Leaked Documents Implicate Joe Biden In Ukraine Scandal, New Report Backs Trump's Claims
Leaked Documents Implicate Joe Biden In Ukraine Scandal, New Report Backs Trump's Claims. A new report from The Hill shows several inconsistencies and oddities in the Ukraine Burisma scandal.Donald Trump is currently under threat of impeachment following a 'whistleblower' complaint that he abused the power of office in asking Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky to look into the firing of a prosecutor.In a sworn affidavit the fired prosecutor states under oath that he was fired specifically for refusing to stop investigating Burisma, the company where Joe Biden's son Hunter biden was a board member.At the very least we have a conflict of interest, but at worst we have deep seated corruption coming from the Vice president.Democrats are insistent that this is proof that Trump is asking Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 US Election but others suggest that this scandal should be followed up on.In the end we reach an impasse.If you support Trump you will likely side with him and if you oppose Trump you will demand his impeachment.At this point it seems facts are irrelevant.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In newly leaked documents, Joe Biden is implicated in a scandal in which he fired a prosecutor to benefit his son.
That's the direct accusation made against Joe Biden.
Now, many of us have seen the video that went viral where Joe Biden brags about withholding $1 billion in aid to force the Ukrainian government to fire their prosecutor, who was investigating a company where his son was on the board and making $50,000 per month.
That's the subject of the latest impeachment inquiry.
Now, many people have said there's no there there, the story is nothing, and Joe Biden was outraged that Fox News would dare ask.
But these documents are pretty damning.
And it appears we're either looking at potential U.S.
intelligence operations for which the story only scratches the surface, or deep-seated corruption within the U.S.
government.
Naturally, if you're a Trump supporter, you're going to believe the Bidens and the Deep State and all of these other groups are acting for personal gain.
They're acting against the will of the American people.
But if you're someone who hates Trump, you'll believe that Trump is trying to shut out a political opponent.
I believe the truth is much more complicated.
And I'd like to show you some interesting stories as we dive into these documents and talk about what Joe Biden was doing with Ukraine.
And why?
And we'll start with this story from the hill.
John Solomon.
These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story.
Before we start, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical option.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
Boy, this one's gonna get complicated and controversial.
And I'm going to show you some surface-level information, which may lead to some speculation.
Not so much from me.
But trust me when I say, this story runs deep.
Deeper than we realize.
I'm sure Trump and Biden both know a lot more than the public does.
Of course they do, right?
It's personal to them.
But I mean, there's something going on in the government with the US, NATO, Russia,
foreign affairs, and potentially even involving Syria.
But we'll get into this.
The story is pretty strange.
From the Hill.
They report, Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic
presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.
He insists that in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son Hunter into a lucrative job.
There's just one problem.
Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents, many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles, conflict with Biden's narrative.
And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S.
officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma's legal troubles and stopped prosecutors' plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S.
presidential election.
I'm going to read on.
But before we do, I'd like to show you the documents themselves.
This is a leaked memo.
It reads, confidentiality notice.
This witness statement is provided on the strict understanding that its contents and the identity of its maker are treated confidentially.
It's a witness statement from Victor Shokin, the prosecutor who was fired at the behest of Joe Biden, where he outlines the reason for his termination was because he was going to be essentially investigating Biden's son as he looked into this, as he looked into this company.
Now, before I do read his statement on the matter, I want to show you the context of
John Solomon.
John Solomon, according to Wikipedia, is an American journalist who has worked as an investigative
reporter, a media executive, and as a conservative political commentator.
He's an editorialist and executive vice president of Digital Video for the Hill.
He was formerly employed as an executive and as editor-in-chief at the Washington Times.
While he has won a number of prestigious awards for his investigative journalism, he has also
been accused of magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy.
I highlight this on purpose.
The information you're about to hear will be contested.
They'll claim it's fake news.
They will smear John Solomon.
But I assure you, this is a man who served as the Washington Post's national investigative correspondent.
He worked for the Washington Times, and he now works for The Hill.
The Hill is a very credible news outlet.
When we see these documents, we take them based on the credibility of the outlets where he has worked, and of the man himself.
Don't be surprised if they try and claim this is fake news.
According to Shokin, he says, The circumstances of my dismissal were that I tendered my resignation to the Rada at the request of President Poroshenko.
Poroshenko asked me to resign due to pressure from the U.S.
Presidential Administration, in particular from Joe Biden, who was the U.S.
Vice President.
Biden was threatening to withhold $1 billion in subsidies to Ukraine until I was removed from office.
After I yielded to the President's request and submitted my voluntary resignation, Poroshenko commented about it in the media.
He said that I had carried out a colossal amount of work as General Prosecutor, which is something none of my predecessors had been able to do, especially with regards to my work on reforming the different bodies of the Prosecutor's Office, on creating the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, which enabled the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine to conduct legal work and on creating self-governing prosecution authorities.
This first section that I read to you, it's actually number six in the memo, is important.
The narrative we hear from the mainstream media is that he was himself corrupt and that he was removed for being corrupt.
But according to his statement, he was working on anti-corruption.
I'm not going to tell you which side to believe.
That's just his statement.
Moving on to the next section.
The official reason put forward for my dismissal was that I had allegedly failed to secure the public's trust.
Poroshenko and other state officials, including representatives of the U.S.
Presidential Administration, had never previously had any complaints about my work.
However, There were no grievances against me or any allegations that I had committed any corruption-related criminal offenses.
Biden never stated anything of the kind either.
Furthermore, all sanctions in respect of Yanukovych and his supporters remained in force and were not lifted whilst I occupied the post.
Moreover, these sanctions were extended.
And here comes the bombshell, number eight.
The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the board of directors.
I assume Burisma, which was connected with gas extraction, had the support of the U.S.
Vice President Joe Biden because his son was on the board of directors.
Nine.
On several occasions, President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigation actions in respect of this company.
But I refused to close this investigation.
Therefore, I was forced to leave office under direction and intense pressure from Joe Biden and the U.S.
administration.
In my conversations with Poroshenko at the time, he was emphatic that I should cease my investigation regarding Burisma.
When I did not, he said the U.S.
via Biden were refusing to release the $1 billion promise to Ukraine.
He said that he had no choice, therefore, but to ask me to resign.
When Poroshenko asked me to resign, the way that he put it to me was that he was making it for the good of our country and that I should agree, also as an act of patriotism.
I agreed to tender my resignation on this basis.
He says, it was Biden's order and wish that I be removed from office, not Poroshenko's.
The reason was because it was precisely the state officials from the U.S.
administration of Obama, and Joe Biden in particular, who were telling the heads of the Ukraine law enforcement system how to investigate and whom to investigate, including members of the Yanukovych regime team.
I was not complying with their will.
In respect to Zolchevsky in particular, who was a minister made under Yanukovych, so I had to be removed from office.
Let me stress, this is a direct accusation that Joe Biden was stopping the investigation into Burisma because this investigator was going, because Joe Biden's son was on the board.
I wonder, I wonder why.
Why it is that Joe Biden would target Burisma specifically.
Why would Hunter Biden be working for this company?
It's hard to know for sure.
But I do have some really interesting context to present to you.
And we're going to get to it in just a second.
But let's move on.
This next story, this is from April.
Joe Biden's 2020 Ukrainian nightmare.
A closed probe is revived.
See, the story about Joe Biden and the scandal goes back quite some time.
I'm curious as to why it is only being brought up now in the context of impeaching Donald Trump.
This story is also by John Solomon, but let's move on.
I'd like to show you this opinion piece from the New York Post.
And we are going to go back to the initial story, questioning Joe Biden and showing conflicts of interest.
The New York Post writes, wherever Joe Biden went, Son Hunter cashed in.
And they speak specifically about Joe Biden and Ukraine.
They talk about the context of today.
Biden has been leading the Democratic field.
The central case for his candidacy rests on the supposedly exemplary work he did as a senior member of Team Obama.
Well, in 2016, acting as the Obama administration's point man in Ukraine.
The Vice President, unlike Trump, openly threatened to withhold a billion dollars in American loan guarantees if the embattled nation didn't fire the country's top prosecutor, Victor Shokin.
That was in 2016.
As Biden later bragged, I looked at them and said, I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.
Well, son of a B, he got fired.
They go on to talk about Hunter Biden receiving a salary.
They say, at some point, he had been investigating Burisma, that's Shokin, the largest gas company in Ukraine, which also happened to be paying Hunter Biden a $50,000 monthly salary as a board member.
They say, by coincidence, Hunter had landed this cushy gig in a foreign country only a few months after the Obama administration began dispatching his father, Joe, to the very same foreign country on a regular basis.
There was, of course, absolutely nothing in Hunter's resume to indicate that he would be a valuable addition to foreign energy interest.
He didn't speak the language, and he had no particular expertise in the energy industry.
Oh, he did have one thing, though.
His last name.
I'm not going to... I can't tell you exactly if... Look, they're claiming there's no corruption.
They're claiming that Hunter Biden is, you know, Yale educated and is very smart.
Of course he could assist.
He could be a liaison to the West.
But at the very least, there's a big conflict of interest.
You see, when it comes to U.S.
interests, there's a big roadblock.
Something really, really bad impacting U.S.
interests in Ukraine.
Now, it's a complicated, complicated story that I can't... I can't Get close to actually unraveling the mystery of.
But it involves offsetting a monopoly held by Russia through a company called Gazprom.
Looking over at the Wikipedia page for Gazprom, we can see that Gazprom is a Russian export company, natural gas.
It delivers natural gas to 25 European countries.
They say, Gaz Export, formerly known as Gazprom Export LLC, has a monopoly on gas exports to countries outside the former Soviet Union.
They go on to list many of these countries.
Now, these countries don't include Ukraine, and there's a reason for this.
Price disputes.
Now, I'm going to skip over a lot of context.
Again, I can't get into the full details of this deep, deep story pertaining to U.S.
interests in Ukraine.
But I can show you this.
On March 13, 2008, after a three-day period where gas supplies to Ukraine were halved, Gazprom agreed to supply Ukraine with gas for the rest of the year.
The contract removed intermediary companies.
On the 1st of April 2014, Gazprom increased the gas price charge to Ukraine from $268 to $385 per 1,000 cubic meters.
Ukraine's unpaid gas bills to Russia stood at $1.7 billion.
On the 30th of October 2014, Russia agreed to resume gas supplies to Ukraine over the winter in a deal brokered by the European Union.
It's a complicated story.
I was on the ground during the protests, probably, which had a lot to do with this.
You see, Russia and the European Union were fighting over influence in the Ukraine.
Russia has been built... Again, there's a lot here.
But Russia wants a trade federation.
Some people have speculated Russia wants to rebuild the Soviet Union, which means they need Ukraine on their side.
Thus, we saw the annexation of Crimea, and we can see the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
The U.S., in particular, sees this as a problem.
But then we come to Burisma.
Burisma is an energy exploration and production company operating in the Ukrainian oil and
gas market since 2002.
The head office is in Lima, Seoul, Cyprus.
Burisma is the largest private natural gas producer in Ukraine.
Why would Joe Biden's son get a job at Burisma or enter the board getting $50,000 a month?
Well, it could be a U.S.
operation to influence and provide resources to Ukraine, to pull them away from Russia.
It could be that Russia's Gazprom monopoly was negatively impacting Ukraine, and driving up the debt made Ukraine beholden to Russia.
In that instance, it sounds quite noble.
The Ukraine, under undue pressure from a gas monopoly held by Russia, was receiving aid from the U.S.?
Hey, that's just international conflict.
It could also be much simpler than that.
It could be that Ukraine, facing pressure, knew they needed an out.
And along comes a spider.
The Vice President of the United States, who can offer you $1 billion in aid, especially
he can put his son into a natural gas company, where if you pay him, they will make sure
you can fight off those awful Russian interests.
In this instance, the speculation is deep-seated corruption, exploiting Ukraine's desperation
as Russia was choking them out of natural gas and driving up their debt.
Give my son a cushy job.
Don't investigate him, and maybe we'll help you out.
Now it could be both.
It could be the U.S.
absolutely had interests in winning over Ukraine.
And at the very least, they were exploiting this, and Biden took an opportunity for personal gain.
But all I can say, I can't tell you if any of this is related, but it's been an ongoing controversy.
And with what you're seeing with Crimea and the eastern conflict, the western and eastern powers have a huge interest in Ukraine.
Again, it's a very complicated story.
You'll have to do a deep dive yourself.
Maybe it's something we can actually produce over at Subverse and we'll commission someone to do a deep dive into Gazprom and the issues surrounding Ukraine.
But what I can talk about today, more in depth, is the nature of American politics.
So I'll leave that where it is.
But I do want to stress, for those that don't believe it, there absolutely is a video of Joe Biden saying You will not get a billion dollars unless you get rid of this prosecutor.
And as I've pointed out from John Solomon, this prosecutor said it's specifically because he was investigating Burisma, where Joe Biden's son worked.
It's all tied together.
Was it Joe Biden corruption?
According to Shokin, it was.
According to Joe, it wasn't.
Joe says Shokin was corrupt.
Well, we got a he said, she said.
At the very least, however, Joe Biden, it's a conflict of interest for you to interfere in a prosecutor of this country when he was investigating a company where your son was receiving money.
The whole thing stinks.
But here's what I want to do.
I want to read just a little bit more of John Solomon's story because he makes a couple interesting points in these leaked documents which also, I think, warrant a deeper dive into what Joe Biden was doing and why.
The memos raise troubling questions, he says.
If the Ukraine prosecutor's firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma's American legal team refer to those allegations as false information?
And that's in the documents.
If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden adamantly claimed, why would Burisma's American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?
Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S.
Department of Justice since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S.
ethics laws.
First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S.
attorney in New York, who they say showed no interest.
Then the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump's personal lawyer.
It turns out, according to the New York Times, the whistleblower complaint came from a CIA officer.
I now bring it all back together.
Burisma Holdings, Board of Directors.
On April 18, 2014, Hunter Biden, the son of then U.S.
Vice President Joe Biden, was appointed to the Board of Burisma Holdings, earning as much as $50,000 per month in some months.
In February 2016, Joseph Cofer Black, the Director of the American CIA's Counterterrorist Center in the George W. Bush Administration and Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism, joined Burisma's Board of Directors.
Things start to sound pretty... pretty... slimy?
Pretty shady?
I don't know how to describe it.
But here we can see.
That someone on the board of directors for Burisma used to work for the CIA.
Or may still.
They used to work for the CIA, it would seem, up until 2002, for the Bush administration.
Hunter Biden's son.
It is then a CIA officer who launches this complaint, citing hearsay and gossip and news clippings.
What does this sound like?
I don't know.
It sounds like a lot of conflicts of interest, to say the least.
There's enough here, at least in my opinion, to demand further investigation.
So I ask journalists, where are you?
Will you come out and look into this?
Will you now look into these leaked memos?
Will there be a deep dive?
Certainly there is from John Solomon.
He goes on and brings up many more points, points that I probably can't get into without going into a very, very long video.
But these claims are being used to impeach Trump.
A CIA officer, according to the New York Times, has filed a complaint that is being used by Democrats to try to impeach President Trump because he asked the Ukrainian government to look into what happened with Joe Biden, which we now learn from a sworn affidavit under oath by the former prosecutor who was, he says he was fired because Biden didn't want him investigating his son.
We then learn about Gazprom shaking down Ukraine.
And along comes Burisma, or I should say Burisma, the largest natural gas producer, then brings on Hunter Biden.
There's a lot going on here.
This could have a lot to do with other interesting foreign affairs issues, notably the Qatar-Turkey pipeline.
Again, a very complicated story.
The U.S.
– look, you're going to have to fact check me on this one.
I haven't covered this story in a long time.
My general understanding is the U.S.
wanted to run – not just the U.S., but other countries – wanted to run a natural gas pipeline from Qatar through Syria and Turkey.
This was blocked by Syria.
And unfortunately then, for Syria, a civil war emerged.
And the U.S.
had great interests in removing Bashar al-Assad.
So I'm curious how this all comes together.
I can't tell you.
What's really going on, I can't tell you.
What I can say is there are a lot of weird coincidences, and I can only speculate.
We have the documents.
The Hill is reporting it.
Interesting.
Shokin made an allegation.
He's implicating Biden in a scandal.
Corruption.
It may or may not be true.
What I can say is, the U.S.
wanted to build a pipeline.
They wanted to offset this Russian monopoly in Europe, which they have.
Gazprom has this monopoly.
You can see it on Wikipedia.
Syria blocks this.
This was reported back in, I think, 2009 by The Guardian.
Syria said, no, we're not going to go against our ally, Russia, and upset their monopoly.
It's interesting, then, that a war breaks out.
A war breaks out, and the U.S.
is very interested in getting rid of Assad, who rejected us.
Again, I'm not trying to allege a conspiracy.
It's very likely the dude was a bad dude, and Assad has done very bad things.
Curious then, we see Tulsi Gabbard.
She's the one who tried to call for peace.
She wanted to meet with Assad.
We see Donald Trump trying to meet with foreign powers and dictators and trying to stop the conflict.
And Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few defying Pelosi and saying no to impeachment.
I can't tell you what's happening.
I'm sorry.
I can give you a surface level.
I can scratch the surface.
I can tell you that The Hill is reporting on these memos and that John Solomon is a former Washington Post investigative reporter.
But don't be surprised when they call it fake news.
If you're a Trump supporter, if you believe in the president, you will likely see Shokin as telling the truth.
You will believe Biden is lying and corrupt.
If you don't like Trump, you will likely believe Trump is just trying to get rid of a political rival.
But I ask you then, if you don't like the president and you think it was a political play to benefit his candidacy in 2020, how do you respond to the statement by Shokin?
I believe the response would just be very general, that Shokin is corrupt.
That's why Biden fired him in the first place.
Of course he's gonna lie.
The guy who busted him and got him fired, there's now a weakness.
Now here's the thing.
I don't know the date of this affidavit.
And admittedly, it has to do with somebody else.
An individual by the name of Dimitri Firtash, who I'm not covering in this.
The main takeaway from this one particular document is that Shokin is saying, in no uncertain terms, they wanted him to stop because he was investigating Joe Biden's son, essentially.
And that's the question being raised.
It all comes back, and it's all very, very strange.
But I'll end with one final thought.
From Michael Tracy.
I think Michael Tracy does a fantastic job, by the way.
Great journalist.
Real clear politics.
He writes, for Dems, Ukraine is the perfect extension of the Russia narrative.
And there it is.
Perhaps in the end, there really is a scandal involving Joe Biden.
But you've got a lot of far leftists who don't like Biden.
They want Warren to win.
And that means Biden has to get knocked down a peg or two.
So this story serves their interests.
There are a lot of Democrats who say, we don't care about Biden either, because it will take down Donald Trump.
And that's what we get.
Perhaps it's all just dominoes falling over.
Perhaps Trump is really concerned about Biden using his power in office to benefit his son, and used the power of the U.S.
government to withhold aid to Ukraine.
Here's what I find truly interesting.
The left narrative is that Donald Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine in an effort to empower himself.
And the story from what we're seeing on the Hill is that Joe Biden withheld aid from Ukraine to benefit himself and his son.
I ask this one question.
Why was Hunter Biden appointed to the board and paid $600,000 per year?
And why was a former director of the American CIA Counterterrorism Center also brought onto the board of Burisma Holdings?
I wonder.
I don't know.
I honestly don't know.
But I think it's an interesting question.
I think all of it's very interesting.
I'm not going to go any further on any of this, and admittedly, these are dangerous stories.
But perhaps, perhaps there's more we can do.
I'll leave it there.
I actually have a lot more to cover, I do.
But this video can't end up being three hours, so stick around.
The next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews, and there's a lot more in this story that I will be tackling.
Stick around.
It is a different channel.
I will see you there.
The journalist who dug up 8-year-old tweets to smear or cancel a guy who raised money for a children's hospital may have been fired.
I say may because the Des Moines Register, where he worked, just says he's no longer here.
And then they're going to talk about their social media policies.
It doesn't sound like this guy left voluntarily, but for those that don't get the context, let me give you a quick recap.
A man named Carson King held up a joke sign.
It was like a newscast or something.
It said that his Anheuser-Busch fund was depleted and they needed money, and he put a Venmo address, meaning you could send him money for beer.
He ended up raising tens of thousands of dollars, and everyone got really excited and thought it was funny, but he announced it was going to go to a children's hospital.
Such a heartwarming human interest story.
A good guy who did a joke and did a wonderful thing.
He's now raised like 1.5 million dollars or something.
It's incredible!
And everybody was really excited.
For once, we had hope in humanity.
This fun thing could turn into something really, really great and help children.
And then this journalist decided that in order to report the story, I need to dig through eight years of social media history and found an off-color joke.
It was a reply, apparently, not even a direct tweet, where he was referencing Tosh.0, a Comedy Central show, and he said something offensive.
Well now, the Des Moines Register has issued a statement.
One, saying this journalist is no longer there.
I don't want to say that means he was fired.
Maybe he voluntarily resigned under pressure, but come on.
We know what this means.
He did the story.
He dug through the tweets.
The mob came for him.
Cancel, cancel culture.
That's the hashtag people are pushing.
They said to this journalist, if you want to dig up tweets, then you're fair game too.
And they found this woke, outraged journalist that, you know, in his past said many offensive
things, inappropriate things, because lo and behold, human beings say things that can be
Wow, I'm so surprised.
Not only that, society changes.
The things he said before probably weren't that offensive eight years ago, or they probably were.
I don't know what he said exactly, the Carson King guy.
The point is, you can make a joke ten years ago and everyone thinks it's fine.
Today they don't.
They'll say, why did you make that joke?
Dude, it was ten years ago, okay?
We all learned.
We progress.
Something interesting about progressives as it exists today, they don't want to progress.
They want to hold you to an impossible standard from a decade ago.
That's not progress.
That's looking into the past and punishing people for things that weren't relevant to society at the time.
If you want to accept progress and be a true progressive, that means you recognize people will apologize and not do these jokes anymore.
Let's read a little bit about what the Des Moines Register had to say because I'm going to push back.
I think this statement is a cop-out.
I think it's an excuse.
And in it, they basically say they vet subjects of stories more than their own staff.
Now, how does that make sense?
You're going to do a story about a person one time.
Your staff member is there every day, every business day.
But you don't do a background check on them?
But you dig into eight years of social media history?
Oh, please.
I don't want to hear it.
But let's read.
Carol Hunter of the Des Moines Register writes, We hear you.
You're angry.
Here's what we are doing.
First of all, I absolutely hate all of this.
This right here, their reaction, their response and the firing of this dude, it's all cancel culture.
Everyone's just angry all the time.
Just stop.
I don't think this dude should have been let go or gotten fired.
I think they should have sat him down and held up a mirror to his face.
But now he's lost his job.
And Carson King, he's been a stand-up guy about the whole thing.
He's carrying on.
He's now got, what are they doing?
Carson King Day by the Iowa governor.
That's amazing.
I'm really, really happy for this guy.
It could not have happened to anyone more deserving.
Carson King, proclamation, we'll read through this.
But he has been nothing but gracious and apologetic and he's done everything right, even apologizing to the register.
Sort of apologizing.
The dude's a stand-up guy.
And this is what makes the story all that much worse.
He's such a good dude.
He made a joke about beer.
He raised money for a children's hospital.
When this woke journalist came after him to try and destroy him over eight-year-old tweets, he immediately apologized, publicly said, you know, it was wrong of me, and I hope, you know, I hope and understand everybody can move on and blah, blah, blah.
And people said, you know what, we forgive you.
And he's carrying on like a class act.
That's why I think it was wrong for this guy to be fired.
I absolutely detest this.
He should not... Well, I don't know if he was fired.
Let go.
Forced to resign.
Whatever the reason.
Whatever the reason he quit.
It should not have happened.
Okay?
Let the guy stay.
Tell him to stop.
And this could be a lesson to everybody, but I'll tell you what...
In the end, if these outraged journalists who are going to dig through someone's Twitter history are getting fired, maybe this will set an example.
Maybe journalists will now learn that we as a society will no longer tolerate you trying to dig up old tweets.
To destroy someone's life.
With that being said, let me give you a piece of advice.
Delete your Twitter history.
Do it now.
Thank me later.
Actually, you won't thank me later, you know why?
Because if you delete your tweets now, there won't be tweets to have been dug up to destroy your life.
Let's read.
Carol Hunter writes, The Des Moines Register staff has heard from hundreds of people in the past few days upset over our handling of a story on Carson King, the 24-year-old whose bush-like sign on ESPN's College Game Day launched more than a million dollars in donations to an Iowa children's hospital.
Isn't that heartwarming?
It may put a smile on my face when I heard that story.
And then it flipped that smile right upside down when I heard what this journalist was trying to do.
And then the smile turned into a, I don't know, my face twisted and contorted into some strange demonic expression.
And I was furious.
But look, listen.
Getting this journalist fired may be emotionally satisfying.
It may set precedent.
It may make an example.
But it's still part of the same problem.
Stop.
If this journalist didn't have bad tweets of his own, he wouldn't have gotten fired.
So it is a bit ironic.
It's like a firetruck on fire.
The guy who tried calling out someone for bad tweets got fired over bad tweets.
I know a lot of you are going to laugh about it.
And again, this might be an example that we need to set precedent to make a change.
But I do despise all of this, seriously.
We listened with an open mind to everyone.
But especially Iowans.
The people who are our neighbors.
Who care as much as we do about our state and everyone who lives here.
And we hear you.
You're angry.
You're disappointed.
And you want us to understand that.
I want to be as transparent as possible about what we did and why.
And answer the questions you've raised and tell you what we've learned so far.
Get ready, I'm gonna call this out.
For one, we're revising our policies and practices, including those that did not uncover our own reporters' past inappropriate social media postings.
They say, King's generosity is a great story, and the Stead Family Children's Hospital is a great cause.
The story shifted Tuesday evening, however, when King held a news conference with local TV stations to acknowledge racist tweets from his past, and Bush Light, one of the companies bankrolling his fundraising, distanced itself from him.
Your journalist went after him and he had no choice but to get in front of the story.
I'm sure he talked to a PR person who said, you need to say it now.
The only reason he's walking away unscathed is because he did the right thing by preempting you and your twisted psychotic outrage.
I know how PR works.
They always tell you get in front of the story, and now they're blaming him because they tried destroying him for eight-year-old off-color jokes.
I was gonna- I just stopped myself from swearing.
I'm angry.
The registered reporter writing the profile had discovered tweets on King's public timeline early in the day, and he asked King about them.
King, to his credit, expressed immediate regret.
Yet they still were going to move forward, forcing King, having no choice but to hold the conference, to make a statement about the tweets, before he was smeared in the press.
The timeline gets a bit complicated.
Registered editors discussed at length whether to include information about the tweets and King's remorse in our profile.
But we were still editing the story when King talked to local TV stations.
Exactly!
That's what people are forced to do when slimebags like you...
Tell them, by the way, look what we found.
We're going to destroy you.
You have one hour.
It's the game they play, and now they're trying to hide behind.
We didn't even publish the story, and he came out and said it.
Oh, oh jeez.
Right.
What was the alternative?
He sit there sweating bullets, waiting for you to publish a hit piece that would destroy everything, all the good he was doing?
That would negatively impact a children's hospital?
Please.
This is an excuse, and this disgusts me.
They say, Bush Light announced its decision shortly afterward.
We hadn't yet published anything about his tweets when some people on social media began accusing the Register of doing King wrong and ruining a potential opportunity to continue raising millions of dollars to help sick children.
You did!
Fortunately, Carson played the game right.
For one, class act.
Gracious.
Humble.
But he got in front of your smear.
You see how these twisted people do this?
They're smear merchants.
That's what they are.
Dirty, dirty smear merchants.
It's the game they play.
Here's a guy who's gonna raise a million bucks for a children's hospital.
Let's rip his scalp off!
And then he played Better Than You.
And he probably got good advice, and they said, they are going to destroy you.
We know how the game works.
The dirty smear merchants will tear you apart because they want scalps.
And so he said, I have no choice but to get in front of this story, and he did.
And now, the Des Moines Register is going, oh, but we didn't even report it!
He's the one who came out!
You see what they do when they get busted, when their strategy fails.
I guarantee you they were probably laughing going, oh man, we got a big one here.
It turns out this guy who's raising money for kids is a racist.
And now it's the journalist.
It backfired because Carson King played his hand correctly.
But make no mistake, if he made one simple misstep, they would be holding his scalp in their hands and saying it's his own fault for being racist.
She says, Many of you said the timeline is besides the point.
You've asked instead why we chose to look at King's tweets in the first place.
Some of you then noticed questionable tweets by the reporter himself, which the Register then began to investigate.
I'll discuss some of the steps in our decision-making later.
But rest assured, we're examining all of our processes.
Okay, listen.
They say we're going to be focusing on policies around background, blah blah blah.
Some of you wonder why journalists think it's necessary to look into someone's past.
It's essential because readers depend on us to tell the complete story.
Oh, really?
We need to know about a stupid joke he said to his friend eight years ago?
Don't.
Don't even try.
The Des Moines Register got busted.
They're pathetic.
They played the game and they lost.
You know...
I'm not gonna have sympathy for a bank robber simply because they're bad at bank robbing, okay?
You tried to pull a con, and you screwed it up, and now you're saying, you know, it's just, it's journalists do it, and it's an important part of background.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
Carson King's tweets from eight years ago have nothing to do with this story.
And journalists, like, unanimously, are calling you out.
Well, I shouldn't say unanimously, but there are high-profile journalists, even on the left, saying this is not newsworthy.
If he had been defiant and insistent upon him being allowed to do these tweets, then maybe, maybe, but they shouldn't have been looking for him in the first place.
And I'd like to stress this point.
Why do they think it's more important to look into family, friends, backgrounds, criminal arrest records, but not for their own staff?
Please.
Dirty, dirty smear merchants.
Liars, manipulators, and evil people.
Vultures.
I didn't make up vultures.
They call themselves vultures.
It's what they do.
They circle above your head waiting for any sign of weakness to swoop down and rip it.
I'll calm down on that point.
I was going to make a vulture reference and it was going to be gory.
But no.
They call themselves vultures.
They swarm.
I genuinely, genuinely... There are a lot of good people in journalism.
There are a lot of good people, I know them.
Okay?
But the media is a sick and disgusting beast.
Let me tell you a story.
During Ferguson.
Riots.
People in the streets, police, flashbang grenades, live ammunition being fired, hitting the ground, being told to flee, gunshots whizzing, you know, bullets whizzing past my head.
Yeah, all that stuff happened.
About a week into it, the initial outburst of the riots in Ferguson, a bunch of the protesters started leaving, and the streets became relatively devoid of active protest.
But you know who stayed?
Oh, about 80 to 100, maybe that's an overestimate, maybe 50 to 60 journalists.
I remember I was watching a police vehicle move the street, telling people to disperse.
I looked around and noticed 95% of the people in this crowd were just journalists and the protestors were leaving.
They were walking away.
So I told the crew that I was with, cross the street.
We're gonna film that.
We walked across the street, and I'll tell you what I was looking at.
I was looking at a group of maybe, you know, 50 to 60 press, slowly walking backwards, taking photos, with their reporter standing by them, some taking notes, cameras, and there was no protesters.
And then the police actually said, media, disperse, we are talking to you, vultures, in Ferguson.
I overheard—this may be—I'll keep it vague.
I don't want to get anybody called out.
An individual on the ground in Ferguson was bragging about coming to the riots as a networking opportunity because Don Lemon was there, because, you know, I think Anderson Cooper was there, because it was a high-profile moment.
All these journalists were there on West Florissant.
Vultures.
They came down late.
They weren't there in the beginning.
There were a few journalists who were.
I wasn't there on the first day when they burned down the gas station.
I came immediately after.
So I'm not going to cut myself slack, necessarily.
I'll criticize myself saying, you know, I rushed in full speed when that gas station got burned down.
A few days later, though, it turned into a press gaggle networking event.
And that's when I said, cross the street.
Film that.
We never did anything with it.
That's the point.
They're vultures.
They're smear merchants.
They were hunting for a scalp, but he ambushed them.
I should say, they ambushed him, but he countered, and he countered well.
He's been nothing but a class act since.
You will get no quarter from me.
You will get no sympathy.
I will not, will not accept this.
The guy shouldn't have been fired, okay?
I hate all of this.
But make no mistake, given the opportunity, they will do it again, and they would have been happy to publish this.
They talk about how they weren't even sure what they were going to do.
I don't believe it.
I'd be willing to bet they were sitting there going like, oh man, we got a juicy one.
This is going to be so big.
Our story's going to get so many hits.
Oh, this is going to be great.
And then all of a sudden, press conference.
Oh no!
Our scoop!
Our scoop that was going to be big news was preempted.
I've seen other people talk.
I've worked in these offices.
They probably thought they had an exclusive scoop.
And the only reason they're angry is because he scooped them.
By holding the conference and addressing the tweets, he defanged them.
And now they're saying, but it was him!
Dirty smear merchants.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
I'll see you all there.
There's an interesting article in BuzzFeed about why woke outrage isn't trying to cancel It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Interestingly, they kind of praise the show while highlighting extremely offensive things the show has done.
I don't think they're necessarily directly calling for the shutdown of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia for being offensive, but they're missing the point about woke outrage and cancel culture.
And in effect, I do kind of think they're trying to move into legacy territory that's been very difficult for them to cancel in the first place.
Notably, Family Guy.
And South Park.
In this story from September 12th, it says, As South Park gets renewed through 2022, Matt Stone and Trey Parker also have new movie ideas.
In it, they say, quote, It's new, Stone says of cancel culture.
The term used to refer to boycotts started, usually via social media, when a person or group is offended by a star or brand.
I don't want to say it's the same as it's always been.
The kids are effing different than us.
There's a generational thing going on.
Currently, Dave Chappelle is in the crosshairs for his latest Netflix stand-up special, Sticks and Stones.
I know some people have been cancelled for genuinely like, personal behavior, but Dave is not getting cancelled anytime soon.
Stone says, joking, that South Park and Chappelle are quote, grandfathered out of the culture.
So let me be very clear.
I kind of have an inkling that this is them now trying to move into legacy territory.
They can't outright come out and say, Family Guy, South Park, and It's Always Sunny should be cancelled.
They can make pieces like this.
So, again, I'm going to be very careful here.
The story does praise the show and say, I hope they never cancel it.
But I believe, in my personal opinion, this may be a push to, I don't know, raise awareness around these issues and test the waters.
I know it's... I don't want to say they're doing it intentionally, but this is what we're going to see first.
So let me just show you the story.
You can decide for yourself.
They write, Ask South Park.
Why hasn't cancel culture come for It's Always Sunny?
Even after 14 seasons, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia continues to be funny, innovative,
and deeply offensive.
How does a show so politically incorrect survive for so long?
Ask South Park.
Ask Dave Chappelle.
She writes, I don't know how we're going to explain a show like It's
Always Sunny in Philadelphia to younger generations.
The concept of the show is simple enough.
A brother and sister, their dad, and two friends hang out at a bar they own all day, getting
into hijinks.
The episode descriptions, however, are impossible to describe without cringing.
You see?
Here's where they go.
Quote A guy dies in Patty's pub.
Dennis and Mac use the guy's death as an excuse to get close to the guy's attractive granddaughter.
Meanwhile, Charlie discovers that Dennis and Dee's grandfather was a Nazi.
IMDb synopsis of Season 1.
The gang finds a dead guy.
Another episode synopsis from Season 3 reads, Sweet D's dating a... I can't say this word on YouTube.
Isn't that insane?
Okay, I'm just gonna say it, because it's already in the thing.
You can already read it.
It says, Sweet D's dating a retarded person.
While, uh, reads, While Dennis and D tried to figure out if the rapper D is dating has a mental handicap or not, Charlie, Mac, and Frank tried to start their own band without knowledge of how to play musical instruments.
Please trust me when I say this episode is a classic, not because of the D-plot line, but because Dennis and Charlie sing a song about the Dayman fighter of the Nightman while huffing silver aerosol paint out of a sock.
It's interesting.
I genuinely think they want to cancel shows like this, but something happened.
The way I explained it before is, grandfathering in, it's real.
I think the reason, though, is that what front can you win on?
For the woke outrage cancel culture stuff, they can target someone that people know very little about.
So Jordan Peterson emerges.
People know very little about him.
So they smear him.
They try to destroy him.
You get someone like Dave Rubin.
Dave starts gaining a massive following and then all of a sudden ridiculous smears emerge.
The reason is Dave doesn't have legacy articles to protect him.
So I've actually talked about this with people about why it's been very difficult for them to try to smear me.
It's because I have legacy articles predating the culture war that essentially protect me.
Going back to 2011 with Occupy Wall Street and Time Magazine, you can't erase that.
I emerged at a time before the culture war broke into the mainstream.
So you can't... They've tried in a sense to go back and try and accuse me of certain things, but look, I worked for Disney.
I worked for Vice.
It makes it very difficult.
And then I find that oftentimes, in these smear pieces, they outright ignore me altogether.
You know, there have been several smears that have come out, like research studies.
And I'm always at the bottom, a footnote, or, like, they passively mention me and don't really focus on it.
It's too, it's, it's... I'm close to the point where I think I got, I got a public attention soon enough.
That I'm close to being susceptible to whatever this war is, but just a little bit outside of it.
So it's very difficult.
You know, back in January of 2012, I was condemning black bloc violence.
And it was acceptable.
And MSNBC had me on the air.
And a bunch of people at Occupy Wall Street offered me security for this.
That's a really hard thing to highlight if you're trying to win an ideological battle.
The thing about It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and South Park, and Dave Chappelle, is that people know what they are.
The average person is gonna be like, oh yeah, yeah, it's always sunny, it's funny.
Right?
They're jokes.
They're making fun of these ideas, they're making fun of these people.
But if a new show emerged, or something like, another good example is Count Dankula.
Count Dankula's joke with the pug is nowhere near as offensive and shocking as any one of these episodes.
But that's grounds to destroy his life.
They're trying to preempt any opportunity for things like It's Always Sunny to exist.
This is why I lean towards articles like this, whether it's their intention or not, to actually cause problems, to cancel It's Always Sunny.
Play into it.
So I don't want to make it seem like this writer is actually trying to get them cancelled.
I will say, it's a weird thing to write about.
The story about South Park wasn't actually about cancel culture.
It was about them getting renewed.
And they mention it because it's a thing.
This story is literally pushing It's Always Sunny into the foray.
If you look at the title, Why hasn't Cancel Culture come from It's Always Sunny?
Based on the title alone, it's almost goading someone to consider it.
In the story, they talk about how They're racist, sexist, abusive little s who should, by any other metric, make for an absolutely miserable television watching experience.
I mean, they're going to say that Mac does blackface in 2013.
Okay.
Sarah Silverman lost a job because she did blackface in what, like 2007 or 2008?
They actually did this in 2013.
So, if Sarah Silverman's not grandfathered in, if she's- if they're targeting her, I have to feel like this story is putting legacy media in the crosshairs.
Legacy shows.
I mean, recently, Family Guy announced that they weren't going to be doing gay jokes anymore.
There's been a weird- like, The Simpsons has been trash for a long time.
The Simpsons had an episode where Abe Simpson was bi-curious and went and kissed a man.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that.
There was apparently some episode, I don't know if this is true because I only read a synopsis because it was like an outrage culture thing.
It was like an anti-feminist site.
Saying that Bart is mad that they're doing a female version of Itchy & Scratchy, and then he goes and hangs out with, like, tough girls or something?
It's very obvious the ideological shift is trying to push into legacy media.
Shows like It's Always Sunny, South Park, and Dave Chappelle make it very, very difficult, because it reinforces comedy.
Here's the thing about It's Always Sunny that they get in this article, which I respect them for highlighting.
They say that, um, I don't know exactly where it is, but they talk about how in an interview, you are learning, uh, it's Rob McElhenney, one of the creators, you're laughing at them for being bad people.
They're racists, they're bigots, they're drug addicts, the grandchildren of a Nazi, and you're laughing at them.
That's the point of a joke.
That's what it's supposed to be.
They go on to... But in this, they highlight a ton of things where it's like almost giving you fodder.
They say Dennis is clearly a... That word's blocked out because I can't say it, but he forces himself on women.
And one episode, in particular from Season 5, The Dennis System, which is absolutely hilarious, by the way, Gives us a clear look at how truly deranged he is when it comes to dating.
That's the one where I think that's okay.
Okay.
In another episode from season six, Dennis tells the gang that he likes to bring women to a boat on a date because of the quote, the implication that things might go wrong for her if she refuses to sleep with me.
I don't know if that's the exact quote.
But he basically says something about taking a woman out on a date on a boat because of the implication.
And they're like, what implication?
He's like, you know.
And you infer.
He's saying if the woman fights and refuses anyway, he can throw her off the boat.
The dude is sick and twisted.
The whole show is insane.
And it's funny for it.
But boy is it offensive.
I mean, for what, ten seasons or so, one of the jokes was that Dennis was- I'm sorry, that Mac was gay.
And this is another thing they bring up.
There's a funny- here we go.
They write.
In Season 6, Mac starts preaching against homosexuality when the trans woman he dated, Carmen, gets gender-affirming surgery and marries a cis man.
Mac, furious that Carmen isn't single for him to bang, argues that her husband is actually gay and harasses them at the gym with scripture to prove that they're committing indecent acts, or as Mac says, sex in the butt.
The gang treats Carmen with derision, as most people are treated on the show, misgendering her.
But the writers are at least trying to work through the idea that it's Mac who is the actual a-hole.
The audience is supposed to laugh at him for his own small-mindedness and insecurity over his own sexuality.
It's a really, really weird piece, I have to admit.
Because, in a sense, they're actually admitting they get the point of jokes.
They get the point of humor.
The goal of the show is so that you can laugh at Mac, who is clearly the bad guy, and the trans woman who marries a guy are minding their own business.
It's clear that Charlie has an obsession with this waitress, and he won't leave her alone.
And that's what's really strange to me.
The reason I want to highlight this You know, I want to make sure I keep it tepid and I walk it back.
They're absolutely not calling for the cancellation of the show.
They say in the article, I hope it stays on forever.
But I don't trust the motives of websites like BuzzFeed.
Especially when the title is, Why Hasn't Cancel Culture Come From It's Always Sunny?
Especially when they highlight over and over again that they do blackface, that they're racist, that they mock and belittle gay and trans people.
I don't trust them.
I don't trust the motivations.
You can write a story and say, you know, how come nobody's trying to get this racist show shut down?
I hope they don't, but hey, check this out, you know what I mean?
Of course, they'll come back and counter on me and say I'm reading too far into it, it's conspiratorial.
No, no, no, no.
I'm not denying that.
I'm just saying, like, why do this?
Why write a huge story about a popular show that's been on the air for 14 seasons, which has a ton of, you know, all of these asterisks you see.
This is the point.
Every time you see an asterisk, it's them mentioning something that I can't talk about.
It's a story that Mac is gay and there's no joke.
Like, they're ragging on the show, okay?
That's what I read when I saw this story.
It's them ragging on the show, making, like, they're targeting the show, I have to say.
It seems like they want it to be cancelled, so let's read the conclusion.
They say, one of the most accurate depictions of depravity that It's Always Sunny has captured is how terrible people are often more preoccupied with being perceived as terrible rather than working on themselves.
Mac is afraid of being physically weak.
Dennis of being seen as a predator.
Charlie of being seen as a harasser.
Dee of not being attractive to men.
We get it, we get it.
They say season 14 kicks off with half of them trying to ensnare someone in a meat-cute.
Charlie mishears this as meat-cube.
And the other half trying to get hot liberal foreigners to move in and have sex with them.
But this is why It's Always Sunny has lasted longer than sitcoms designed to show people growing and thriving.
It was never about improvement or correction.
It was only ever about pointing out the detritus of the human spirit, laughing at it, and then spitting at it while singing, Go F yourself.
So, at the very least, it could be them just doing a- like a- it's them highlighting- you know, let me say this, to be fair.
This very well may be BuzzFeed's best attempt at promoting the show.
If BuzzFeed came out and wrote an article saying, this show's great, you should watch it, people would say, how dare you?
And they would target it for, you know, woke outrage.
However, I don't trust BuzzFeed's motivations.
I don't think BuzzFeed wants to save It's Always Sunny.
I think, for the longest time, they've wanted to go after legacy shows.
They've tried targeting Dave Chappelle, okay?
It doesn't work.
South Park is grandfathered in, as they say, and so is It's Always Sunny.
I have no idea how things will play out.
But, as much as I may be jumping the gun on the story and I don't like to read too much into things without facts, let me just say, I don't know what the intent or the goal is, I'm not going to assume what this writer wants to do with the show, necessarily, but I definitely think they're crop-dusting.
You know, the plane's getting really close to the ground.
I think this is going to... this could potentially kick things off.
It's sort of...
Should we cancel this show?
Should they be allowed to make these jokes?
And I want to stress, keeping in mind, the change is made to The Simpsons, and the change is made to Family Guy.
Keep that in mind when you see stories like this.
You know, I gotta be honest, I haven't watched It's Always Sunny in a really long time.
So, whatever.
I might start watching it now, though, because it sounds really funny.
And, uh, I don't know, check it out.
The point is, it's humor.
It's a joke.
They're bad people.
That's the show.
And they say this.
That's what the article says.
So, you know, All right.
We'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 4 p.m., and I will see you all there.
During a congressional hearing, Adam Schiff was reading from a piece of paper where he claimed that Trump made some absurd statements.
This was him reading fake quotes into essentially congressional record.
It turns out, after people criticized him, he said it was just a parody.
And now here's what happens.
The first clip of him pretending to read this parody goes viral.
The correction, it's just a joke, doesn't.
Why should somebody at a hearing, why should a politician be doing a bit during a congressional hearing?
It's disgusting.
Well, now we have this.
Trump demands Schiff resign over the parody reading of Ukraine Call.
He got caught.
Well, Trump—the way Trump's framing it is that he wanted to read this fictitious thing into the record.
And because people called him out for it, he was forced to say it was a parody.
Now it's being reported, even by Fox News, it was a parody.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Hold on.
That's his framing.
When I first saw this, I was watching When I first saw the clip, I was watching the hearing, and then people started putting this clip up on Twitter.
It's not overt.
Okay, let me say this.
I didn't believe it was real.
When he was reading it, I was like, what is this?
Is he making this up?
But as you know, MSNBC also made something up too.
They're all doing it.
And this fake news is spreading and people believe it.
And then he goes, it's just a parody.
The bigger question is, why would he be doing a joke?
It makes no sense.
Well, let's read the story.
Excuse me.
President Trump called Friday for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to resign for fraudulently reading out a hyperbolic account of Trump's controversial July phone call with Ukrainian President.
Rep.
Adam Schiff fraudulently read to Congress, with millions of people watching, a version of my conversation with the President of Ukraine that doesn't exist.
He was supposedly reading the exact transcribed version of the call, but he completely changed the words to make it sound horrible and me sound guilty.
For what it's worth, Adam Schiff's reading was ridiculous.
In it, he says, you know, he's like, and Trump said, listen closely, I'm only going to say this seven more times, blah, blah, blah.
The point is, when someone's doing comedy, the context is important.
We need to know that you're doing comedy.
If you're a politician, and someone is testifying before you, and you start reading a joke, and people are going to be like, what?
Because we don't expect you to make up fake quotes regardless of whether or not we're supposed to be laughing at a congressional hearing.
Is that what's supposed to happen?
Adam Schiff's supposed to go up and be like, check this out, read it, and we all just laugh?
If it was a joke, he would have said, that was a joke, I'm sorry.
No, it was after he got yelled at.
Trump says.
He was desperate and he got caught.
Adam Schiff therefore lied to Congress and attempted to defraud the American public.
He has been doing this for two years.
I am calling for him to immediately resign from Congress based on this fraud.
Well, hold your horses there, Trump.
That's too far in the other direction.
I don't like any of these people, man.
You can pick any politician and I'm gonna be like, don't like that person.
There's like, I don't know, maybe like a dozen people I like.
And when it comes to Congress, the two names at the top of my head are Tulsi Gabbard and Dan Crenshaw.
And they're not perfect people.
And they've both proposed bad ideas.
But I think they're both good people.
Adam Schiff is not a good person, but you know, look, I can point to any one of these slimy little politicos.
You know the thing about politics is, In a sense, I would love to sit down with lawmakers and discuss ideas and work on behalf of the American people to make this country better.
But I don't want to.
You know why?
Because you have to be a slime bag to actually make it.
Now look, there's a handful of politicians who are good people who win.
They exist.
I like them.
Tulsi Gabbard is an excellent point.
And I'll do this.
Tulsi Gabbard defies Pelosi.
No compelling cause for Trump impeachment.
She's right.
There's a tiny group of people who are honorable and good people.
But for the most part, the point I want to make is There is nothing on this planet that would ever make me want to be in a room with these people, even Tulsi.
As much as I respect her, there's too much swamp.
There's too much dirt.
There's too much grime.
And you look at what these politicians do, and that's... Listen.
The reason politics is so dirty is that it requires dirty people who want power.
When it comes to getting elected, do you think any one of these people, they spend time researching the facts and figuring out how things work so they can come into office and make changes?
They're sitting there going over marketing details, trying to figure out how to convince someone to vote for them.
They don't know anything, and then they do this crap.
So, you know what?
The dramatic reading happened Thursday when Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire was on Capitol Hill to defend his handling of the whistleblower complaint about the call that touched off a formal impeachment inquiry this week.
The complaint and the transcript of that call, both released this week, detailed how Trump urged President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Democratic President Joe Biden and his son.
Go to youtube.com slash timcast.
Watch my video from earlier.
It only scratches the surface on what's going on, but this may actually be what Joe Biden was doing, a US intelligence operation.
And I gotta say, man.
This company, Burisma, they have a former CIA dude, a director, like, on their board.
And the person blowing the whistle on Trump?
CIA official.
It's very, very strange, to say the least.
There's a lot of talk about Biden's son.
We know all this.
I don't want to rehash this old story.
Here's what I want to do.
I want to show you this.
Tulsi Gabbard.
She's awesome.
She's fantastic.
Look, I get it.
They're, you know, diehard Trump supporters think she's lost her marbles and she's just another, you know, lefty and all that stuff.
Okay, okay.
If you are a diehard Trump person and you think Tulsi is just another crazy leftist, I absolutely, I absolutely won't argue with you about it, okay?
I happen to like a lot of her policies.
Not all of them.
I think she also has, I think she has a decent amount of bad policies, too.
But there's a lot of things that I really like.
For one, she's been moderate on a lot of issues.
But in the end, there are two big factors I want to highlight right now.
For one, armed forces.
Major in the National Guard, thank you.
I would like my Commander-in-Chief to have that experience, okay?
So there are a few people that I truly respect that have served this country, and I'm a moderate lefty.
The other thing is, though, it's this story right here.
Tulsi Gabbard and there's another guy, I think it's Max Rose, now he's been criticized, but anybody who's not willing to play this game, and there's a decent amount of Democrats who aren't playing, so that's great.
Trump should not be impeached.
Let me say it again.
Trump should not be impeached.
Whether or not anything comes of it, there's Orange Man bad is not enough to impeach the president.
Now they're going to claim he abused the office.
No, no, no.
There's so much, like, it's not just about that.
For one, you can't win.
He won't be convicted.
There's no compelling evidence.
You haven't shut up about this.
But Tulsi Gabbard.
The transcript.
No compelling case for this.
So even she, as a Democrat member of Congress, is saying, you know, look at the transcript, there's nothing here.
Well, here are the Democrats not in favor of impeachment.
These people have my respect.
You've got Anthony Brindisi, you've got Joe Cunningham, Tulsi Gabbard, Jared Golden, Kendra Horn, Ron Kind, Conor Lamb, Ben McAdams, Colin Peterson, Max Rose.
I'm sorry, New Mexico rep, I can't pronounce your name.
I'm trying to be mean.
Listen.
Pelosi resisted.
And I'll respect that, too.
You cannot like the president.
You can disagree with his attitude.
You can disagree with his policies.
But you do not win this way.
You are not winning hearts and minds.
You know what I'm going to do?
I made my point on this.
I'm going to go into the Greta Thunberg thing real quick.
The next stories I have coming up have nothing to do with this, but listen.
Greta, this environmentalist, goes up on stage and gets all angry, and it's this, boy, do I have a negative reaction to what she's doing.
It greatly offends me.
How dare you?
Stop.
Stop.
What the Democrats are doing, what the left is doing with cancel culture, with Greta, with impeachment, they are grabbing people who disagree with them and shaking as hard as they can and screaming as loud as they can, and that convinces no one It convinces no one.
It makes the problem worse.
So there you go, Schiff.
I don't know what you think you're doing, this joke.
It's not a joke.
It's something that people take seriously.
But he apparently doesn't.
So let me just end by saying...
If he wants to go up at a congressional hearing and parody the president, okay, then he clearly doesn't think it's a serious matter.
If he doesn't, why should I?
If he thinks it's an opportunity to get a laugh out of the crowd, why should I bother sitting down and listening to what these people have to say?
Because they have nothing to say.
That's it.
They have nothing to say.
So you know what?
I don't want to hear it.
Look, the viral clip of what he was reading, what MSNBC said, you have to realize there are a lot of people who don't know you're trying to make a joke.
How many people now are like, wow, I heard, did you hear what he said?
And that clip's gonna go viral.
The lie travels halfway around the world before the truth straps on his boots.
So anyway, look, I'm glad there's people like Tulsi pushing back on the insanity, and I'm disgusted by people like Schiff.
I hate almost every politician anyway, so.
You know.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
I got a couple stories that I want to follow up with, you know,
I wanted to read that story, the last segment I did was about Adam Schiff and that parody thing because it was just so shockingly insane that Schiff thought it was appropriate to joke at a congressional hearing.
Sure, whatever.
But I want to follow up on the video I did earlier and talk a bit about the Ukrainian stuff.
We have an interesting story here from the Washington Post.
It says, effort to shield Trump's call with Ukrainian leader was part of a broader secrecy effort.
See, here's the thing.
Somebody's leaking information from inside the White House.
It's quite unprecedented.
So you have this whistleblower complaint that claims Trump is trying to hide communications with foreign leaders on this, like, confidential server, which is not normal, except we have an easy explanation here from the Washington Post.
Somebody's leaking from Trump's administration.
So they're trying to lock down these calls to protect them, otherwise they'll go to the public, and they're not supposed to.
It's kind of funny, actually.
I always lean much, much more towards transparency.
Very much so.
I love the transparency.
I absolutely loved it when Trump was giving like a statement in, you know, where was he?
Outside the White House.
And he said something like, Saudi Arabia has given us a ton of money.
It's great.
Lockheed Martin, his company.
It was something like that.
And the collective, the anti-war left collectively just dropped their jaw like, Trump just admitted that we go to war for money.
Yup.
Recently it was announced, I can't remember who said this, but there was like a statement that said, um, we were giving aid to Saudi Arabia because they pay cash.
And I'm just like, I love it.
I love it.
Keep doing it.
That's what we want to hear.
I love it.
I love the transparency.
But, but I will acknowledge it is in the president's interest to not have national security, like, you know, uh, uh, international relations and diplomacy leaked to the public every time.
Check this out.
WAPO reports, The White House has taken extraordinary steps over the past two years to block details of President Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders from becoming public, following embarrassing disclosures early in his administration that enraged the president and created a sense of paranoia among his top aides.
How can you work for the people of this country if you are in a constant state of paranoia that someone's going to leak your conversation?
It's not a fun thing.
The number of aides allowed to listen on secure drop lines was slashed.
The list of government officials who could review a memo of the call's contents was culled.
Fewer copies of transcripts went to agencies, and they were stamped with I's only do not copy.
And some officials who deliver call memos had to sign for the records to create a custody record if they were to leak, according to people familiar with the moves who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe them.
That is quite possibly one of the greatest paragraphs in the history of journalism.
Did you catch it?
Did you catch that?
I'm gonna, I'm gonna build the suspense for a little bit.
Fewer copies of transcripts went to agencies and were stamped with eyes only do not copy.
Officials who deliver call memos had to sign for the records to create a custody record if they were to leak.
And here it is, according to people familiar with the moves who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In a story about how information is being leaked, in a paragraph explaining the efforts taken to prevent the leaks, they end by saying the information itself was leaked to them.
Bravo.
Listen man, Trump, you got a leak problem.
You got a bad leak problem.
And it is, there is nothing funnier than this.
This one paragraph, I love it.
I can't, look, I can't say I'm too angry that, you know, all these leaks are coming out.
I loved it when Cablegate dropped.
I love it when these leads come out, for the most part.
So long as they're done appropriately, securely, they redact, they protect, you know, identities.
But when we learn about government wrongdoing, I'm happy to hear it.
Now, I gotta admit, a lot of the stuff we're learning about Trump is drama, celebrity gossip style, bad character stuff.
They come out and they say, Trump was quoted as saying, oh no, oh my presidency is over.
It's like, dude, that's not, what are you doing, man?
Here's the point.
Trump needs to get on top of these leaks.
A lot of these leaks are apparently just like, I don't know, workplace policy disagreements or just making fun of Trump's character about stupid things he says.
That's not what I care about.
I like leaks when it's like, the government is illegally spying on you in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
And then you get Trump to appoint someone like Kavanaugh, who's got a rather archaic view of metadata.
I don't want to rehash Kavanaugh's opinions on the 4th, but the general gist of it—in my understanding, I could be wrong—is that Kavanaugh's view is that metadata isn't protected to some extent.
It's been a while since I've gone through this story, but there's the point, right?
If you're gonna leak something, why don't you leak something that matters?
Instead, all they're trying to do is embarrass Trump.
And that's why they want his tax returns.
Does anyone really believe Trump has done something wrong on his taxes?
No, of course not.
They just want to get anything they can to smear Trump to make him look bad.
Well, you're playing a silly game.
Because whether or not Trump... Look, Trump already looks bad.
Even Trump supporters agree that Trump can have bad character moments, to say the least.
But they're voting for him because of policy reasons.
Listen.
I was just talking to some individuals I know who are Hispanic, and they said they're voting for Trump.
And I was surprised.
These are, like, Spanish-speaking religious folk.
And I was surprised.
I was like, look, I'm not even gonna vote for the guy.
Like, you don't gotta pretend like you're gonna vote for him just because, you know, you can't send the Democrats.
And they're like, oh, no, no, no, no, no.
And it's the same thing I hear over and over again.
Yeah, oh yeah, Trump, oof, what a bad character.
But the economy is doing really great.
And I'm like, yeah, that's a good point.
The economy is doing great, people are happy about it.
So they're gonna, they don't care.
You can leak whatever you want, they don't care.
This call about Trump and Ukraine, it's not even anything definitive.
It's like, oh, Trump asked them to investigate corruption, and?
So now we have the story, they say, At one point in 2018, Defense Department officials were asked to send back transcripts of calls to the White House after Trump aides grew worried they could be disclosed according to former senior administration officials.
But the issue has come roaring back to life this week after a whistleblower—right, right, right, we get the whistleblower thing, right?
Basically, the whistleblower alleged at one point that Trump was trying to, like, hide this conversation.
Well, now we're learning from The Washington Post it's not unique to this conversation.
Trump is trying to protect information, period.
So this actually defangs the complaint even more.
They say, while Trump approved the release of the rough transcript this week to combat the whistleblower's allegations, he was once again charged that people with access to his calls are conspiring against him.
Quote.
Oh, this is also great.
I just absolutely love this.
Washington Post saying, he charged that people with access were conspiring against him, and then they go on to say, Quote, I want to know who's the person.
Who's the person who gave the whistleblower the information, because that's close to a spy.
Trump told attendees of a private event!
Isn't it fantastic how just, you know, Trump, your administration is like a sieve, okay?
You know, somebody, they, they, they, Americans voted in the spaghetti and now it's all just leaking out, okay?
You gotta, you gotta, you gotta get, you gotta plug these leaks, man, but it seems like every time somebody is busted for giving out information, it gets worse.
I think it may be worse than just leakers.
I don't think it's an individual who's, you know, torn their mustache trying to, like, you know, put on a trench coat and go hide in a parking alley and, like, kick over a manila folder to a journalist.
I think it's gossip.
I think what we're looking at is gossip.
It's people who work in the administration, almost all of them, and they're going to lean over and they're going to say something stupid and it's going to go out.
I've heard some stories from some Trump sources.
I'm sorry, I've been privy to hearsay from people who have Show me Trump people blurting things out.
I think the problem with Trump's administration may stem not so much from nefarious actors, but from the celebrity-style TMZ administration.
I'm not saying it's Trump's fault.
I'm not saying it's his staff's fault.
I'm saying it's a culture being built around the media.
And what ends up happening, in my opinion, is look at the media putting out an absurd claim, and then someone from the Trump administration is like, no, no, no, that's not true, it's X.
Like, what are you supposed to do when—hold on, let me start right there.
There are people leaking, obviously.
Like, people are talking to journalists.
I'm just saying, I think a lot of the stuff we hear is people just blurting things out and then being like, just don't tell anybody it came from me.
So Trump's got to get a handle on this.
You know what, man?
It's kind of an interesting position for me because, as I mentioned earlier, I've always been very big on transparency, but this is like, It's going in the wrong direction, okay?
I don't care about Trump's private phone calls that embarrass him.
I care about whether or not, you know, the NSA and the CIA and the surveillance apparatus are breaking the law.
I care about if Trump is, like, legitimately violating his oath of office, not invest—ask, like, the Ukraine stuff.
It's—you know what?
Because I cue the left saying, but Tim, we have evidence now of abusive power from Trump thanks to a whistleblower.
No, we don't.
No, we don't.
We absolutely do not.
We have Trump having a light conversation.
The transcripts don't prove anything.
The transcripts aren't perfect.
They're not recordings of transcripts.
There may be parts of the conversation that were omitted because they didn't really matter.
Some people are saying, but it's a half an hour phone call, where's the rest of it?
You don't...
It's just, there's nothing here.
Get me the evidence, we'll talk about it.
No.
This is not a circumstance where something was leaked that mattered.
It was a phone call that Trump had congratulating the president of Ukraine, and then Ukraine and them having a conversation about common interest.
And Trump mentioned Biden, lightly, in a sentence, and that was it.
So you know what?
I do try to keep these short.
I really wanted to highlight this just for the point that it's quite hilarious that in this story about leakers, they actually have a paragraph that's like, here's what they have to do in the event of a leak, said people who leaked us the information.
I love it.
Here's where I want to end.
These people who spoke to the Washington Post were explicitly told what to do to protect information and turned around and leaked the information on what to do with leaks.
It doesn't get funnier than that.
So, you know, I understand the frustration Trump must be dealing with, man.
This is the wrong kind of transparency.
I don't care.
Like, I don't care about this story.
It's so ridiculous, isn't it?
Anyway, I'll tell you what.
I got one more segment coming up.
It's gonna be a lot more fun.
It's gonna be about Spider-Man.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
Possibly the most important story you will hear the past month.
Forget Ukraine, forget Trump, forget the Democrats, impeachment, 2020, none of that matters.
Spider-Man is staying in the MCU.
We did it, everybody.
We did.
Actually, we did nothing.
For those that aren't familiar, I am joking by the way, but I do think this is cool.
I do want to talk about, you know, Spider-Man.
There was a disagreement between Sony and Disney.
Sony owns Spider-Man, owns the rights to it.
They've owned it for a long time.
They have this thing where they have to make a Spider-Man movie every so often, otherwise they lose the rights.
So, there was this deal done a while ago that brought Spider-Man into Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe in exchange for, like, certain, you know, deals.
Like, I think it was that Disney got a percentage of the first, you know, initial run the weekend or whatever, and then Sony took the rest.
But they disagreed later.
The movie's been wildly successful.
But more importantly, the reason why I think talk started breaking down between Disney and Sony is that Sony pulled this off into the Spider-Verse.
Both critics and fans loved this movie.
And this is really important, okay?
Rotten Tomatoes is typically divided between the political and the cultural.
Not always, but a lot.
I tell you this, in the utmost sincerity.
End of the Spider-Verse is diverse.
It hits the head on the nail with the hammer in terms of doing social justice right And the fans loved the story.
I loved the movie.
Here's the thing about End of the Spider-Verse.
You've got Miles Morales, not white.
You have Spider-Gwen, female.
And you have Peter Parker, who's alternate Peter Parker.
But you also have the heroic... I don't want to spoil the movie.
I mean, I guess you've probably seen it by now.
But there's the famous heroic Peter Parker.
And then you have this older, washed-up Peter Parker, who then is teaching this young kid how to, you know, be Spider-Man.
And then you have Spider-Gwen.
This was social justice all the way, and everybody loved it.
That's the way it's supposed to be.
Check it out.
In this story of Into the Spider-Verse, you've got an old, you know, gut Spider-Man who's
like sitting in a crappy apartment eating pizza.
He got divorced.
His life sucks.
And he's the white dude.
And he teaches a young Afro-Cuban kid to be Spider-Man, and he goes on to become his own
kind of version of Spider-Man.
That's totally diversity.
But they don't smack you in the face with it.
They don't insult you.
They don't beat you down and tell you that you're wrong.
It's just a character.
Miles Morales is not a character because of his race, and neither is Peter Parker.
They're just people.
That's what I love.
But let's get back to the news about Spider-Man and the MCU, and we'll come back to this.
Here's the big news.
Sony Pictures and Disney on Friday announced Spider-Man character would be staying within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, ending a disagreement between the two companies over profit sharing.
The big update.
Disney will also co-finance the movie, and will share roughly 25% of the profits from the film.
That is a big give to Disney, okay?
But hey man, a billion dollars!
Spider-Man is bringing in tons of money, Tom Holland is amazing.
But let's talk about this.
The reason why this is so important, and I gotta be honest, I knew this was gonna happen.
I knew they were gonna come to a deal.
You cannot do Tom Holland's Spider-Man without the MCU.
I mean, you can, but it really, really wouldn't make sense.
In Far From Home, Happy Hogan is there.
Spider-Man uses MCU assets.
How would it make sense if they did a new Spider-Man movie but couldn't reference any of the unique plot points and characters from the MCU?
They'd have to.
In which case... I don't know how you're gonna... Listen!
At the end of Far From Home, you've got Leadens.
You've got J. Jonah Jameson.
What would they do in a Sony universe not being able to use the MCU assets?
Now here's the thing.
In the end, I think, with the Spider-Man movies, they're very Spider-Man, okay?
Sony owns the right to Spider-Man.
They're doing the Spider-Man universe, their own version.
And their first foray into that, I think this is the first, is Venom.
They could've done a lot better job, but it was okay.
I mean, I wouldn't see it twice.
That's usually how I explain to people.
Like, I watched it in the theaters, I did not want to get up and leave, I ate my popcorn, and I smiled in my face.
And there were some things I really liked, and then afterwards I got up and I was like, yeah, okay.
I'm not gonna watch it again.
However, Woody Harrelson in Carnage, And a potential.
This is the big thing.
This is the big thing.
In this news, we're also learning it may be... Check this out.
Spider-Man happens to be the only hero with a superpower to cross cinematic universes, Feige said.
So as Sony continues to develop their own Spidey-verse, you never know what surprises the future might hold.
I actually think it would be really, really, really cool if they could get Venom and the rest of the Spider-Man characters into the MCU.
Now, here's the important thing.
It's a dangerous deal they did, allowing this crossover between Sony and Marvel.
It's not just Spider-Man that was in the MCU.
The other characters are also, if they do, so here's the thing, Spider-Man's in the MCU, the Spider-Verse characters aren't, but Mysterio is, which means there are now more elements in the MCU, not just Spider-Man.
The other important thing is, Disney did something really interesting.
They tied in the character of Mysterio and his cohorts to Stark Industries in the MCU, which means they have actually planted these Spider-Man universe characters into the history of the MCU.
What happens if this deal falls through?
Do you just never mention any of these characters ever again?
Yes, it's possible.
But I think it's destructive.
I think it's dangerous.
That's why I think it's a really, really risky move they made.
What would happen If Spider-Man was pulled out of the MCU, all of a sudden you have this cliffhanger, you have all these stories, you have these tie-ins.
Tony Stark giving up his tech to Spider-Man.
What would they do?
What would they do in the next movie?
Can they name Spider-Man?
Not if they lose the rights, that'd be really weird.
Imagine they do, imagine Spider-Man leaves the MCU.
They do another movie, and now that Spider-Man's gone, they have to explain Stark tech.
Uh, then you get, I don't know, happy going, there was a guy, I can't remember his name, but we gave him access.
It was what Tony wanted.
And then we took it back.
How would you explain it?
Would they have to say Spider-Man?
Would there be a residual right?
I don't know how you navigate that.
Maybe the lawyers do.
So, uh, let's, I don't think we need to, you know what?
I don't think I need to read all of the... Let me read the quotes.
Let me read the quotes.
They say that the next movie from Tom Holland is going to debut in July 16th, 2021.
That kind of sucks.
It's going to take so long to get the movies.
I thought the Spider-Man movies are fantastic.
As part of the arrangement, Spider-Man will also appear in a future Marvel Studios film.
Now that could... What they're saying, that could be an Avengers thing.
Here's something interesting.
There's a rumor circulating that Marvel wants to use Spider-Man to prop up Captain Marvel.
Now, Captain Marvel is a terrible character.
I'm sorry.
No personality, just rigid and bad.
Look, you know what, man?
You can play the social justice stuff all you want and say, but it's, you know, Tim is... Okay, okay, let me start over.
I made several videos about Captain Marvel.
I explained I thought Brie Larson did a great job in a bunch of movies.
I'm a fan of some of the movies she's been in.
I love Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and she was great.
I'm pretty sure she was Envy Adams.
I got no personal beef.
I think she's unlikable.
I think the movie was bad.
It doesn't mean I care about feminism.
It's so ridiculous.
It's like, I criticize Star Wars The Last Jedi, and people try and claim I'm doing it because it's an anti-feminist thing.
I'm like, I don't even think The Last Jedi was overtly feminist.
I know they had Admiral Gender Studies, that's what people are calling her with the purple hair.
I don't care.
I look at Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse, and I'm like, this is how you do it, man.
Miles Morales is cool, he's relatable, and he's just a kid.
You know, like, they don't beat you over that over and over again, talking about racial justice issues.
This is what these people don't understand.
I tell you what, man.
I have been at these meetings.
I have been to these events, where they bring people in and try and discuss, how do we, like, how do we end the bigotry and the racism?
I've been a part of this, working in media.
It was like four or five years ago.
Six years ago, maybe.
I was flown to California to have a private meeting with a big tech company, and they brought in all these different creators and personalities and journalists, and they asked, what can we do?
Stop making content where you're like, look at this person of color, look at this woman, look at this mixed race individual.
Stop.
Just cast people.
Just do your thing.
Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse.
A lot of people argue that Miles Morales was made to be non-white on purpose for diversity reasons in the past.
I don't care.
In the movie, he doesn't.
It's not about that.
It's a family.
They live.
His dad's a cop.
It's relatable.
It's heartwarming.
I don't want to spoil some stuff.
There's some sad stuff about his family.
And you have this story that still is able to pander to those critics by having the white man hand down the mantle to the young child of color, but they do it in a way that's not bashing you over the head and telling you you're bad for being a white dude.
They're not insulting white people.
They're not insulting men.
You know, we see these movies, like Ghostbusters, where they're like, we're going to empower women at the expense of men.
That's not how you do it.
Like, Wonder Woman.
Nail on the head.
So anyway, I'm gonna ramble about comic book stuff if I keep going on, but suffice it to say, you make a movie like Wonder Woman, where you make Wonder Woman a good character, Diana, Princess Diana, you make her a good character with her own motivations, her own beliefs, and her ideology, And then you contrast her with someone like Chris Pine's character, who's a realist.
Wonder Woman was so amazing.
I really do love that movie.
Chris Pine's a realist.
Princess Diana, Gal Gadot, was an idealist.
She thought she could save the world with a hug and a smile by defeating this one guy.
And Chris Pine was like, no, man.
That's not how it is.
And I'm like, excellent, excellent, excellent characters.
