 out of 100 were opinion and not fact, You know, basically that.
So you can be like, okay, they're typically telling the truth.
Or we can say, you know, 10 out of 100 were slanted and omitted information.
But look, take a look at this.
The Epoch Times, the way I see it, is they're in a similar space to where I am.
There's a lot of stories that are being ignored, and there's a lot of false framing.
They actually, I believe it was the Epoch Times, picked up my story that I published on YouTube about the letter from the far-left activists at Media, That de-platformed the Proud Boys store.
So they ran this.
But let's take a look.
So you can see here that they do not publish false content, they gather information responsibly, they correct and clarify errors, handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly is an X. Let me tell you why.
Is it because they put opinions in their stories?
It's not.
In the credibility section, they say this.
Let me try and find this.
Because the Epoch Times does not disclose a pro-Trump conservative agenda and cherry-picks stories and facts to advance its point of view, NewsGuard has determined the site does not handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly.
Isn't that really, really interesting?
What about Vox?
Or BuzzFeed?
They certainly cherry-pick stories and are slanted, but I'll tell you what, NewsGuard gives them a clean slate.
And so therein lies the problem.
I think what we actually see from NewsGuard is how close to mainstream safe are you for advertisers?
So, one of the reasons I like using NewsGuard is that you can't accuse me of being biased or using bad sources.
I use a third party.
While I don't entirely agree with everything NewsGuard does, it's kind of a shield.
You're gonna get a lot of people who are gonna try and discredit the Epoch Times, right?
Sure.
Go for it.
They're targeting... It's an ad hominem attack.
Oh, because you did this, I've had this happen to me before, particularly with Sweden.
When I went to Sweden, you know, it was two years ago, it was Trump said last night in Sweden, so I went there with a friend of mine and we did this big story thing.
There was, interestingly, So Trump said last night in Sweden, and then we decided to launch a GoFundMe so that we could go and just do like a daily vlog from Sweden and talk to people.
A few hours after this, I was informed that Paul Joseph Watson made a joke.
I guess it was a joke.
He was like, I dare any journalist to go to Malmö.
I'll pay for your trip.
And so I hit him up.
I was like, I've never met the guy.
I don't know him.
I've still never met the guy.
And I was like, I'll do it.
We're doing a GoFundMe.
Like, sure.
He ended up donating around $2,000 and then said, there you go journalists, because people were threatening to sue him.
So here's the thing.
Does that matter in terms of my coverage?
No, I actually completely... I found... What we found was contrary for the most part to what Paul had said.
I got a call from a journalist from one of these digital outlets threatening to somehow steal my private messages.
This is the game they play.
Instead of asking me about... Like, at first they were like, we want to talk to you about Sweden.
I was really excited.
I'm like, man, here's what's happening.
You know, you got these conservatives.
They're all wrong.
They think it's like this war zone.
Crime is going up, but it's not actually as bad because people are viewing it and it's a complicated process, right?
They even ran stories, other outlets saying, Tim Pool finds very little crime.
Of course!
It was relatively low crime.
It was relatively high for Swedes.
Really, really low for Americans.
That's the... It's perspective, right?
But they accused me of some kind of conspiracy because instead of challenging what actually happened, they said, let's just discredit him.
So I get a phone call from a guy.
I think he wants to talk about Sweden instead.
What does he say?
He says something to the effect of, so can you send me all of your private messages with Paul Joseph Watson?
And I was like, is that a joke?
First of all, there's like six.
And I was like, more importantly, no.
I'm not going to give you my private messages.
And then he said to me on the phone, I kid you not, we'll get them.
He said, we're going to get those messages.
So you may as well give them to us now.
And I laughed and I said, are you joking?
And he was like, you might as well give them to us.
And I said, if I gave you the private messages from somebody, I would never be able to do an interview again.
No source would ever work for me.
Are you nuts?
So sure enough, he kind of backed down, and guess what?
There was no conspiracy.
I still have never met Paul Joseph Watson.
We've tweeted each other sometimes, but the goal was instead of saying Tim Poole was wrong, it was let's smear Tim Poole.
Admittedly, the Huffington Post did one of the best stories on what happened, but I tell you what, the game is afoot.
Because even to this day on Wikipedia, they're claiming I went to Sweden because of Paul Joseph Watson.
And that is a bold-faced lie.
And what's crazy about it is that the article they cite actually says, I went there because Trump said last night in Sweden.
There is a political game.
The people in media know what they're doing.
And that's why they ask the questions they do to people like the Epoch, to organizations like the Epoch Times.
They know they can smear them based on things completely unrelated to journalism.
They know they can ask loaded questions to force loaded answers.
And this is why people don't trust the press anymore.
Because even though the Epoch Times takes a rather neutral approach, even though NewsGuard says we think they do honest journalism, they're gonna get a strike because we think they're pro-Trump.
I kid you not.
That's what it says in the NewsGuard thing.
They said, we think they take a pro-Trump stance.
They talk about how there was a Trump rally and the Epoch Times didn't mention that there was a protest outside.
Should they?
Then they go on to say that the Epoch Times did mention O'Rourke's protest in a subsequent story.
That makes sense.
They're two different stories.
But of course it's not good enough.
They should have been one.
And so the opinion of NewsGuard then is that they're pro-Trump.
That's how crazy it is.
If you don't hate Trump, you're pro-Trump.
That's their narrative.
Anyway, I think you get the point.
This is long.
You know, look.
The reason I wanted to do this video is that I'm not surprised you got some NBC News guys coming after Epoch Times.
I think Epoch does a pretty decent job.
They're in a similar space.
It's like Centrist, you know?
I wouldn't call it pro-Trump.
They're just not ragging on Trump non-stop.
But NBC's coverage on the first 100 days is 93% negative, like they pointed out.
And we've seen that over and over again.
So, from their point of view, if you don't hate Trump, you must be pro-Trump.
Isn't that insane?
Anyway, stick around.
Next video will be coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
You know, I often talk about how I feel like the mainstream left is being infected by a more radical wing of far-left identitarians, etc.
You get the point.
That's probably why you watch my videos.
There are fringe groups on the right that I think are generally bad people.
They have bad opinions and they want to do bad things, but those people aren't really in politics and they're not being humored by the mainstream.
We have this story here.
It's from an opinion piece from Michael Knowles.
It's from his show, The Left Cannot Be Civil.
And there's a few things I want to talk about.
We're going to talk a little bit about Ocasio-Cortez's comments on the border and Chuck Todd pushing back.
But I also want to talk about how there's still this rift within the Democratic Party.
The reason why I want to highlight this is, for one, for those that aren't familiar, Hillary Clinton made a statement before saying, civility, you know, we can't be civil until we win.
And that says a lot.
When will they win?
You never win, right?
I've said this before.
There are no ends.
The ends don't justify the means.
There are no ends.
If the Democrats controlled every branch of government, they would still act like they weren't winning.
They would still say, oh, the Republicans are doing this.
So if they want to come out and say they will never be civil, well, then it's on them.
They are refusing to come to the table.
So we also have this current rift between the Democrats where, you know, basically what I think is happening is Back when Hillary Clinton was, you know, running in 2016, the Democrats were kind of unified behind her, and the Republicans were in disarray because Trump was coming and upsetting things and doing, I don't know, he's a different kind of Republican, and everybody knew it.
He changed the party.
For better or for worse, your opinion, fine.
But now you have the Democrats, who at the time were saying, like, ah, the Republicans are done for, the Republican Party is over, and now they're stronger than ever.
At least for the time being, I guess.
But it really does feel like the Democrats are the ones who are facing this fracture.
They're falling apart, they're tearing each other apart, and they refuse to be civil.
The problem is, if you refuse to be civil, then you're not going to be civil with your own side.
And that's literally what's happening.
So let's take a look at this a little bit for Michael Knowles, and then we'll move on to some of these other comments and I'll make some more points.
The story from the Daily Wire says it's, um, on Thursday's episode of the Michael Knowles Show, Knowles explains the double standards of the left when it comes to civility and with those on the other side of the political aisle.
The reason I want to highlight this is that it's actually within their own party.
You know, the far left, these progressives, have moved into the Democratic Party, and one of the first things Ocasio-Cortez did was protest Nancy Pelosi.
That says a lot, doesn't it?
It's not about civility with the other side.
There's an other side within their own party.
I think what we're seeing, actually, is that we have three political parties right now, and one's operating under the guise of Democrats because we have a technical two-party system.
So, you know, Ocasio-Cortez's politics are very, very different from Hillary Clinton's, or from Nancy Pelosi's.
Cortez wants to impeach, Pelosi doesn't.
Pelosi's trying to play the long game and reach more Americans.
Ocasio-Cortez is catering to the far left.
You can't necessarily call them the same political party.
But let's read a little bit, otherwise I'll just keep reading.
The left can't be civil.
Don't take my word for it.
Hillary Clinton explains why the left won't be civil anymore.
Here's the quote from Hillary.
from Hillary. You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for,
what you care about. That's why I believe if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or
the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans
seem to recognize and respect is strength. It's really interesting that that's the position she
took. The Republicans have repeatedly called for civility, for debate, for conversation,
and conservatives tend to do it. And moderates, you know, center-left types tend to do it.
But you have these people like Clinton, by any means necessary, and it's not just the far left.
You've got politicians like Hillary, like Biden, who believe any means necessary.
And when you put that up against the far left, who believe basically the same thing, what do you get?
Incivility.
It's not from the Republicans.
There are absolutely Republicans who do not convey civility and will not reach out that olive branch, but for the most part, there certainly are people like Dan Crenshaw comes to mind.
You know, it's great to see Ted Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez, but isn't it interesting then that you have this rift inside the Democratic Party?
So right now, to give you a specific example, You've got Joe Crowley, the guy that Ocasio-Cortez displaced, is supporting a candidate in opposition to Ocasio-Cortez, and you have the Justice Democrats, I think, or, you know, whatever this... Look, these Justice Democrats people, oops, Freudian slip, they've got like three companies that do the same thing, right?
They're trying to upset another Democrat incumbent.
So when you look at it like this way, it's kind of interesting that the Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, certainly with the Republicans too, but then you do have these moments where like Ted Cruz and Cortez come together.
So here's what Noel says.
You can't be civil with people who oppose everything you stand for.
That's her theory.
Then who are you supposed to be civil with?
If you don't have to be civil with the people who disagree with you, Then what's the point of civility?
Of course you're civil with the people who agree with you.
You are not just civil with them.
You embrace them.
You celebrate them.
They're on your team.
The only purpose of civilian politics is to be civil to the people that you disagree with.
But Hillary doesn't grant that people who disagree with her have any legitimacy, have any right to speak, have any right to vote.
They're deplorable.
They're irredeemable.
They're the worst kind of people in this country.
They shouldn't have a voice.
They shouldn't be able to elect a president.
Guess what happened by the way?
When she said that those very people made sure that she never came within a stone's throw of the White House again.
And now take a look at what Michael Moore is saying.
Michael Moore seemed to get it.
That people were fed up with the status quo and they were going to elect Trump.
And they did.
And what's happening?
And what does he say now?
He calls them insane.
That is not civility.
How can you expect to win the votes of people if you disparage them, if you insult them, and you refuse to be civil with them?
It's like the Democrats just want to excise anyone who dare oppose the dogma, but that's not a winning strategy.
It's just gonna be the end of the Democrats.
So let's do this.
Let's move on from Michael Knoll's comments, because I don't want to make this a super long video.
I don't think we need to go too much into, like, what the left is doing, because we talk about it a lot.
And I did talk about this in a video yesterday.
Chuck Todd.
Why aren't Democrats calling out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her camp comments?
I want to avoid getting too much into this, because YouTube is trying to, you know, demonetize and delete my, you know... Well, I'll leave it there.
There's controversial issues that are difficult to talk about, but I want to point this out specifically to say, Chuck Todd, live on MSNBC, okay, I thought it was MSNBC, is calling out Cortez for her comments on the border, on the detention facilities, and where are the rest of the Democrats?
It's really, really interesting to see that you've got regular people that are saying no, and then you've got all the Democrats deciding to soften what these camps really are.
So, the reason I bring this up is because it's a contrast to this idea of internal incivility within the Democrats.
What makes it so that the Democrats will fight amongst themselves for one thing, but then all get behind the craziest, most insane rhetoric for another?
Think about it.
You've got moderate Democrats right now saying they want to approve $4.5 billion to solve the problem on the border.
You then get the far-left Democrats, like Cortez and Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and that, saying, no, no, no, but we don't want any enforcement of immigration policies.
We just want the humanitarian aid.
So they disagree here.
They're somewhat obstructing.
They're holding up the bill.
But then when it comes to Ocasio-Cortez saying insane nonsense, where are the Democrats?
Well, the ones that did speak up spoke up in defense of her.
Why would they want to defend her here, but then disagree with her when it comes to the bill?
It makes literally no sense.
And that's one of the big problems for me when looking at the Democrats.
I can't figure out what they're doing and why they're doing it.
It doesn't seem to make sense.
They don't want civility.
Well, Michael Knowles points out, well, then who are you going to be civil with?
That makes no sense.
Look, they're fighting amongst themselves for two reasons.
The first, 2020 is coming up.
It's obvious.
They're gonna tear each other to shreds.
That's the point.
Right now, you've got some silly... I don't even know what's going on.
Joe Biden said some ridiculous thing about how he used to get along with segregationists and then Cory Booker got really mad.
Yes.
Because Cory Booker is going to play up the identity politics in an effort to win.
So he sees an opportunity now with Joe Biden making these comments and they're gonna go at each other's throats.
The reason I bring this up, okay?
I guess the point I'm trying to make this video is I'm sitting here reading these stories confused to what the hell they're doing and why they're doing it.
I saw the story from Michael Knowles, right?
Talking about how Hillary Clinton said you can't be civil unless you win.
Well, they won the House and what happened?
Did they get civil?
No, they didn't.
It's still incivility.
It's still the defense of Antifa.
It's still the lies, the cheating, the smearing.
They defend each other when Cortez says ridiculous nonsense, but then when it comes to Joe Biden, they go for the throat.
So we've got just complete chaos.
That's the point I guess I'm trying to make is I can't figure it out.
Maybe you can, I can't.
I'm sitting here looking at the Democrats and I'm like, okay, you're fighting about this, but why aren't you fighting about that?
You agree with them on this, but you don't agree with them on that.
You're supporting the bill, but now you're opposing the bill.
It's just complete disarray.
You know, look, I understand it's kind of obvious with 2020 coming up, the Democrats are going to fight.
That would happen no matter what.
But when you add that, you add, you know, Cory Booker coming on saying, how dare you, Joe Biden, make these comments?
Cory Booker, what did you say about Ocasio-Cortez?
Why are the Democrats coming out and calling out for that?
I just don't seem to understand.
But I will point this out too.
You've got an internal civil war, you've got the 2020 civil war, and this just sends the Democrats into complete chaos because the Democrats are not only fighting amongst themselves because a far left is encroaching within the party, they're also fighting amongst themselves because they've got a deal with 2020 and each of these Democrats wants to put themselves above the other, and then you have Hillary Clinton, incivility, and their fight against the other tribe.
And there you have it.
I look to the Democrats and I'm confused and it's complete and total chaos.
They're going to tear themselves apart and it's only going to get worse.
So I guess my final thought on the matter.
I was thinking about how in 2016 everyone said the Republicans were done.
You remember that, right?
You know, people were saying, you know, Trump is the sign of the end for the Republicans.
What ended up happening?
Everyone's rallying behind Trump.
You've got Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz rallying behind Trump.
Democrats are confused!
They're tweeting about how Marco Rubio shows up and cheers on Trump in Florida, and they're like, why?
Rubio hated Trump!
And then Rubio tweets something like, a Republican is coming to support a Republican president.
Why is that weird?
And I'm like, that's a good point.
In 2016, the Republicans were doing the same thing that, you know, Biden and Booker are doing, but everyone was saying, haha, the Republicans are done for.
Now we're looking at the Democrats, and they're in complete disarray.
So I'll say two things.
It could be that, you know, Pott was calling the kettle black.
They were seeing themselves in the collapse.
It could also be that this is a normal process, which is going to result with one strong Democrat on top, just like with Trump, and the party realigning under new leadership.
But all I can really say is, the left is not going to be civil at no point.
They won't.
Because you never meet the end.
There is no winning.
Once they win every branch, they will continue to say, like, we haven't won until there's no more Republicans, right?
Even if they're in control, they'll say, we didn't win yet, the Republicans are, you know, at our back.
It'll never end.
There will never be civility.
So I don't know what's going to happen with all this weird infighting, but I will say, you know, one more thing.
Ton of stories about Democrats tearing each other's throats out, you know?
I mean that metaphorically.
I thought it'd be interesting to talk about and I guess get your comments on what you think is happening.
I wouldn't be so stupid as to claim that Democrats are gonna, you know, fracture or fall apart because of what the Democrats said about Republicans, but I don't think I can make a prediction as to what's coming next.
Democrats are trying to upset, I'm sorry, the progressives, the far left, are trying to upset more incumbents.
They're trying to get rid of the old guard and bring in a new far-left identitarian faction.
That's worrisome.
And if that becomes a democratic party, then we're in serious trouble.
Like, us liberals, I mean.
Like, people who want real, moderate policy.
Nancy Pelosi is right when she says not to call for impeachment.
I think she's wrong on the border and a bunch of other things.
So she's not the right candidate.
I like Yang, I like Tulsi.
Even Tulsi is like... She's not super far-left identitarian, though, you know, she's kind of... I think she's great.
You know, she's not perfect, but she's... You know, the anti-war stuff works for me.
And she's a sane, rational person who's willing to reach across the aisle and have conversations and do re... and... and... like a real person.
But if the far left, justice democrat types, these identitarians take over, it's going to be not fun.
You are going to see the rise of these neoliberals, these far left, whatever you want to call it, who base their politics on a fringe morality dogma of intersectionality, may take over.
And that's scary, because imagine what it was like in the late 90s, early 2000s, with the neocons, who based their decisions off of the moral right, you know, morality and religion.
You'll get the same thing now.
We are getting the same thing now with Democrats.
I'm not a big fan of that, but I'll leave it there because we're going a little long.
I don't know.
I'm kind of all over the place in this video because I had like 50 stories pulled up, and I'm like, all I can see when I step back is complete disarray, and I can't even figure it out.
So stick around.
Next video will be at 4 p.m.
on my main channel, youtube.com slash timcast, and I will see you all there.
If you watch my videos, you will know that I am a fan of justice.
I often talk about good social justice, the idea that there really are problems pertaining to bigotry and discrimination in this country.
Although they're not nearly as bad as they used to be, and that's coming from someone who's experienced a little bit of it and knows my family history, I think there can be real good social justice.
However, the people who often take the mantle of social justice activists tend to be pretty bad and awful people.
You've probably heard me say this before, so let's just get to the point.
Brett Kavanaugh.
Remember all the really, really bad things that they said and did to Brett Kavanaugh?
The lies and the smears?
And I mean it.
Literal lies.
We know that several of the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were completely fabricated.
One guy even apologized, saying that he just made it up.
He didn't know why.
Everybody just piled on with these nonsense stories that couldn't be proven or corroborated, claiming that he was with a bunch of guys lining up outside of rooms where women inside were being assaulted.
Complete nonsense.
You want to know why I'm really, really mad about it?
You want to know why I call these people out?
Do you want to know why I make videos and say, hey, that's a really bad thing?
Several times now, Brett Kavanaugh has proven to be on the side of justice, and I'm impressed.
We have a story today from Vox, V-O-X, to make it clear, the progressive site, talking about the Supreme Court overturned Curtis Flowers' murder conviction, citing racial bias.
Doug Evans, a white prosecutor from Mississippi, deliberately excluded black potential jurors from a black man's case, the court ruled.
And guess who wrote the opinion in defense of this man opposing the bigotry?
Brett Kavanaugh.
This is not the first time we've seen a story where Brett Kavanaugh has come out on the side of justice.
Of course, the Supreme Court will disagree with each other, and just because one justice agrees or disagrees doesn't mean they're for or against justice.
This is how we try and find justice.
The point I'm trying to make is, If you're a social justice activist, you would look at this story and you would agree with Brett Kavanaugh.
Brett Kavanaugh believed there was a racial bias, that because the prosecutor said, we're going to make sure there's no black jurors, you couldn't possibly have this man face a jury of his peers, which should be representative.
And Brett Kavanaugh, that's what he felt.
So here we have the story again.
Because there was a bunch of other ones where Brett Kavanaugh has repeatedly sided with the liberal side of the court.
And they tried to destroy this man.
Were they trying to get justice?
No.
And Brett Kavanaugh has proven he really does.
He really does want to get justice.
From their perspective, I'm saying.
I understand their opinions in the Supreme Court.
The point I'm trying to make here is Brett Kavanaugh is actually siding with what they claim to fight for, but they tried to destroy him.
That says to me, like many people who want true justice, they don't actually care.
When I say they, I don't mean like all of the left or like every single Democrat.
I mean these these arbiters of justice who claim to be, you know, activists when all they really are are grifters. Of course there are grifters on the right.
People who claim to, you know, they'll decry censorship against conservatives but then all
of a sudden talk about how some speech should be restricted because it's offensive. I'm not
going to get into who, you know who I'm talking about. But there are people on the
left who will go all in day and night be like, oh we're about social justice.
And then what happens when someone like Coleman Hughes, a brilliant young man, is smeared with slurs?
Nowhere to be found.
What happened when Jussie Smollett comes out with this hoax?
Oh, oh heavens, help us!
And now here we have a story from Brett Kavanaugh.
But let's do this.
Let's not have me rant.
Let's read what happened with Brett Kavanaugh and why he sided the way he did.
The story says the Supreme Court has overturned a murder conviction for Curtis Flowers, a Mississippi man who has been tried for murder six times, saying the prosecutor violated the Constitution by excluding black potential jurors from the trial.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Friday that Doug Evans, a white prosecutor, unconstitutionally excluded eligible black jurors from Flowers' trial for murdering four people in 1996 inside a furniture store.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
It's really interesting, I gotta say, of all the people to dissent.
This isn't the first time Flowers, who was featured on the second season of In the Dark podcast from American Public Media, has had his conviction overturned in court.
In fact, Evans has tried Flowers six times in 97, 99, 04, 07, 08, and 2010.
And each time, the jury has either failed to reach a verdict or the conviction was thrown out on appeal.
In his last trial in 2010, the jury made up of 1 black and 11 white jurors sentencing him to death.
The conviction was overturned because of how Evans selected his jury.
During the jury selection process, prosecutors and defense attorneys questioned jurors to screen for potential conflicts of interest, an in-depth examination that can often reveal personal information.
They will then request the removal of jurors they think will be biased.
Batson v. Kentucky ruled in 1986 that race cannot be a factor in excluding an eligible juror.
Lawyers who are accused of racial bias must provide a non-discriminatory explanation for striking out a potential juror.
American public media found, as part of the podcast investigation, that Evans' office has long exhibited discriminatory practices.
In 225 trials between 1992 and 2017, 50% of eligible black jurors were excluded, while just 11% of eligible white jurors met the same fate.
Brett Kavanaugh agreed.
Brett Kavanaugh felt that this was wrong.
I agree with Brett Kavanaugh.
I disagree with Brett Kavanaugh on issues of... It's only a couple cases, but in terms of national security and technology, I feel like Brett Kavanaugh has a kind of regressive view on technology.
But you know what?
He's a Supreme Court nominee, he's been elected, and I get it, right?
Well, let's read on.
They say, uh, we're there already?
Okay.
The same goes for flowers and trees.
Evans accepted the first eligible black juror at a trial in the New York Times.
Eligible black jurors were Robert Williams,
asking an average of 29 questions compared to the rest of the jury.
Only one of the flowers' trials has had more than one black juror
unidentified
and more than one of those cases have been black jurors.
His death sentence will be dropped and he will be moved from prison,
notorious for its poor conditions, to a count of a court to APM.
Lingering question, the trial.
While January, that is seven possibility.
He could also offer a our lawyers.
They said in 1986, this is the way it should be and we cannot use race as a factor.
And I would agree that that should not play a role.
on track to be reelected as a district attorney in November because for the fourth election
in a row he is running unopposed.
So here's the point.
They said in 1986 this is the way it should be and we cannot use race as a factor.
And I would agree that that should not play a role.
But I would also feel like as someone, listen, I fall on the center left side.
I believe, if you have somebody, you know, who's a black man, who's being tried by the police, who's a black man, assuming there's potential tampering, like in this case, Brett Kavanaugh, and that, you know, it looks like he excluded, or didn't hold the white jurors to the same standard, I don't believe you'll get a fair trial.
I'm assuming that's what Brett Kavanaugh thought.
So it's really funny.
It is, right?
Everything he tried to do to stop this man, the lies and the smears, but why?
Why did they do that?
They thought he was going to be a conservative?
I mean, he kind of is.
He's a conservative.
But does that mean he wouldn't be on the side of justice?
They thought he would protect Trump?
I don't know.
All I know is here we go.
Here we go, time and time again, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh proving that he cares about being fair and honest, even when he stands in opposition to Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
So what did they truly expect to get out of this?
Now, I will say, You're going to get the conspiracy theorists saying that Brett Kavanaugh is only doing this to butter people up so that they think he's on their side because then there's going to be a big case against Trump and he'll defend Trump.
But what?
Impeachment?
I really doubt it.
Nothing's going to happen with that.
I'll tell you what I think really happened.
Donald Trump looked at his choices for Supreme Court justice and he chose Brett Kavanaugh.
That's just what happened.
He said, I think this is the right guy for the job.
There's probably going to be political bias.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't.
And the left threw lie after lie.
And I don't want to say everybody on the left, but you had these people with false accusations.
And I really don't know why they did it.
I really don't.
Because when it comes down to the job, if you can't trust someone who's been a federal circuit court judge for as long as they have been, if you can't trust them now, then what do we do?
What do you do then?
They wanted to stop him from getting, uh, um, uh, nominated- confirmed to the Supreme Court?
What do you think's gonna happen?
You think Trump's just gonna be like, okay, I give up?
No, he's gonna nominate somebody else.
And we can't have a process where he's trying to shut people down.
I think Brett- I- I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
I think Brett Kavanaugh is doing the right thing because he's a good person who- who has a fair head on his shoulders.
Is he perfect?
I don't think so.
I don't know the guy.
I just know that in this case, he made the decision that I felt was right.
And here's a guy who's supposed to be on the right.
