Democrats Are PANICKING Over Bad 2020 Candidates, Ask "Is There Anybody Else?"
Democrats Are PANICKING Over Bad 2020 Candidates, Ask "Is There Anybody Else?" The Democratic party is fractured between moderate and far left, Trump has raised a record amount of money, and Moody's analytics shows Trump takes 2020 victory in all three projections.So what can they do? At a recent event Democrats desperately tried to come up with a solution. Michelle Obama? Hillary Clinton? Eric Holder?The Democratic establishment knows that it doesn't have any strong contenders to defeat Donald Trump and the panic was on display as reported by the New York Times.Id the far left democrats won't vote for a moderate and a moderate won't vote for a socialist what can they do? It's easyThree simple words"Orange Man bad"Democrats are planning to use negative partisanship to drive voter turnout in 2020. This means that instead of focusing on core issues and policy they will focus on why Trump is bad. The goal is to inspire voters based on hating Trump above anything else.In truth it may work. Moody's says that with a historical voter turnout Democrats win 2020 by 9 electoral votes. But that is the exception not the rule and right now its a desperate long shot.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Democratic establishment is in full-on panic mode.
Recently, at a fundraiser, the question was asked, is there anybody else?
Nobody knows who can really beat Donald Trump, at least on the Democrat side.
I think in reality, most of us realize none of them can.
In recent analytics released by Moody's, we see that Trump easily wins in all three scenarios.
The only way Democrats can win is with a historic voter turnout.
And they'll only win by nine electoral votes.
The average shows Trump easily winning.
Now, the big problem emerges when they look at who's the front runner.
And that's Joe Biden, for the most part.
Elizabeth Warren has been has been gaining steam.
But Biden has barely raised any money.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump has set a record for the most money raised at this point for any campaign in history.
And I guess we're at a point now where there's not even a reason to talk about it.
Yeah, Trump's gonna win.
But they do have an ace in the hole.
Negative partisanship.
It's something we've been hearing a little bit about lately.
This is the idea that you win an election by making one side hate the other as much as possible.
So the Democrats, in my opinion, are pushing impeachment because they want everyone to vote based on hating Republicans and hating Trump.
The reason is?
The economy's doing great.
Healthcare is a back and forth.
Democrats have offered undocumented immigrants government healthcare.
People don't like that.
Trump hasn't necessarily brought anything to the table.
But so it's kind of a moot point.
In the end, the economy is doing well.
And if you got more money, you can pay for more things.
So according to Moody's, Trump takes this one.
The ace in the hole.
Make everyone hate Trump, and those who hate will be driven by hate to vote.
Now, I know hate's kind of a buzzword, but that's legitimately the case.
That's negative partisanship.
I think this is very dangerous, because we know where it leads when you keep telling someone it's an other, it's the other, in quotes, right?
This idea that this person over there is an evil monster, they're bad, and you must stop them.
It results in people hating each other in this country, and it's tearing us apart.
But I gotta admit, it might actually work out for them.
So let's do this.
Let's start with a story from the New York Times.
Anxious Democratic establishment asks, is there anybody else?
Party leaders who are fatalistic about Democrats' chances in 2020 are musing about possible late entrance to the race.
Sherrod Brown, Michelle Obama.
But I'm going to add one point.
It's not just that the establishment has no strong candidates.
It's that what's left of the establishment is falling into conspiracy theory nonsense.
They're in shambles.
Even CNN, calling Hillary Clinton's comments about Tulsi Gabbard a conspiracy theory.
The establishment is losing its power.
Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, other populists on the left are starting to gain traction.
Let's read.
But before we do, 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 address.
But the best thing you can do?
Share this video.
I really do mean that.
I am competing against major marketing forces in mainstream media.
And if you think I'm doing a better job than them, the best thing you can do is just share this wherever you can so that I can compete with their millions and millions of dollars.
The New York Times reports, When half a dozen Democratic donors gathered at the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan last week, the dinner began with a discussion of which presidential candidates the contributors liked.
But as conversations among influential Democrats often go these days, the meeting quickly evolved into a discussion of who was not in the race, but who could be lured in.
Would Hillary Clinton get in?
That would be a bad idea, in my opinion.
The contributors wondered.
And how about Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor?
Or one person even mused whether Michelle Obama would consider a late entry.
According to two people who attended the event, which was hosted by the progressive group American Bridge, It's that time of the election season for Democrats, quote,
since the last debate, just anecdotally, I've had five or six people ask me, is
there any anybody else?
Said Lee Dougherty, Dougherty, a longtime Democrat who has run two of the party's recent conventions.
With doubts rising about former Vice President Joe Biden's ability to finance a multi-state
primary campaign, persistent questions about Senator Elizabeth Warren's viability in the
general election, and skepticism that Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, can broaden his
appeal beyond white voters, Democratic leaders are engaging in a familiar right, fretting about who
is in the race and longing for a white knight to enter the contest at the last minute.
And you know what the most shocking revelation of the past few weeks has been?
Steve Bannon gave an interview where he said, you will see Michelle Obama, Hillary, or Bloomberg enter the race.
They're desperate.
Their candidates are weak.
They're not raising enough money.
They can't compete with Trump.
And not only that, none of them will unite the party.
Bernie Sanders voters are not going moderate.
Okay?
And moderate voters won't go too far left, especially for a socialist.
There will be some overlap, but if Democrats really want to win, they are going to need a white knight to storm the gates.
I don't see that as being likely, but let's read on.
It is a regular, if not quite, quadrennial tradition for a party that can be fatalistic about its prospects and recalls similar Maalox moments Democrats endured in 1992, 2004, and in the last primary, when it was Mr. Biden who nearly entered the race in October.
But the mood of alarm is even more intense because of the party's hunger to defeat President Trump, and with just over three months to go before voting starts in Iowa, their impatience with finding Mr. or Mrs. Right among the current crop of candidates There's more anxiety than ever, said Connie Schultz, a journalist who is married to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, another Democrat who some in the party would like to see join the race.
We're both getting the calls.
I've been surprised by some who've called me.
Quote, I can see it.
I can feel it.
I can hear it.
Mitch Landrieu, the former New Orleans mayor, said of the unease within the party.
He said he thinks Mr. Biden is the best is best positioned to defeat Mr. Trump, but called the former vice president's fundraising a real concern.
Biden's lackluster debate performance and alarmingly low cash flow.
He has less than nine million dollars on hand.
Not even half of some of his rivals has fueled the Democratic disquiet.
But if the causes of the concern are plain to see, what exactly can be done about it is less clear.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
If there's anybody that I find myself shocked to be agreeing with in this moment, it is none other than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
While our politics may differ, I believe our disdain for the Democratic establishment is fairly united.
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to the story, If two years and 20 plus candidates aren't enough for ya, I don't know what to tell you.
And I completely agree with the sentiment, and this is coming just after AOC endorsed Bernie Sanders.
I think she sees what most of us are seeing.
The Democrats just can't pull it off.
Look, I know she's gonna go around saying Bernie Sanders will win, but I think this is a really honest take on these things.
I don't know what to tell you, Democrats.
If you can't figure it out now, I just don't see you winning.
Let's read a little bit more from the New York Times about what they think can be done, but then I want to get into the crux, the core of this video.
I believe the Democratic establishment is burning down.
I think they're nearing their end.
With the rise of Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders' popularity, even Tulsi Gabbard now being propped up in the news because of Hillary Clinton, we can see this whole mess is the progressives overtaking the establishment.
And I love that for a lot of reasons, though I don't agree with many of the issues from many of the progressives.
I'm more concerned about the more deceitful nature of politics, right?
But I think what we're seeing with Hillary Clinton and Tulsi Gabbard is a sign the establishment has lost control.
I mean, with CNN's, Aaron Burnett calls Hillary Clinton, you know, someone pushing a conspiracy theory.
You can see they've stopped holding back for Hillary.
And now they're pushing her out.
She's done.
The establishment has lost.
And it's becoming clear to the remnants of the establishment which side of the Civil War they must choose if they want to be winners.
And guess which side that is?
It's Bernie Sanders, but interestingly enough, it's also kind of Tulsi Gabbard.
CNN defending Tulsi.
Many from the left and the right defending Tulsi.
Donald Trump defending Tulsi.
Guess what?
If you were on Hillary's side, you are the fringe today.
You have lost your power in the Democratic establishment.
That should be shocking to many people.
Let's read more.
The New York Times says, Even some of those being wooed acknowledge that it can be hard to discern between people just being nice and those who genuinely want them in the race.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both told people privately in recent weeks that if they thought they could win, they would consider entering the primary.
But that they were skeptical there would be an opening, according to Democrats who have spoken with them.
Let me stress, the most important takeaway so far is that Mrs. Clinton has expressed she would enter if she sees the opportunity and thinks she will win.
Take that, because these candidates they have are not strong enough.
Now, let's be real.
After everything I just said about Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton, yeah, she's not gonna win either.
She's lost it.
And this is why Trump supporters have been laughing and cheering over the prospect of Hillary entering the race.
I mean, look, if Trump beat her the first time, he's definitely gonna beat her the second time when he is sitting on a record economy with record fundraising levels.
Hillary Clinton is not your bet.
You know who is?
Michelle Obama.
I think Michelle Obama is the best bet to actually go up against Trump because she's more of a moderate.
Obama is widely popular.
And let's be real, Michelle Obama's got charisma.
Hillary Clinton?
Sorry, no dice.
But I also think it's unrealistic to assume Michelle would actually enter the race.
They say.
Former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who associates say has wondered aloud about whether he should have run and has found it hard to watch Mr. Biden's missteps, has also been urged to get in.
But he still thinks the former vice president, who was once his longtime Senate colleague, is the party's best nominee.
Well, I'm sorry, man.
Money talks, BS walks, OK?
Joe Biden has none.
OK, look, $9 million, that's a lot of money, OK?
He's got a lot of money.
But he needs to run a multi-state primary.
He's not going to pull it off, OK?
Look, the people giving Donald Trump money are saying more than a vote ever will, in a lot of ways.
I understand they're different and votes are very important.
But somebody who's not only willing to pull the lever for Trump, but also hand out cold, hard cash, that says a lot.
And guess what?
They're not willing to give cash to Joe Biden.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, I believe, has raised the most, around $30 million.
And I do believe many moderates would get behind Bernie Sanders.
I think it's fair to say, I think at this point what we're seeing is that Bernie has the best chance.
But let's do a reality check.
The establishment still has some power.
A lot of it, okay?
The donor class.
They're still there.
They haven't been wiped out completely, but we can see them dwindling.
They want Elizabeth Warren because she is on their side.
She endorsed Hillary Clinton.
They don't like Tulsi Gabbard because she endorsed Bernie.
And Bernie is still an independent.
So in the end, they're going to want Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden.
Joe Biden can't fundraise.
You'll see Elizabeth Warren.
That's what I'd be willing to bet.
They say.
After another Obama administration official who weighed a campaign at the start of the year, former Attorney General Eric Holder.
Okay, if you're reaching to the bottom of the barrel to pull up Holder, you must truly be desperate to call to him for help.
I think this is what we're seeing.
They've got nothing left.
They're talking about all of these candidates who they hope might reinvigorate that establishment.
But I'll tell you what.
It's not just that Trump is sitting on a record economy.
It's not just that Trump has fundraised more for his re-election campaign than all other presidential campaigns in history.
It's not just that Moody's Analytics is saying Trump is going to win in all three forecast models.
It's that the Democrats are in a state of civil war between the moderates and the progressives.
Without this unity, they will not succeed.
Andrew Yang supporters, many of them, will not vote Democrat.
Tulsi Gabbers, many of them, will not vote Democrat.
I mean, if they don't win the primary.
If Yang wins the primary, the Yang gang will step up in full force.
If Tulsi wins the primary, her supporters will be there in full force.
If Bernie wins the primary, Yang voters probably won't vote for him.
Some Gabbard supporters would definitely vote for Bernie, but there's no unity.
On the Republican side, they're all gonna vote for Trump.
I think, looking at everything, the only thing they have, as I mentioned earlier, is the ace in the hole, is negative partisanship.
Get people to vote not based on Bernie, not based on any of the candidates, but based on hating Donald Trump.
Think about it.
If none of these candidates have any charisma, any strength, and there's no unity, the one thing they can unify someone around is not the Democratic Party, it's three simple words.
Orange man bad.
They want to ignite the voter base by going after Trump and accusing him of scandal after scandal.
However, they made one grave misstep.
Check this tweet out.
For those watching the Clinton-Gabbard spat for Russia, yes, they are doing it again, and yes, it's working again.
The Kremlin's strategy for the 2020 U.S.
election, secure the base, split the opposition.
I'm sorry.
The establishment has completely lost the plot.
You know, I feel bad for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer because they're still there, right?
They're still in Congress.
And they're desperately trying to use impeachment to win.
The other day I highlighted an internal poll, a memo, from Democrats.
Showing that they believe impeachment ignites their voter base more than anything else, and they actually gave out polls on how you can be strong on impeachment, and then at the bottom were these little tiny smaller font kitchen table issue remarks.
Here, say this about healthcare.
But we want you to say impeachment.
Because at the end of the day, we can have a debate about whether or not undocumented immigrants should get healthcare.
We can have a debate about private versus public healthcare.
But people are going to argue on the Democrat side.
And you need unity.
So ignore the Democrats and just focus on hating the President.
Well, here's what they're doing now, and this is what's thrown them off base.
The establishment is now repeatedly trying to push the narrative about the Russians.
Hillary Clinton did it.
Sorry, we're not buying it.
Trump supporters and Gabbard supporters coming together, and the president himself saying, basically, how dare you?
Tulsi Gabbard has served this country both in the National Guard and in Congress.
And the other day, Trump did an interview with Hannity where he said, I wish she said this sooner so people would realize she's crazy.
She's nuts.
Yes.
I'm sorry.
If you think Gabbard, Jill Stein, and Trump are Russian assets, you've lost it.
Now, here's their argument.
The argument is they're trying to prop up a leftist populist.
Here's what he's saying, right?
Divide and conquer.
Populists on the political right were the primary focus of Kremlin influence heading into 2016, with the political left getting the remainder.
This formula will likely reverse in 2020.
Now, I really, really hate the whole Russia stuff, but I bring this up to show you.
It's their Hail Mary.
The establishment Hail Mary.
Their last, last-ditch effort, with reckless abandon, to try and save whatever they have is to scream Russians About all of us.
You're a Trump supporter?
I disagree with you on some policy issues.
But they're smearing all of us together, and now they're actually uniting the populists on that front.
It is backfiring.
It was a grave, grave error.
And it shows you.
The panic in the Democratic establishment is not just because they have trash candidates.
It's because it's not just about their trash candidates.
We can also see it in the Russia collusion narrative.
I'm sorry.
You can try and push it all day and night.
But I tell you who is on the side of Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, and it is the most unlikely of allies.
My word, it's BuzzFeed.
That's right.
In 2018, BuzzFeed wrote this story.
Stop blaming Russian bots for everything.
I'm not convinced on this bot thing, said one of the men behind the Russian bot thing.
BuzzFeed, of all outlets, goes through the facts, saying it is dubious, and there's no proof.
Knock it off.
In 2018.
Today, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News tweeted it out, saying, hey, check this out.
And you know what?
I gotta hand it to BuzzFeed News.
They're right.
The Democrats are in full-on panic mode.
They're scared of Tulsi Gabbard, so they'll smear her in a desperate bid to try and protect what they have.
But all they have done is rallied populist left and populist right together.
And I gotta admit, there's even some establishment conservatives who are taking the opportunity to praise Tulsi Gabbard.
I think one thing that's kind of funny is that on the Donald subreddit, it's one of the largest, I believe the largest community of Trump supporters online, they had to post reminders.
Stop praising Tulsi Gabbard.
She's a progressive with far-left views because so many people were cheering her on when she called out Hillary Clinton.
But I will tell you this.
You want to talk about panic.
You want to talk about the fear the Democratic establishment faces.
They're trying everything they can.
The donor class, that's what they said.
Emma Vigeland said, the donor class is terrified of Bernie and Warren.
Not so much Warren.
Warren endorsed Hillary.
But I'll tell you this.
The populists, be it left or right, can see it.
The beast is afraid.
And at these big donor meetings, they're asking, who can we get?
Because you have no one.
Joe Biden is their last-ditch effort.
And he can't raise a dime.
And if he goes up against Trump, Trump's got, what, 30 times the money that Biden has?
It's over.
I'm sorry.
You can put out every op-ed you want, from Newsweek to the Daily Beast, the establishment Democrat rags.
I'm sorry.
They write, Tulsi Gabbard is being used by the Russians, and to a former US double agent, the evidence is clear.
Nice try!
But none of us are buying it.
And CNN didn't even get behind Hillary Clinton.
The establishment power is over.
The Democratic Party is shaking.
Bernie Sanders is an independent.
He is not the same.
Okay?
You don't have to like the guy and agree with his politics to recognize he's still an outsider.
I'm not as big a fan of him as I used to be because he's embraced a lot of the establishment talking points, and I think he did this to try and get in and win.
But I'll tell you this, man.
We can all see it, can't we?
I don't know what this means for our society.
I don't know what it means for 2020.
I do know... I would say, if I had to make a bet, it's gonna be on Trump landslide.
And I mean, don't take my word for it.
Moody's analytics, historically accurate.
One of the first things that ever got wrong was Trump in 2016, and now they're saying, hey, we won't make that mistake.
We're not gonna make that mistake again.
But try as she might, Hillary Clinton now finds her being, you know, slammed by everybody for her conspiracy nonsense.
We now see all of these Democrats shaking in their boots at their fundraisers at the, what is it, the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan.
Oh heavens!
With their little wine glasses atop their ivory tower, shaking, scared that they're losing their power, that the populists are taking over.
Now I will leave you with one thought.
This is not necessarily good news for everybody.
There are many people with crazy ideas on the populist left.
And if they get in, it may result in a large conflict between the left and the right, because they're still very much opposed to each other.
I mean, like I said, the Donald had to highlight.
Tulsi Gabbard is decently far left on a lot of political issues.
And that presents, you know, you can't, they don't want the Trump supporters getting behind that.
In the end, I will say this, though.
I believe we would be much, much better off with a world based on, you know, a Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump style of politics, where Trump has been facing the brunt of this extreme smear campaign, Russia, and then so has Tulsi, and that's kind of united these two different sides together.
Admittedly, Trump's base is several ores of magnitude larger than Tulsi's.
But looking at how Tulsi treats politics, willing to go on Fox News, willing to go on Rogan, reach out to conservatives and moderates and try and bring people together, I think you can see that is a much healthier form of politics for our country.
I hope that in all of this chaos, people look to, you know, a Tulsi Gabbard type individual, someone who's willing to bridge the divide as something we need in this country.
I don't think she'll win.
I wouldn't be surprised, however, if Trump offered her a job.
And that would be really, really interesting, because you will find the anti-war leftists might actually vote for a Trump campaign if Tulsi Gabbard was Secretary of State or an advisor in some capacity, and Trump was taking her advice on pulling out of Middle Eastern wars.
I don't see that as likely.
But I have talked to some people who are very, very much anti-war individuals who entertained the possibility.
But in the end, don't...
Look, you gotta recognize that a lot of people don't like Donald Trump for a lot of reasons, okay?
And, you know, we'll see what happens.
But I have seen some interesting chatter about if Donald Trump were to hire on Yang as a domestic economic advisor and Tulsi as a foreign affairs advisor, how he would probably rally the biggest populist base in this country and win in a landslide.
Would Trump actually want to do that?
I don't know.
But conservatives have said, there was an article I can't remember, is it the American Conservative, I can't remember which outlet, where they said fire John Bolton and hire Tulsi Gabbard.
Look, if Trump hired Tulsi Gabbard, it wouldn't be in a capacity on domestic policy.
It would be specifically foreign policy.
And that's what she would advise on.
So you don't have to worry about her stances on healthcare or minimum wage or anything like that.
It would just be that most people agree.
Why are we spending all this money overseas?
You know, Trump recently came out.
I'll end with one more thing.
And he was criticized about Saudi Arabia and Syria.
There's going to be some troops left in Syria.
He said he's trying to end the wars, but he may have to start some, you know, because of Iran and all that stuff.
I respect him addressing this.
I respect him more for canceling the strike on Iran.
And I would be very, very, very concerned if he would entertain the possibility of more war.
But I can respect that he addressed it, although I still think it's wrong.
All right.
At least he'll go that far.
You know, some people still try to claim I have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I really don't.
Sorry, guys.
I have a normal principled opposition to some of his policies and his plans.
And that's about it.
I'm not a crazy person.
You know, when it comes to voting, I know where I'm going to be.
But I will end this now.
The Democrats know it's over.
The establishment, okay?
The new class of far-left Democrats, progressives, AOC, Bernie Sanders.
They're not the Democrats.
They're not.
They're a different party.
And this is the Civil War.
And guess who lost?
Hillary Clinton's party, and they know it.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
The Daily Mail exclusive story, quote, she's not fooling anyone, asserting a statement of fact.
Ilhan Omar lives a double life of secret hookups and romantic vacays to Jamaica with her married aide as they live together on and off and even talk of marriage.
How can they make such bold claims?
I mean, it's a statement of fact.
She's doing it, they say.
Well, Daily Mail has photos that they believe show they're dating.
They also have inside sources.
That's at least if you want to trust the Daily Mail.
But I assure you...
Because Ilhan Omar is such a prominent figure on the left, her allies in media are going to come from me and literally anybody else who talks about this.
I kid you not.
Media Matters has smeared me because I read a Star Tribune article that said she may have married her brother.
I didn't make it up.
The exact quote, to be specific, is that they said there's lingering questions of whether or not a man she married, dash, possibly her brother, you know, blah blah blah.
And so I said this, I read through it, and I presented a critical view.
You get smeared, okay?
You get smeared, because they have to defend her.
Where there's smoke, there's usually fire, as the saying goes.
Not always true, okay?
But here's the thing.
Ilhan Omar has been investigated over and over again.
She has been found to have committed some campaign finance violations.
She's been accused of another violation.
And that she may have been paying this man, Tim Minette, bulk payments, not itemized, which may be a violation, to go on secret romps because they were seeing each other while both were married.
Tim Minette is, I believe, a political consultant.
He's going through divorce.
Ilhan Omar's going through divorce.
They're seen together.
She's paying him.
People ask the question, is this a campaign finance violation?
Because she didn't itemize it, and it's bringing this guy with her on these trips.
Here's the thing.
It's hard to substantiate those claims.
She may have violated, you know, law because she didn't itemize the expense she gave to him.
Fine.
It's gonna be a slap on the wrist.
Everybody needs to calm down.
These things are relatively common.
Common mistakes.
You failed to itemize.
Who cares?
Here's the thing, though.
If she lied about it, and it turns out she is actually in a relationship with this guy, she's lied to the press repeatedly, I mean, that's where we're at right now.
So let me just stop right here and say this.
If what Daily Mail's reporting is true, she has lied, and she may be on the hook for trying to obfuscate illegal payments.
And that's when things start getting serious.
Now look, man, again, The biggest problem with media today is that they have no curiosity.
Everything's a conspiracy theory.
Don't investigate anything.
Make things up.
You got Hillary Clinton making things up about Tulsi Gabbard.
And anybody who dares talk about what Ilhan Omar may or may not be doing, they'll say, conspiracy theorist, even when the left reports it.
We have a sickness in our media.
There are too many political activists who are tribalists, okay?
This is the problem.
Let's read the story from Daily Mail to try and figure out what Ilhan Omar is actually doing.
They say, Ilhan Omar's brazen double life involving secret hookups, romantic vacations, and talk of marriage to her DC strategist lover is today laid bare after an exclusive Daily Mail investigation.
The leftist Congresswoman 37 spent months denying she had split from husband Ahmed Hersey, despite this website revealing she had left their marital home and was having an affair with a campaign aide.
She finally filed for divorce on October 7th, but still refuses to acknowledge her relationship with veteran Democratic schmoozer Tim Minette, 38, whose wife also petitioned for divorce in August.
Daily Mail can now disclose that Omar and Minette are not only dating, but living together on and off at a secret D.C.
apartment.
While plotting romantic vacations to Jamaica and making plans for a long-term future together.
So, they have many photos.
And apparently Daily Mail's had investigators on this.
You can see at different times Omar and Mynette are seen leaving the apartment.
Mynette's seen getting into a car.
And then you can see later Omar comes out, is seen getting in the car.
Now, I'll tell you this, man.
These photos mean literally nothing to me.
They mean nothing.
I don't care.
They worked together.
She hired his company.
So what?
I mean, so he drives her around?
Whatever.
We know she's paid him and we know they've traveled together.
You're gonna have to give me something more in this Daily Mail to make me believe she's actually having this affair.
Now, I gotta be honest.
I think at this point the simple solution is they're both getting divorced, they're both traveling together, they're both at the same apartments, they're both driving in the same car.
Come on!
Right?
But no.
Hard evidence.
Because we gotta be sure.
We gotta be absolutely sure.
So they say, a well-placed source told the Daily Mail, quote, Tim is still pretending there's nothing going on, but neither of them are fooling anyone.
Omar is an elected representative.
She is supposed to be transparent and truthful.
She needs to be honest about why she's leaving her marriage and breaking up another one.
Well, do they have a source?
Listen, man, you're gonna have to call the Daily Mail a liar, and the Daily Mail is certified by NewsGuard, okay?
Daily NewsGuard, for those that don't know, it's a third-party rating agency.
I am very critical of NewsGuard, but the point is, NewsGuard is biased, okay?
They ignore mainstream fake news all the time, but when the Federalists put out a story that was challenged by the left, they immediately go in and give the Federalists a bad rating.
I don't care if the Federalist is good or bad.
I care that whenever fake news comes out, and I say, look at this story, they say, so what?
They ignore it.
And then when one fake story comes to the Federalist, they go, oh, stripped you of your certification.
So I doubled down now on why I use NewsGuard.
Because if you're going to accuse, you know, if NewsGuard is pointing in one direction, and you can see they have a bias, and they're going to say Daily Mail is credible, Then argue with me all day.
Okay, fine.
It's not my opinion.
It's a news story.
They say they have confirmed sources, and it's certified by a third-party fact-checking agency, and there's photos of them going to the same apartment.
I think it's fair to say at this point, the simple solution is Ilhan Omar lied, is having a secret relationship, is divorcing her husband, and he's divorcing his wife because they're getting together, and the payments she made to him that were not itemized, okay, are likely due to...
Their relationship and that leads us to a more more dangerous question that we cannot prove yet.
This is gonna have to be for a court of law.
Did Ilhan Omar purposefully hide What the expenses were by doing a bulk payment in order to obfuscate their relationship.
That is a serious crime.
And I gotta say, that's the question that needs to be asked now because the probable cause, in my opinion, is not there.
I'm not a prosecutor, I'm not a lawyer, but I'll say it again just to make sure it's clear for all of you.
She was giving bulk payments to Tim Minette.
She was accused of being in a relationship with him.
You cannot do bulk payments.
They have to be itemized to expense.
What were those payments for?
We don't know.
People accused her and said, was this for your relationship?
She said, we're not in a relationship.
She lied.
Okay?
That's what it looks like now, at least according to Daily Mail.
That's their source.
In which case, is she obfuscating those payments because they're illegal?
That's serious.
Insiders have gone so far as to suggest the pair are considering marriage when their respective divorces are finalized.
At the same time, however, DailyMail.com can further reveal that Minette's spurned wife Beth is refusing to yield in divorce proceedings because she feels Omar is a risk to their 13-year-old son William's safety.
She wants primary custody and has told friends there is no way she will allow her child to be put in the crosshairs should someone try to harm the Firebrand lawmaker because of her political leanings.
A well-placed source told DailyMail.com, Tim is still pretending.
There is nothing going on.
But neither of them are fooling anyone.
Omar is an elected representative.
She is supposed to be transparent and truthful.
She needs to be honest about why she's leaving her marriage and breaking up another one.
Right now, they are more or less living together whenever she is in D.C.
They say they travel as business associates when they are staying in the same hotel rooms.
They are even planning a romantic vacation at Christmas.
The suspicion is that when their divorces are finalized, they will quietly decide to make it official.
Maybe then the lies, the hypocrisy, and all the sneaking around will finally come to an end.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
If they have a source saying they're sharing an apartment together, and Daily Mail has shown them entering and exiting the same apartment at different times, that's substantiating the claim to a certain degree.
Again, man, you know, politics is so insane right now, it's hard to know what's true and what isn't.
And it's like, dude, It was all fake news, the Russians weren't coming, there was some minor internet campaign that had very little effect, and Trump wasn't working with Russia, and Tulsi's not, Jill Stein's not.
You know, they smeared Jill Stein because there's a photo of her sitting at a table with a bunch of Russians, because she was at a conference that Russians were at!
It's so insane!
Conspiracies, non-stop...
Okay?
And here I am, absolutely detesting conspiracies, and even being skeptical about whether or not this is true when they're definitively saying it.
And they call me a conspiracy theorist, and there you go.
That's where we're at right now.
There is no fact, there is no reality, we have no idea what's true anymore.
Boy, politics is messed up, ain't it?
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, so we read that part, Daily Mail has obtained photographic evidence that confirms Omar and Minette have been hooking up whenever the freshman lawmaker is in Washington, D.C.
for her congressional work.
Minette has been seen coming and going from her cozy basement apartment a few minutes from Capitol Hill with clothes, groceries, and six packs of Stella Artois.
Stella, guys?
Come on!
You couldn't do Modelo?
Modelo's way better.
I don't drink beer, I'm kidding.
When I do, I actually think Modelo is better.
He's also been whisking- I'm gonna get so many beer snobs yelling at me now, being like, whatever, man.
He's also been whisking Mom of Three Omar around D.C.
in his bright blue Ford Mustang.
Despite her insistence, she needs a constant security detail because of threats to her life.
So, yeah, she's like, oh, look, there's the beer!
He's bringing beers over to- Look, man, I wanna make sure it's clear that they could just be friends, okay?
Friends hang out at each other's apartments, friends drive around in the same cars, friends share beers, and I'll tell you this.
If there were photos of my male friends bringing beers to my house and coming and going at different times, nobody's gonna accuse me of having an affair with one of my dude friends.
You know, it's specifically because they've traveled together and worked together, but I think it's fair to say, maybe there's no real relationship.
Maybe you're jumping the gun.
Now I gotta stop right there.
I gotta stop right there because Daily Mail says they have more than one source, it seems, on the inside saying this is true.
Or at least one well-placed source, whatever.
So if the Daily Mail has the photos and they have a source saying this is true, well then who am I to say they're liars?
Especially when it's certified by NewsGuard rating agency.
What are you gonna do?
So here's some photos, they say.
Here's Minette heading to Omar's home with beers.
Uh, yada yada, here's one.
The next morning after Minette brought over groceries and spent the night at their secretive love nest, Omar left her home at 11.30 AM.
Omar is seen getting into a waiting car.
She heads to the U.S.
Capitol and arrives at 1138.
Later that day, the congresswoman was dropped off at her home by Minet, who does not stay the night with his married lover.
Well, I mean, he was staying with her, right?
So here's where the crime stuff starts coming in.
They say his company, E Street Group, has been paid more than $250,000 in consultancy fees since 2018 by Omar's campaign.
The allegations, I don't know if they have it actually in here, the allegations I mentioned earlier was that when they paid him, when she paid Minette, it was a bulk payment.
It just had like $12,000.
And for campaign finance, it has to be itemized so we know there's no corruption, right?
Neither party would discuss the affair, but when a reporter from Minneapolis-based WCCO-TV asked Omar whether she had split from Hersey and started dating someone else, she replied, no, I am not.
I have no interest in really allowing the conversation about my personal life to continue.
She added, cutting off the further questions.
They say DailyMail.com's exclusive was confirmed by Minette's spurned wife, Beth, who alleged in divorce papers that her husband made a shocking declaration of love for Omar before dumping her in April.
She's spurned.
She may be lying, but I gotta say, if Daily Mail has an inside source, if there's also another source, Minette's wife, they have photos together, I think at a certain point we just say, here's a simple solution.
Here's a Minette pushed back against his wife's accusations.
So I think we're going to do a part where we know most of this, and I think we're kind of, you know... If they're not going to talk about the criminal allegations... Wow, Daily Mail's got a photographer on them for a long time.
Look at all these photos.
Here we go, check this out.
Chain-smoking Minette lets himself into Omar's home with his own key, carrying a work bag and a backpack.
Around 30 minutes after Minit arrived to her home on Thursday, Omar returns home as well.
So let's just lay this out.
He has keys to her apartment.
He brings over beers and stays the night.
They're both getting divorced.
They both travel together.
Full stop.
I think it's fair to say they're in a relationship.
Uh, yeah, and they go on, unless there's anything.
Here's him taking out the trash.
What I will say is, I am quite impressed at the Daily Mail's investigation.
Look at all these photos, man.
They're, you know, that's pretty impressive.
The story goes on, but we get the point.
Now they're just repeating photos.
There's his ex-wife.
And, unless they have, like, a real conclusion here.
Here's what they say.
MyNet runs E Street Group with fellow veteran strategist William Haler from a shared WeWork office space.
The About Us section of the company's website has been taken down, but MyNet reels off his career accomplishments and boasts of close ties with national opinion leaders in an archived version accessed by the Daily Mail.
There you go.
You get the point.
They say that Beth wants primary custody, and in the end, the horse is dead and we're just beating it, so you get it.
Final thoughts, lingering questions.
Were the bulk payments a violation of law and were they trying to hide it?
Because she lied.
She was asked if she was divorcing her husband.
She said, no, she is.
That's a fact, okay?
So whatever you want to believe, here's what we have.
Daily Mail's definitively saying it.
The next question is, did she violate campaign finance law and purposefully tried to hide it?
That's where we're going next.
Where there's smoke, there's fire, huh?
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel and I will see you all then.
A story is igniting controversy over the arguments around transgender children.
In Texas, a father has been blocked from stopping the gender transition of his son, James, seven, to a girl called Luna.
The story's been ongoing for a while, and the gist of it is this.
There's a man and a woman.
They have twin kids, age seven.
The mother believes James is gender dysphoric and wants to be Luna.
The father believes this is not true, and the mother is projecting this, essentially.
So they've gone to court over it, and now the father has lost and the seven-year-old will, my understanding, begin treatments.
On route to a full transition.
The reason this is so controversial is because of something called desistance.
I've got a couple subjects I want to go through and talk to you about the issue.
Desistance, I believe I'm pronouncing it correctly, is when transgender individuals later determine they aren't actually trans.
I'll read something from a 2018 article just to give you the gist of it.
The phenomenon of transgender children growing out of their transgender identity by the time they're adolescents or adults is called desistance by gender researchers.
For decades, follow-up studies of transgender kids have shown that a substantial majority, anywhere from 65 to 94%, eventually ceased to identify as transgender.
It's because of these findings that many people believe it is wrong To transition children.
The counter to this has been to put kids on puberty blockers, but there's also very damaging effects of holding off puberty.
You could result in lower intelligence, less bone growth, joint malformation, things like that.
I'm not a scientist or an expert, so I'm just giving you the general rundown of some of the arguments, and here's what I want to do.
Let's start with the story, because many of you are probably shocked and outraged that this is happening.
We'll read through this but I do want to present some counterpoints and I want to show the research and why I think it's actually, so some people are arguing that desistance is incorrect because it follows previous diagnostic guidelines and they argue now that You know, people who will eventually grow out of being transgender, there's going to be less people.
It's complicated.
So let me read the story and then I will walk you through the point.
I believe I have data showing that we have reason to believe desistance may actually be accurate.
But let's read.
From the Washington Examiner, a jury in Texas returned a verdict on Monday that will prevent a Texas dad from intervening in the gender transition of his seven-year-old son.
Jeffrey Younger had petitioned a court in Texas to grant him sole custody of his twin sons, James and Jude, in part to avoid a plan to infuse James with female hormones.
James, who would like to be called Luna, has been the center of controversy in the heated debate among his parents and others.
Ann Georgalis, the mother of the two boys, has advocated for James to transition into Luna and has strongly backed the idea of chemically castrating her son and beginning hormone replacement therapy.
Now, I want to stop and just stress Examiner is a more right-leaning source, and admittedly, Nobody's covering this story, so I chose the best source.
I tried to use something that wasn't overtly biased.
While I think chemically castrated is a bit loaded, it is accurate that putting children on these treatments can result in permanent sterilization.
So let's read on.
The ruling on Wednesday will prevent Jeffrey from having sole custody of his children and paves the way for Georgilas to proceed with the procedure.
The court has ruled that Georgilas will maintain sole custody of her two children and go forward with plans to give James life-altering medical procedures.
Her original court filing had sought to limit her ex-husband's visit with their children and require that he now refer to James as Luna.
She further asked that Jeffrey not be exposed to any people who would not confirm his female identity.
Expert witnesses expressed doubt that James was fully convinced that he was inherently female in testimony last week.
There is still some fluidity in his thinking, said Dr. Benjamin Albritton in sworn testimony.
Neither child appears to be depressed, anxious, or aggressive.
James gave no indications of other significant psychological difficulties.
There are no laws currently preventing a legal guardian from giving a minor puberty blockers or hormones.
Georgia List has additionally secured a letter of recommendation for transition for James from a woman associated with a gay children's therapy center.
This is a letter of recommendation that my client, James Younger aka Luna, begin the process of becoming a patient of the Genesis Clinic.
so that she can receive a full psychological assessment for gender dysphoria and potentially
take hormone blockers," said a letter from Rebecca Uhr from Dallas Rainbow Therapy.
So I'll make a few points before we actually get into the science.
For one, it seems like the letter of recommendation isn't immediately saying they are going to make this child
transition.
The quote actually says they do a psychological assessment, in which case it may result that they don't move forward.
The details are going to be few and far between.
It's a very contentious political subject.
I want to make one political point, a question I have for the transgender community and for this individual's mother, and I ask this in good faith.
We don't allow children to do many things.
We don't allow them to imbibe alcohol.
We don't allow them to smoke cigarettes.
And we don't allow them to smoke marijuana in places where it's recreationally legal.
We do this because we know there are effects that it'll have on the body for a long term which can be negative.
Is it okay if a parent determines that their child can drink alcohol?
The reality is, no, you can't.
If you are a parent, you can't give alcohol to your kids.
Now I know.
I'll stop here.
It's not a one-for-one analogy.
Hormone therapy for a mental, um, um, um, a mental, you know, uh, I don't want to call it for a disorder.
Disphoria is completely different from recreational drugs, I understand.
The point I'm trying to bring up is not that they're the same, but at what point do we allow parents to override legal precedent, and at what point do we allow children to decide they should do something?
The better question would be, in my opinion, child marriage.
If a child says they want to marry an adult, can the parent tell the government, yes, I condone this?
In many instances, I believe the answer is actually yes.
And in some places, the answer is no.
The reason I bring this up is because most people in this country would reject the notion of child marriage outright, whether it's legal or not.
They will say, no way!
I'm not going to let my kid do this.
But here's the thing.
Marriage is not a permanent alteration to the individual's body.
In which case, what about a child choosing who they love and want to marry is different from a child going on hormone blockers, which will have long-standing and permanent effects?
I ask this in good faith.
I am not saying it's a perfect analogy, and there may be a simple answer.
It's a question that I've heard time and time again, and I think anybody who wants to, in good faith, engage with the conversation we're going to be having, please just comment with a legitimate response.
It is not a gotcha question.
I am seriously curious what your answer will be.
For those that are very concerned about this, I want to mention, the stories go both ways.
A few years ago, In the UK, a seven-year-old was put into the father's custody after a mother raised him as female.
This story is from 2016, and it is an inversion.
This is in the UK.
They say that the mother had caused... High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Hayden, ordered for the child to be moved into his father's care because his mother had caused her son a great deal of emotional harm.
You're seeing this story now.
There's a lot of outrage, but there's an inverted version of the story which got much less attention several years ago.
I bring this up just to say, A lot of people are acting right now like this is the apocalypse.
They're saying, this precedent is being set, we can't allow this.
Hold on.
First and foremost, these are different countries, I understand that.
Secondly, we don't know all of the details of what the jury decided and why.
We can make a lot of assumptions, it's probably not a good idea.
In the end, I understand the political arguments, I understand the ramifications of the story, and I will respect people's opinion, you know, to a certain degree, so have them.
Let's get into the real issue here.
There's something called desistance, and they say that 65 to 94% of children who identify as transgender eventually grow out of it.
The argument then being that if they're much, much more likely, I mean, 94% is huge, if they're much more likely to grow out of it, and we have seen cases where, you know, trans children have eventually determined they were incorrect.
There was a 60 Minutes Australia documentary on it.
Blair White has talked about it.
If it's much more likely they will not be trans growing up, perhaps we should not put, you know, we present a greater risk by putting them on hormone blockers or by transitioning them as children.
One of the arguments has then been, just do blockers because once the child desists in adolescence, you can then take them off puberty blockers.
And that is sort of a compromise coming from the trans rights community, but it is still true that hormone blockers, puberty blockers, will have long-standing permanent effects on cognition and vision and joints and things like that, at least according to what I've read.
Now here's the actual counter-argument from the researchers.
This is kqed.org.
They actually say that one of the criticisms is that the numbers of the percentages for what they've rated for resistance are actually incorrect.
So here's what they say.
One reason many researchers believe it's unnecessary to delay the social transition of a child
is that they don't think the research on desistance is valid.
In other words, they think the number of children who grow out of their transgender identity
has been vastly overblown.
So in this circumstance, they're talking about a social transition,
meaning you can take a seven-year-old child, you can change their name,
you can give them different clothes, and they can be, you know, female-presenting in their social life
without doing anything else.
And so they argue that won't have permanent long-lasting effects on the child.
I would argue, however, it would have a very interesting and long-lasting psychological effect because You know, when you're seven, you're absorbing a lot of information, and arguably, I mean, there's a pro to a social transition.
You might have an understanding of how society treats little girls as you grow up and grow older, but there will be permanent mental effects.
Now, they say that the number of children who grow out of it has been vastly overblown, and this is what they argue.
They say this school of thought holds that because the criteria for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, previously called gender identity disorder, was less stringent in the past, the earlier desistant studies included a large cohort of children who today would not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
Gay boys who may have been experimenting with different ways of expressing gender, but who were never really transgender in the first place.
They say, quote, The methodology of those studies is very flawed.
Because they didn't study gender identity, said Diane Ehrensaft, director of mental health at UCSF, Child and Adolescent Gender Clinic.
Those desisters were, a good majority of them, simply proto-gay boys whose parents were upset that they were boys wearing dresses.
They were brought to the clinics because they weren't fitting gender norms.
Now here's where I'm gonna stop and push back on this.
Not a researcher, there's probably a lot of things I don't know, and that's fair.
But I have to ask this question, and I have to present a counterpoint.
If it's true, they have made the criteria for gender dysphoria much more stringent than gender identity disorder, and they're arguing now that back then, children who were not trans were being diagnosed as trans, it should follow, to a certain degree, we would see less transgender children, correct?
I mean, gender dysphoria has more rules You know, more determinant factors as to what makes a child trans versus identity disorder.
Notably, there's eight for gender dysphoria, but only five for gender identity disorder.
If it is harder to get diagnosed as gender dysphoric, wouldn't we see less kids being diagnosed?
In fact, the data shows us otherwise.
From the Houston Chronicle, According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, which studies orientation and identity law and public policy, the percentage of trans adults, an umbrella term used to describe those whose gender does not match with their gender assigned at birth, has doubled in the last 10 years from 0.3 to 0.6%.
In 2006, a survey discovered that 1.2% of Boston high school students identified as trans.
And in a recent issue of the journal Pediatrics, researchers showed that 2.7% of Minnesota's youth identify as trans and gender non-conforming.
Similar to trans, gender non-conforming describes those who reject gender expectations that assume only females can do femininity while only males can do masculinity.
I think it's important for the conversation we're having to differentiate between gender dysphoria and gender non-conformity.
Here's the issue.
To be gender dysphoric, you have to have a strong dislike of one's anatomy.
So if anyone can be a woman... This is one of the big challenges I see with the trans rights side.
They argue that a woman can have male parts.
Okay, but gender dysphoria requires that you have a strong dislike and a strong desire for the physical, sexual characteristics that match one's expected gender.
Meaning, to be diagnosed as dysphoric, you have to be binary.
Non-binary is something totally different.
Take a look at this story.
She-Ra and the Prince of Power introduces non-binary character Double Trouble, voiced by non-binary star Jacob Tobia.
I actually think the story's fine and cool, but it does raise some questions.
This is Jacob Tobia, who is a non-binary individual.
You can see they do things that are traditionally considered feminine.
And the character in She-Ra is non-binary.
I think it actually makes sense.
You have an androgynous character that can shapeshift.
It's very, very much like an anime called Fullmetal Alchemist.
If you're not familiar, a homunculus is an artificial human, and one of the characters in Fullmetal Alchemist, whose name is Envy, is completely androgynous, without gender, and has the ability to shapeshift.
And that's kind of a point made in that show, and this is very similar.
In this show, they've hired a non-binary identified actor to play the role of their shapeshifter character.
Here's the thing, though.
Non-binary and trans are very, very different.
In this circumstance, Jacob, Tobia, whatever his orientation is, is different from his identity.
We can see that for the most part, non-binary just simply means he does traditionally feminine things.
But if the argument is that gender is a social construct, gender dysphoria has guidelines which say it's not, it's actually biological, we need to separate those things if we're going to have a real conversation.
Because this is not transgender.
This is somebody who wants to appropriate female social behaviors.
And I quite literally think that's fine.
Dress exactly how you want.
The way I normally put it is I don't care what you're wearing or how you're living.
Just, you know, up until the point you start, you know, attacking other people or throwing things at other people.
If Jacob sees himself this way and he wants to dress this way, more power to him.
I believe it's actually a cool thing that in our country you can just dress and exist how you want to for the most part.
But addressing non-binary now brings me back to the core issue here.
Gender dysphoria's criteria actually talks about anatomy.
So we addressed that, as we have, but let's go back to the main point, and we'll come back to this in a second.
If people who identify as trans have doubled over the past 10 years, and I understand it says adults, so it's very different from children, how is it that these adults who are older and transitioning weren't more likely to be classified with gender identity disorder when it was much easier to be classified as such?
Why are the number of children identifying as trans growing if the criteria has become more difficult?
In which case, I would say it is likely that we're going to see much, much more desistance.
If the argument is such that in the past there were too many people falsely diagnosed, I think it's fair to say today, if the numbers are ever increasing but the rules are harder, we're seeing a greater proportion relative to those who transition who will likely desist.
And if that's the case, wouldn't we err on the side of do nothing to the children until they're at least entering the stages of puberty, 13 or 14?
Don't ask me!
I don't set policy.
I have argued against some of the holes in laws, or I should say, not necessarily argued against, but presented the holes in a lot of these laws, such as an adult male competing against females.
They clearly do have an advantage.
It's interesting.
It's interesting that when you talk about transgender individuals in sports, they always defer to the individual, but when it comes to other issues, they'll defer to the more broad spectrum.
Let me give you an example.
I had a conversation with Sam Cedar on this channel a few days ago.
He said voter ID was racist because when you look at who will be affected by it, overwhelmingly it will be the black community.
My argument was about the individual.
I said, why do they act like people in, you know, it's more likely to affect black people when there are more white people?
And he argued for the collective instead of the individual.
I found that interesting.
In this regard, when it comes to sports, they don't argue for the collective.
They argue for the individual.
They say individuals vary and the best of the best win.
The point I'm trying to make, you know, I've made in the past is that if you have a hundred men and a hundred women, The high end of the bell curve for talent, for men, will surpass that of women.
Meaning the most physically capable woman, in terms of, let's use running, will be slower than like the top 20% of fastest men.
So the world's fastest man is typically, they're going to be faster than the world's fastest women for basic reasons like they're taller and have longer legs.
But it also means that men who would never qualify for the top bracket for the Olympics will be more likely to be better than the best woman.
I'm not saying all men.
I'm saying there will be a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of men who are not good enough to be the best, but are still better than the best females.
In which case, you will have a decent, you know, disproportionate amount of people who transition who are more likely to have surpassed some of the better women.
In which case, I don't know what the solution is other than a transgender bracket, specifically for trans women.
I don't really see a problem with that, then you're dealing with a more fair and balanced
approach.
And we've created women's sports specifically so that biological females have a space to
compete against each other.
Wouldn't it then make sense to have a trans woman bracket and a trans man bracket?
I think that would make a lot of sense.
So anyway, I bring all these things up simply because they're questions I have, and they
play into the role of the Texas father who is being stopped from, you know, the court
has ruled against him.
My question to everybody, in complete good faith, and I hope it gets taken that way, but it probably won't, is to reiterate, if the criteria for dysphoria is much more stringent Then why are we seeing substantially more children identify as trans?
You can't simultaneously argue that there was an over-diagnosis in the past, so we made the rules harder, and that's why desistance is wrong, but at the same time, with the rules being harder, we're seeing way more trans kids.
This plays into the idea of something called rapid-onset gender dysphoria, where they believe social pressures are convincing parents and children that they're likely trans when they're not, and then they're seeking out treatment, and, you know, they get diagnosed.
It may also be true that because in the past parents likely would not bring their kids, they would say, no, you're my kid.
I don't accept this.
It is socially unacceptable.
You will not go to the doctor.
That's another reason why we're seeing more kids.
It is more socially acceptable.
Therefore, more parents are willing to bring their kids in to be diagnosed.
You tell me what you think.
Present to me your questions.
I do all of this in good faith because it is a very sensitive issue that gets everybody angry.
YouTube will delete my channel and all these other things just for talking about this stuff.
So I ask everybody to have a calm and rational conversation.
Talk about what you think.
Am I wrong?
Let me know.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
It's a different channel and I will see you all there.
I was kind of surprised to see the story and then I thought about it.
Nope, it's not surprising at all.
Miley Cyrus said on one of her live streams, you don't have to be gay.
And now she's facing a huge backlash, which is kind of confusing.
She didn't say anything wrong.
And this is why, at first I was surprised.
I was like, why would Miley Cyrus, who's bi, be facing a backlash for saying this?
But then I thought about the it's okay to be straight and the okay to be white thing, where basically the goal was to make an innocuous statement so that the left would freak out, proving the point of the right that, I guess, it's not okay to be white or to be straight.
So they've done a bunch of these campaigns.
There's one where they said that Muslim, something about Islam being right about women, And this kind of fell in line with that, and so I saw it, I was thinking about it, and I'm like, did Miley Cyrus just put it in, like, did she just basically do It's Okay To Be Straight?
Let's re-reel.
She didn't.
She did nothing wrong, and she's still facing a backlash.
This is one-upping all of those troll campaigns, because when you do that campaign where you put the sign up that says It's Okay To Be Whatever, The people are saying it's not about what the sign says, it's about the fact they're trying to agitate.
Miley Cyrus wasn't trying to agitate, and what she said was substantially less, you know, important or bombastic than those troll campaigns, and she still got a backlash over it.
I don't know what this says, but I will mention one thing as we read into this to figure out what's going on, and it's something I refer to as the scaling problem.
Let's say you have like a thousand followers on Twitter.
You tweet something.
One person complains.
.1%.
Who cares?
It's one person.
Let's say you have 10,000 followers.
Now 10 complain.
Let's say you have 100,000.
Now 100 complain.
You see 100 complaints lined up and all of a sudden you're like, whoa!
So here's the thing.
This backlash she's facing may be a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
But there's enough to where you can see it.
And this is what the press does all day and night.
Nonsensical things happen that no one cares about, but because just a tiny bit relative to the total amount of people see it, they will act like two tweets about something warrants a news story, thus creating fake controversy.
Let's read the story, though.
You don't choose your sexuality.
Miley Cyrus defends herself against furious LGBTQ backlash after telling fans, quote,
you don't have to be gay, but she can't resist another jab at sucky ex Liam Hemsworth.
Well then, I say Miley Cyrus has faced backlash from the LGBT community
after telling her fans in an Instagram live chat that you don't have to be gay.
The singer, who came out as bisexual four years ago, has defended herself after the comment attracted criticism during the social media talk on Sunday night.
Attempting some damage control, a repentant Miley later clarified her controversial comments in a tweet posting Monday, but she couldn't resist making another comment about her sucky exes.
I don't care about Miley Cyrus or her exes.
It's bad enough I have to read this.
You don't gotta put in the Liam Hemsworth stuff.
Oh, I know her exes!
Thank you, Daily Mail, for making- Now you all know it, too.
So we can all wallow together in knowing things we probably don't want to know.
So she posted this to Twitter.
I was talking about sex, about sucky guys, but let me be clear, you don't choose your sexuality.
You are born as you are.
It has always been my priority to protect the LGBT community I am part of.
Happy Monday.
Oh, now I get it.
I guess people were assuming what she was saying is that she was telling gay people they didn't have to be gay.
Is that what they were mad about?
It's so, it's so, it's so ridiculous.
Let's read.
Her backtracking came after she used Instagram to take a swipe at her estranged husband.
Oh, they were married?
Now I know that, too!
Liam Hemsworth on Sunday evening.
Addressing her 100 million followers, the 26-year-old singer implied she was gay because she thought all men were evil and gave up on finding a good one.
So what you're saying is that you made the choice.
She mused.
There are good men out there, guys.
Don't give up.
You don't have to be gay.
There are good people with dicks out there.
You've just got to find them.
You've got to find a dick that's not a dick, you know?
So let's just be... Let's just be sane for a second.
What she was saying was, she left a guy, and then thought she was gonna swear off guys and only be with girls, and then she realized she doesn't have to do that, she can find a good guy.
And she articulated it poorly, and everyone got mad at her for saying, You don't have to be gay.
Is there more?
Why are we reading about Miley Cyrus?
Anyway.
I always thought I had to be gay.
Because I thought all guys were evil.
But it's not true.
There are good people out there that just happen to have dicks.
I've only ever met one, and he's on this live.
She's referring to her new beau, Cody Simpson, who appeared on the live with her.
The pop singer debuted her romance with Cody on October 4th.
Why are you telling me this?
Just two months after announcing her separation from Liam in August.
You know, side note, can I ask a question?
What's the point of marriage if all of these people get married and then divorce and then remarry right away?
It's like, you weren't even married, okay?
Marriage is literally, till death do us part.
But it's like, today, none of these people are really married as far as I'm concerned.
This is not marriage.
You're just dating, okay?
This is called dating.
And when you get a divorce, you're not, you know, whatever.
The couple took part in a split-screen Instagram live session with Miley at her Los Angeles home and Cody at a hotel in Sydney, where he has flown out for work.
You can do that?
That's cool.
The lovebirds appeared to confirm rumors they are now living together.
And now, all of a sudden, this has turned into celebrity gossip about Miley Cyrus.
Cody declared, we've got matching Teslas.
Mine's dirty, hers is clean.
You know what?
I'm gonna subject all of you to this, because I want to make sure they're going somewhere with this.
So they do.
They get into her relationship.
Okay.
Later in the discussion, the pair once again appeared to confirm they've moved in together.
I don't care.
Miley, who has dated both men and women in the past, enjoyed a brief romance with Brody Jenner's ex, Caitlyn Carter, 31, after splitting with Liam.
On August 11th, the day Miley and Liam's separation was announced, photos were released of the two women cuddling and kissing aboard a boat in Italy.
What a charmed life, huh?
Back in 2015, during a break from her romance with Hemsworth, Miley was linked to Model.
Okay, none of this matters.
Let's get to the core point of this.
Congratulations, you all now know a lot more about Miley Cyrus that you didn't want to.
But the question is, why was she attacked, and why was there a backlash, and why does it matter?
First, there will always be someone to be offended by anything.
The joke on Twitter is that if you announce you like pancakes, everyone's gonna screech, but why are you saying you hate waffles?
That's the point.
Have you seen the Ricky Gervais joke?
Where he's like, Twitter is this place where you say something and everyone assumes it's directly about them.
It would be like going to the town center and seeing a poster that says Guitar Lessons, and then looking at it and going, But I don't want guitar lessons!
And then tweeting to somebody would be like calling the number and saying, are you giving the guitar lessons?
And they go, yeah.
And he goes, I don't want any!
It's not for you.
It's not about you.
But listen, listen.
You've got hundreds of millions of people in this country, OK?
Miley Cyrus has got tens of millions of fans, probably more.
I mean, it's a big world, right?
So she says something about her personally and her experience, and it offends someone somewhere.
And because of the scaling problem, you end up with so much offense That now she has to publicly address it.
But I tell you the secret!
Don't!
Seriously!
I don't look at my notifications on Twitter, okay?
I stopped a long time ago.
You know, it used to be when I had, like, just under 100,000 followers, I would, you know, go through and I'd talk to people because it was manageable.
But now it's not manageable at all.
In fact, my phone has to be on silent because if I turn it on at all, it just goes boop, boop, boop, boop, non-stop.
All day non-stop.
Just, it's relentless.
I put on vibrate, the phone just vibrates indefinitely.
That's kind of funny actually, just sitting there going like brr.
But anyway, the point is, I'm not going to go into my tweets and see people saying, how dare you make those comments about, you know, career women, Tim on your YouTube video, and then be like, guys, please don't get angry at me.
I'm just, no, I don't care.
You know what, man?
If you don't like me, whatever.
And get offended.
If you're offended by it, there's nothing I can do.
Someone's always going to be offended.
Here's a better analogy I use for the scaling problem, right?
If 100 iPhones are given out to celebrities, and 1% break, nobody will care because there's one broken phone.
One celebrity goes, dude, my phone broke, and they go, oh, that's a bummer.
Let's say they give out 100 million phones, and the same margin of error hits.
You now have a million broken phones, and there's a riot in the streets over a faulty product, and a million people wanting to know why this happened.
The challenge with social media is that the same problem occurs.
Let's say you have 100 followers and you tweet something and one person gets mad.
You're not going to care!
You're going to be like, I don't care, it was one person.
Let's say you have 100,000 followers and now 1,000 people are tweeting at you and that's all you see.
You immediately become consumed with it and think it's your whole world.
Like with a million broken iPhones, everyone's going to be saying, every iPhone is broken.
Everyone I know has got a broken phone.
Man, most of the phones are broken.
It is the same relative problem.
And then you end up with stories like this.
And this is why the troll campaigns work.
It's why the flyer that said like, you know, it's okay to be whatever, like the different versions, they work.
Because if you can get two people mad, some journalist is going to see the tweet and they're going to write a whole story about the two people who got angry.
Or some journalist at a local outlet is going to come down and do a man on the street and be like, are you angry and why?
And then someone's just going to want to be on TV and be like, oh yeah, I'm angry.
I know a dude who pretended to be a witness to an accident and ran to the camera and said, I watched it all happen and then just made it up because people want attention.
So you have to consider, not only are you paying attention to a fringe minority and nobody cares, but you're also giving attention to people who, that's all they want.
They don't actually care that you said this, they just want you to notice them.
And now, I tell you what, these people got angry, are going to their friends and going, dude, she responded, she actually responded because I said this, what, so crazy.
And that's a whole big issue with cancel culture and outrage culture.
It's people who desperately want attention so they get angry at everything because they get attention when they get offended.
Congratulations, media!
You have desperately tried to show shock and outrage so much that people have begun exploiting it for attention.
And that's why we get hoax hate crimes, and that's why everything is awful, and it's why we can't have nice things.
And it's why now, Miley Cyrus, you have to apologize for saying that you don't have to be gay.
The reality is, you don't.
If you are, you know, like, right, then you are.
What she was specifically referring to is herself as a bisexual.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
The next story is kind of crazy.
Boston is trying to pass a law to make certain speech illegal.
I kid you not.
Stick around.
Coming up soon.
This story is specifically about Boston, but it still does come from a local Democrat, I believe, which has got Republicans all angry.
And I'll just give you the story.
It's really simple, and then you can leave.
They're trying to make the B-word illegal in Massachusetts.
OK, wait, wait.
So it's not just Boston.
It's Massachusetts.
Proposed law would make the B word illegal.
You may be asking, what does the B word mean?
I didn't know either.
But I realized I can't actually say it on YouTube.
So there you go.
It's the obvious one.
It refers to a female dog.
And they're trying to make it illegal if you use the word to accost, annoy, degrade, or demean another person.
And I'm going to go ahead and say, I believe this will never pass constitutional muster.
You can't make an insult illegal.
That's nuts.
And not a day goes by that I don't get on my knees and pray to the holy constitution, the bill of rights that is guaranteeing our rights to self-expression.
And guess what?
You're allowed to be a mean person in this country.
I recommend against it.
Calling someone the B-word to demean them is not going to solve your problems.
I know it may feel good emotionally, but in the end, you're not going to accomplish anything.
So I would recommend don't harass people, don't be mean, don't insult them, don't use slurs, whatever, whatever, right?
But I tell you what.
I understand the importance of being allowed to.
Because we can't define at what point we're talking about political speech and, you know, and someone just being a mean person.
The government has made it clear, okay?
Our founding fathers made it clear at the formation of this country, the First Amendment.
So I don't know how this gets passed.
It's insane.
But I wouldn't be surprised if you see people going around calling everyone the B-word in protest, assuming it gets passed.
I doubt it.
They're gonna shoot this down and be like, are you crazy?
Let's read.
A Boston Democrat has proposed a state law that would penalize the use of the B-word when used to demean another person.
The bill, filed by State Rep.
Dan Hunt in May, is slated to go before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary Tuesday afternoon.
That's today, and by the time you're watching this, it's already gone through, so we'll see what happens.
The measure proposes adding two sentences to the section of state law that assigns fines and other penalties for various offenses, such as crimes for common nightwalkers.
What?
Indecent exposure and exposure and disturbers of the peace.
What's a nightwalker?
What's a common nightwalker?
Is that a Boston thing?
A person who uses the B word directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade, or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person in violation of the section, the bill says.
I don't see how that's constitutional at all.
Alleged violations can either be reported by the person the word was directed at or by witnesses.
Oh, a witness.
I heard him say the B word at her.
Context is irrelevant.
According to the bill, penalties would be similar to those outlined in the other subsections of state law, which, depending on the subsection, provide for a fine of not more than either $150 or $200, or jail time of up to six months.
And there it is, the crescendo.
Everything, every problem, all of this has just stopped here in Massachusetts.
They are proposing putting you in jail for six months for insulting a person.
This is why we have a Bill of Rights.
Because if we didn't, this would already be law.
Because some overly sensitive snowflake despot-type figure would be like, I don't like people insulting me!
Make it a crime!
You'll end up with les majesté laws.
You know what that is?
In Thailand, if you insult the royal family, they can lock you up.
Even if you don't directly do it.
So there was one instance where apparently someone repeated it as a witness.
Like, I heard that person say, you know, F the king.
And then, even saying that.
But because they repeat it, they're like, oh, you just said it.
You're under arrest.
I remember there was one person I know who was telling me the story of where the person was telling the story, and then they immediately stopped and was like, they started looking around all scared, like, oh man, if a cop sees you, hears you do that.
So even saying F the King, not even the full word, probably too much.
When I was working on a documentary about Thailand, we had to go through a ridiculous amount of scrutiny because we were basically being told You can criticize the family, the royal family, but you have to be very, very precise in how you do it.
Otherwise, no one will ever see the doc.
They'll just, in the country, they'll just shut it down, right?
So we navigated it in a very, very funny way.
Basically just precisely addressing, without using certain words, but it's a crazy thing.
You know, for everyone else in the rest of the world, you can see the documentary like normal.
But imagine what the world would be like if they said you couldn't use the B-word.
Okay, so does that mean we can't show a documentary?
Like, if someone in a documentary is passing by and yells it, are they gonna... the speech, would that fall on us?
I think the answer would be probably a no.
But let's be real, man.
Who in their right mind thinks it's reasonable to propose six months in jail for a word?
This blows my mind.
The Massachusetts Republican Party criticized and mocked the bill Monday, writing on Twitter, Beacon Hill Democrats, like Rep.
Dan Hunt, are fearlessly taking on the biggest problems facing the Commonwealth.
Do you believe free speech matters?
Tired of Massachusetts Democrats dictating what you can say?
Come on down to the State House, rooms A1 and A2, first floor.
Let them have it, MassGOP wrote, while referencing Tuesday's committee hearing in another tweet.
I have to say it.
The Democrats have completely abandoned free speech.
Now, of course there's going to be Democrats saying, Tim, you're wrong.
There was one ridiculous argument where they said, if we truly want free speech, we must censor individuals because hard, you know, offensive words make people scared to speak.
That's literally the argument.
I think it was Vox, I'm not sure, but they said that basically because if you go on Twitter and someone can be mean to you, that means you will be less likely to speak, therefore you have no free speech.
It's like, no.
Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
And if you're hurt by words, I hate to break it to you, but sticks and stones still exist.
And that's gonna be a rude awakening when you experience what it's like to get hit with a stone, right?
I'm not saying you should or anyone will, but these things happen.
That's their argument.
No, in reality, say whatever you want, just don't incite, don't direct, don't give instruction, okay?
There are limits, and I think that's fair.
But how crazy is it that we're at this point?
Allsides.com, if you're not familiar, is a bias rating agency for news organizations.
They determine if it's left, right, far left, far right, or center.
And one of their criteria for whether or not they view you as left or right is that on the right, they specifically address free speech.
And on the left, they don't!
They're more in favor of restrictions and censorship.
And now you have it.
Here you go.
I understand this is just a Massachusetts thing.
Okay?
It's not just Boston.
It's Massachusetts.
And they're trying to ban a mean word.
But make no mistake.
This will not be the first.
This is probably not the first, but it will definitely not be the last.
The people who are trying to get these rules on social media are trying to circumvent law.
Look at what Beto O'Rourke did by calling on massive financial duopoly, MasterCard and Visa, to suspend the legal sale of legal goods.
These people know.
Because of the Constitution, and because of our rights, they can use monopolistic corporate power to get what they want.
And that's why I oppose it.
Full stop.
But you will still see it.
This is somebody just reaching out.
They are testing the waters, okay?
Can we get the B word made illegal?
Some people might say, well, you know, it's a slur, you're not expressing anything, so fine.
That's why you gotta be aware of these things.
Because slowly over time they will take away your rights.
MassGOP said, do you believe—oh, we read that already.
They're going to say Hunt's office did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday morning.
So here's what I want to do.
Let's take a look at the actual amendment, okay?
This is the amending of the existing law.
It says Section 53 of Chapter 272.
Any person who uses the word—you can see, I have an app that automatically censors words so YouTube doesn't delete my channel.
Uses the word, uh, the B word.
Directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade, or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person in violation of the section and shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsections A and B. Excuse me.
A and B.
A violation of this subsection may be reported by the person to whom the offensive language was directed at or by any witness of such incident.
So let's now take a look at the actual law.
I don't know what a nightwalker is.
Okay?
Common nightwalkers.
Are they saying it's illegal to go out at night?
I don't know.
I don't know what that is.
I'm not going to look it up either.
Common nightwalkers, common street... Oh!
They're talking about Ladies of the night!
That's what they're talking about.
Both male and female.
Now I get it.
Persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy another person, lewd, wanton, and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure, shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than $200, or by both such a fine and imprisonment.
They say disorderly persons and disturbers of the peace shall, for a first offense, receive the fine, and they go, okay, okay, okay, so we get it.
It's kind of a weird law, because it puts these groups together.
I don't... Could you imagine, like, you're out in Boston, and you look at somebody, and they, like, you know, let's say they drive past you and splash with water, and you're like, you effing B, and they go, oh, the B word, there it is, and they arrest you.
And then you're in court and they're like, what are you in for?
And you're like, violation of section 53.
And they're like, does that mean you used the B word or you sold your body for money?
I think they're not actually, but that's what they're kind of connecting you to, right?
I hate to say it, man, but the Democrats have abandoned free speech and now we're at this point where Massachusetts is actually trying to make the B word illegal.
By the time you've watched this, they'll already have deliberated on it.
Maybe it'll just be removed.
But look, man, a Democrat actually proposed the amendment to the existing law to ban a word.
It's coming, okay?
The censorship of speech is coming.
And fortunately, we have a First Amendment that I hope will never erode beyond where it's at now.
There can be some reasonable, you know, adjustments, but not on insults.
It's an expression.
I got one more segment coming up in just a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you shortly.
This story is confusing, kind of unrealistic, just overall weird.
Rosario Dawson and her family sued over alleged transphobic assault.
The actor and girlfriend of presidential candidate Cory Booker allegedly attacked a transgender employee in Los Angeles, the lawsuit claims.
I don't believe it.
Like, they're actually blaming Rosario Dawson?
First of all, Rosario Dawson, as far as I know, is nothing but a sweetheart.
And I know some people who know her as well, who are political, and I think she is a good, principled individual.
Although, I have to admit, I don't really know a whole lot about her.
She's dating Cory Booker, so take it as far as you want.
I will say this, too.
I actually kind of like Cory Booker.
I think he tries too hard to be cool, Dad, though.
I don't agree with him on a lot of policy issues.
But I, you know, I look at Beto O'Rourke, and man, that guy is awful.
I look at Cory Booker, and I'm like, you don't gotta try so hard, Cory.
But you're not that bad of a dude, okay?
I get it.
He's trying.
Let's read.
A transgender man alleges that actor Rosario Dawson and her family subjected him to transphobic harassment and violent abuse, according to a suit filed in LA court.
Dawson, 40, is the girlfriend of Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker of New Jersey.
The suit filed Friday alleges that Dawson and three members of her family violated Diedrich Finley's civil rights by discriminating against him for his transgender status.
The suit seeks damages for that, as well as battery, assault, emotional distress, and several other allegations.
Neither the family's lawyer, Alan Kossoff, nor representatives for Rosario Dawson immediately responded to NBC News' request for comment.
Okay, so you may be asking, Tim, why do we care about this?
Well, because it's Cory Booker's girlfriend.
I mean, in the end.
First, Rosario Dawson, famous actress, she's in the Netflix stuff, you know, Marvel.
And Cory Booker running for president.
This is probably going to come up in the future.
They're going to ask Cory Booker, you know, your girlfriend is being accused of this, that, and this.
How do you respond?
And he's going to have to say something.
What's he going to say?
Is he going to say the allegations are untrue and this transgender individual is lying?
Is he going to say we must respect all rights?
It's going to be a difficult course to plot.
He's probably going to say something like, While I, you know, do not believe the charges are accurate, I respect protecting individuals, and it's going to be a really weird place to be.
Because I assure you, depending on his level of involvement, what he says may actually impact the lawsuit.
If he comes out and says, I don't, you know, I believe the victim, well that's going to matter when it comes to the lawsuit.
This is actually a really tricky situation.
Cory Booker, to protect his family, will have to claim It's not true.
I stand by Rosario.
That's going to negatively impact him in the political sphere where they believe the victims.
And they're going to say, Cory, how dare you deny the experience of this individual?
If Cory comes out in any way defending this individual, they will use it in court against his girlfriend's family.
Welcome to the political world and being a public figure.
I know Cory Booker is not subject to this, but they are going to use it.
I assure you, other Democrats will highlight this too.
And they're going to be like, Cory, you should really, really make sure you address this.
It is not appropriate, blah, blah, blah.
And he's going to have to sacrifice his friends and family over this one.
They say, according to the suit, Finley, 55, moved from Beacon, New York to L.A.
in December 2017 to work as a handyman for the Dawson family and renovate and remodel Rosario's personal residence, which promised him consistent work.
He later moved into a North Hollywood home rented by the family and soon after came out to them as transgender, telling the family that he would now be known as Diedrich and use he-him pronouns.
Quote, the family misgendered him multiple times each day with deliberate
indifference as to the appropriate way to address Mr. Finley.
The suit claims Rodario Dawson acted with deliberate indifference and did
nothing to correct the situation.
Whoa, this is huge.
Let's think about this for a second.
What you're saying is this individual identified as female was hired.
And then one day said, I now want to be referred to male.
And the family was like, Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Are, and, and, and then just went about their normal business using the
pronouns as they always have for most of their life.
And now they're in trouble for probably California human rights
law, because you have to.
To what degree can they say it's just not something we understand or are used to?
Too bad!
You employed an individual and you violated human rights law because California has these laws.
Therein lies a huge, huge exploit.
They say.
Instead, in response to Mr. Finley's complaints, Rosario would respond to Mr. Finley, Now, the challenge here is, for one, I don't see Rosario as an overtly conservative individual.
I mean, she's dating Cory Booker.
But that's a serious charge.
And that means, once again, going back to the Booker 2020 campaign, Cory's gonna have to deal with this.
He's gonna have to denounce the comments, because no one's gonna believe Rosario over the victim.
But it's entirely possible That the trans individual did nothing.
Like, imagine if someone who was just overly biologically female came up to you and said, you know, like the It's Ma'am incident, right?
Did you see the moment, that incident, I think it was at GameStop, where the trans woman who was, in their presentation, overly masculine, kept saying, It is ma'am, it is ma'am.
It's a viral meme.
The store clerk couldn't help but say, sir, over and over again, especially as their adrenaline was running.
They were experiencing a fight or flight as this overbearing six foot tall figure was saying, it's ma'am!
And the person said, sir, sir, I mean, I mean, I'm sorry.
They don't know how to respond.
So in that instance, I don't know what happened to that store clerk.
I think they may have gotten fired.
I don't know.
This is a different accusation.
But I find it very strange that Rosario would be the kind of person to say, you're a grown woman and refuse to do it.
The suit alleges that in February of last year, just months after coming out, Finley was ordered to move out but refused to because there was no legal grounds for his eviction.
But wait, wait, wait, wait.
They don't... What legal grounds?
They can serve you with a notice unless they had a lease, I suppose.
On April 28, 2018, Finley alleges that the mother worked together to... that Fin... alleges the family worked together to assault him.
Isabel Dawson, Rosario's mother, allegedly dragged Finley by his arm out of a window and then attacked him.
Now this is getting weird.
Once Mr. Finley was lying helpless on the ground outside, Isabel, who is substantially larger than Mr. Finley, got on top of Mr. Finley's body and began punching him.
While beating Mr. Finley, Isabel screamed, You're not so much of a man now, which was a clear and denigrating reference to Mr. Finley's gender identity.
You know what, man?
In the future, everything will be a hate crime.
Everything.
The suit alleges Rosario Dawson assisted in the assault by sitting on top of him and actively restraining him while he was on the ground to ensure that her mother could continue battering him.
Isabel Dawson also allegedly threatened to kill Finley's cat if he did not move out and stomped on his hand during the attack and stole his cell phone, which Finley alleges contained video of the previous threats made against him.
A day after the alleged attack, Finley was granted a temporary restraining order against Isabel Dawson, according to the suit.
Tasha Alyssa Hill, an attorney representing Finley, told NBC News that her client had no choice but to sue the Dawson family.
As his attorney, we have reached out numerous times to the Dawson family attorney, seeking to resolve this before having to file suit.
Hill stated, she said after receiving no response, the suit was filed last week before the statute of limitations expired.
Hill affirmed the lawsuit's allegation that Dawson's family treatment of Finley was due to his gender identity.
Mr. Finley had a good relationship with the family, did work with them in New York, and had a good enough relationship that they invited him to California and offered him a living situation and a full-time working situation for the family.
When they did that, they knew him as a lesbian woman.
When he came out to California and decided to come out to them as a transgender man, that's when things started going south.
Hill said her client just wants just and fair.
Just wants... This is weirdly phrased.
He just wants to get some sort of compensation so he can get back on track with his life, so he can put this incident behind him, Hill said.
Okay.
I'll give you my opinion.
And I'll get attacked for it.
Fine, whatever.
I think it's BS.
You know, I do know it'll end up in the political sphere.
I would be surprised if it wasn't, wouldn't be, maybe it won't be.
But here's the thing.
I do not, first of all, what I know about Rosario Dawson is this just doesn't sound like her and her family, but again, I only know her, I don't really know her.
I think I met her like one time in passing, maybe, maybe not.
I don't want to act like I know who celebrities are.
That's not what I'm trying to say.
I know people who know her.
And I've never heard anything like this in the very few times it's been talked about.
But think about this.
This individual who moved in was an open lesbian woman, and the Dawson family had no problem, and she's trying to claim now that by coming out as transgender they got angry.
That seems kind of strange to me, right?
The people who would be openly inviting a lesbian into their home, I don't see them as caring if the person ended up trans after the fact.
It seems likely that after they moved in, then all of a sudden the family started being like, we can't live with this person!
You see how that works?
So, I mean, take it for what you will.
In the end, it doesn't matter.
We know how the court of public opinion works.
And Cory Booker is the one who is exposed by this.
Not Rosario Dawson.
She's an actress.
She'll say, I don't know, it's an ongoing legal matter.
How will Cory Booker respond?
Because I'll tell you this, Cory Booker can't deny.
He cannot.
He can't refuse.
Let's say a reporter goes to him and says, can you comment on the recent allegations of your girlfriend being transphobic?
If Cory says, I can't comment, then the trans community, they're going to come out, And the far left are going to be like, how dare you not address these victims?
You're protecting your family over civil rights.
How can we trust you in office?
If he denies the attack even happened, they're going to say, how dare you not believe the victim?
And if he says, you know what?
You're right.
The attack was wrong.
That will be used against him by the suit in the court.
So you know what?
You enter politics, you're between a rock and a hard place.
And when you're a high-profile person, you could be the victim to these accusations.
Somebody could make an accusation against an average person.
And what does it matter?
You go to court, you get it resolved.
But a celebrity immediately faces backlash in the court of public opinion.
