Trump's Ukraine Transcript Reveals That The Democrats Made a HUGE Mistake, Are HELPING Trump
Trump's Ukraine Transcript Reveals That The Democrats Made a HUGE Mistake, Are HELPING Trump. It was nothing, a big ol nothing burger just like Russiagate.Its a mini russiagate.Democrats finally call for formal impeachment against Trump based off of evidence they hadn't seen and a statement from someone who didn't actually have first hand knowledge or potential wrongdoing.Who could have seen this coming?In the end we learn from Trump's Ukraine transcript that there was no quid pro quo, Trump offered nothing in exchange for anything and it was Ukraine that brought up Giuliani and his ongoing investigation. Trump actually asked the SAME THING Democrats asked for, to investigate what happened in 2016Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for something they did on several occasions and the media and far left is desperately trying to justify impeachment.Whether Joe Biden did anything wrong in his actions as VP are unknown but the conflict of interest is plainly visible. Biden should not have been interfering with a prosecutor that was looking into a company where his son worked. It doesn't mean Joe Biden broke the law but it does warrant a deeper look.Trump, on the other hand, just released the transcript showing a nothing burger. Meanwhile the S&P took a huge hit due to impeachment fears. The Democrats antics are producing nothing and hurting the economy, something Trump will likely use moving forward.Not to mention that the GOP raised 1 MILLION Dollars in 6 hours after the impeachment was announced.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
So earlier this morning, the transcript between Donald Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine was released, and it is a nothing burger.
It is a nothing burger.
There's nothing here.
There's no quid pro quo.
And the Democrats set themselves up for failure by overhyping what we could expect.
With Nancy Pelosi coming out and all these Democrats coming out calling for impeachment before they actually saw anything, we get exactly what we thought.
Nothing.
Well, what was the response after we realized there's really nothing in this?
It's not a real transcript, says a wave of people on Twitter.
A trend emerged.
Not a transcript, they said.
Now there's an image going around where it says it's a memorandum.
Look.
They can never accept it.
It will never be enough.
It will never stop.
Russia wasn't enough.
Now we have this Ukraine nonsense, and the story is just ridiculous.
Was there quid pro quo?
Meaning, did Donald Trump offer anything in exchange for a favor?
The answer is no.
No.
And the best they came up with, that I see from, you know, these politicos on Twitter, is that it's mafioso-like language.
In the transcript, Trump says something like, you know, you guys have done great with us, we've done great with you, I don't want to say it's reciprocal.
Later on, he then says, would you do us a favor and look into these things?
He does mention Joe Biden's son.
But it's very tepid.
There's no agreement for exchange.
And so the best they can say is that it was a wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
I'm sorry, you can't impeach someone based off of wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
I feel like the whole thing was a setup.
I really, really do.
Because it's Russiagate 2.0.
Now, this was fast.
A lot of people have said, why didn't Trump hold on to this transcript for a little while longer?
Let him stew and then drop it.
Well, I think Trump realizes they're moving forward with impeachment.
You know, his plan is to just get it out quickly.
It's not going to be another three-year ordeal.
I don't think Trump wants another Russiagate, but he does want the results of another Russiagate.
Three years of conspiracy, fake news nonsense.
Well, now you've got, what, 200 or so Democrats calling for impeachment based off something they didn't see, based off of the claims of an individual who had no first-hand knowledge of what happened.
It drops the transcript.
And what do we learn?
It was a boring conversation for the most part.
Trump says congratulations.
He then asks that they look into a few things, a couple issues.
But in reality, what Trump is accused of doing is almost the exact same thing the Democrats are doing.
So there's nothing here.
They built up this big hype.
They told us eight times Trump demanded he did this.
No, he didn't.
They also say, but wait, Donald Trump was withholding military aid.
Another bit of fake news.
I have to think that Trump knew this was coming.
Yesterday I said Democrats were walking into a trap.
I don't want to, I don't want to make the claim that Trump is playing 4D chess, but the way it's played out, it really does feel like at the very least Trump knew it was going to happen and that they planned for it and everything is falling into place to his benefit.
Let's start with this story, so I don't just keep rambling and I show you all the sources I have.
Trump asked Ukraine leader to look into why investigation of Biden's son ended.
Text of call shows.
The president's phone call made from the White House residence to Zelensky lasted for 30 minutes.
Before we get started, as per usual, 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, but of course the best thing you can do is just share this video.
Let me be honest with you.
Depending on who you follow, you will hear an alternate reality.
You will hear this is proof of Trump making demands, asking for favors, all of these things.
And to an extent, some of it does make sense.
I stand on the other side of the issue.
I think it's another pathetic attempt at trying to drag the president down instead of talking about substantive issues because they know they can't do anything.
They know they can't beat him.
But I will tell you this.
NBC News does an okay job.
That's why I chose them for the primary source.
But the New York Times?
The New York Times has an opinion piece, as far as I'm concerned, saying Trump did it.
He did this.
And for this reason, here's what he's trying to accomplish.
And I'm like, you don't know any of this.
Even the story from NBC News is a bit biased.
It's opinionated.
The general facts, Trump asked them to look into Biden's son.
That's just about it.
There was no offer, nothing exchanged.
Anyway, the point is, Share this video if you like it because I'm competing against these big mainstream outlets and their bias.
I could be wrong.
It's my personal opinion on all of these issues.
But let's read the news and see what's happening.
They report, President Trump, in a midsummer phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, asked him to look into why the country's top prosecutor apparently had ended an investigation of the business dealings of Joe Biden's son, who served on the board of Ukrainian gas company.
Quote, Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution.
So if you look into it, it sounds so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me.
Trump told Zelensky during a 30 minute July 25th phone call.
I had a prediction.
I was thinking the other day, what if it turns out it was Ukraine that brought up Biden and Giuliani and all that?
And as it turns out, it kind of was.
It's not so cut and dry.
You know, there's never going to be that bombshell, home run, hammer, you know, being dropped where we see definitively that something is one way or the other.
No, everyone's trying to frame it in a certain way to benefit themselves.
They're trying to claim the Democrats, you know, and Biden did these things.
Ignore the politicking.
Okay?
What I can tell you in this regard is, a lot of what they're saying about Biden, conflict of interest, yes.
Criminality, we're not there.
We're nowhere near there.
Is it worth looking into?
Definitely.
And I have a source I want to pull up about potential, you know, look, I think Joe Biden's son was benefiting off the office and there's a conflict of interest there that's worth looking—conflict of interest worth looking into.
They say the White House noted that the summary of the call was not a verbatim transcript and that it represented a record of the notes and recollections of Situation Room officers and National Security Council policy staff who listened to official conversations.
Yes, it's about as best as you can get.
They're not going to call it verbatim because it was transcribed, not recorded.
So the phone call made from the White House resident began with Trump congratulating Zelensky.
Later, he says, quote, I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good, and he was shut down, which is really unfair, Trump says, according to the transcript, which is all here.
I don't want to read through it all.
Trump then says, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that.
So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.
He then asked Zelensky to look into it.
Zelensky replies that he's appointing a new prosecutor who will look into the situation.
That is the only mention about Biden in the memo about the call.
The call description is five pages long.
Later on, Trump said in the call, so you know what?
Look what they do.
Trump said in the call that he wanted Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer and attorney, William Barr, to talk to Zelensky.
Except, in the transcript, let me see if I can pull this up, Giuliani is brought up by Zelensky, not by Trump.
You know what?
So actually, let's not go through this.
Let's do the breakdown.
The first thing I want to show you is Kimberly Strassel, who's got a big Twitter breakdown that hits these points better than I can just read through them.
She tweets.
She's of the Wall Street Journal, mind you.
She says, Having read the DOJ's Trump-Ukraine release, here's the real story.
This is another internal attempt to take out a president on the basis of another non-smoking gun.
As to call transcript itself, Trump's actual favor is that Ukraine look backward to what happened in the 2016 election.
This is a legitimate ask, since election meddling looks to have come from both Russia and Ukraine.
I want to stop there and point this out.
The Democrats wanted the same thing.
There's nothing here.
Trump asked them to look into what happened with CrowdStrike and what happened in 2016.
On May 4th, 2018, several Democrats wrote to Ukraine asking that they do not obstruct Robert Mueller.
Now, point.
A lot of conservatives are trying to claim this is the Democrats demanding an investigation into Trump.
Kind of.
But let's be real.
This is them saying, Don't obstruct Mueller.
We want to know what happened in 2016.
That's what Trump is asking for as well.
So, I don't want to act like the Democrats are doing anything wrong, because all I can really say...
Democrats wanted an investigation.
They wanted Mueller to be able to investigate what happened in 2016, which yes, does include Trump.
And Trump wants them to look into similar things.
Okay, Democrats, look in a mirror.
Let's read on.
Kimberly says, Indeed, this is a big enough issue that we find out this morning that U.S.
Attorney John Durham is looking at what role the Ukraine played in the FBI investigation.
It is actually Zelinsky who brings up Rudy Giuliani, saying they can't wait to meet him.
And it is Zelinsky who references that investigation, and he goes on to promise that all investigations will be done openly and candidly.
Okay, I kid you not.
Trump isn't the one who brought up Giuliani.
It was Zelensky.
Ukraine mentioned their assistant met with Giuliani and they looked forward to it and then Trump said, I'd like to get you on a call with him.
I'd like to get you on a call with him and Bill Barr.
Apparently, it turns out Trump never followed up on that.
It's just, I can't believe.
This might be a long video because this is insanity.
Trump says good and expresses worries that a good prosecutor was shut down, mentions Biden's son, and that Biden bragged he stopped the prosecution.
Ends that bit with, it sounds horrible to me.
The New York Times wrote in their opinion piece, I'm going to call it an opinion piece, That there was no evidence of any of this?
Is that a joke?
Here's Will Chamberlain tweeting out the video that's gone viral a million times by now, where Joe Biden actually says he got the prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold a billion-dollar loan.
The evidence for a conflict of interest exists, and it was reported by the New York Times back in, what, April or May?
Now they're saying there's no evidence.
No, no, no.
Full stop.
There's absolutely evidence that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to remove a prosecutor that was investigating his son.
Period.
Whether or not Joe was doing that to benefit his son is the bigger question.
But the conflict of interest is there.
It's proven.
It's admitted by Joe Biden himself.
Should we look into that?
Sure.
Should we check to see if there was a quid pro quo to benefit his son?
Yes.
It is a mirror image.
It is them accusing Trump of doing what Biden admitted to be doing.
We don't know if Trump was getting anything from Ukraine, and we don't know if Biden was trying to benefit his son.
But he did it.
Now, the left will say it was Biden's official duties.
They were trying to work on corruption.
Fine, that's fine.
I don't care.
I agree.
Biden was working in an official capacity, says he got the good jobs, went to Ukraine, said get rid of this guy, he's corrupt.
Okay.
Why Biden?
His son was on the board.
It was a conflict of interest that needs to be looked into.
Let's continue with Kimberly's commentary.
She says Trump's several references to Giuliani are mostly to say what a great guy he is.
He says he will have Giuliani and AG Barr call.
He asked Zelensky to speak, work with both.
And never mind, because DOJ in statement says the president has not spoken to AG about investigating Biden and has not asked the AG to contact Ukraine.
Also, Barr has not communicated with Ukraine on this or any subject.
So what is...
It's nothing here.
It's just Trump talking to a guy from Ukraine and they bounce back and forth and then nothing happened.
It's a nothing burger.
Meanwhile, the IG back in August referred to this DOJ as potential violation of campaign finance law based on whistleblower complaint.
Criminal division evaluated and determined no violation.
All relevant components of the department agreed with this legal conclusion.
Whistleblower.
Look at this nugget, referenced in the OLC opinion.
The IG's review found some indicia—I'm probably pronouncing that wrong—of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.
Media got this so wrong, and Democrats look all the more partisan and radical to have moved forward with impeachment.
Let's keep playing this game, okay?
CNN.
Trump admits He delayed Ukraine aid but claims it was unrelated to Biden.
This story from the other day where they're saying, see, this is the quid pro quo.
Trump froze $400 million in U.S.
military and security aid to Ukraine days before he got on that phone call.
Doesn't that prove, you know, basically now Ukraine is saying, oh no, our assets are being frozen.
We're not gonna get this loan.
We better, we better kiss up to Donald Trump and just tell him whatever he wants to hear.
That's the claim.
That Trump didn't have to directly tell them.
He didn't have to directly say to them anything because he froze their funds.
Isn't that the smoking gun?
No.
Because Kenneth P. Vogel of the New York Times said the Ukrainians weren't made aware that the assistance was being delayed until more than one month after the call.
I am so sick of this.
I'm so sick of this, man.
And I know you are, too.
That's why you're watching a video like this.
What are they doing, Democrats?
What are they doing?
Nancy Pelosi knew.
In my video from 1 o'clock on my second channel, Pelosi said she thought Trump wanted this because it would fire up his base.
And then in six hours, Republicans raised a million dollars.
The only thing they have that could be a smoking gun is that Trump froze the aid.
But according to New York Times reporter Kenneth P. Vogel, they didn't even know about it.
And when I saw this, I said, yeah, But who's Kenneth P. Vogel?
Well, Ken Vogel, he was a former chief investigative reporter from Politico.
He joined the Washington Bureau of the New York Times covering conflicts of interest, lobbying, and money in politics.
Okay, I'm showing you his Wikipedia page because this is a special instance.
Normally, he's verified New York Times.
I'd say I'll take their word for it.
But this is serious.
If this is true, the Ukrainians weren't made aware.
Assistance was being delayed until a month after the call.
What's this?
It was a trap.
It was a trap.
Trump, it's almost like he set it all up.
He froze the aid, but didn't tell them, knowing it would be leveraged against them, knowing that when this all came out, they would then say, oh, there it is.
Ukraine didn't even know about it.
So how can you claim that was quid pro quo when they didn't even know it was happening?
Until a month later.
Here's the best part.
Man, boy do I love this.
From the week.
The other day, the Senate voted 100 to 0 to release Trump whistleblower complaint.
And I immediately facepalmed.
It's a trap?
The Republicans are gaming the Democrats.
They're roping them into this, and it is going to blow up in their faces.
And now what do we have?
I kid you not.
The best they have right now is they're claiming it's not a real transcript.
It's not a real transcript, everybody.
Back away.
Okay.
Check this out.
The Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution calling for the whistleblower complaint related to Trump's communications with, you know, Zelensky and all that.
Okay, okay, okay, here's the thing.
I looked at some Reddit forums.
It was a top-trending story.
And you know what the people were saying in the comments?
The Republicans have finally realized they're on a sinking ship.
Did the Ukrainians have any idea it was being frozen?
Nope.
And then all the Republicans come out and go, sure, Democrats, we'll play your game.
And they're like, haha, we're doing it, we're winning!
It's, oh my god.
And then the transcript drops and it's just, it's just nothing.
And so you actually have a top trend today, not a transcript.
I kid you not.
Check this out.
I saw this story and I couldn't help but say the same thing.
It is a trap.
Democrats' impeachment inquiry reportedly welcomed by President's advisers, but Trump himself tweets with fury.
Yes, it makes perfect sense.
Nancy Pelosi saw this coming, but she's lost control of her party and she's roped into the impeachment nonsense.
She said Trump wanted this to fire up his base.
So why would Trump's advisers welcome this?
To fire up his base?
The Republicans, the GOP raised a million dollars in six hours.
Why would Trump be tweeting furiously?
That's what he wants.
To be the victim.
To say, look what they're doing.
They're out of their minds.
So Trump is gonna be like, oh no, these people have lost their minds, in secret, laughing.
Laughing about it.
Trump can't come out and say like, aha, this was part of my plan the whole time.
For the most part.
But he kind of does.
You know, within what, half an hour of them announcing this, Trump tweeted out an image saying they were obsessed.
He had a video prepared for all of this.
I just, I look at all this and I'm like, they have to know.
So we have this story from The Hill on the 23rd.
Let's get real.
Democrats were first to enlist Ukraine in U.S.
elections.
It doesn't got a ton of shares.
But I'm going to say this now.
It's still politicking coming from the right.
It's the same thing.
Ignore it all.
Look, I think the stuff about Biden, the only reason it's getting as much traction as it is, is because the Democrats, some of them, are absolutely welcoming it.
Some of the comments on Reddit are saying, good, let Biden and Trump share a cell.
The progressive far-left wing do not like Biden, and they want him out same as everybody.
So when Trump does this, they laugh.
They say, great, take out Biden.
We don't care.
In this story that says Democrats were the first to enlist Ukraine in elections, it actually sounds more like what the Democrats were saying in this PDF is, don't obstruct.
However, let me read it for you and give you their context.
Don't rely on my opinion.
Let me just read it for you.
Draw your own conclusion.
The Hill reports, While choosing his words carefully, Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, made clear, by his own account, that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S.
aid.
But that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by Trump and Giuliani to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including Biden's family.
Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S.
aid was his country's most important asset and it would be viewed as election meddling and disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations to bend the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.
I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics.
I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship.
There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them.
Okay, look, he's not saying, do what I want or else, but what the right is accusing this guy of doing, Murphy, is exactly what the Democrats are accusing Trump of.
That's why I'm saying you've got to ignore all this stuff, okay?
Trump did not quid pro quo.
Ignore what they're accusing Chris Murphy of.
Biden was a conflict of interest, I gotta say it.
And Trump could have done better, but there's nothing really here.
What he's saying is, don't let Trump interfere.
Don't let Trump do this.
Don't agree to this.
So it's just political posturing.
They're claiming the best case they have is Trump saying, look at all the help we're doing, look at all the aid you receive, now do us a favor.
That's mafioso.
Okay, that's literally what the Democrats are doing right now.
It's a political game.
It's nonsense.
I'm going to go through a few other things I want to highlight in this idea.
You know, look.
The final takeaway, because this is going to be a long one, is it's a big nothing burger.
It is a big ol' nothing burger.
And of course, the left is going to frame it as evidence.
It's proof.
Sorry.
The other day, when they were claiming this is the bombshell, this is going to be it, the Democrats announced impeachment without seeing any evidence.
Trump then said he was going to release a transcript, and then all of a sudden we saw the left go, it's not about the transcript, it's about the complaint.
I assure you, when the complaint comes out, and we see this individual testify, it's going to be a big nothing burger.
There's going to be nothing there, nothing definitive, just a waste of time, and then they're going to say, yeah, but we need more than that.
It's not just about the complaint.
We need a recording.
It's just, it's just, it's all fake news.
It's all, it's all fake.
Check this out.
In the end, we see this.
Biden-Ukraine dealing, seven essential facts.
This is why I think there may be something more to the Biden accusation than there is, well, first of all, the Trump accusation is nonsense.
Let me put it this way.
If Biden did something wrong, and we have this op-ed talking about seven facts that may show conflicts of interest and a potential abuse of power, and Trump asks someone to investigate it, I don't care.
Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma in 2014. Hunter Biden had little
background in energy. Over a 16-month period, Burisma paid $3.1 million to a bank account
associated with Hunter's businesses. Interesting. Not evidence. Circumstantial. I think it warrants
looking into. Joe Biden led the Obama administration's policy toward Ukraine.
When he served as Vice President, Biden helped shape Ukraine's energy and anti-corruption policies, issues that directly impact Burisma.
Burisma sought to capitalize Hunter Biden's name and relationships, according to the New York Times.
Hunter Biden helped assemble the company's legal team, which consisted of American attorneys and consulting firms, including a former Obama Justice Department official.
Burisma is led by an oligarch named Mykola Zolchevsky.
He served as an ecology minister under pro-Russia former Ukraine leader Viktor Yanukovych, leading to allegations he used his office to benefit Burisma.
Burisma was under legal scrutiny shortly before Hunter Biden was appointed to Burisma's board.
British authorities froze $23 million of Zolchevsky's assets as part of a corruption investigation.
Ukraine opened its own probe later that year.
Financial records from Morgan Stanley show numerous lines of money going into the account of Robert H. Biden.
The funds originated from oligarchs and anonymous LLCs in Ukraine, China, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere.
In 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two to China.
Ten days later, Hunter Biden's firm scored a $1.5 billion deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China.
Okay, you want to investigate Trump?
Do it.
I would like to see this looked into as well.
These things sound shady to me.
I don't know, you know, I'm not going to dig into all of this, but hey, enough, uh, there's enough questions here being, enough questions being raised that I think we can, we can dig into this.
In the end, I will, I will stress the point I made earlier.
The reason why this is acceptable is because progressive Democrats want Biden out.
Elizabeth Warren has taken the lead.
And so when Trump comes out and talks about Biden, this story is old.
But it pops up because it's advantageous to some of the progressive Democrats.
And we're seeing it.
Check out this predicted market.
Elizabeth Warren is favored to win.
Who will win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination?
Elizabeth Warren, 51.
Joe Biden, 21.
I'll end with one final point.
Actually, no, no, no.
We're going to go a little long.
Check this out.
The game the media plays.
I'm going to give you guys a little bonus content here.
Kelly O'Donnell of NBC News said, Chopper noise makes it very hard to hear questions for White House staff stenographer who keeps the official record.
I was wearing a microphone so we know specifically what I asked the president that is not reflected in the White House transcript.
Here's a side by side.
This tweet is going viral because they're using it to claim that the transcript from Trump is fake.
This is part of the evidence.
It's not a transcript.
It's fake.
Trump's lying.
It's not real.
They actually think there's more.
You know what, man?
It was a nothing burger.
You overplayed your hand and now you look foolish.
In one transcript, you can see the reporter's questions.
In the other, you can see inaudible, inaudible.
That's right.
The White House stenographers couldn't hear her question over the helicopter noise and couldn't necessarily hear everything Trump was saying as well.
There's no wrongdoing, just inaudible.
You can't hear it.
How has the left reacted?
Quote, another example of the White House doctoring transcripts.
Nothing they put out tomorrow can be trusted.
And there it is.
This is from Zach Pitkonis, a Democratic strategist.
He's verified.
I'm not saying he's the most influential, but he's a former Hillary Clinton senior advisor and Harry Reid comms director, a senior advisor to the Democrats, according to his profile.
So let me just get this straight.
You took someone writing something when they couldn't hear, and they're now saying the White House is doctoring transcripts.
This was in response to the fact that last—that, you know, it was actually super early this morning, but last night, Trump was planning on releasing transcripts.
They were trying to preempt the news that it was a nothing burger.
The Democrats have been spinning around in circles doing absolutely nothing, but let me end by saying The Democrats have done one thing.
There's been one tangible result over everything they've done, and it's hurt the economy.
It's a fact, okay?
Cue the leftist shrieks of timid partisan bias.
I'm sorry.
Check this out.
Why Trump impeachment threat is rattling stock market investors, at least for now.
Here's one.
Will an impeachment inquiry impact U.S.
trying to trade talk stocks in the economy?
And finally, S&P 500 drops the most in a month on Trump impeachment concerns.
That's what you get.
That's what the Democrats have done for you.
Have they campaigned on policy?
Some of them have.
And I appreciate some of it, okay?
I appreciate Elizabeth Warren talking about big tech.
I really, really do.
I especially appreciate Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang for the most part, but I like Tulsi better.
Where's the policy action?
Where's the debate on budgets?
Where's the debate on healthcare?
Why aren't they arguing with the Senate, with Congress, with the President, over healthcare, over the border?
Why are they doing this?
Why are they going after Trump over a nothing burger?
There's nothing in the transcript, okay?
It's at best innuendo and you can't really get anything out of it.
You can't convict someone on, it sounds kind of mafioso.
But what they're doing is hurting the economy.
It's so insane.
Because I think there's actual things we could be talking about in terms of the judges Trump's appointing, in terms of the deficit, in terms of the trade war and subsidies to farmers.
Hey, these are all real things we can talk about.
These are things we could challenge.
Hey, the deficit's going up.
Shouldn't Republicans be concerned about a balanced budget?
In the end, the Democrats ignore all of those things that could be real conversations.
Things I believe even conservatives would want to discuss to figure out how to solve.
Instead, they've gone nuts endlessly over impeachment.
The walls are closing in the beginning of the end.
You've seen that video?
I tweeted it earlier where it's just every single month the walls are closing in the beginning of the end.
It won't stop.
It was a trap.
Now, I can't say that, you know, Donald Trump's playing 4D chess, he planned this whole thing, but boy does he play his hand well.
The cards are being dished out, and what do we see?
The other day in my video, there was a point made by the New York Times, I highlighted and I agreed with, that Trump could use impeachment to blame any economic failings on the Democrats.
If the economy falters, Trump could lose.
The economy is his biggest play.
He says, hey look, things are great, don't change them.
And voters will agree.
But if the economy starts taking a hit, voters might say we need to change the economy.
It's a big factor.
Okay, here you go.
There it is.
S&P 500 drops the most in a month on Trump impeachment concerns.
And there it is.
Any negative economic impacts right now, and Trump is going to point to these articles, he's going to point to all the news saying, you see what the Democrats did to the impeachment?
They're threatening the economy, okay?
They are!
You know, a lot of people say that stocks don't matter to regular Americans.
They do.
They matter to retirement accounts, okay?
When you talk about stocks and you talk about 401ks, these are important for retiring Americans.
One of the biggest voting blocks, old people.
And Trump is going to say, Look, the transcript proves I did nothing wrong.
The Democrats are obsessed, and it's hurting the economy, and it's hurting the American people, and congratulations.
They're playing into his hands.
I said I was going to end before.
The final point is, when Nancy Pelosi announced impeachment, Trump tweeted out a video within minutes, you know, 20 or 30 minutes, mocking the Democrats over their impeachment obsession.
He prepared for this.
Perhaps he didn't want it to happen, perhaps it wasn't orchestrated, but in the end, Trump's team is smart and they are prepared for this.
They hurt the economy.
Let's get away from the politicking, okay?
The economy is taking a hit.
Because the Democrats didn't see evidence and decided to move forward with an impeachment announcement.
We live in strange times, I'll tell you what.
The Democrats have no leadership, and that's why they keep falling prey to this.
Pelosi understood it, but she's lost control.
So there you go.
There's your story.
We'll wrap it up.
You know, the Senate unanimously agreeing to release this stuff.
You think they're going to allow something to hurt them?
I'm sorry, dude.
If they're opening the door for you, you're walking into a trap.
So there.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
If there's any more developments going through the day, I'll have them.
And I will see you all there.
It was a truly heartwarming story.
A man named Carson King, the Iowa legend, ended up raising more than one million dollars for charity off of a sign he made as a joke that said to send him money.
It had a Venmo address, and it was a gag where he was like, we're gonna buy beer, and he ended up raising a million dollars.
So in journalism, there's a practice I'm sure some of you may not be familiar with, that no good deed goes unpunished.
So it's important that you realize there is a new standard in journalism.
Okay, today, where it's ethical, apparently, to dig up the tweets from eight years ago to destroy the life of a man who raised a million dollars for charity.
Congratulations, journalism, this is what you've become.
Now, look, let's be real, okay?
I'll break it down.
This guy, it's a true story.
Des Moines Register meet Carson King, the Iowa legend, who raised more than a million dollars for charity off his joke sign.
I actually decided, this guy, Aaron Calvin, decided to dig through eight years of Twitter history to destroy this man who did nothing but make a joke and raise money for charity.
No one is off-limits.
Nothing is off-limits.
This guy, when he was 16, made some offensive comments relating to a Tosh.0 show.
He was 16 years old.
Eight years later, he did something great.
It was an accident.
It was a gag.
But a million bucks for charity and rising, apparently like 1.25 maybe.
Well, no good deed goes unpunished in cancel culture woke outrage world.
So this journalist decided it'd be a good idea to go dig through his history eight years ago to find something offensive and then destroy him.
It's rather insane, actually.
Here's the sign.
Bush Light Supply Needs Replenished.
Venmo Carson King 25.
And he raised a bunch of money.
That's really, really awesome.
It's a really cool thing.
It was a joke.
He ended up getting this beer can with Carson King on it.
They were doing a big promo.
They were like, hey, this is really awesome.
It was really cool.
And then for some reason, in this Des Moines Register story, near the bottom, it just decides to point out, a routine background check of King Social Media revealed two racist jokes.
A ROUTINE BACKGROUND CHECK!
GOING BACK EIGHT YEARS?!
Please, spare me your insanity.
This is a disease.
This is an infection.
These people have no morals, no ethics, no standards, and boy, are you gonna love this next part.
Here's a statement from our editor in the Des Moines Register.
However, I don't care for their silly statement trying to explain why they dug into eight years of someone's Twitter history.
I love this just beneath it.
The Register is aware of reports of inappropriate social media posts by one of our staffers, and an investigation has become.
My response to this on Twitter?
This world is stupid.
Everyone is stupid.
That's just it.
They are now You know, actually, actually, this is maybe a good thing.
This guy Aaron Calvin, okay?
Is that his name?
Aaron Calvin?
Yeah.
Who dug through this guy's Twitter history, destroying this good thing that he had done.
Now Anheuser-Busch is severing all association with Carson King.
Well, I'm holding you.
I'm holding... Look.
Carson King may have made offensive jokes when he was a kid.
You know what?
Yeah, we were all kids.
I've said some really dumb stuff.
I'm sure we all have.
Nobody, nobody is perfect.
What do they say about throwing stones in glass houses?
What do they say about, uh, let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
Let those who have not tweeted offensive things cancel the first, or spark the first outrage.
But, when I see this, I don't associate anything negative with Carson King.
I don't.
He was a guy who did a great thing.
It was fun.
It was exciting.
It was a feel-good human interest piece that made me hopeful.
I was like, man, look how humans rally together and they do this really great thing.
It's so cool, isn't it?
And then you come and just rip it all apart!
That's what they do.
That's what they do.
Okay?
I imagine, like, you know, we used to have these stories, these human interest stories that make you optimistic, that make you feel good.
You're watching TV, and it's like, a local homeless man rescued several puppies from a river, and he's being awarded the key to the city, and you're like, aw, man, you know, like, sometimes people are alright.
And I saw this story, I was like, wow, that's actually really cool.
You know, a dude made a joke and he ended up getting more money than he thought,
so he's going to donate it, and now he's getting like a beer can.
I'm like, that's so cool.
And then this Aaron Calvin guy came and just ripped it apart.
And Anheuser-Busch, you too.
You too.
Again, I don't drink their beer, so.
But so here's the thing.
In response to this statement from the editor, in which they're like,
we were just doing regular routine background information, decided we should include it.
Oh, shut up, dude.
It is not routine.
Could you imagine this 10, 20 years ago, where it's like, we interviewed a guy from a homeless shelter, so we researched his high school yearbook photos and found a fence.
No, no one does that.
In politics, maybe.
But Carson King is not a politician.
You don't need opposition research on the guy.
I don't care what he tweeted when he was 16.
You people are monsters.
Disgusting, disgusting monsters.
This is evil.
The infection in media needs to stop.
John Levine posted some of the most offensive tweets in the world.
At first, I was like, wow, how dumb is this?
thing in the world you can you can see it on the screen I've got it I got a
click away I'm it's too late I'm gonna get in trouble I'm gonna get in trouble
but the guy Aaron Calvin had a bunch of offensive tweets and so people are
canceling the cancel culture guy you know at first I was kind of like wow how
dumb is this but then I thought you know it's kind of like a controlled burn if
any time someone tries to cancel someone a group of people descend on them and
cancel them?
That's probably a good thing.
You know, you can't fight fire with fire, right?
So when there's wildfires, they actually will burn a line so that the fire stops at a certain point.
Like, it's a controlled burn.
It's on purpose.
The issue here, though, is that this Aaron Calvin guy actually said a bunch of offensive things.
Like, not even super offensive.
I gotta be honest.
It was, like, dumb retweets and jokes from, like, 2011.
I don't care, man.
But you know what?
Hey, if that's the game you want to play, Aaron, then absolutely you deserve everything that comes your way with journalists tweeting about what you've said.
Yasir Ali tweeted, If Carson King had been defiant about the two tweets from when he was 16 or double down, I would get why the Register would mention them, but according to the paper, he was deeply remorseful.
I fail to see how it was newsworthy, especially given the good work he's been doing.
Yasha says, with respect to this story, the registrar and the reporter, Aaron P. Calvin, don't deserve this level of kindness, but here we are, because Carson King responded that they had been nothing but kind to him, and he was the one who came out and addressed the tweets.
Yasha says, what a hypocritical disgrace, in reference to now-deleted tweets.
And then Yasher says, and bravo Yasher, What a disgusting, disgusting individual.
pull up someone's old tweets, write about them, and you have old racist tweets of your
own, at least have the courage to take the heat, Aaron P.
Calvin.
Taking your account private is cowardly.
What a disgusting, disgusting individual.
You know what, man?
This is the Des Moines Register.
I don't know, it's not the biggest paper in the world.
If it was Vox, if it was BuzzFeed, would this person be facing scrutiny?
The answer is no.
The only reason Aaron Calvin is getting cancelled himself, because of course, actually I'll put it this way.
The New York Times hired Sarah Jong.
They knew about her tweets.
For three years, this woman posted overt racist comments.
Ridiculous.
Ridiculously offensive and racist comments.
Carson King, two jokes.
They go after him.
Aaron Calvin, a handful of off-color jokes.
Well, now he's being torn apart.
But you know what?
Sarah Jong in the New York Times?
They get all the defense in the world.
I'd like to see any one of these people come out who are going after this guy Aaron Calvin and say, New York Times, fire Sarah Jong.
She should have never been hired in the first place.
No, no, no.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
I don't think she should actually be fired based on her being offensive.
I don't think she should have been hired in the first place, but here we are.
And I really, really have to say, as much as I detest people like her who make these racist comments and then try to hide behind, but they were racists first!
I don't care, dude.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I really hate cancel culture.
They shouldn't have hired her.
The New York Times has been on a spree of hiring left-wing editarians, like freaky weird left-wing activists, and it shows.
The New York Times has been wallowing in filth and fake news for a while now.
Well, congratulations.
That's what you hire and that's what you've produced.
The quality of your content from the quality of your people.
What do you expect?
It's a disease, you know?
It's an infection.
But maybe this is a good thing.
Maybe what we're seeing here with this Aaron Calvin guy getting cancelled himself is good.
I mean, maybe this could be the end.
The Des Moines Register tweeted that they're aware of his offensive tweets and they're investigating it.
Ian Miles Chong's response was, you guys aren't handling this right.
You need to decry the harassment your journalist is getting from the rabid racist public and reframe the entire situation to your advantage.
It's kind of the point I was just making.
If this was The Verge or Vox, they'd be going like, the people attacking Aaron are just bigots who are trying to defend a racist.
But the Des Moines Register is like, uh oh.
He says, you need to get in touch with the mainstream media for support.
And have your reporter pen an op-ed about what it's like to be on the receiving end of a harassment campaign driven by right-wing, quote, far-right voices.
What it's like to survive a far-right hate campaign.
Trust me, it's a solid, time-tested strategy that yields successes again and again.
It's worked for Sarah Jong, Zoe Quinn, Carlos Maza, Joy Reid, and many others.
One even got away with making someone else ta- Oh.
That's a whole other story that I'm not going to comment on.
We'll sidestep that one and you'll have to look into that for yourself.
I'm not going to say he's wrong.
I'm just going to say cancel culture is a sick and twisted beast.
But in the instance of Carlos Maza, I mean, he recently lost his job.
But yeah, you know, Sarah Jong, for instance, she works for the New York Times.
I cancelled my New York Times subscription.
I had it for a while.
Because I've, you know, as much as I disagree with some of like how they, you know, how they do things and some of the stories I've done have been bad, I'm, you know, for the most part, like, Pencils have erasers.
I don't think the New York Times is always going to be right.
But listen, when they started hiring overt identitarians, like racists, like hardcore racists, like Sarah Chung for three years was posting racist content.
And then they shoot a statement where they're like, she was just using the language of her abusers.
So what you're saying is that she's a racist.
Like, I don't understand how that's an excuse.
Well, she still works there.
And after that I said, you know, I'm not going to condemn the whole paper because they hired one, you know, bad person.
I get it.
I don't like cancel culture.
But then I started publishing fake news, okay?
Front page fake news that was very obviously fake news designed to generate traffic.
And I bring this up for a reason.
What the Des Moines Register did with cancelling Carson King was a desperate, desperate attempt at getting attention.
There is absolutely no reason in any routine story, in any story like this, to go through eight years of someone's history.
I just imagine it's like, you know, local homeless man cleans up a beach.
And then they were like, wow, look at this great, you know, homeless guy came and he just cleaned the whole beach.
Let's go learn about his past from ten years ago so he can destroy his life even more.
This dude, you know, he made a joke.
He did a good thing.
And it's like, why would the media do this, right?
It's simple.
Clicks.
And there you go, clicks.
You know, I don't know what I'll say.
I'll leave it there.
I hope this is a turnaround.
I hope with people like Yashir.
I mean, Yashir's a good dude, so I'm not saying it's, like, unique for him.
No, he regularly calls it out properly, right?
But I'm hoping with more mainstream personalities stepping up and calling this out and pointing to these people and, you know, canceling cancel culture.
I hope this is a turnaround and that these people who try to do this all the time fail.
You know, Steven Crowder, Vox tried to cancel him.
Well, where are we now?
Hey, hey, hey, hold on.
Steven Crowder lost ad revenue.
Sure.
Carlos Maza got fired.
Okay, I don't know if he got fired, but he's out.
He is no longer with Vox.
The rumor I heard was that he was obsessed, that he kept tweeting- I mean, this is true, he wouldn't stop tweeting about Steven Crowder, and I'm pretty sure he still tweets about it today.
And I think at a certain point, you know, if you're a media company and you have an employee who won't shut up about their stupid Twitter drama, eventually you're gonna be like, dude, like, we can't have this, okay?
You know, we produce media.
Not that I'm a huge fan of Vox for the most part, But I have to imagine within the company, seeing him just relentlessly tweet and refuse to shut up about it, they were like, dude, get out.
Just go.
Go get some R&R.
Go to rehab.
Not like legit rehab, but like go clear your mind of this fringe insanity.
So in the end, from that whole fight, Crowder is still here with us, doing his show, making his jokes.
Carlos Maza is not.
Think about that.
Aaron Calvin, he got cancelled along with Carson King.
Think about that.
The next time, you know, these journalists want to come out and try and cancel somebody, just let them know.
The New York Times has staff who keep deleting their tweets.
There's like two people who have recently been outed for being, you know, racist.
Okay.
The game is on.
You want to play this game?
It's gonna be played right back.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
The other day, Nancy Pelosi formally announced there would be an impeachment inquiry My understanding is that they haven't actually voted on the resolution to do it, so I don't know if it's actually happening, but they're claiming it's going to happen.
None of that matters, okay?
They're saying it's going to happen.
Okay, let's just operate on that premise.
They're using this.
They're targeting Trump over Ukraine.
The transcripts have been released.
I am waiting a little bit to do a bigger story on what's going on with the transcript.
For those that are wondering, if you've made it to this video, the transcripts are a big nothing burger.
But before I get into that, I want to talk about Donald Trump and 4-D chess.
You don't have to think Donald Trump is playing 4-D chess.
Or as I tweeted, you don't have to think Donald Trump is playing 4-D chess to see the Democrats are playing checkers.
Donald Trump released this video just about, what, 20 or 30 minutes after they announced that they were moving forward with impeachment.
What does that mean?
In all likelihood, this video was prepared.
I do not believe they whipped this video up in a half an hour.
It's a bunch of select clips talking about impeachment.
This says to me that Donald Trump was prepared for this.
He doesn't have to be playing 4D chess.
He's just playing chess, okay?
He saw their move.
He planned a counterpunch.
There it is.
Now here's the bigger story.
The main story I want to get to.
Trump fundraises with the Official Impeachment Defense Task Force.
The Daily Caller reports, In a fundraising email sent to the Daily Caller, the Trump campaign is urging strong American patriots to resist the attempts by Democrats to silence you.
Those interested can join the Official Impeachment Defense Task Force with their contribution before mid- Okay, you know what?
Remember how I said yesterday Democrats were walking into a trap?
Yes.
Donald Trump is now fundraising off this.
Admittedly, there's a lot of stuff to talk about having to do with Ukraine, but the news kind of still has to settle.
But let me just say, boy was this a trap.
The main story I want to focus on is not necessarily the bigger breaking news, but, well actually no, this is big breaking news.
There you go, there it is.
Congratulations, Trump and Defense Task Force.
GOP raises approximately $1 million on first day of quote impeachment.
There was a question raised by the New York Times the other day I talked about it.
Does Trump want to be impeached?
And a lot of people believe the answer is yes, because he'll never be removed from office.
The Senate won't allow it.
But it shows the Democrats don't care about core issues.
I retweeted something about this earlier, and I can't remember who it was, but I agreed.
And it's like, great, now the Democrats are wrapped up in this stupid impeachment fight.
They'll never win.
Why are they doing it?
I'll tell you why.
The Democrats are puppets of the media.
Unintentionally.
Nancy Pelosi, bless her heart, she tried so hard to resist this.
But alas, she couldn't.
In the end, she was roped into the impeachment trash.
They pulled her in.
They pulled her in.
And now, based on what we're hearing on the Ukraine transcript, it seems like they are going to... It's bad.
It's really bad for them.
See, here's the thing.
When the media puts out a story, oftentimes it doesn't really go anywhere.
No, this is true for most stories.
The story about Biden and Trump and this phone call is actually pretty old, and my understanding is it originated with a Washington Post opinion piece.
I kid you not!
An opinion piece, not a fact-based bit of journalism.
Someone wrote an opinion that they thought what Trump was doing was akin to interference, and then all of a sudden the media picked up, so the Dems were forced to react.
Pelosi didn't want to.
It's so strange, isn't it?
Why did it all happen?
Almost like Trump was planning the whole thing.
Almost like.
Again, you don't gotta think he's playing 4D chess, but the Democrats certainly are helpless.
Trump puts out a tweet, and what happens?
The media goes nuts.
The media makes a statement, the Dems are forced to react.
Trump is a leader, and people are following him.
The Democrats, they have no one.
They are fractured, running around like chickens with their head cut off.
And now Trump has raised approximately $1 million.
If it wasn't on purpose, okay, as I've said many times, you would expect me to believe that Trump accidentally slips on a banana peel but then performs a perfect backflip out of it.
How is it always an accident?
How is it always he's making mistakes, okay?
We can talk about his misstatements, his boorish behavior, all of that all day and night, but come on, man.
He made a million bucks off this.
It is helping him.
Impeachment is unpopular.
Democrats aren't campaigning on policy issues anymore.
And this is going into the Democratic debates.
It's insane.
You know, what do you think is going to happen now at the Dem debate?
The Democrats are going to be sitting up on stage, and there's going to be many of them saying, I want to talk about healthcare, and they're going to be like, we've got to talk about impeachment.
The Democrats are moving forward.
Let's read the news from the Daily Caller.
The Republican National Committee raised approximately $1 million Tuesday after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi came out in favor of the impeachment of President Donald Trump for the first time after meeting with her caucus.
The re-election campaign and a joint fundraising committee started fundraising in regards to impeachment around 2 p.m.
and pulled in $1 million by 8 p.m.
in six hours.
Tuesday night, according to The Hill, RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel sent out a tweet Tuesday afternoon saying the RNC raised $350,000 in Michigan Democratic Rep.
Elissa Slotkin's district for backing impeachment.
She said, We will absolutely hold House Democrats accountable for this.
Donald Trump won Alyssa Slotkin's district in Michigan, yet she's backing this baseless impeachment inquiry.
In less than six hours, our anti-Slotkin effort alone raised $350,000.
Boy, I tell you what.
Cavanaugh effect.
I think, I think, you know, you have the Streisand effect.
I think Cavanaugh effect is going to now start pertaining to any instance where political attacks result in, it's almost like a Streisand effect.
It's very similar, right?
In the Streisand effect, if you're not familiar, when you try to remove something or silence something, it comes back bigger.
The story originated when, I think the story is basically Barbara Streisand, there were photos of her home, and she demanded a website take them down, which created a news story, and then the photos became newsworthy and went viral.
In the Kavanaugh effect, the Democrats went after Kavanaugh with baseless accusations, and it rallied Republicans and strengthened them, and many believe that is why the Republicans took the Senate.
If you really want to impeach Trump, the worst thing you could have done is go after Brett Kavanaugh, because it gave Republicans a stronger Senate.
At least that's what people like Bill Maher even think, okay?
So I think that's a fact.
I think when you go after the President in this way, with flimsy accusations, without seeing any evidence, you are going to get a lot of angry people who are going to donate, they're going to rally, and they're going to vote.
And I'll say it again, man.
The Democratic debates are coming up, the fourth debates, and what do you think the subject matter is going to be now?
Do you think these people have an opportunity to talk about why their economic plan makes sense?
Maybe a little bit.
But this is going to overshadow everything.
They just can't help but play Trump's game.
I can't tell you how many videos I've made.
If you've watched all of my videos every day, How many videos have I made where I said that Trump is playing them like a fiddle?
I'm not going to sit here... I don't want to pretend that Trump and his team crafted up this great plan, like they say, 4-D chess.
But it doesn't matter, okay?
Because the Democrats have no leadership.
There is no individual guiding the party anymore.
They're all over the place.
They say, Pelosi publicly announced late Tuesday afternoon today, announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.
Great.
Well, we'll see when I believe it.
Let me see the resolution pass.
Despite Pelosi's early reluctance to push for impeachment, there are currently 200 Democrats who support impeachment or an impeachment inquiry.
Pelosi has said she believes Trump is goading Democrats to impeach him because he think it will help him fire up his base.
Congratulations!
You know what, man?
This is why she resisted.
I feel bad for Pelosi.
She knew.
She understood the whole time.
Trump has just raised a million dollars.
You think that Trump thinks it's going to fire up his base?
Lady, he just raised a million bucks in six hours.
Did it fire up his base?
Yes, it did.
So you know what?
Again, Pelosi knew.
She resisted this and resisted this, but eventually, even the moderates started getting on board, and that was a huge mistake.
Moderate Democrats started coming for impeachment.
You made a mistake?
They have no strong leadership.
Pelosi's lost control.
She's lost control of the party.
Admittedly, look, she's, what, Speaker of the House.
It's not like she's the most prominent figure in the Democrats.
Hillary Clinton's out, Obama's gone.
Who do they have left?
What leadership do they have?
What strong personalities?
You look to the Republican side, and you can easily see a handful of Republicans who are prominent and powerful.
You got Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, for instance.
Marco Rubio.
They've been relatively prominent in a lot of big political issues.
Democrat side, what do we have?
I mean, you have Schumer and Pelosi, but they're not... I mean, what are they doing?
In reality, the strength of their party is Ocasio-Cortez.
She's the one commanding press.
She's the one in the forefront.
And she's the one being followed.
Pelosi has lost it.
I gotta say, it's a bit worrying.
Because as much as I'm not a big fan of these establishment crony Democrats, I'm not a big fan of the identitarian, woke, far-left weirdos more.
So, it's kinda like, well, you know what?
I think we're doomed.
They go on to say many of Pelosi's Democratic colleagues previously pushed for impeaching Trump.
Today's comments were just the first time Pelosi said Trump should be impeached.
Pelosi, when he vowed to force a vote to impeach Trump in late March.
Green, who previously had several bills to impeach Trump overwhelmingly rejected by the
House of Representatives, called for a third impeachment vote.
Pelosi said impeachment was just not worth it in a March interview.
Today's comments were just the first time Pelosi said Trump should be impeached.
So there you go.
The impeachment, it's here.
It was a mistake.
It's firing up their base.
So here's what I'm going to do.
I have a ton of stuff I want to talk about pertaining to the actual Ukraine scandal, which I am so sick of.
It's so dumb.
Especially when it turns out to be a huge nothing burger.
I kid you not.
But, at the time of filming this, the transcript came out a couple hours ago.
And what needs to happen is, I need to see all of the responses.
I need to see this big, you know, push.
And it really looks like the left and the right are in two different universes on this one.
But let me just make it very clear.
Stick around.
4 p.m.
on my other channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
We are going to be tearing this thing apart.
Because it turns out the transcript is a nothing burger.
It is nothing.
On a scale of 0, of 1 to 100, where 1 is absolutely nothing, and 100 is, you know, proof positive, corruption scandal and all that, it's like a 7.
It's like, yeah, okay, I can see, you know, maybe should have framed it that way, but really in the end, nothing.
Stick around.
I'll see you at 4 p.m.
when we dive deeper into the impeachment Ukraine stuff.
The big takeaway from this, I just wanted to, I really wanted to do the update because Trump raised a million bucks.
A million bucks!
You know what, man?
I'll see you at 4.
I think it was Dave Rubin who coined that phrase, I didn't leave the left, the left left me.
And I think there's actually a better way to put it.
Jordan Peterson said something to the effect that our society doesn't know when the left goes too far.
We know when the right goes too far.
We don't know when the left goes too far.
And that means a lot.
We have a story here from Bridgette Fatassi.
I don't know how to pronounce anybody's names apparently, so I apologize for pronouncing your name wrong.
But it's called an open letter to the Democratic Party.
The days of buffet-style politics are no longer allowed.
Basically, Bridgette writes how she used to be a liberal Democrat and now is a registered, I believe registered, independent.
But she's not a Democrat anymore.
And so I started thinking about, what does it mean that the left left you?
And the reality is, it didn't.
It didn't go anywhere.
Listen, I was talking recently to somebody who is far left, you know, Antifa type, that I used to, I still kind of am friends with, believe it or not, a lot of people don't seem to believe it.
And I said, something to the effect of, you know, what happened to the left?
And I was told that I didn't understand.
They haven't changed.
They've just gained more power and don't need us anymore.
That's basically it.
So here's the point I want to make about not knowing when the left goes too far.
The Democratic Party has never put a hard stop on the left going too far.
They've allowed it to grow and fester within the party on the left, and it's gotten so big now that Nancy Pelosi can't even fight back, and thus we get everything we saw today with the transcript and her, you know, the other day her calling for impeachment, and it's a disaster.
It's a disaster because Republicans knew at a certain point we can't allow certain behavior, and society as a whole easily got rid of it.
Today, something different happens.
You have moderates, the right, independents like Bridget, telling the Democrats enough, stop, stop.
They won't.
They allow the emergence of a left-wing identitarianism and woke outrage and cancel culture.
Well, you know what?
Fine.
The left didn't leave.
It allowed this infection to grow to the point where the smart people have left it.
So listen.
Imagine, like, there was an American left, and the small faction of far leftists were growing and growing, and the left never told them to stop.
Hey, partly my fault.
You know, because I was right there alongside many of these people during Occupy Wall Street.
And, of course, I've always had my opinions, and I've always pushed back.
And, you know, in January of 2012, I have an interview where I openly condemn Black Bloc violence, which we call today, you know, Antifa.
But a lot of people said nothing.
Stood side by side and said we must respect a diversity of tactics.
That's how they say it.
Do the Republicans say that?
No.
The Republicans on the right just get rid of bad actors and tell them to get out.
It's too bad the left didn't realize this before it was too late.
So it's not so much the left left you.
It's that something different is taking over the left and pushing out the sane, rational individuals.
So I want to read this story from Bridget and kind of, you know, give you my thoughts and opinions.
Very similar, in a sense, to how she describes things.
But let's just read.
It's from The Spectator.
Dear Democrats, I'm mad at you.
I was raised a die-hard, bleeding-heart liberal.
My grandmother was an Irish-Catholic New Englander who worshipped JFK almost as much as Jesus.
My dad and his nine siblings sang for the Kennedys at Hammersmith Farm.
For decades, I was a loyal regular at your bar until suddenly you started ignoring me.
You took my support for granted and dismissed my concerns, focusing instead on courting the young city hipsters with their scooters and their designer weed and their craft beers.
You began overlooking pragmatic moderates and catering to loud extremists who favor rewriting the Constitution and accelerating your lurch toward socialism.
I love this analogy, Bridget.
It's amazing, because I imagine in my head a perfect picture of what's happening.
Imagine this.
Every day you wake up, you go down the street to a local diner, you order a coffee, and
there's Jim Bob behind the counter saying, what can I get you?
He's cleaning his glass, and he's like, yeah, and he starts getting you your food.
And then one day, some young people come in.
And so the management says, hey, young people like avocado toast and deconstructed grilled
cheese, however you do that.
I'm kidding.
But you know what I mean, like these weird food trends.
All of a sudden now, you start recognizing that more and more of the shop is being overtaken by these young hipsters riding around on scooters, ordering weird food that You quite honestly think it's weird.
You're like, I don't know, what is this?
All you wanted to do was sit down at your restaurant, enjoy your meal like you always have.
But times have changed.
The problem is, for some reason the management at this bar thinks young hippies have money.
They don't!
The analogy here is that they don't vote.
They're not going to vote for you.
They're not going to support you.
So now you have this guy at the bar being like, oh man, all these young people riding scooters.
I can get their business.
Start offering up a ton of wacky products.
Some people come in and buy them.
But for the most part, they don't.
And he can't understand why he's going out of business now.
And you're sitting there going, Jim, come on, man.
Listen to me.
You've got to get back to selling, you know, chicken and rice.
No, you can't sell this deconstructed avocado toast, which is like just plain bread and a whole avocado.
You need to actually do it.
They don't.
And that's what's happening.
Business is not a boomin'.
People aren't coming in.
They're not being attracted to this.
Jim Bob, behind the counter, thinks he's catering to the millennials, but the millennials hate his guts.
And so he tries pandering to him, like Joe Biden.
Doesn't work.
Eventually, you start ignoring.
You start getting ignored.
You're that regular, and you're like, I can't even... I want to order...
You go somewhere else.
You're walking out down the street, you're hungry, and there across the street is, you know, Crazy Jim's.
He's also named Jim.
Crazy Jim's Megaton Burger Extravaganza.
And there's a big portly chef fellow wearing a MAGA hat, and he's like, come on over, have a burger!
And you're like, I don't know, man.
I've never been big on the massive double bacon cheddar.
Anyway, it really is a great analogy in that in a desperate attempt to cater to an expanding market, one they think will vote for them but won't, They end up ignoring those who they actually need to get to vote for them.
And then when these people leave the store confused and hungry, they're hungry, they're like, what can I do?
Right across the street is that big fellow with that barbecue grill and that double cheddar, double bacon, schlopped with mayonnaise and barbecue sauce, and all the crazy chipotle, everything, it's massive, and he's like, come on down.
And he throws you a beer, you crack it open, and that's what the Republicans have been doing.
Bridget writes, so in 2016, feeling politically homeless, I dropped my party affiliation.
How did this happen?
How did I go from being a lifetime Democrat to a registered Independent?
I am far from alone.
Why don't you Democrats seem to care?
Let me do this again.
Someone like Bridget.
She didn't walk out of that restaurant and go to the big double bacon barbecue joint.
She walked out and said, I don't want to eat like this.
I'll use myself as an example.
I'm sitting at this restaurant with the Democrats, and I'm just like, yeah, whatever, man, I'll get a grilled chicken Caesar or whatever.
They start going crazy, they start ignoring me, they start offering up weird food I don't want, so I eventually leave.
I'm standing outside, hungry.
And across the street is unhealthy food that I personally don't like.
It's fine in moderation.
It's not... I mean, you can eat it.
It's not bad.
It's not that bad.
The media wants to tell you that if you eat it, you'll die, but it's not that bad.
You know, so I might, you know, walk over there and, you know, give a wave and try an appetizer, but for the most part, I'm not interested in sitting down at that restaurant.
Because I really still just wanted a grilled chicken Caesar.
And there's my food analogy for being politically homeless.
People like me and Bridget, standing outside of that once great diner, now just confused with nowhere to eat.
Now, there are small third-party, you know, candidates, which is appealing, so we walk over to a food cart and get some falafel or something.
But let me read on.
I love that analogy.
I hope you enjoyed it.
Like most Americans, I developed my politics through osmosis.
You absorb what you grow up around.
I call this unexamined position factory settings.
Factory settings are the default beliefs installed when you were a child.
Quote.
I grew up in a conservative home and so I vote Republican.
Or I hate the Yankees because I'm from Boston.
As a young person, I could spout Democratic Party lines verbatim.
I didn't care all that much.
Prior to 2015, I viewed politics as something that only affected the very rich and the very poor.
I wasn't dependent on the government, and tax cuts didn't benefit me.
The winner of any election had very little influence on my life.
I worked as a waitress, too busy living paycheck to paycheck.
I felt just like another cog in the wheel.
For most of the 20 years in which I've been able to vote, I've kept my head down and voted Democrat because I believed they were the party of the people, and I was told Republicans were evil my whole life.
So, she basically goes on to say that eventually, where does she say?
The approved message.
She says, I subscribe to what I call the approved message.
A sort of right-think that meant you were one of the good guys.
A Democrat.
It made for a simpler life.
Now, hold on.
That wasn't incorrect.
There was a point where the Democrats were sane and reasonable.
And there was a point where the Republicans were censorious and moralistic.
But times have changed.
Trump especially, you know, came with the change.
I don't think he created it, but he came with that wave.
There was a point, and we've pointed out where the right was saying, oh, hey, you know, this is immoral, we can't do this, you know, they oppose same-sex marriage, there was the, you know, video, even Trump recently was saying video games and violence and things like that, okay?
So the point is, it's not like the right has been perfect, they have not been.
But whatever happened to the Democrats has resulted in regular people going across that street to that barbecue joint, and now all of the cool people are not in that diner anymore.
So it's not that the right has improved.
Well, actually, no, I take that back.
The right has improved by attracting rational people.
As the left continues to go insane, the right easily ropes in with that hand wave and a beer a lot of moderate individuals who help make the party, make the right more moderate.
I'm sure a lot of people who were very conservative and ended up watching Jordan Peterson moved a little to the center, moved closer a little bit.
I've heard stories about people who were alt-right who watched Jordan Peterson, moved closer to the center.
You see, that's what's happening.
The sane and rational conversations and actual talk of solutions is appealing to a lot of people.
So I don't know why, but it's like, I don't know, it's a generational thing?
Something happened with the right.
Where they've been pulled into a position where they've been a bit more moderate.
And as much as the left will try to claim that they're not, look at Fox News.
Bringing on Donna Brazile, for instance.
Even Trump is complaining about Fox News, you know, hosting Bernie Sanders.
That's right.
There's an opportunity here for the right to become, I guess how she viewed the Democrats in the past, the good guys.
I don't think that's necessarily the right way to look at it.
It's not that Republicans are the good guys.
It's that the Democrats have lost leadership, they've fractured, and they've allowed radicals to take over.
Radicals who offend most people with their calls for violence and their irrational actions.
Given the only alternative being moderates and Republicans, then yes, a lot of politically homeless people will find themselves sitting at the dinner table with people they don't really agree with on a lot of policy.
But this is better for everybody, to the detriment of the left.
So anyway, I thought it was a great op-ed from Bridget.
She put it out today from The Spectator.
Seeing that I feel similarly, I thought it'd be fun to do a little analogy.
But I really, really do dig that scooter analogy.
It's craft beers and weed.
The problem is, as South Park puts it, hippies don't have money, right?
So you try and cater to these young people.
They're not going to vote.
Stick around.
I got a couple more stories coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
The Senate has voted again to block Trump's national emergency over the border.
But fails to get veto proof majority, which means it's likely going to go nowhere.
But I'm really, really surprised to see this.
Why there are Republicans voting against Trump's action.
It shows there's not complete unity.
This is actually a really, really good thing.
Hear me out.
The Democrats seem to be ignoring the will of the people, okay?
It is true that not everybody in this country likes the president.
If we go by standard polls, his approval rating is below 50%, Rasmussen and Zogby have him above 50%, so let's just say it's contested.
Easy enough.
The Republicans, however, aren't operating in unison.
The Democrats aren't necessarily either, but the majority has swung in a dangerous direction, where now Nancy Pelosi is catering to the impeachment nonsense.
There needs to be nuance and debate, even within the parties.
And it looks like there are some people who, for better or for worse, voted against the president.
Now, here's why I think it's, you know, if you're a Trump supporter, you'll probably, you know, be upset they're doing this, but in the end, they didn't get a veto-proof majority, which means it's not going anywhere.
And I think it's fair to point out ideological diversity, diversity of opinion, are extremely important.
So it's actually, to an extent, kind of good that there are Republicans willing to push back on the rest of the party.
Same is true for Democrats.
Thought it was Nancy Pelosi, but she caved.
Well, here's what I want to do.
The reason I highlight this story is it's quite short.
You'll get the gist of it very, very quickly.
But here's the thing.
In this story from The Federalist, talking about Ukraine, it's titled, GOP Politicians Aren't Falling for Ukraine Hysteria Like They Did for Russia.
I thought it was an interesting contrast, to see that there are Senate Republicans willing to vote against the President's declaration, but at the same time, they're pooh-poohing the fake news of the Ukraine scandal.
I wonder what the difference is, but I think that's healthy.
It's a weakness, still.
It is.
Like, if you have ideological conformity and everyone just votes for whatever Trump wants, yeah, Trump will win more often.
But that's not good in the long run.
That's an important lesson for the Democrats.
Let's read from CNBC.
They say, The Senate voted Wednesday to block Trump's national emergency declaration over the southern border for the second time.
Still, the Republican-held chamber fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to overcome the president's likely veto of the measure.
Of course he will!
It's his national emergency.
The Senate voted 54 to 41 to terminate the emergency, as 11 Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the resolution.
Earlier this year, 12 GOP senators voted with Democrats.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida supported the measure in March, but did not vote Wednesday.
Democrats forced the latest vote in part to put pressure on GOP senators who backed Trump's declaration earlier this year.
The Pentagon this month outlined the military construction projects from which it would divert $3.6 billion to building border barriers.
Trump declared an emergency in February in order to allocate money for his proposed border wall after he failed to get the funds from Congress.
They say lawmakers voted to terminate the emergency in March, but did not have enough support to override the president's veto.
By law, Congress can try to block the declaration every six months.
It's not surprising they did it again.
They say the Trump administration will pull its biggest pieces of funding from two U.S.
territories, Puerto Rico and Guam, but it will still pull significant sums from the states represented by GOP senators vulnerable in the 2020 elections.
That includes Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona, Tom Tillis of North Carolina.
All three opposed the resolution to end the emergency declaration during Wednesday's vote and in March.
Okay, I don't want to read too much about the nitty-gritty here because I want to get to the point about Trump and support and the contrast.
They say, Tillis and McSally face Republican primary election challengers.
This is interesting.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to put pressure on Republicans to block the national emergency earlier in the day.
He said a vote for the president today is a vote in favor of cutting funding for our military.
And yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, get it.
Listen, I don't think Chuck Schumer actually cares.
I don't think most of these people care.
And I don't think Mitch McConnell cares.
I don't think any of these establishment incumbent long-standing Congress people care.
And I don't care.
It's politics as usual.
The only thing different is Trump.
You know what I mean?
Well, the left is very different.
They say Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, called Wednesday's measure a show vote, accused Democrats of wanting to invent a false choice between border security and other important military construction projects.
Okay.
Look, take it for what it is.
I'm not super concerned about this.
It doesn't overcome a veto-proof majority.
The interesting thing, however, is that when it comes to Ukraine, we're not seeing... I'm not going to talk to these individuals who voted against... who voted to, you know, take away the national emergency funds, but it seems like GOP members are much less concerned now about potential blowback over these scandals.
Probably because the Democrats have cried wolf too much.
And that's the important point.
I know it's kind of late in the show, but the point is, when it comes to what the Democrats are doing, here's the advantage.
You can actually get some people on your side and take action and make a statement.
Instead, the statement they make is on hoax nonsense.
Okay, I'll walk back the hoax stuff.
Just over-exaggerated, over-hyped nonsense.
Federalist writes, Unlike how they handled the Russia collusion conspiracy theory, Republican politicians have shown themselves less likely to fall for the Ukraine story being peddled through leaks to the same sympathetic reporters from anonymous partisan sources.
On Sunday, CNN's Jake Tapper amplified a tweet from Senator Mitt Romney with some additional commentary.
Jake Tapper said, First GOP official I've seen to even stray in the general
direction of possibly thinking of approaching condemnation. Yup, just Mitt Romney. In
recent days, resistance figures have run an operation similar to the Russia collusion
conspiracy that gripped the country for years.
That since debunked conspiracy theory supported by daily drips of bombshell news reports in the media, including Tapper, was that Trump had seditiously colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
Even the partisan probe ostensibly led by the ailing Robert Mueller was unable to find a single American Much less the president of the US, who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
The hysteria about Russia caused real harm to the country's foreign policy and administration of government.
No one has yet been held accountable for perpetrating the hoax, and many media are helping the co-conspirators in the hoax avoid that accountability.
They say.
Now similar figures are alleging, based on an anonymous source without first-hand knowledge, that Trump should be impeached because of a phone call he had with Ukraine.
Because I've already talked about all of this, let's skip over and get to the point where we get to the fact that Republicans aren't playing the game.
What Tapper highlighted is worth highlighting.
While during the Russia hoax, nearly all prominent Republicans expressed concern about collusion with Russia to steal the election, rushed to microphones to condemn the president for what turned out to be a false smear of sedition, and went out of their way to protect the relentless investigation of him based on lies secretly funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, this time, it's mostly just Mitt Romney.
It's just him.
And I don't know why, but I guess that's all you get.
That's all you get.
So that's the point, right?
There are Republicans who are absolutely voting against Trump, but they're not saying anything about Ukraine.
I think the issue is this.
There may be people who aren't in line with the president who are on the Republican side, but, excuse me, they're not going to fall for this again.
The Democrats look silly.
They're prancing around screeching, not a transcript, oh, it's not, it's, you know, Trump, it's proof, all this other nonsense, and it's a nothing burger, man.
Republicans don't want to look silly, okay?
And even though they reserved a judgment during Russiagate, I think at this point they're like, no, no, no, no, no.
The Democrats have no credibility.
They say the standard of evidence required from resistance figures in and out of the media to perpetrate yet another Russiagate is so high that it might be impossible to meet.
But at the very least, it's higher than what's offered now.
Yes, Democrats have wanted to impeach Trump for the crime of winning the 2016 election.
And that's it!
They're obsessed!
They just, they can't.
It's pathetic.
And they very well might do that no matter what they pretend the underlying reason is.
But Republican politicians, Romney and those like him, accepted Like him accepted, are either smart enough not to fall for this particular resistance effort, or they're simply savvy enough to realize there is no appetite for Republican politicians to assist Democrats in undermining a duly elected Republican president based on questionable hearsay, a complicated narrative that doesn't even add up, and a desperate desire to undo 2016.
And that's all they're doing.
So you know what?
If you followed my video from earlier today, I was thinking about it, and I said, you know what I think Trump is doing?
He's trying to show the double standard.
I think he does this a lot.
By asking Ukraine to look into 2016, and they're freaking out accusing him of now interfering in the coming election, they're essentially condemning themselves.
It's exactly what they did.
They went to Ukraine, they demanded investigation into what happened in 2016, Trump did the same thing, and it shows you the double standard.
You have to understand the perspective they have.
They're the good guys who can do no wrong, so how dare you?
How dare you?
They think they have every right to pressure anybody they want and investigate whatever they want, and then when Trump says, okay, I'll do literally the same thing, they screech and they whine.
And that's what he's showing people.
I think, you know, I was saying before that it was a trap, and I mean that somewhat half seriously, in that, you know, I don't know whether or not he planned all of this, but it certainly is working out in his favor.
This is a good bit of evidence for that.
The fact that Republicans aren't coming out and reserving judgment, they're just either saying nothing or pushing back, shows.
The Democrat cried wolf too much.
And nobody cares anymore.
Trump is securing his victory by destroying the credibility of Democrats and they're playing right into it.
So I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in just a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Oh boy!
This video is gonna get demonetized and deranked faster than you can say demonetized and deranked.
Why?
Well, we had to talk about the Joker, and the problem of a mass shooting that happened where a guy dressed like the Joker, and now because woke media loves pushing the narrative of incels, we now have this bit of news from the Daily Wire.
Joker controversy gets serious.
U.S.
military warns of threats of incel violence at Joker screenings.
Okay, let me ask you this question.
For one, Why?
Why do they think this is a real threat?
Like, incels are, you know, sure, there have been some crazy incels, but, like, they think these people are gonna go out and try and hurt people at a Joker screening?
The question is, why would they go to a screening of the Joker and not something more, I don't know, they're, like, opposed to?
But you know what?
Let's just read the story, and I do have another story about the Joker controversy.
You know, I honestly didn't want to talk about the Joker controversy, but I think the military warning about it is getting to that point.
Let's read.
The Daily Wire reports.
Let me zoom in a little bit.
The controversy swirling around Warner Bros' new standalone DC film Joker, which tracks the psychological spiral of a failed comedian into a murderous sociopath, took a decidedly more alarming tone this week, after reports of the FBI and the U.S.
military issuing warnings about the quote, credible threat of a mass shooting by an incel extremist at a screening of the film.
And it's warnings like that That make me think the law enforcement, FBI, and the
military know less about our culture than me or you watching this YouTube video.
It's kind of a boomery thing to be like, I read in the paper that incels are dangerous!
We better put out a warning!
And it's like, there's been nothing.
Do you know something we don't know?
I mean, maybe like I'll take them at their word right there the FBI in the military
I got don't don't understand why I would know better, but it definitely does seem like
Sensational trash from a woke clickbait blog in a memo sent on September 18 18th and confirmed by US Army officials on
Tuesday Service members were informed about threats on social media
about a mass shooting at a Joker screening well
the memo states that at the time there were no specific credible threats to the opening of the Joker on the 4th of
October a A separate memo sent Monday by senior officials of the U.S.
Army's Criminal Investigation Division cited credible intelligence of such a threat gathered by Texas law enforcement.
So, hey, man, far be it from me to question the experts.
I'll say it, right?
They know better than I do.
It just seems so weird.
A separate memo issued on Monday by senior officials in the U.S.
Army's Criminal Investigation Division stated that the Army had obtained credible intelligence from Texas law enforcement officials pertaining to disturbing and very specific chatter on the dark web regarding the targeting of an unknown movie theater during the release, Gizmodo reported Tuesday.
An army spokesperson told Gizmodo that military officials send out similar warnings routinely because the safety and security of our workforce is paramount.
So it doesn't sound like they're talking about civilian threats.
They're talking about their own military servicemen.
We want our workforce to be prepared and diligent on personal safety both inside the workplace and out," the spokesperson explained.
Posts on social media have made reference to involuntary celibate extremists replicated in the 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, at screenings of the Joker movie at nationwide theaters, the Sept.
18 memo published by Gizmodo Reads.
This presents a potential risk to DoD personnel and family members, though there are no known specific credible threats to the opening of The Joker on the 4th of October.
I have to say, this might actually hurt the opening.
I mean, this story's being picked up by Gizmodo, it's being published by The Daily Wire.
How many people really want to go to an opening screening of The Joker now?
Most people probably won't think twice, but enough people might say, I'm gonna wait.
You know, that could be bad.
I hear the movie's really good.
I guess we'll see.
I'm definitely going to see the movie, though.
Incels are individuals who express frustration from perceived disadvantages to starting intimate relationships, the memo continues.
Incel extremists idolize violent individuals like the Aurora movie theater shooter.
They also idolize the Joker character, the violent clown from the Batman series.
Admiring his depiction as a man who must pretend to be happy, but eventually fights back against his bullies.
Well, that doesn't really sound like the Joker.
I think the Joker's just a crazy guy who gasses people to make them laugh, but that's, you know, a different thing.
The memo then provides instruction on how to be vigilant at theaters.
When entering theaters, identify two escape routes, remain aware of your surroundings, and remember the phrase, run, hide, fight.
It explains, run if you can, if you're stuck, hide, and stay quiet.
If the shooter finds you, fight with whatever you can.
Let me just state, I don't care where you are, or what you're doing, or why.
Always identify two exits, okay?
Regardless of this.
I've been in theaters where I've been very upset at how they structure their exits.
Because, like, there was one theater I was at where the entrance and the exit are right in front of each other, so it's like, yeah, technically you have two exits, but if a fire started right in that middle, you're not getting out.
Unless you're running through the fire, which you might have to do.
Point is, first, there's this famous viral video, I can't remember exactly what it is, but there's like a venue, and I think it's a video, I can't remember, there's a venue, and something happened where people panicked, and because they only knew of one exit, they all rushed for one door.
And guess what?
Fluid dynamics kicked in, and everybody gets jammed inside this hallway, unable to move.
Some other dude who knew where the back door was calmly walked out the back door.
You need to know all of your exits, always.
Not because someone's gonna come in with a gun at a movie theater.
That could happen, too.
But because of fire.
You know, fires happen.
Sometimes fires happen.
Sometimes people panic.
Know where you're going to go and how you're going to react in a dangerous situation.
But people have an optimism bias.
They assume everything is fine and everything is safe.
And admittedly, when I hear this story, I didn't believe it.
I mean, that's partly the optimism bias.
There's no way this can be true.
It sounds so silly, right?
Well, it could be.
It could be.
It could just be boomers who don't know what's going on, or they could have credible intelligence, like they say.
But anyway, let's get back to the story.
The point is, always, please, know your exits.
Because fires happen.
As the Daily Y reported this week, Backlash Against Joker has been building ahead of its October 4th release.
Two non-profits sent a letter to Warner Bros.
CEO Anne Sarnoff Tuesday morning, expressing concerns about the film's potential to inspire violence, and called on the studio to donate funds to groups that promote gun control and aid victims of gun violence.
Oh, please.
Take your opportunism somewhere else.
It's the Joker.
I can turn on cable, any channel.
I'm sure if I turn on my guide channel, I would find something with the Joker in it.
Cartoons, you know, they have the Joker in it.
Justice League, for instance.
I'm pretty sure Joker's in Justice League at some point.
Five family members of victims of the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado in July 2012, which took place during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises, signed the letter, including Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, the founders of the non-profit Survivors Empowered.
We are calling on you to be part of the growing chorus of corporate leaders who understand that they have a social responsibility to keep us all safe.
The Hollywood Reporter notes the letter does not seek to halt the release of the film nor to rally gun critics to boycott it.
The letter asks Warner Brothers to end political contributions to candidates who take money from the NRA and vote against gun reform.
Excuse me.
It also asks the studio to use its political clout and leverage in Congress to actively lobby for gun reform.
I'm sorry.
Excuse me.
I'm sorry because I say that because I understand the pain.
Not perfectly.
Not the same way the family members do.
I understand the concern and the desire to do something.
But.
Gun reform doesn't solve the problem.
When you have a dangerous and murderous individual coming into a theater, the problem is something else.
I'ma try and be as sensitive as I can in explaining this, but when I see people say things like, someone I know and love was killed by a gun, therefore we must ban guns, that to me is, and with all due respect, it's an emotionally selfish reaction to what happened.
I understand you want justice.
I understand that you've seen this horrifying thing that's hurt you, and with that you have my sympathy, my empathy, my condolences, and I agree with you, we absolutely should be having conversations about how guns play a role in this.
But what I don't hear, even from the right when they talk about mental illness, is the underlying problems of our society that result in individuals taking these actions.
Because in the end, while I want to prevent, and we should take every precaution we can, you know, things like this, we have to recognize that there's an underlying sickness and infrastructure that's causing these things to happen.
You can sweep it under the rug.
You can punish all legal gun owners, right?
It's not the appropriate thing to do.
What Beto O'Rourke is proposing is sweeping gun confiscation, and that is not fair.
It is not fair to law-abiding citizens who have done no wrong.
And it won't address the sickness.
You can take away their guns, and you can protect the people you care about, and that I respect you for.
But when I say selfish, it means you don't understand that there are a ton of very sick and unwell people because of something our system is doing.
We are not solving that problem.
The point is, while I agree, I am absolutely open to that conversation about gun control and gun violence.
Seeing Ted Cruz and Melissa Milano have that conversation was fantastic.
I think we need to figure out the root cause of these problems and just solve it outright.
You take away their guns, they will use something else.
They will use bombs.
They will use knives.
And a lot of people say, but think about, you know, how many people they can kill with that one rifle.
It's like, listen, think about what they could do with a pressure cooker.
We need to address the, the, the, these, the, our society's problems.
I don't know.
Whatever, man.
It's, it's so complicated because I'm, I'm willing to bet that simply for saying what I just said, people are gonna, they're gonna attack me for it.
But it's true.
This guy who showed up in Colorado was very unwell.
It's not an instance of being like, oh, it's mental illness, right?
We're from the right, for the most part.
It's a broken system somehow creating this.
There's a bunch of ingredients to this problem.
We need to figure out what it is.
Warning people...
Go see The Joker.
I hear it's good.
I'm gonna go see it.
I am not going to let threats of terror stop me from enjoying my life.
