All Episodes
Sept. 23, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:21:42
Trump May Release Ukraine Transcript Causing Theories About "4D Chess," Was The Goal To Smear Biden?

Trump Considers Releasing Ukraine Transcript Causing Speculation About "4D Chess." Republican Trump allies have added to the choir of Democrats calling for transparency in Trump's dealings with Ukraine amid the Joe Biden and Hunter Biden scandal.But if it was the case that Trump abused his power to go after political rivals why would they entertain the idea of releasing the call transcript. Why would Trump even admit to the call when it turns out the "whistleblower" wasn't even actually a whistleblower.The news stories have begun shifting to Biden and what he was accused of. Its a complicated story but may actually be a big nothing burger. Ukrainegate may just be an inverted Russiagate.But perhaps that was the intent. Republicans and Trump using this scandal in the same way Democrats used Russia against Trump. In the end I'd assume the transcript will reveal nothing and nothing will come of the Biden story.Meanwhile, Trump's base won't care and moderates are burned out by 3 years of Russia collusion nonsense to the point where even if there is something bad for Trump revealed no one will care, many won't believe it. Democrats have cried Russia so many times that only the "resistance" will likely be motivated by any of this news.But in the end it gets the media to resurface the allegations about Joe Biden and certainly the far left democrats are enjoying it as much as Trump. Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:21:21
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
One of the most interesting developments in the Trump-Biden-Ukraine story is that Donald Trump is considering releasing transcripts of his call with the President of Ukraine.
There's actually many people on the right and some Republicans agreeing, saying he should be open and transparent.
I imagine he would only do that if the information revealed would benefit him.
Right now, there are two different realities pertaining to this story.
In the left, Donald Trump was putting pressure on Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden that would help Trump come 2020.
In the right universe, Joe Biden used his position to benefit his son by getting a prosecutor in Ukraine fired A prosecutor that was actually putting scrutiny on his son.
I believe neither of these stories paints the full picture as to what's really going on.
But now we can see that even Rudy Giuliani is accusing Ukraine of laundering $3 million to Hunter Biden, so the story seems to be about political Advantages coming in 2020.
The left believes one thing and they're gonna push this narrative.
The right believes this thing, they're gonna push their narrative.
But the most interesting hypothesis I've seen is that the Trump administration or Trump allies put out a fake whistleblower or some kind of fake story to goad the media into talking about Biden.
So that when the transcripts are released, Trump is exonerated and the story shifts to negative press about Joe Biden.
Now, already, the story has been shifting towards Joe Biden, but there's still that left bubble.
Let's read this story, and then I want to show you some interesting information that makes me think, you know, it's plausible.
That somehow this story was leaked on purpose, because it's not going to hurt Trump, might help him, and it's forcing the media to highlight this Biden-Ukraine story.
I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it's an interesting idea being floated by many Trump supporters, so we'll look at why they think that's the case, and then I want to talk about, look man, In the end, we even have Chris Hayes saying, I am watching this somehow turn into a story about Biden and I'm going to pass out.
That seems to be what's happening.
The far-left Democrats, they like it.
They don't like Biden either.
So maybe, somehow, either by accident or on purpose, this whole story was presented to hurt Biden, not Trump.
And we'll start with looking into Trump considering releasing the transcripts of this call.
Now, before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
You know the drill.
The best thing you can do is just share this video if you want to support my work.
YouTube deranks independent political commentary.
I think I've actually seen data saying they're actually upranking this channel, so that's great.
At any rate, sharing still helps, so if you like it, please consider sharing.
But let's read the story from Town Hall.
They report.
President Trump said he is considering releasing a transcript of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after reports that he allegedly tried to pressure Zelensky to investigate accusations against the Biden family.
Quote, We'll make a determination about how to release it.
Releasing it, saying what we said, the president told reporters on Sunday.
It was an absolutely perfect conversation.
The problem is When you're speaking to foreign leaders, you don't want foreign leaders to feel that they shouldn't be speaking openly and good.
Here's what's interesting.
The whistleblower isn't actually a whistleblower.
They include this tweet from Michael Tracy saying, Important to note, however, is that the whistleblower
complaint was not based on first-hand knowledge of the call.
Michael Tracy tweeting, The whistleblower did not have direct knowledge of the
Trump-Ukraine phone call.
The account is based on hearsay.
The media then offered its characterization of this hearsay.
If you think that's sufficient to demand impeachment, you must have slept through the last three years.
What's interesting, then, is that Trump openly admitted to having some kind of conversation.
So here's what happens first.
A whistleblower complaint was apparently put in, I believe the date was around July 25th.
It was ignored.
According to CNN, I believe this was CNN's reporting, they said it was because he didn't learn about this information, or I'm sorry, I shouldn't say he, but the whistleblower, didn't learn about this through the course of duty.
It was hearsay.
And because of that, it wasn't a whistleblower.
It was just someone hearing a rumor.
Now apparently, this story comes out and everyone says, did Trump really have this conversation with Ukraine to pressure them?
And then Trump openly admits to the conversation.
Whatever this whistleblower heard seems to not really line up with what Trump thinks happened.
And if Trump is going to release the transcript, it may actually discredit the more alarmist nature of this whistleblower story.
Think about it.
The whistleblower doesn't know what Trump said.
They heard a rumor.
There's a theory now going around.
Check this out.
From The Donald.
This is one of their highest voted posts as of right now, this morning.
This guy leaked the fake whistleblower story because he knew it was the only way the fake media would report on Biden's corruption.
And it's an image of Trump with a very poorly photoshopped mustache.
It's a joke.
I'm not saying that all of the Donald actually believes this conspiracy.
You know, Trump was planning this thing to get the media to do it.
But they're certainly entertaining the idea.
Perhaps, you know, half-jokingly.
But here's the thing.
Think about the results of what this Ukraine story will be.
We've already seen the overt calls for impeachment.
We're seeing Elizabeth Warren.
We're seeing Ocasio-Cortez.
But they've even dragged in Nancy Pelosi.
Now, what I highlighted in yesterday's video, as I've highlighted many times, is that impeachment is wildly unpopular.
Imagine what happens if all of the media and all these Democrats come out and say impeachment and start screaming and screaming, and then Trump releases a transcript which shows he didn't really do anything wrong.
Now I'm not saying that's true.
For all we know, Trump is just saying he's considering releasing his transcripts as a defense, so that you might hear commentary similar to this.
Oh, but if Trump is going to release it, he must be innocent.
No.
When he releases it and we see the evidence, we will make our determination.
I think the theory, the hypothesis, is interesting.
Because it would be a very clever instance of 4D chess, as they describe it.
Now look.
I've talked to a lot of people on the left, and they say things like, Trump's a bumbling buffoon, and he just gets lucky, and I'm like, listen man, Trump plays the media all the time.
He uses the far left, he uses the outrage to make the Democrats look bad.
I can't imagine, after so many times of doing this, it's an accident.
There have been several opinion pieces about how Trump plays the media and distracts us.
You have all these stories about Trump tweeting mean things while signing policy and rule changes with his other hand.
The media gets distracted, focused on Sharpiegate that Trump drew on a piece of board with a Sharpie, and ignores that he reappropriated funds from other military projects for the wall.
Some people noticed it, but the media is easily distracted.
If I'm gonna look at everything Trump has done in gaming the media, I wouldn't be surprised if this was true.
I don't know who this whistleblower is.
Actually, I'm sorry.
I should stop referring to this person as a whistleblower.
They're not.
It is not a whistleblower, but of course, the media keeps saying it's a whistleblower.
Look at this.
This is from the Washington, well I believe this is from the Hill.
The new details came after the Washington Post reported that Trump's call with a foreign
leader had been the subject of a whistleblower complaint.
Sorry, we now know that it's not a whistleblower.
It is just someone working in government who heard a rumor.
Here's where we end up.
Michael Tracy tweeted this.
Good opinions, that's why I'm highlighting Michael Tracy.
The media has no awareness that their credibility to screen scandal and impeachment has been completely obliterated by the years long Russia farce.
For which there has been zero accountability.
They just pretend like nothing happened.
And that brings me to the next big story.
Pelosi hints at Trump impeachment, warning there will be a whole new stage of investigation if the president blocks Ukraine whistleblower report from reaching Congress.
Now look, the whistleblower story, to an extent, is bad for Trump.
It's going to get a lot of people to believe it.
There's gonna be a lot of people who are uninitiated who believe it.
But now he's got Pelosi entering the impeachment train.
Pelosi was a resistor.
She was saying, no, it's a bad idea over and over and over again.
AOC, Ocasio-Cortez, said it was a bigger scandal that Democrats wouldn't impeach Trump after all this.
But we know the far left doesn't like Joe Biden.
And so it seems like all of the blowback from this will not be coming to Trump.
It's coming to Joe Biden, which the far left likes and Trump likes because it's knocking him down.
And now Elizabeth Warren has overtaken.
If they can get Pelosi into an unfavorable position, like supporting impeachment, through this scandal, well, that's good for them, whether it's intentional or not.
There's a bit more, so I'll highlight this.
This is a story from the Daily Wire.
Ilhan Omar declares war on Joe Biden.
I highlight this, this story is from today, just to show you that when it comes to the calls for impeachment, when it comes to those on the left highlighting this story, if Trump releases transcripts, if he does, and it does show a tepid conversation, it's going to be really, really bad for Joe Biden.
Worse than it already is.
As I've already highlighted, here we can see Chris Hayes saying, I'm watching this turn into a story about Biden.
I'm going to pass out.
But the story continues.
Now with Fox News hosting the conversation.
In the end, you know, call it an accident or call it intentional.
Trump supporters, of course, are going to make claims of Trump's brilliance and 4D chess.
The people on the left will say, well, you know, he got lucky this time.
But how many times does he have to get lucky?
You know, it could just be that these circumstances arise, and he's just a better chess player.
Not that Trump's intentionally making this happen, right?
Forget the conspiracy theory that the whistleblower was staged, that it's a hoax, that it's fake information being leaked to the press.
That probably really happened.
But what's likely true is that when it comes down to it, Trump and his allies are playing the game better than the Democrats.
The story comes out, the media addresses it, and then immediately Trump and his team react.
Not that they did it on purpose, but that they're playing a game now.
The game has started.
Regardless of any of that, it is backfiring on Joe Biden and the more moderate Democrats.
Because like I said, impeachment is unpopular, and now Nancy Pelosi is playing this game.
But check this story out.
Giuliani accuses Ukraine of laundering $3 million to Hunter Biden, asks how Obama could let that happen.
Fox News reports.
Giuliani, the personal attorney for Trump and outspoken critic of presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son's relationship with Ukraine, accused Kiev of laundering $3 million to Hunter Biden, suggested that the Obama administration turned a blind eye, and made the prediction that the scandal is in its infancy.
He said, if the Dem party doesn't call for investigation of Biden's millions from Ukraine
and billions from China, they will own it. Biden's made big money selling public office.
How could Obama have allowed this to happen? Will Dems continue to condone and enable this
kind of pay for play? I don't want to entertain this at all as fact.
It's very possible that this is just more political posturing from the right, like we see with the Democrats.
For the longest time, for years, they accused Trump of working with the Russians.
Well, now they have their counterpunch, accusing the Democrats, or at least Joe Biden, of working with Ukraine.
It doesn't mean it's true.
The story is very, very complicated.
And I have to admit, I hate this news cycle because it seems like both sides are just framing the narrative so they can win political points.
That's why I'm talking about this idea of the whistleblower being intentional.
Because both sides are trying to take advantage and claim it's going to help them.
But in the end, if this transcript comes out, it's going to be good.
It's going to be good for Donald Trump.
Now, here's the thing.
Let's push back on the right a little bit.
Well, first of all, I will highlight.
We'll come back to this one.
This is the story I was actually trying to pull up.
Biden says he never discussed Hunter Biden's Ukraine deal.
Hunter says he did.
I saw this tidbit, and I kind of rolled my eyes a bit.
So Joe Biden says he never talked about Burisma with his son.
But in this tweet from David Martosko, he says, Here's a problem.
Joe Biden did discuss overseas business with his son Hunter at least once.
This is from the New Yorker's story about two months ago, which says,
as Hunter recalled, his father discussed Burisma with him just once.
Dad said, I hope you know what you are doing, and I said, I do.
Is that all?
The challenge here is the left is going to say, all his dad said was passively like, oh, I hope you know what you're doing, and then have a conversation.
The right will say, no, they did discuss Burisma, the details of which we don't know.
So I'll give a little pushback on the right saying, we don't know the full details, and it very well may have been just Joe Biden passively saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, do your thing, I hope you know what you're doing, and not really engaging.
Though it is entirely possible that Joe Biden's son and his dad had a lengthy conversation.
But let's now talk about why I think, in the end, this may benefit Trump.
You know, we've seen it over and over again.
These big scandals that come out, you see things like the Kavanaugh effect.
These scandals don't play the way Democrats think they're going to play out.
Trump's approval rating is higher than it's ever been, or not than it's ever been, but it's up.
It's higher than it was two years ago.
His favorability is up.
His base is larger.
He's fundraising like crazy.
So whatever these scandals are, they're not hurting him.
Let's say, let me entertain this position.
Let's say everything falls apart here.
The transcripts come out and it shows Trump saying, I demand dirt or else.
I'm not entirely convinced it's going to be bad for the president because I think people are burned out, as Michael Tracy pointed out.
After years, years of the Democrats screaming scandal and impeachment, they've lost their credibility.
So even if now they can prove Trump did something, in the end, people probably just aren't going to be paying attention or just not interested.
It's like the Democrats who cried Russia, the boy who cried wolf.
Well, take a look at this story.
Lindsey Graham is urging Trump to release more details of the call with Ukrainian president.
I can't imagine this kind of narrative would be emerging unless they could back it up.
Now, it's possible.
They say, we're going to do it, we're going to do it.
Get everybody all riled up at the last minute.
Oh, for national security reasons, we can't do it.
I have no problem saying I do not trust the Republicans and the president, though I question the motives of the Democrats.
It does seem like this may fizzle out and be a big nothing burger.
You know what, man?
After years of Russiagate, if you don't understand that position where I'm coming from, where I roll my eyes at these stories and I don't want to talk about it, well then I don't know what to tell you.
You must have been asleep, like Michael Tracy said.
Let's check out a little bit here.
We have a quote from Lindsey Graham saying, I would urge him to continue to be as transparent as possible and tell us as much as he can without compromising executive privilege, so that we can understand what happened, the South Carolina Republican told conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt during an interview on the show.
Now here's the story I pulled up before but I want to highlight.
Ukrainian foreign minister defends Trump talk.
No pressure.
Now, first, if Trump did demand quid pro quo from Ukraine, saying, I want dirt on Hunter Biden and Biden's family or else, then yeah, they're going to defend the president because the president can, you know, he can back up his threats.
It's also the simple solution that, yeah, there really just was no pressure.
It's hard to know for sure.
I know there's a lot of speculation here.
But if Trump is willing to entertain transparency and releasing the transcripts, and the foreign minister is saying no pressure, I'm not surprised that Trump supporters are jokingly saying the story may have been fed to the press on purpose to make them cover Joe Biden and Burisma.
The Daily Caller reports Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadim Pristyko said Saturday that President Donald Trump did not exert any pressure on his Ukrainian counterpart in a telephone call that has become the subject of media reports.
Psycho reportedly noted that leaders have the right to discuss any problems that exist.
The conversation has produced a purported White House intelligence agent whistleblower and reports that Trump tried to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden's son and Hillary Clinton's allegation that Trump asked Ukrainians to interfere in the 2020 election.
But that is a framing.
I want to stress.
Whatever the call says, if Trump did tell the Ukrainians what's going on with that investigation, Rudy Giuliani is looking into it.
Is that really interference or is that anti-corruption?
The right will tell you anti-corruption.
The left will tell you interference.
Be careful of the framing devices.
It's going to be played.
You know, they're going to play it.
They're going to try and take advantage of it.
The former Secretary of State tweeted Friday, the president asked a foreign power to help him win an election again.
That is an absurd framing of what we know so far.
All we really know for now, and I could be wrong because again, it's a very complicated story, is that there's an alleged individual who heard a rumor that Trump was urging The Ukrainians to work with Giuliani on an investigation into this company and potentially the Bidens.
Giuliani is alleging they laundered money through Biden.
That is likely a thing, Berger.
I don't know.
I don't like this story as much as I didn't like the Russiagate stuff, okay?
But what do you do?
What do you do?
If Trump says investigate, okay, well if they want to investigate Trump and see his phone call, I also say okay.
If Trump is going to release this phone call and he's considering it, well then good!
Then good.
Then I don't know what we're supposed to get out of the Biden thing.
Because there's nothing as tangible to ask for.
In the end, it's just negative press.
I'm gonna say it for the millionth time, man.
I hate this story.
It really does feel like there's nothing that's gonna come out of this, there's nothing we can get, and both sides are using it to their political advantage.
But you know what?
In the end, it's the media that's eating it up.
It's the Democrats that are playing to it, and they don't have to, but of course they're going to, and Trump's going to fire back.
And we know the far-left Democrats, they're loving it.
They don't like Joe Biden.
They're loving it.
So this is what's going to happen.
Here's a quote.
I know what the conversation was about, and I think there was no pressure.
I think there was no pressure.
Prostyko told Hramadsky, I can't pronounce that, I'm sorry.
There was talk.
Conversations are different.
Leaders have the right to discuss any problems that exist.
This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers.
Trump was quick to tweet his approval of the Prostyko's comments, agreeing that the conversation with the Ukrainian president was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions.
Zelensky and Trump are scheduled to meet as planned at the United Nations General Assembly next week.
So look, I don't want to entertain conspiracies, but check out this story.
This is why the narrative is pushing forward.
At UN, Trump facing questions about Ukraine, Iran allies.
And I saw a tweet where someone says exactly like Trump wants.
It was someone from the left criticizing the media coverage and the press, saying Trump wants to talk about Ukraine.
There's very little here pertaining to Trump.
If the transcripts show very little, then all that happened is a big story popped up damaging the credibility of Joe Biden.
As Chris, as I will highlight this tweet from Chris Hayes, okay?
He was watching the story turn to Biden, and he says, I am going to pass out.
That's what happens.
So I don't know, man.
Here's the last thing I'm going to say, because I'm really excited to stop talking about Ukraine.
I don't know.
It's complicated.
If the president is trying to use his power to go after political rivals, we absolutely should be investigating it.
So OK, if Trump wants to consider releasing the transcripts, Lindsey Graham agrees.
I think the right is in a position where they're saying, fine, release it.
That says to me, I'd probably bet on, it's probably a nothing burger, like Russiagate.
The Democrats keep pushing these big scandals.
Now they're claiming Trump worked with Ukraine, he worked with Russia.
I don't, I don't, I don't know, man.
All I know is you cried wolf too much, and I'm just sick of it.
Don't be surprised if my position is, I don't believe it.
There's no whistleblower.
It's second, it's hearsay.
It's a rumor from someone that has no direct knowledge.
And they've played this game for years, and now Trump, you know, Pelosi is getting roped into the impeachment thing.
It just seems like this whole thing is going to blow back very, very badly on the Democrats when all is said and done, as per usual.
I don't know what the Democrats are trying to do.
I don't know what they think they're going to get out of this.
So, you know, the worst case scenario is Trump tried abusing his power.
Okay, they made those same accusations against Obama, against Bush.
They always do that, and it never results in anything.
So think about the politics coming in 2020.
Trump's base is not going to falter on this.
Moderates are burned out over Russiagate, and only the resistance is going to champion this.
Is it possible Trump understands this and they're playing 4D chess?
Sure.
It's also more likely that these circumstances naturally arise and Trump plays a better game.
The hand is dealt.
It's not a conspiracy, but the Democrats keep floundering and the conservatives know how to play the game better.
In the end, All that really matters is going back to what Michael Tracy said.
They've lost their credibility.
No one's going to want to hear this, okay?
It was a... Who was it?
It was a Bill Maher, I think.
Someone said, I can't remember who it was, talking about the Lewandowski hearing, that if Democrats are going to keep pushing this, you know, they think people want more of this, then they're nuts.
If the Democrats think people want more impeachment, more scandal, more hearings, they are nuts.
Democrats need to get on point and get on message.
But scandals like this keep roping them in to nothing.
So call it an accident, okay?
Maybe there's damning information.
Maybe Trump did something wrong.
I'm not saying that's not the case.
But call it an accident.
Call it whatever you want.
In the end, the Democrats are off point.
They're not talking about the economy.
They're not talking about improving jobs.
And Trump is, even within the scandals.
In the end, the Democrats are the ones who are off balance on this.
But I don't know what to tell you.
I'm not gonna say it's 4D chess.
I just thought the idea was interesting, so take it for what it is.
You tell me what you think.
I'm sick and tired of this story.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
A conservative activist is leading a cleanup effort in California, notably Los Angeles, where they're reporting 50 tons of trash have been removed from this area by a group of, I think it's a couple hundred activists.
Not necessarily all Trump supporters are conservatives, but certainly led by a Trump, I believe, Scott Pressler, Trump supporter, they call him a conservative activist.
Here's the funny thing.
This is not the first time he's done this.
In response to this big political debate, Scott got a bunch of people together and they went and cleaned up West Baltimore.
I think it's fantastic.
We saw this heavy criticism from the Baltimore Sun.
We assume it was pure motives that led a Trump supporter to launch a cleanup in Cummings District, right?
Well, it's not the only criticism he's received, but my response is, so what?
Who cares?
The very worst case scenario is, it's a political stunt made to make conservatives and Trump supporters look good.
It does!
It does make them look good.
It's like, it's so crazy to me.
That people would be upset with a bunch of Trump supporters getting around going, I got an idea to make all of us look great.
Let's go clean up the streets.
Like, you're correct.
That will make you look good.
You're doing a good thing.
Volunteer cleanup.
Could you imagine like a bunch of Trump supporters, like is this, I imagine there's like a bunch of, this is how the left views Trump supporters.
They're all sitting around like twirling mustaches going, how can we convince the public we're good people?
I know, let's volunteer to clean up garbage in the streets.
That'll trick them.
And I'm like, what do you think's happening?
It's a bunch of activists who decided to go take action and do something.
I don't care what the motivation is, for the most part.
Like, I mean, I guess if they're getting, you know, I don't know, some kind of weird drug deal and there's like a secret ulterior motive behind what they're doing, sure.
But if it's like a political thing, and they're trying to make conservatives look good, They are.
That's it.
I worked for a bunch of environmental organizations.
For those that aren't familiar, I've mentioned it several times because environment has been a big issue with Greta Thunberg and the climate strike stuff.
But yeah, I used to work for Greenpeace and several other non-profits.
And there's a reason why I did that.
Right now, in Washington DC, a bunch of Extinction Rebellion people are blocking the streets with a giant boat.
Now, these people have received some criticism from the right.
I think it warrants criticism for sure.
However, I do appreciate this form of protest.
The first thing I'll say, we'll do a little Compliment sandwich, I guess.
Well, maybe not even.
I'll just criticize them.
But the point is, the first thing I want to say is, this is how you're supposed to protest, okay?
Non-violent civil disobedience.
Don't go around smashing windows and throwing bricks and beating people.
That's wrong.
However, what they're doing is illegal.
They will be arrested.
They will face the ramifications of it.
But hopefully, this is going to reduce the chance that people are hurt.
I know there's been criticism that, you know, emergency service vehicles might not be able to get through.
Well, listen, man.
We can't just have a society where it's like there's never any socially acceptable protest that might break the law.
Civil disobedience sometimes has to push boundaries.
They will face the ramifications of it.
But this is the kind of protest I absolutely respect.
I mean, like I mentioned, I worked for Greenpeace.
They're not violent.
They just go around... I mean, Greenpeace kind of crosses the line.
I'm very critical of the organization having worked there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sing their praises.
I think they're really, really bad, for the most part.
But we should be like, okay, cool.
If they're going to protest, do it like this.
However...
Here comes the criticism.
There's a reason why I never did anything like this.
There's a reason why I went around smiling and shaking hands and giving people high fives.
The most effective way you can actually protest or make change is to talk to people with a smile on your face and try and find some kind of compromise solution or just tell them about what you feel and what you think is going on.
This is really effective in generating a lot of attention.
So this can lead to a debate.
Okay, I get it.
Respectable.
However, so can this.
When a bunch of Trump supporters, conservatives, and volunteers go and clean up the streets, this also gets press attention.
I believe, uh...
Okay, I don't have the story pulled up, but there's a bunch of local news outlets reporting on the cleanup at the time.
So they were able to generate press without obstructing roads by doing something positive.
And what did they get for it?
Criticism.
Are they going to criticize Extinction Rebellion and say, we assume it's pure motives that's driving these people to block the street down?
Maybe they're being paid to be there.
That's the kind of conversation that happens all the time.
But here's the thing.
You look at what Scott Pressler did.
Let's actually look at what Scott Pressler did and read the story.
And it's direct action.
It's the opposite of violent.
It is helping the community.
It is doing a great service for free.
It's sending a great message.
Meanwhile, the climate protesters are linking arms and locking themselves in the street.
Which I get, and again, can respect.
But I don't find it to be particularly effective in actually making change.
You're making people angry and upset.
Check out this.
What do you think people are going to say when they hear a bunch of conservatives got together and actually cleaned up the streets?
They're going to be like, oh, I'm really glad they did that.
That made everything better for us.
Now they might be willing to listen.
So there are potential pitfalls in whether or not the Republicans actually want to deal with climate change issues.
But my advice to the left And they've done this in the past and they should do it again.
Think about all of those people, the millions on the climate strike.
What if instead of a climate strike where they went around giving speeches and waving signs, the strike was, we're gonna go clean up.
There was a big meme recently that was very apolitical about cleaning up the beach.
A before and after shot of a dirty beach and then a clean beach.
This is the kind of culture we need to be building up.
So again, I'm not trying to throw shade at those protesters in DC for the most part.
I do find it to be Particularly ineffective, blocking the street, making people angry.
But I think it's at least, it's a better protest than, say, Antifa, right?
The Daily Caller reports, conservative activist Scott Pressler organized a street cleanup at a homeless camp in Los Angeles on Saturday and estimated that he and his team cleared about 50 tons of trash from the area.
That, to me, is crazy, but not, I mean, that's plausible.
When you hear 50 tons, the first thing I thought was like, there's no way that's possible.
50 tons?
That's ridiculous.
But then I thought about this.
I used to work for American Eagle Airlines, and we used to lift like 35,000 pounds per day.
So when you think about 200 people times, like, how much I lifted in bag weight, then it's kind of like, oh yeah, that actually is fairly plausible.
I don't think Scott went around weighing the trash, though.
They say.
Pressler has organized cleanups across the country in Baltimore, Los Angeles, Newark, New Jersey, and Virginia Beach.
He's also planning to organize more cleanups in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit in the coming months.
That's awesome.
This is amazing.
He said, if people are feeling inspired, don't just tweet and Facebook.
Stop talking, start doing.
I agree.
The pro-Trump activist said he got a group of around 200 volunteers together in Los Angeles by using Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to get his message out, and encouraged people to sign up for his nine-hour cleaning haul.
That's amazing, it really is.
His team was equipped with hazmat suits, many of which were donated, as well as masks to cover their mouths, heavy-duty gloves, and safety instructions to avoid being exposed to life-threatening diseases, including typhus, typhoid fever, and flesh-eating bacteria.
And also, this freaked me out, needles.
Okay, there's gonna be needles.
LA is completely different than Baltimore, Pressler said.
you know, I hope everybody was safe and took those precautions.
Quote, LA is completely different than Baltimore, Pressler said.
How crazy is it that it's 2019, not the Stone Age, and here we are having to worry about these kinds of
diseases.
You know, Trump came out and criticized California, but hey, California understands too.
They acknowledge it.
There have been articles written about the failures of the Democratic Party.
They're holding a supermajority in LA, unable to solve this problem.
They can't clean things up.
And this highlights something really important.
If Scott can go on Twitter and find volunteers to clean all this up, why can't the city, with all of their money, resources, and Democratic supermajority, do anything?
How does this persist?
Why are they stuck?
Now, it's a serious question.
I'm not necessarily blaming them.
They're stuck.
They're unable to do it.
Perhaps it's corruption.
Perhaps it's laziness.
Or perhaps it's bureaucracy.
I don't know.
But it says something.
That a single individual can snap their fingers and say, I'm gonna go do it.
No questions asked.
I'm gonna go do it.
He added that the CEO of a Christian homeless shelter in Los Angeles called Union Rescue Mission.
Reverend Andy Bales inspired him to take such protective measures after reading Bales' story about how he lost his leg to infection after stepping in human waste while helping homeless community members on Skid Row.
Wow!
That's seriously scary.
When you take these suits off, you have to take them off inside out and then put them in a proper biohazard container.
Pressler and his team measured the trash by filling up three 10 to 12 ton dumpsters.
And the dumpsters were overflowing, and those were just the three that were filled, plus other trash bins.
In total, he said the amount of trash collected probably came to over 50 tons, but 50 even seemed like an accurate estimate.
And the hard work has a lasting impact.
Pressler recalled a woman living at the homeless camp he was cleaning in LA who thanked him for keeping his promise to clean up the area.
He says, we did it.
We actually did it.
This is incredible.
I mean, for those of you that are listening, you can't see this, but these images of the piles of trash And then the completed image, it's really, really something to behold.
I don't care what your motivations are, Scott.
I don't care if it's a bunch of Trump supporters secretly trying to improve Trump's image.
I don't care.
It works.
End of story.
I don't care.
You know, I've often thought about this and talked to people.
How important are motivations at the end of the day?
To an extent they are because you can predict what behavior comes next.
But at least when we're talking about cleaning up trash, I don't care if you're doing it because you're secretly selling the trash to somebody who wants it.
There are certain instances where the motivations are important, right?
If they're doing something illegal with, like, I don't know, materials, and they're stealing or something, I don't know.
The point is, if PR is what you're after, congratulations, good public relations is what you get.
A bunch of conservatives twirling their mustache trying to convince everyone they're good people by volunteering to clean up trash?
Yeah, so maybe they don't actually mean it.
Maybe there's no pure motivation.
You know what?
If that's the worst of it, they just did something tremendous.
They just did something great.
So fine, whatever.
I accept this as somebody who deeply cares about the environment, and then I want to know why LA can't do this.
You know, it's not like he's the only volunteer who does this.
I want to stress there are left-wing environmental organizations that specialize in this kind of behavior.
However, he's getting pressed for it because of the nature of, you know, the political debate and all that stuff.
But I'm curious as to why these piles of trash even have to exist.
So, you know, good on him for continuing to do this throughout the country.
There's a quote.
This woman who was living in the homeless camp was wearing a beautiful black and white dress.
And I told her she looked beautiful in it.
And we just started up a conversation.
After a bit of talking, she said, I want to thank you for keeping your promise.
So many people make these promises and they don't keep them.
Yep.
Don't I know it.
Pressler also pointed to his time in Baltimore as an example of the long-lasting impact of his work.
After his volunteer cleanup in the city, Trump called a disgusting rat and rodent infested mess.
Pressler went back a week later for a second cleanup and noticed that the area he and his volunteers hit about a month prior was still clean with very little debris.
So, I'm not surprised.
I'm not surprised.
When you have a big pile of trash, people say whatever and they throw trash on it.
The pile gets bigger.
You get rid of all the trash, people aren't going to dump trash.
They're going to be like, well, you can't dump trash here.
You know what I mean?
When you see a dump, you use a dump.
When you see a clean street, you might litter here and there, and so it's really important to make sure you clean up that litter so it doesn't pile up and become a dump again.
But there you go!
A month after the first cleanup and the alleys only have a little bit of debris, something you could easily sweep up.
This is why maintenance is so important.
He recalled another woman he'd met living in the area, an 81-year-old standing just 4'10", compared to a 6'5", whom he made a promise to after his Baltimore clint to come back again.
When Pressler came back a second time, keeping his promise, he wrote the same woman a handwritten thank you note and planted flowers in her garden.
Besides the fact we planted bulbs for her, which will grow year after year, the next time we go to Baltimore it will be her birthday.
Homelessness numbers in Los Angeles County have increased by 12% from 2018 to 2019.
Yeah, we get it.
So, you know what, man?
Of all of the things to be recognized for, to be famous for, Scott Pressler is doing it right.
I wish these climate activists, you know, instead of what happens, you know, Donald Trump shows up and they show up with big, you know, balloons and baby Trump and pig Trump.
And I'm just thinking, you know, like, I get it.
I get it.
They're different issues.
You want to protest Trump?
I'm totally cool.
I get it.
Protest is an American institution.
It is protected under the First Amendment.
And one of the things I really, really love about this country is that you can show up and tell the president to go screw himself.
It's wonderful.
It truly is.
It makes America great.
Same as burning the American flag.
Burning the American flag is one of the most powerful symbols of the freedom represented by the flag.
Now, I personally detest, you know, burning the flag, but I get it.
I get it.
It's a symbol.
And, you know, what comes of burning the flag, there's a really great Penn & Teller bit they do about burning the flag.
It's incredible.
Penn and Teller are awesome, by the way, but here's the point.
I get and respect people coming out to protest Trump, but I really wish we would see a lot more of this.
Here's what I'd love to see.
I would love to see dueling cleanups, where the left, not wanting to be outdone by the right, goes and stages their own cleanups, and then brags about how much cleanup, you know, how much
they've cleaned.
And then we can tally a number and be like, who cleaned up the most tons of trash?
In the end, it wouldn't really be a competition.
And I hope that, like, that would be, that would be awesome, wouldn't it?
If like these anti-Trump protesters were like, we will not be outdone and went and cleaned up too.
That would be epic.
Or other volunteer activities.
So, so anyway, I think you get the point.
I'll wrap it up here.
This is awesome.
This is awesome stuff.
Yeah, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
and then make yourself look good by cleaning up trash, congratulations, you do.
You do. So this is really, really cool. Yeah, I'll leave it there. Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m. on this channel and I will see you all then.
So far, 26 climate activists have been arrested in Washington, D.C.
at a protest event called Shut Down D.C.
Apparently, I believe the protest is taking place at multiple intersections.
We've seen videos now of people littering.
I know it sounds silly, but yes, they're dancing around throwing, like, it's not glitter, it's like this weird little circular piece of confetti, I guess.
And the whole thing is frustrating and rather irritating.
Now, in the video I did earlier this morning talking about Scott Pressler and the cleanup, I praised, to an extent, the protests saying they're not being violent, they're doing civil disobedience, it's respectable.
Now it's not.
Now there's a dumpster fire that was apparently started, and now they're throwing trash all over the place.
I get it, it's confetti, but you're littering all over the place and dancing around doing nothing?
I am personally offended by this as someone who actually does want to see You know, climate action and environmental change.
This is not how you do it.
Scott Pressler is how you do it, okay?
Going to various dirty places and just cleaning up.
They're doing the opposite.
Look, I can praise all day this idea of civil disobedience.
They're gonna get arrested, I get it.
The police are now sawing through these metal bars they use.
So if you're not familiar, activists take these metal tubes and they'll handcuff themselves inside it so you can't remove the cuffs.
So they gotta cut through the metal to do it.
I can respect civil disobedience.
Some things require you to push on the system, and you get arrested for it.
Non-violent, everybody does their thing, and sometimes these things can be necessary.
So I have no problem saying I understand why they do it.
Now, personally, I disagree and think it's ineffective.
I used to do direct canvassing, shaking hands, smiling, and talking to people, and that is the most effective thing you can do.
It's why so many organizations are out on the street asking to talk to you about the environment.
Now, they're often the butt of jokes.
You know, you'll see in shows, they make fun of these canvassers who are like, hey, do you want to talk to me?
I want to talk to you about the environment.
But that, to me, is the right way to go about things.
Now, fortunately, I find many of these organizations to be liars, but that's why I ended up leaving.
This is wrong, what they're doing now.
They've crossed the line.
Let me show you.
We'll read this.
But I'm not even seeing some of these photos emerging in mainstream reporting, and I wonder why.
So first, we have this extremely annoying video.
It's a man twerking.
He's actually quite good at it.
I'm actually very impressed.
He must practice.
But this woman next to him, I believe it's a woman, is throwing glitter or confetti, whatever it is, all up in the air, and there's other videos of them doing the exact same thing.
This is the opposite of what you should be doing to protest for climate change.
You are literally dumping paper waste in the streets.
And what's the excuse?
No, seriously, what's the excuse for doing this?
For claiming you're fighting for the environment and you're trashing the place?
What's that?
He's got a plastic water bottle in his hand?
You know what, man?
That's why I don't trust these people.
These people don't speak for me.
Ocasio-Cortez does not speak for me.
They are doing the opposite of what needs to be done to make the world a better place.
We do need cultural change.
We do need to change the way we live.
Like, you know, one of the things I have to talk about In the future, we will look back, or our descendants will look back and say, can you believe they used to literally flush fresh water down the toilet?
They'll think about that.
I think it's very important we consider this moving forward.
Renewable energy, there's been great strides.
I think it's all fantastic.
Market solutions work, but we do need cultural changes, which aren't going to come about from people twerking in the street with plastic water bottles in their hand while someone dumps trash all over them, okay?
I know I'm being a bit hyperbolic.
It's confetti or whatever, but this is greatly offensive to me.
When I see what Scott Pressler did and the conservatives just going out and cleaning things up, my response is whatever their motivations are, well, they went and just cleaned up 50 tons of trash, so I can't really complain.
It's not going to get me to think that certain policies from Republicans are better policies, but it's respectable.
This is not.
You know what?
Let's advance.
Here's a photo.
Actually, let me do this first.
Popville, I'm not sure what this is.
It says, chronicling the happenings in Washington D.C.' 's neighborhoods.
I saw this photo of a burning dumpster.
I didn't believe it was real.
You know what?
I need more sources than just one photo, and it's a lot of the same photo going around.
However, There is another photo.
This one shows the dumpster covered in water.
There's the fire department.
It says, at Mass Avenue 19, shut down DC at Mass Avenue 19, set a dumpster full of trash on fire in the street.
Officials put it out shortly before I arrived.
These people do not care about the environment.
They are not fighting for change.
They are just crazy people causing damage.
Okay?
Every one of these protesters should have done something to stop this, to prevent this.
They should not be standing around while a dude twerks and they throw trash all over the place.
Someone should be stopping this.
The guy's got a plastic water bottle.
I get it.
You can drink plastic water bottle.
They do that stupid joke where they're like...
You participate in society, huh?
It's a really dumb comment.
You can make changes to do better, okay?
If you want to talk about why we should protect the environment, why we should be fighting climate change, you start by not drinking plastic water bottles.
By getting a steel, reusable thermos to carry water around in.
And a lot of people do it.
They do.
The people I know who actually care about the environment, they do this.
And not only that, it's convenient.
You get a water bottle, you got a little thing you hang from your backpack or whatever, and you can walk around with it and fill it up whenever you get a chance.
What is this?
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Burning trash, throwing trash, and to me it's really, really irksome because, you know, it's reminiscent of what I went through with a lot of these organizations and how they claim to want to fight for justice and they don't do it.
Okay?
I've worked with environmental organizations who've lied.
And I'm greatly offended by it.
I don't want to say like at the national level or the leadership, but there are people in these organizations who just lie to win, to get a job, to get a paycheck.
And it's why I left the industry.
It was one of the main reasons I left.
I just, I find whatever the cause was.
Non-profits should be putting themselves out of business and they didn't.
They worked to extend their bottom line and to continue the business at all costs.
That's not what they're supposed to do in my opinion.
Sometimes.
But if you're fighting for change and you get that change, you're done.
Instead, we see this.
Probably the most aggravating aggravating video I have seen yet.
And I just watched a video, earlier this morning, some clips, from a conservative activist who went to LA with 200 volunteers and cleaned up the streets.
Without a word, without a big protest, without being disruptive, they went and did it.
for their good work in Baltimore.
They were smeared.
They were criticized as having impure motivations.
Okay, what about their motivations?
Alright?
You have to understand how frustrating it is and how annoying it is to see these arrogant narcissists dancing in the street, shutting everything down, besmirching the good name that is civil disobedience while littering.
Literally littering.
The opposite of what they should be doing.
Imagine if these people shut down the streets of the march that cleaned up trash as they went along.
I don't think they care.
I do not believe they care.
Because if they did, they would not torch a dumpster in the street full of trash.
This is, in my opinion, just a lie.
Any one of these people, look at this photo.
Any one of these people here, with the fire and the big extinguisher, could have stopped this.
Could have done something about it.
Now, it's possible one of them actually called the police and the fire department had him come in.
But why did it happen in the first place?
They like to say that they're saboteurs and agent provocateurs.
Oh, people come in to make us look bad.
No, it's what you attract, okay?
I get it.
I actually agree with shutting down intersections.
It is a light form of civil disobedience.
It inconveniences people.
But so does, I don't know, like a street, a block party, okay?
If you're going to be Inconvenience for a few hours, and we're gonna push back and push something important.
I think it's great, okay?
You might have the wrong cause, but I don't believe there should be a prerequisite for what you're protesting.
The alternative is people going around torching dumpsters, but in this case, it's what they did anyway.
If all they did was lock themselves to a boat, the police came, caught them out, everybody groaned, okay, that's civil disobedience.
Instead, they're throwing trash all over the street, and they're starting fires.
Now they've crossed the line, and they're causing problems.
So here's the news.
This is from WTOP, which is, I believe, a local D.C.
I'm not entirely sure.
They say, D.C.
police arrested at least 26 climate protesters who used a sailboat, vans, cars, and sit-ins Monday to block key intersections around the district.
Chances are likely that if you're driving, you're going to see some kind of delay.
If you're coming in anywhere near the National Mall, you're going to be impacted by this.
So here's what the point I want to make, okay?
I don't think this is effective.
I do not believe it's effective.
I believe that there is an unacceptable form of civil disobedience where we'll groan and
roll our eyes and we need to be able to sometimes, like look, sometimes you break the law to
make a point.
One of the best examples is across the country marijuana is being legalized.
But if people didn't break the law, how would we know we wanted it to be illegal in the first place?
That's why a mass surveillance state is dangerous.
People push the boundaries, and then we reassess whether or not those boundaries should have existed in the first place.
In this instance, it will likely always be illegal.
To shut down major thoroughfares, I get it.
But this is not violent.
Okay, this right here, I'm pointing to a specific thing.
Setting up a big spectacle, talking about your thing, it's going to get a lot of people to hear about Extinction Rebellion.
So it's effective in generating buzz.
But then they get besmirched, or I don't know, maybe it's their own fault, of these people who treat it like a game and mock and belittle what people are actually trying to do.
Here's the most important takeaway, though.
I would never do this.
I disagree with it.
I understand why it's important, and I respect protests and civil disobedience, but The most effective thing they could have done is just stand on various street corners wearing shirts or holding signs.
And then people would talk about all of the signs all across D.C.
and what happened, and they would say, we organized several hundred people to occupy as many street corners as we could in D.C.
holding signs, and everyone would notice.
You know, there's a group called Improv Everywhere, and they generate buzz, and they do it in ways that doesn't cause these kinds of problems.
While I can respect civil disobedience, you invite this absurd behavior.
Just dumping trash in the street while they twerk.
It's offensive.
Now, I will stress, the dude actually is really good at twerking.
You know, that's not the point, right?
I'm not a fan, but the problem isn't the dancing.
The problem is throwing the trash all over the place.
If you want to go out and protest, and you're going to twerk around, man, I don't care.
I get it, civil disobedience.
But when you, and there's a video of him dancing around throwing, you know, confetti everywhere, and your friends do this, why isn't anybody stopping this?
You know, they don't care.
They just don't care.
I'm done.
I'm done ranting on this.
There's probably going to be, by the time this airs, there'll be some developments.
I don't know.
26 arrests so far by the time of this being recorded.
And I wish this energy went around picking up trash instead of throwing it around.
You know what?
So what am I supposed to do when they say a Trump supporter went around and just cleaned up a bunch of cities?
And they want to criticize it and say, oh, he's just trying to make Trump look good.
Well, he did!
Well, he did.
He's a Trump supporter and a bunch of his friends and a bunch of volunteers went and cleaned things up.
Can't argue with it.
You can criticize their motivations and question it, but in the end, he did something really, really good.
These people, I question their motivations.
Carrying around plastic water bottles, throwing confetti all over the street, twerking around, and lighting dumpsters on fire.
Yeah, I really do question their motivations.
Why would anybody want to stand behind that?
Now, I get it.
I want to be fair.
There's probably a lot of people here who absolutely criticize this behavior.
Where were they when people were dumping trash in the street?
Where were they when these dumpsters were set on fire?
Why didn't they stop it?
Who are these people who did it?
Don't invite these people.
Don't defend this behavior.
But you know what I've heard from them?
It's a diversity of tactics, they call it.
Every time I've criticized the insanity pulled off by these big protests, you know, during Occupy Wall Street, they'd say, we must respect the diversity of tactics.
And I'd say, why would you stand behind violence?
Why would you stand behind destruction and fires and trash?
And they would say, well, we don't want infighting, so we're going to defend the diversity of tactics.
unidentified
OK.
tim pool
That's on you, then.
That's your group.
Those are your accomplices.
So I hope many of these people will call out this bad behavior.
I doubt it, though.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you next time.
There are principled people who identify as on the left who have been sending a warning out for a while now.
Bill Maher is one of them, and I have a lot of respect for him.
He pushes back on the Democrats with ease, with no problem.
Now, of course, I've criticized him heavily over his elitist comments about a recession, but we'll leave that somewhere else.
The point is, Bill Maher has been repeatedly criticizing Democrats for quite some time, and they already call him alt-right and they criticize him for it, but Bill Maher is correct.
Look at this.
Are we going to do it again?
Bill Maher warns Democrats against attacks on Brett Kavanaugh.
Now, I talked about this in a main channel segment briefly, and I'm only starting with this lightly to move into the bigger story.
Matt Gorman, after Kavanaugh, Republicans are looking forward to another Supreme Court fight, and this is round two.
This is the second act of what Bill Maher was saying.
Let me read this quote.
He says, in the 2018 election, it looks like Democrats could have won Indiana, North Dakota, Florida, Missouri, and West Virginia.
All five were home to Democratic senators running for election in tight races.
Joe Manchin, the only one that voted for Kavanaugh, won.
The other four lost, Maher said, describing the Kavanaugh effect on this.
They have polling on this.
People did not like going after a guy for what he did in high school.
It looked bad.
And now Democrats are talking about impeaching him again?
Yep.
And here's the later—this is an opinion piece for Matt Gorman.
But he brings up a really important point.
Republicans of all different stripes, many who might disagree, are unified in this fight.
And he talks about how Republicans know that a vote for a Republican is a vote for a conservative judge who will interpret the Constitution the way it's intended to be interpreted, the way they believe it should be interpreted.
And that means, when the left goes after a conservative-leaning judge, every different kind of conservative is going to rally behind this and vote in favor of it.
It's a unifying effect.
That's the easiest way to put it.
And Bill Maher sees it.
And he's wiggling his arms and they're saying, Democrats, listen, but they don't care.
And I can't tell you why, but boy, do I make a lot of videos talking about how Democrats don't seem to understand what they're doing wrong.
Fart?
You know, I just don't know.
I just don't get it.
You'd think after, like, I don't know, the first few times, they'd stop and say, hmm, maybe we should do something else.
But what's the old saying?
That the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result?
Like constantly putting your hand in fire, thinking it won't burn at some point?
That seems to be what they're doing.
And what's strange to me is the media tells them, okay?
As much as the media supports the absurdity in many instances, like the leftist digital outlets, a lot of people in media and a lot of media outlets are publishing stories.
People like me and Bill Maher saying, stop!
You are giving this all away.
You are unifying conservatives behind Trump.
And the polling data shows, the economist data I love sourcing, shows that all Republicans coming together, yes, because they just want the judges.
The laws will come later, but the judges are the important factor.
So let's do this.
Let's read this story from Fox News about Republicans looking forward, being excited to the Kavanaugh fight.
Listen, when they came out and started going after Kavanaugh, I assure you a lot of high-level Republicans started laughing and high-fiving each other, saying, yes, this is what we needed to rally the base and win 2020.
With Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh now back in the news, I'm feeling a pang of déjà vu from last fall.
The New York Times recently published a grossly misleading excerpt of a book about Kavanaugh by two of the newspaper's reporters.
The excerpt contained a new, unsubstantiated claim.
It actually wasn't new at all.
It was just ignored because it's unsubstantiated.
But they brought it up.
They say, the Times originally left out crucial information about the unsubstantiated claim, including that the alleged victim, who had not spoken with the authors of the book, repeatedly told friends she had no recollection of Kavanaugh doing what he was accused of doing.
The Times subsequently revised.
We all know the story.
At least, I hope you do.
I don't want to rehash a lot of the old stuff.
Let's get to the crux of the argument.
He says, Judges, unlike any other issue, unite Republicans of all stripes.
MAGA hat wearers, neocons, country clubbers, and every other label you can think of.
There's simply no other issue like it.
We relish judicial confirmation battles.
We all want conservatives on the bench, and we'll all fight like hell to get them there.
The reason behind this isn't a mystery.
For decades, Republicans have always drawn a straight line between elections and judges.
We know that a vote for a Republican president or senator is a vote for lifetime appointments for judges who will interpret the Constitution as it was intended.
The political calculus was battle-borne from years of seeing liberal judges legislate from the bench and high-powered Democratic opposition to qualified Republican judicial nominees like Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada.
However, the years we spent in the judicial desert fashioned a political weapon that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used with skill.
And I will have no problem criticizing Mitch McConnell over holding up Obama's appointee, but Now you understand.
They are playing a different game.
You know, in my main channel I basically entertain the hypothesis that Trump was playing 4D chess.
You know, that's the accusation they say, that Trump knows what he's doing, he's playing the meat, he's manipulating.
I don't want to go that far.
But what I will say is, it's not a conspiracy.
Cards are being dealt from a deck.
And the Democrats picked up their hand, and the Republicans picked up their hand, and the Republicans, whether you want to call it ethical, immoral, whatever you want to call it, are playing more skillfully.
I mean, if you want to criticize certain things, like Mitch McConnell holding up legislation, etc.
They're playing their hand the way that it's meant to be played.
There's political posturing, there's pandering, there's political gamesmanship things I really, really detest going on.
But we know why.
We know why.
We can see it, and they'll even say it outright.
Here's an article from a conservative saying, yup, we're gonna play this game to get more judges.
And so I sit here wondering, what needs to be said, and by who, to get the Democrats to understand this?
You have Bill Maher saying it, you have me saying it, you have other principled opposition to what they're doing with Kavanaugh, but they don't listen.
It's a fact the Supreme Court and judges played a major role in juicing GOP turnout in 2016.
Bill Maher was highlighting this, all these others lost.
He goes on to say, It's a fact the Supreme Court and judges played a major
role in juicing GOP turnout in 2016.
According to exit polls, almost 60% of Trump voters listed judicial appointments as the
most important factor in their vote.
It's not hard to imagine many of those voters, including traditional Republicans
who strongly disliked Trump, yet wanted a conservative judiciary.
Trump, to his credit, understood the importance of the issue, and from the start made credible promises on the types of judges he'd appoint.
I agree.
I completely agree.
I've talked to conservatives in the past.
I remember being a teenager back, you know, it was, I think, Bush's re-election.
And I was told explicitly by a conservative family friend, he's like, I don't know or care about what Bush is doing.
He's just going to get, you know, more conservative judges.
That's all that matters.
And I heard that when I was a teenager, and I was like, it didn't mean much to me.
I was like, oh, whatever.
another reason to vote for a Republican, right? But it's different because the Republicans typically
campaign on court, you know, there's the social issues Democrats and Republicans often focus on,
you know, abortion, taxes, etc. Welfare, social programs, foreign war, government spending.
But one thing that's not often in the forefront, or I should say it's not the subject of most
debates, it's whether or not they would appoint a conservative judge because the Republican's
going to say I'll do it, the Democrats say I'll appoint a liberal, and they don't really argue
about it, we get it. The debate comes during the voting process, the confirmation process.
this.
He writes, What's mystifying to me is Democrats have not duplicated this tactic.
They have not drawn that same straight line between a Democratic president or Senate and its effects on the Supreme Court or the federal judiciary writ large.
In the first three debates, judges were barely mentioned.
Aside from abortion, they don't connect their priorities to high court rulings.
And that's fascinating to me because think about it.
You can vote for the president.
You can vote for your representative in Congress.
You don't vote for a judge.
Judges are appointed.
They're appointed by the executive branch, confirmed by the legislative branch, and I actually, I think the American system is very, very brilliant.
I think it's not perfect, but wow, is it great.
The checks and balances, the three different branches, it's very, very clever.
It's very smart.
Republicans get it.
A vote for a Republican is a vote for a Republican judge in the long run.
And Trump has been stacking the courts over 150 appointments.
That's my understanding.
And there have been some people on the left talking about this, but for the most part, no.
They're distracted by Trump's boorish behavior.
So when it comes to Kavanaugh and the accusations, the Republicans are laughing all the way to the bench.
Bill Maher is saying it!
And you know what?
If you're not going to listen to Bill Maher, I don't know who you're going to listen to.
But you know what?
All of this comes down to one simple thing.
I think you get the point on what he's trying to say.
He ends by saying, There is little you can be assured of in Washington, but if a vacancy were to arrive before election day, I can promise you three things.
Republicans led by McConnell would move heaven and earth to confirm a new justice.
Second, With both armies scarred from the Kavanaugh nomination, this war would be bloodier and harsher than the last.
And third, Republicans of all stripes would be ready for a hell of a fight.
I don't know, the point I'm going to make, the last thing is, you get it, you've heard me say it before if you watch my content, there's a civil war on the left and the progressives are not playing the same game as the moderates.
So when Bill Maher comes out shocked at what the Democrats are doing, well Bill Maher it's because you've lost half of your base.
There's half that are now obsessed with identitarianism And far-left policies and pie-in-the-sky, you know, policies and open borders and globalism and things that Americans don't want.
And you represent those Americans who are still left in the Democratic side.
Unfortunately for you, Bill, there's also a lot of people who used to be Democrats who have left you in the other direction, going and joining Trump and saying, enough.
There you go.
The more they try and rile up the base with fights.
Listen, it's not just about the courts.
It's not just about Republicans knowing they need judges.
It's about the lies.
They have single-handedly combined two powerful issues.
Republicans want judges and the culture war insanity, false accusations, all into one.
Riling up anybody who would be opposed to this and saying, enough!
You are helping them.
Bill Maher gets it.
It's too bad, though.
Stick around.
They mention New York Times.
The next segment will be talking about the New York Times getting ripped to shreds, having a very, very bad past couple of months.
I'll see you in a few minutes.
It is often said that the institutions of the left, not just the Democratic Party, but the media as well, and the data shows it, as much as they like to say there's no liberal bias in media, we know for a fact there is.
And it's not necessarily because evil people are doing evil things, it's because many of these jobs are in big cities where people tend to be liberal, and they all are in a bubble and they believe these things, and that's what happens.
So now we can see how this is impacting the New York Times.
In this story from the Washington Examiner, quote, New York Times is having a rough year.
CNN anchors lament recent mistakes.
Well, one of their first mistakes was hiring overt identitarian leftists who push fake news for profit, or for political gain, I'm sorry, not profit, because they thought it would be profitable.
I will also stress the New York Times is doing really, really well in terms of subscriptions, and I believe they're profitable, and other good news.
But The quality of their content has been on the decline.
In this story from the Washington Examiner, they say.
CNN anchors Brian Stelter and S.E.
Cupp discussed the New York Times' litany of recent mistakes and how the flubs damaged the reputation of the media as a whole, really.
To put it kindly, the New York Times is having a rough year, Cupp began, before recounting the list of controversial, regrettable flubs on her show Saturday night, but added, none of these things represent the Times entirely, but they're not helping.
Well, let's get to the crux of the story.
This other report from this morning in The Examiner.
Top Democrats unload on New York Times for covering Hunter Biden's Ukraine activities.
Now, the reason I started with that other story is to point out, no matter what they do, they're wrong.
You see, the left is in a state of civil war in this country.
A lot of people try to talk about, you know, the left versus the right, but really it's the left cannibalizing itself and going through some kind of transformation.
We can see that when the New York Times puts out these hit pieces against the right, it turns out they're bad and they get hurt.
And when they talk about legitimate things like Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, they get attacked anyway.
You know, it's really funny.
They're going to lose subscriptions and it's going to result in them bending the knee and bowing and apologizing.
Well, let's read the story about how the Democrats are outraged at the fake news for smearing Joe Biden.
Top Democrats unload on New York Times for covering Hunter Biden's Ukraine activities.
The Examiner reports, some top Democratic strategists were less than impressed by the New York Times coverage of Joe Biden's possible involvement in a scheme to help his son Hunter in Ukraine.
Also, I want to stress, this is another story about the backfire on Democrats.
You want to talk about Trump's phone call?
Congratulations, you get this.
Don't blame the New York Times.
The report, written by Kenneth Vogel, was partially in response to recent allegations by President Trump that Biden was involved in the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor that benefited his son and an energy company that was under investigation.
The newspaper and Vogel were both sharply criticized for their characterization of Biden and his son's involvement, citing the fact that no evidence has emerged that implicates any legal malfeasance on the part of either Biden.
Trump seemed to be basing his allegations on a soundbite from a 2018 event in which Biden mentioned the ousted prosecutor.
Trump, who was accused of pressing Ukrainian leader into investigating Joe Biden, has suggested that while he was vice president, Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S.
loan guarantees from Ukraine to ensure the prosecutor would be fired.
That's on tape.
I don't want to play any silly games about context or anything like that.
All I know is there's a video going around where Biden says, he told them that you're not getting any money until this prosecutor's gone.
And then he says, and there you go.
He said something like, well, there it is.
He was fired.
Something like that.
The guy got fired.
Now, there have been some accusations that the reason they wanted him fired is because he wasn't investigating corruption and that he was very corrupt.
You can also argue that the reason he was targeting Hunter Biden was because Biden was coming after him.
Regardless, we don't know.
And it's silly to speculate.
I just don't know.
I know it's politically expedient for everybody, but it's not helpful when the Democrats blame the New York Times for reporting facts.
They say, Vogel had promoted his most recent report by saying there was more to the story about Joe and Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine, but upon publication there did not appear to be any new information that indicated guilt.
It turns out that the more to the story that Ken Vogel was touting on TV is that there is less to the story, said Ronald Klain, Biden's former chief of staff.
This could have ended after the first paragraph.
It finds Joe Biden did nothing wrong.
End of story, said Neera Tanden, a top advisor to Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Why the New York Times can't basically concede they've wasted a lot of ink on a story that has no there there, especially when Trump is using the smoke as a weapon, is beyond me.
Let me just remind you all.
That the New York Times ran a front-page fake story about YouTube radicalization.
It was fake, it was misframed, it was misleading, and I believe it was intentional.
The New York Times published a story about a man who claimed he wasn't alt-right publicly, but then said he was- or they claimed he was in the story.
The story was also about a guy who was a conservative who watched YouTube and then became progressive, the opposite of what they alleged.
The New York Times published overt fake news.
Why?
For money, of course.
So it's no surprise now.
I think this is great, actually.
And I mean great somewhat, you know, facetiously.
I'm being a bit sarcastic.
But the Democrats now are sounding like Donald Trump.
Oh, no, the fake news.
This smears the lies.
You know, when Trump says it, they say, how dare he attack the press?
But now the Democrats are saying it.
Welcome to the party.
The other day I did a story talking about Twitter censorship, and progressive activists were furious that they couldn't criticize the Working Families Party endorsing Elizabeth Warren.
When they went on Twitter, their tweets wouldn't appear, and they couldn't like or comment on the tweet.
Is that a coincidence?
Well, based on everything we've seen from Twitter, probably not, but welcome to the club.
This is why you call out bad behavior.
The New York Times, it's finally getting, you know, more, well, I shouldn't say finally, but they've gotten scrutiny before, but here you go.
The Democrats are feeling the heat.
The New York Times wants to push stories.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Did the news offend you?
You're upset?
Well, welcome to the club.
Welcome to how the world works when the media has a bone to pick.
So here's now, let's go back to the first story.
CNN talking about the failures of the New York Times.
Even the media itself, the great beast, is targeting itself.
You know, you have CNN highlighting the failures of the New York Times.
They say, The Times has faced backlash in recent months for publishing an anti-Semitic cartoon of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump, Bret Stephens' overreaction to being called a bedbug, The paper changing a headline involving Trump and their botched story about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last week.
That's just a lot to go through, New York Times.
I don't know how they still have subscribers.
You always need strong editors who are able to see when something is going to embarrass you and your news organization.
It seems like that's what's being missed.
No, it seems like you have political activists.
Why are they going after Biden?
And why are they going after Trump?
Well, they also hired a ton of identitarian leftists.
Young, overt racists who push fake stories like YouTube radicalization nonsense.
Now, while YouTube can radicalize people, it is a red herring.
It is not that big of an issue.
People have to choose what to click on.
Where Facebook, you're algorithmically fed every day a constant flow of information, and most people get news from Facebook.
Not the same for YouTube.
A lot of people are being algorithmically fed videos of like people smashing watermelons.
The point is, the left at the New York Times, I'm sorry, the New York Times has been embracing far-left progressive and identitarian insanity, and now they are going nuts.
They're smearing Biden because the left doesn't like Biden, and they smear Trump because they don't like Trump either.
Well, Democrats, well, CNN, are you paying attention?
There is no safe haven for you or anyone else when these crazy people get into media and start smearing everyone.
They want Biden out, they want Trump out, and they want Sanders to win.
They say, when there are mistakes made, those mistakes are amplified and do damage more broadly than just the New York Times, he continued.
Then politicians like President Trump can use it as ammunition against the media as a whole.
So what I hope is happening at the Times, and what I think is happening, is that kind of conversation about where are the checks and balances, the multiple layers of editing that everybody needs.
Everybody needs a good editor.
Well, let me just tell you.
Excuse me, I have allergies.
Sorry about that.
These organizations don't have fact-checkers anymore.
Some of them do.
Most of them don't.
These digital media outlets don't have fact-checkers.
I've worked for many of them, and they just publish things.
They don't send it to another separate individual and say, check this.
If you're going to write a story, and you're going to make a bunch of claims, it is important to have a fact-checker, who is not you, who can then read through that and check for several things, like plagiarism even.
They're not doing this anymore because it's not cost-effective.
Media's in trouble, and it's sad, actually, that because media can't make money, they turn to, for one, firing the good journalists and hiring lowbrow college grads who work for scraps to write a woke rage bait.
They get rid of their fact-checkers, and then this is what happens.
We need the media.
We need press.
We need good journalism.
But we don't have it.
We have activists continually infiltrating news organizations.
So I'll say it again.
Why is Joe Biden being slammed and why are the Democrats outraged?
Well, guess what?
These young people don't like Biden either.
They think Biden and Trump are bad.
So there you go.
They're going to write negative stories.
They're going to come after you next.
And as long as you sit there, the moderate wing of the Democratic Party is out.
They're getting smaller, they're shrinking, the progressives are slowly taking over, so don't be surprised when you see more of this.
But eventually this won't exist either, because there won't be anybody to criticize these things.
Eventually, CNN staff will be replaced by the same identitarian weirdos who will just be like, well, the New York Times was correct in their assessment.
And that's it.
Uniformity.
Conformity.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Justin Trudeau cannot escape the scandal.
Three different images of offensive stereotypes, to say the least, have emerged.
And now, in one poll in Ontario, Trudeau is down 15 points.
Or actually, it could be more than that.
They say, pollsters said the scandal erased a 15-point lead.
unidentified
Wow.
tim pool
That is huge.
You know, when I first covered the story about Trudeau and this brown-faced, stupid, whatever it is.
I won't talk about it.
It's so dumb.
But I didn't think anything was going to happen.
I didn't think he would be held accountable.
Well, apparently, whether they want to or not, people are not having it.
Support for Justin Trudeau plummets as polls show conservative rivals would win 35.5% of national vote and the Liberals 32.9% in the wake of the Canadian PM's blackface scandal.
Justin Trudeau, a darling of the left, with so many people talking about how he was young and charismatic.
No.
Let me tell you what the socialists are saying.
Over at Jacobin, they're saying he's just Joe Biden with abs.
Justin Trudeau is actually getting smacked down over this scandal.
And I gotta say, I'm really surprised.
Really surprised.
I did not think they would do anything about it.
So let's read a little bit.
I've got some more information we can talk about.
They say.
Support for the Canadian Prime Minister has plummeted in the wake of a blackface scandal.
A Nanos research poll released yesterday said that Justin Trudeau's conservative rivals would win.
We read that.
Last week, the ruling Liberals were knocked off course when Time magazine published a picture of Trudeau in brown makeup at a 2001 Arabian Nights party.
When the image was taken, he was a 29-year-old teacher.
But two other pictures and a video of him in blackface surfaced later.
Following the controversy and two days of apologies, Trudeau will go ahead with his re-election campaign today and is set to visit Hamilton in Ontario.
They say the images were at odds with his oft-stated position that he wants to improve the lot of minorities in Canada and prompted international ridicule.
It's a body blow, pollster Frank Graves of ECOS Research said in an interview.
Will the liberals be able to recover?
Who knows?
There's no way of putting lipstick on a pig and making this go away.
Graves said his polling, which he has yet to publish in detail, shows a shift towards conservative party leader Andrew Scheer and away from Trudeau nationally.
Well, Justin Trudeau has just the right thing to solve this problem.
Let me ask you this.
Amid this scandal, with everyone outraged and polls plummeting, what would you suggest Justin Trudeau do?
Maybe he should apologize?
Maybe he can do a big donation?
Um, to, like, certain civil rights groups.
Maybe he could do, like, a big sit-down interview with a famous civil rights activist and have a conversation about it.
Talk about history and context.
What do you think the right thing to do would have been for Justin Trudeau to recover from this?
Well, if you said, demand the confiscation of people's firearms, you would have been correct.
Because I have no idea what he thinks he's doing, but here you go.
Justin Trudeau tries to shift focus from brownface images to gun control.
Oh, how clever!
Throw the red meat to the left.
What did you do?
You offended them?
Well, hey, in typical good grifter form, if you want to still win, just turn around and say, uh, ignore the photo.
How about gun control?
You know what?
I bet a lot of people would accept it.
They'd say, hey, I get what I want.
Fine.
Screw it.
There are a lot of people who want gun control who probably don't care about racism.
And there are probably a lot of people who care about racism who don't care about gun control.
So he's trying to save face thinking, I'll throw out this big issue, right?
Gun control.
Do a big tweet.
Shift focus.
Here's why I think this is right.
And he did it on purpose.
He canceled his schedule.
He like postponed things, shut things down.
unidentified
And then comes out, we're going to ban AR-15s.
tim pool
The Guardian reports.
Trudeau has tried to focus attention back on his re-election after a dramatic week in Canadian politics in which the Prime Minister admitted to multiple images of him in brownface, yes and blackface, and not recalling how many times he had done it.
Wow.
The embattled Trudeau spent Friday walking the streets of East Toronto, posing for photos with residents, and unveiling his party's newest campaign pledge, a move to restrict handguns, ban assault-style rifles, which means nothing, just means rifles, and begin buying back military-grade weapons, which also means nothing, that were legally purchased.
He made the announcement near the site of a gun rampage last year, when Faisal Hussein shot 15 people.
He said, Not true.
It's not a military weapon, but that's the lie.
loved ones to gun violence.
Not enough has changed, said Trudeau of the proposed ban.
We know you do not need a military-grade assault weapon, one designed to kill the largest amount
of people in the shortest amount of time, to take down a deer.
Not true.
It's not a military weapon, but that's the lie.
You see the game he's playing?
Now does this remind you of anybody?
Let me ask you this.
We're going to play another game here, okay?
I bet many of you didn't guess this is what his strategy would have been.
Some of you probably already knew this.
But when I asked, what do you think his plan was to get on the good side of the left, did you bet ignoring it and calling for the confiscation of guns?
I bet many of you didn't.
But this is also reminiscent of another controversial figure that was not really associated with the left, but kind of, who did something very, very bad and then tried to talk about banning guns.
Now, I'd like you to think, is it a politician?
Is it going to be, I don't know, was it Nancy Pelosi?
No!
Justin Trudeau is calling on the spirit and inspiration of Harvey Weinstein?
I kid you not.
So I initially heard, I saw this from a tweet from Andy Ngo.
Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.
I'll fight the NRA to channel my anger at myself for sexually harassing women.
Bravo, Justin Trudeau.
That's exactly what you needed to do.
Paula Weinstein.
Harvey Weinstein was outed, okay?
He was being smeared and slammed, and he was being taken down.
And so this is what he did.
Is there a quote?
He said, I am going to need a place to channel that anger.
So I've decided that I'm going to give the NRA my full attention.
Weinstein wrote in a statement.
I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party.
I'm going to do it at the same place I had my bar mitzvah.
He added, I am making a movie about our president.
Perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party.
What a desperate and disgusting strategy.
Look, this is old news, okay?
We get it.
But Justin Trudeau is trying to pull the same thing.
Remember when Kevin Spacey got outed and then he was like, oh, turns out, you know, he then, you know, comes out of the closet?
It's like, right, we get it, dude.
This is not how you handle bad press.
I don't know how you recover from this, Justin Trudeau.
You reap what you sow.
You want to entertain these people and their offense culture and cancel culture?
Well, this is what you get.
Okay?
These are the people you are courting.
You've lost them.
Perhaps you shouldn't have had them in the first place.
Perhaps principled people should recognize that, hey, everybody makes mistakes and culture changes.
But if you want their support and you encourage this behavior, The bell tolls for thee.
Remember the story of Megyn Kelly?
Megyn Kelly got fired for simply asking the question.
How utterly absurd and insane that Justin Trudeau expects to come out of this unscathed when you can't even ask the question.
Heaven forbid someone be ignorant about these issues.
Do you guys remember this story from back in last October?
Megan Kelly.
Let me zoom in a little bit.
They say Megan Kelly is out at NBC after making controversial comments about blackface.
During her 9 a.m.
hour on the Today Show, Kelly claimed that blackface was acceptable in the
context of Halloween costumes saying, it was okay when I was a kid as long as
you were dressing like a character. The backlash was swift and even drew
criticism from longtime Today co-host Al Roker who said while she apologized to
the staff she owes a bigger apology to folks of color around the country
because this is a history going back to the 1830s. But I'd like to stress a point
they don't allow nuance in these conversations.
First, Justin Trudeau engaged in brownface.
They call it blackface because context is no longer relevant.
Blackface was a specific practice.
They did, you know, white for the big mouth and the black on the face.
What he did was tried to make himself appear, you know, dark-skinned like he was Arabic or something or Middle Eastern.
I'm not saying it's not offensive.
I'm saying they are distinct.
And that's why the media is referring to it mostly as brownface in a lot of circumstances.
When it comes to Megyn Kelly, she was talking about costumes.
I could be wrong.
I don't think she was saying, like, doing a minstrel show.
I think she was literally saying, like, what if you put on makeup as a kid for a costume?
That was okay when she was little.
And it was.
She wasn't wrong.
Well, they fired her for it.
Because you aren't allowed to not know.
That's the point here.
I think she was making, you know, the point she was making was important to talk about.
And it probably would have been actually great for someone to say, you know, that's a good point, but times have changed.
And she would have went, interesting, wow, I didn't realize that.
Instead, get rid of her.
No, there's no, there's no reconciliation.
There's no forgiveness.
I don't know why Justin Trudeau would have expected any different.
But I will stress, because he's on the left, perhaps that's why.
And that's probably why I thought nothing would happen.
Why would anyone hold it against him?
He's on their side.
Well, just ask Jacobin.
I believe they're socialists?
I could be wrong.
Sorry if I'm calling you socialists.
Oh, they are.
A plan to win socialism in America.
Okay, they're socialists.
Justin Trudeau is Joe Biden with abs.
Okay.
I don't disagree, actually.
But they don't like the guy!
So yeah, you're gonna get ripped apart.
Like, they're gonna come for you.
You're not gonna get out of this one unscathed.
We'll see if he wins.
You know, I'd be surprised if he loses.
But check this out.
Polster said the scandal erased 15 points!
Shouldn't he resign?
To save the party, shouldn't he resign?
Don't ask me.
I don't know.
I don't know what's going to get him the win.
But I'd imagine if that anger is coming because of him personally, a resignation would probably help, right?
Well, there you go, Justin Trudeau.
You've courted these people, and this is what you get.
So I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.
Export Selection