Republicans Just STORMED The Secret Impeachment Hearings, Schiff Is FURIOUS, Cries Ethics Violations
Republicans Just STORMED The Secret Impeachment Hearings, Schiff Is FURIOUS, Cries Ethics Violations. Led by Rep Matt Gaetz a group of around a dozen republicans have stormed into the SCIF, a secure hearing room, demanding they can listen in on the impeachment inquiry.This caused a massive uproar. Some republicans are said to have been screaming in Adam Schiff's face, people were yelling, and the hearing was canceled.Rep Bradley Byrne insisted that he had jurisdiction over the witness as he is on the Armed Services Committee but they refused to allow the hearing to go forward with him in the room.The left and the Democrats insist this is all normal and that the information will be released soon but Republicans are saying that the secrecy is intended to all them to selectively leak information to make Trump look bad.In my opinion this is part of a negative partisanship strategy to drive voter turnout. Trump is set to win 2020 in a landslide and the democrats. far leftists, and never trumpers know this. The best chance they have is to dig non stop until they can get any dirt possible to help drive anger at the president.It may work among the political initiated but will the average American, who isn't paying attention, be affected by the negative press?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
One of the biggest complaints Republicans have had over the impeachment inquiry is the secrecy.
Because most of them do not sit on these committees, they are not allowed to sit in on these interviews with potential witnesses.
There's a concern and criticism that only select information is being released to make President Trump look bad.
Well, a couple things have happened, and the big breaking news is that Republicans, led by Matt Gaetz, have quite literally stormed a secure impeachment inquiry, a secure facility, sparking outrage among the left, arguing that by bringing in their electronics, they're compromising national security, that they're violating rules.
It's a big publicity stunt, while others argue that Donald Trump should have a right to confront his accusers, call their own witnesses, and that this is all unjust.
The whole thing's particularly complicated.
We have a bunch of statements from many of the Republicans involved and journalists, and some are arguing they do have jurisdiction over these witnesses, countering claims by Democrats they don't.
At the same time, Lindsey Graham is set to introduce a resolution condemning the impeachment inquiry, saying it should be dismissed in the Senate without trial.
Okay.
There's a lot going on here.
And this is breaking.
So let's get started with the first story.
Republican storm.
Closed impeachment proceeding.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are several different options you can choose from.
Also make sure to check out the Tim Pool Daily Show podcast on Apple, iTunes, Spotify, etc.
You'll get this segment as well as a full hour and a half, usually, of content every
day at 6.30pm.
And it is a safer, it's a safer place for me to talk about politics.
So if you subscribe to my podcast there, you have a lot, there's less to worry about in
terms of censorship.
But also just share this video if you want to support my work because it helps, helps
me grow the channels.
From the Daily Caller, House Republicans briefly shut down a closed door meeting Wednesday
by storming the room where lawmakers were questioning a Defense Department official
involving the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
Over a dozen Republican lawmakers gathered outside of a private meeting room Wednesday and told reporters that they would try to enter the closed-door deposition regarding the official impeachment inquiry into Trump.
The House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees are leading these proceedings after allegations that Trump asked Ukrainian officials to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
Quote, We're going to go see if we can get inside, Republican Florida Rep Matt Gaetz told reporters, according to a video posted on Twitter.
The incident caused a delay in proceedings.
Democratic Virginia Rep Gary Connolly said, according to Rachel Bade, a Congress reporter for The Washington Post.
The Democrats were consulting Sergeant-at-Arms, she tweeted.
Defense Department official Laura Cooper was testifying about allegations that the U.S.
withheld military aid from Ukraine as Trump was allegedly trying to get officials to look into Biden.
Now this is all coming after the Bill Taylor testimony where it's being reported that once
again the walls are closing in on Trump.
Bill Taylor essentially testifying there was quid pro quo and they wanted the Ukrainian
president to explicitly announce an investigation into Biden, which makes it sound political.
Before we get into more of the breaking news, I just want to make one point here.
Look, you've got one guy so far saying quid pro quo.
You've got Mick Mulvaney trying to backtrack after saying that it was kind of quid pro quo.
He didn't say quid pro quo, essentially.
But the issue here is you have many more denials.
I'm not here to pass judgment.
I'm just letting you know.
You're going to hear from the left, ah, this proves it.
Well, hold on.
This is one yes in a sea of no's.
You've got a bunch of witnesses saying no quid pro quo, one witness saying there was.
I don't see that personally as enough to go on so far, but hey, we're investigating.
We'll see what happens.
Let's get back to the breaking news.
We can see here, Scott Thuman tweeted, here's the video of when two dozen GOP members led by Matt Gaetz entered the secure hearing room, the SCIF, to interrupt witness testimony in the impeachment inquiry as they demand access despite not being committee members.
They're complaining it's a Soviet-style process.
Now this tweet in particular is interesting.
Many people have claimed they're not committee members, so they're not allowed in.
However, There is a tweet from Bradley Byrne.
And this is where things start getting intense, because apparently Byrne was screaming in Schiff's face.
But this is what we have so far.
I believe it may have been Byrne.
Maybe it's somebody else.
But let's go through it.
He says, Adam Schiff just shut down his secret underground impeachment hearing after I let a group of Republicans into the room.
Now he's threatening me with an ethics complaint.
I'm on the Armed Services Committee, but being blocked from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense's testimony.
This is a sham.
In the video, he says, we actually have jurisdiction over this particular interview.
I don't know exactly what he's trying to say, because he's not on the committee, but I think he's saying if the interview is going to involve somebody in which he does have jurisdiction, he should be allowed in but was blocked.
This is all contentious because the left is saying they shouldn't be allowed in.
He's saying he should be.
And this is where things just get really, really weird.
Check this out.
This thread from a congressional correspondent from CNN, where he initially talks about how they're coming in.
They entered the room with their electronics, Connolly said, which is prohibited in the room.
Mike Conaway of Texas collected the electronics.
Check this out.
More details.
Bern was yelling in Schiff's face.
Rep.
Val Demings shouted back as both Bern and Louie Gohmert who were yelling about the process.
It was it was closest thing I've seen around here to mass civil unrest as a member of Congress sources told me.
This is alarming. I think this is actually pretty scary.
To hear that members of Congress just stormed into this room and they were screaming matches.
I don't care what side you're on, okay?
Politics is downstream from culture.
The street fights we've seen, the cultural battle, the culture war, it's now coming to a point Well, there's a loss of confidence now in what's happening in these actual hearings.
The left is absolutely going to defend themselves and say Trump must be removed and the right's going to reject it.
Well, there's more here.
Let's go back to the Daily Caller story and just get more.
They've got photos and videos.
They say multiple Republicans have tried to access the depositions and get transcripts of the meetings in the past, The Washington Times reported.
One Republican said that the group got in Wednesday but were asked to leave.
Olivia Beavers, a Congress reporter for The Hill, tweeted.
So they go through all this stuff.
I want to show you some of the statements now from some other reps.
Rep Mark Walker tweeted, We are in the skiff and every GOP member is quietly
listening.
Meanwhile, Adam Schiff clearly peeved that he will no longer be able to hide his impeachment sham
is threatening ethics punishment for all of us.
His fake intimidation can't hide his lies open the process, saying that these updates are coming from outside the room.
Notably, they're saying this because people are concerned they may have just compromised national security.
We have this tweet.
Okay, so they're the same tweets.
To show you some criticism before we get into the bigger context here, Mieke Eoyang says in a series of tweets that as somebody, she's with Third Way National Security, that essentially many people, many foreign actors are trying to figure out what's going on in these hearings.
And by bringing in your phones, it could potentially compromise how these rooms function.
And that's one of the big criticisms coming from the left as to why they shouldn't have done this.
But in the end, I think none of that matters.
The right and the left are at complete odds over what's going on and what is the right thing to do.
Of course, it's going to break down on tribal lines.
Now, this is all happening in the backdrop of Lindsey Graham introducing a resolution condemning House impeachment.
This is from yesterday night.
They say, Senator Lindsey Graham is planning to introduce a resolution condemning the House Democrats impeachment inquiry process and argue that any articles should be dismissed in the Senate without trial.
Quote, this resolution puts the Senate on record condemning the House.
Here's the point of the resolution.
Any impeachment vote based on this process, to me, is illegitimate, is unconstitutional, and should be dismissed in the Senate without a trial, Graham told Fox News' John Hannity.
President Trump and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill have lashed out at how House Democrats are handling the impeachment inquiry, arguing they should hold a vote to formally launch the investigation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has argued the rules don't require a vote, but Republicans say it would give them more leeway to call their own witnesses and put swing state Democrats on the record on launching the impeachment inquiry.
Graham added on Tuesday night that Trump should get, quote, the same rights that any American has if you're giving a parking ticket to confront the witnesses against you can't be based on hearsay.
We cannot allow future presidents and this president to be impeached based on an inquiry in the House that's never been voted upon, that does not allow the president to confront the witnesses against him, to call witnesses on his behalf, and cross-examine people who are accusing him of misdeeds, he added.
The House is holding near-daily closed-door depositions with current and former administration officials as part of their inquiry focused on Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and whether he held up aid to try and pressure the country.
The inquiry is being overseen by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform Committees.
Now, all of this seems to make no sense to me.
Listen, I understand right now we have Bill Taylor saying there was quid pro quo.
They're calling him a Boy Scout, saying he is much more honorable, has more integrity than all of the other officials who have denied it.
I'm not going to play games about credibility.
We've got multiple witnesses saying there was no quid pro quo, and we have Bill Taylor saying there was.
Mick Mulvaney essentially saying that there was, but then backtracking.
Here's the point.
The official reporting from the New York Times is that Ukraine did not know anything was being held up.
That they did not know there was quid pro quo.
That's from the New York Times.
So who am I supposed to believe?
A multitude of sources saying nothing here, no quid pro quo, and Ukraine didn't even know it was being held up, or the one witness who says that it was.
The argument from the left is he's the one person being honest.
Well, is Ukraine lying as well?
Because you had testimony that Ukraine was completely unaware of any aid being held up.
How can there be quid pro quo if the other country doesn't realize they have to do something to gain something?
It doesn't seem to make sense.
But I will stress the partisan nature of all of this.
You give them one yes and it's affirmative.
Period.
So, reading more, they say, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sidestepped when asked about how long a potential Senate trial would last, telling reporters during a weekly press conference that, quote, there are all kinds of potentials and we don't have it yet.
Graham's plan for a resolution comes after he said earlier this month that he was going to send a letter to Pelosi warning that Senate Republicans wouldn't remove Trump from office over the Ukraine phone call.
But the plan got pushed back from some of Graham's GOP colleagues during a closed-door lunch last week.
Graham appeared to signal on Tuesday night that he had changed his mind about the letter.
It's going to be a resolution, Graham said, when Kennedy mentioned the letter.
I hope to have a vote on it.
It would be great to have 100.
Here's the thing.
I do not believe there is enough grounds right now for impeachment of Donald Trump.
That's my personal opinion.
Hey, not a lawyer, not an expert, just somebody who reads the news.
I can be wrong and I think I'm allowed to be wrong.
I'm wrong a lot, okay?
Let's be real.
But I believe personally that the reason they're doing this is based off of negative partisanship, and I believe this because of a conversation I had with podcaster Sam Seder, where we talked about the political ramifications of impeachment.
Now, Sam's position was firm.
I'm not trying to misattribute what he was saying.
He says he thinks that Trump has violated his oath of office.
Essentially, I'm trying to avoid putting words in his mouth, but that we need to hold Trump accountable for what he was doing.
It was extortion and things of that nature.
From there, though, a big political defense was that negative partisanship drives voter turnout.
So what's the point of all of this?
Voter turnout.
Moody's Analytics, as I've pointed out in the past couple videos, shows a clear Trump victory in all three of their scenarios.
And they have only, I believe, only missed one prediction, and it was Trump's election in 2016.
They believe they have adapted their model, and now they believe Trump will win.
But there is a path to victory for Democrats, and it's with historical voter turnout.
According to the conversation I had with Sam, which I then researched, negative partisanship does drive voter turnout.
He's absolutely correct.
So I think it's a big strategy.
We've seen the memo from Democrats talking about how they gotta get House Democrats, the moderates, to push impeachment because it will drive voter turnout.
It will get them those votes.
In which case, what we're seeing is, this action, in my opinion, again, just in my opinion, is not about whether or not Trump did anything wrong.
It's not the fact that analytics and data shows Trump is going to win because the economy is great and he's addressing issues at least enough Americans care about to vote for him.
In which case, if you can't campaign on policy, you have to campaign on negative partisanship.
Convince Democrats that the other is evil and that Trump is a bad man.
In order to do that, you need select testimony and you need testimony like Bill Taylor saying
essentially that there was quid pro quo.
It doesn't matter if every witness comes out and says there wasn't.
It just matters you get that one statement because this will be run in campaign ads.
Democrats are going to say, listen, an honorable individual, our ambassador said this was true, and that's all they need to drive negative partisanship.
Now, I will absolutely come back to this point where Vanity Fair says the walls are closing in.
Bill Taylor's testimony put Trump's impeachment in overdrive.
I'm sorry.
I understand that you think the walls are closing in, but the walls have been closing in for a really, really long time.
It must be a very, very large room that Trump is in, because the walls have been closing in since the beginning of his presidency.
They said it over and over and over again in the press.
I don't think so.
The Senate, the Republicans control the Senate.
They are not going to remove Trump, whether some of them like him or not.
Apparently there are a lot of Republicans.
Democrats believe there are many Republicans who secretly dislike Trump and are not going to back him if given the choice.
However, because they have to publicly vote, they're going to vote to defend Trump, otherwise they won't get reelected.
I'm not making that argument.
That's the criticism.
But in the end, I don't care what your opinion is on who likes Trump and who doesn't.
They control the Senate.
Lindsey Graham is denouncing the impeachment inquiry.
The House Republicans are storming the rooms.
And it's just completely unlikely this will end up as anything in the Senate.
Trump is going to walk away from this.
That's why, again, I don't think the goal is impeachment.
I don't think the goal is to stop high crimes and misdemeanors.
I think they literally just need dirt.
They're compelling witnesses to testify so they can get the smears prepared for 2020 to drive historical voter turnout.
Again, you can have Sondland say no quid pro quo, you can have Trump say it, you can have Ukraine say there was no quid pro quo, and the New York Times report they were unaware of any aid being held up.
But that one interview with Bill Taylor is all they needed.
They were digging, they found what they needed, and that's what they will use.
Think about it.
Knowing the Republicans control the Senate, do you think the Democrats are betting on actually getting Trump impeached, actually convicting him?
Of course not.
Okay, impeach—let me clarify.
The Democrats control the House.
They can impeach Trump.
But will he be convicted?
Will anything come of this?
No.
No, nothing will happen.
You know, Trump is projected to win, period.
What will happen, though, is out of the 10 interviews they do today, they find one where they can say something bad about Trump and use that in every campaign ad possible for moderates and to weaponize rhetoric coming into 2020.
There are a few things that I do want to point out.
This may be... So already we're seeing the GOP push back on Bill Taylor's testimony.
And this is one of the biggest pieces of criticism the right has had about the secrecy of the impeachment hearings in that only select information is being released.
And check this out.
They say McCarthy claimed those reports are based on leaks coming from the committee chairman, Adam Schiff, and do not reflect Ratcliffe's efforts to disprove Taylor's testimony.
The reason the Republicans are so furious about secrecy is they believe you have one guy who says something, they leak it, and they ignore all the contradictory evidence.
Again, it is about weaponizing the rhetoric and not allowing anyone in to see what's going on.
I will state, you have Rep.
Byrne saying he does have jurisdiction, the left saying no he doesn't, and ultimately I don't know where we end up.
But I'll tell you this, here's what really scares me, okay?
With Republicans storming into this building.
There's gonna be a ton of Republicans who are saying, finally they grew a spine and did something.
And I gotta admit, I'm kind of in that position.
When I saw this video, I can't remember who it was.
It was Republicans saying, I have been denied entry to see what's going on in this impeachment inquiry.
If you are doing something that I feel violates the Constitution, I'm going to walk in that room.
But they didn't.
And so I was like, well, you know what?
If they're not willing to do it, then nothing's going to change.
Matt Gaetz was.
Matt Gaetz led that charge with about a dozen Republicans.
And, you know, they say stormed, but they did.
They went in without authorization, passed the guards.
It wasn't like they were charging in and knocking things over.
No, no, no.
They walked in, opened the door.
They had their phones.
Some were filming.
And I'll admit, I can respect the gall it takes to go in and do this.
However, hearing then that you get congressmen screaming in Schiff's face shows me that we're in dangerous territory.
Look at some of these other countries in Europe, when their parliament and their congresses, you know, mostly parliaments.
Start getting into fights.
Bad things happen.
And we're in a dangerous track.
The divide in this country is getting so intense that Republicans were being denied entry into this impeachment inquiry.
I think that's wrong.
Completely wrong.
I think we as Americans have a right to know what these people are saying.
And I am not going to wait for you to release these documents.
I am for transparency.
Same is true for Trump.
Same is true for Schiff.
And I've always been very much about transparency in core issues of public matter.
Nah, I understand this confidentially and there's complicated issues.
But this is an impeachment inquiry into the president.
It's serious.
And I agree, Trump should have a right to confront his accusers.
The whistleblower's gone, apparently.
So what is the impeachment inquiry about at this point?
I have no idea.
But I think we're entering dangerous territory.
The Democrats know their power is limited.
They're probably going to lose because their policies are unpopular.
The economy is great.
And instead of saying, we have to work harder to win some hearts and minds for 2020 and 2024, what do they do?
Negative partisanship.
It is dangerous, it's going to escalate, and I'm already worried by what we're seeing.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
As I said earlier, if you've made it this far, check out the podcast, Tim Pool Daily Show, on all podcast platforms.
I'm really going to try to push that as hard as possible because YouTube is getting scary with all the news that's been coming out.
Derankings, demonetization, et cetera.
The podcast is one place where, at least for now, you can subscribe and get my full hour and a half of content every single day.
Next segment will be youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all there.
Two members of the Proud Boys have been sentenced to four years in prison due to their involvement in a fight between the Proud Boys and Antifa.
This is insane.
I think it's absolutely insane.
The main reason they're doing this, getting four years in prison over a street fight to me is nuts, but the prosecutor or the state is essentially saying we don't want an escalation of gang violence, so they've ramped up the charges essentially to attempted gang violence, and four years in prison, man, over one stupid night.
I gotta say, first and foremost, Don't get into these fights.
It's a really, really complicated story, and I do believe the city has gone soft on Antifa in a certain capacity.
However, Antifa made the smart choice in refusing to cooperate with police, and therein lies the main problem faced by the conservatives, or the right-wing side of this.
The Proud Boys are not wearing masks.
The Proud Boys openly talk about what they did.
The Proud Boys engaged Antifa to a certain capacity.
I do believe that Antifa is at fault to another... It's really, really complicated.
This particular moment, this fight they got into, wasn't necessarily self-defense, but You could technically argue it was because Antifa had robbed someone earlier.
It's really, really complicated.
But in the end, the Proud Boys don't wear masks and they cooperate with police.
Congratulations.
Four years in prison.
Antifa fled wearing masks and refused to give a statement.
And the state did want to charge them.
And that's why they got away with it.
And they will never be held accountable.
Let's read this story.
And I want to show you some, essentially, my argument as to why I believe the state has gone hard on the Proud Boys.
I don't care about what you think about the Proud Boys or Antifa.
This is not about which side is worse, which side is better.
I think it's ultimately...
If you're on the right, you will face heavier scrutiny, okay?
The only reason the Proud Boys ended up getting arrested was because of press.
Because the New York Times, BuzzFeed, and other outlets were demanding it.
And activists were saying, why aren't they being arrested?
Rah, rah, hurrah, rah, right?
Here's the thing.
Antifa, at an event hosted by Mike Cernovich, jumped a guy, choked him out, and got arrested.
This guy got sentenced to 16 months.
An unprovoked assault which could have resulted in death, not mutual combat, okay?
And this guy got less time.
Let's read the news, and I don't want to, you know, we'll break it down.
Fox News reporting, a Manhattan judge Tuesday sentenced two members of the right-wing Proud Boys group to four years in prison for pummeling leftist Antifa members during a brawl on the Upper East Side.
Justice Mark Dwyer gave Maxwell Hare 27 and John Kinsman 40 terms that were six months above the minimum for the caught-on-camera skirmish near the Metropolitan Republican Club after Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes delivered a speech.
Both defendants faced as much as 15 years.
They were convicted last August at a trial of attempted gang assault, attempted assault and riot, stemming from the October 12, 2018 melee.
It's a shame.
When some people jump up and down on a platform, Dwyer said, in an apparent reference to McInnes, and their followers, their soldiers, get into trouble.
Gavin McInnes has called for violence.
I understand the left has taken him out of context in many of the circumstances where they claim he was calling for violence.
However, He has, in some circumstances, made overt comments about getting violent.
It's just a fact.
And that's when Gavin crossed the line.
And don't take my word for it.
Go look at the other videos when I've talked about this very same thing, and you will see a lot of the sentiment in the comments saying, you know, in some of these videos, Gavin may think he's joking, but he definitely took it a step too far.
And that's going light on the guy.
Now, you have these leftists who have made a super compilation of Gavin where they're literally Taking things out of context, like in one instance, Gavin was talking about choking a dog with a collar, like, to train a literal dog, you pull the collar and it says, choke him, and literally refers to dogs.
They cut that out.
So, the left over-hypes it, for sure.
But even on the right, you see people still like, you know, going like, oh, Gavin, you know, ugh, because it's hard to get around.
I don't want to get too much into Gavin because I want to focus on this.
But that's the point he's making, that Gavin has gone up on these shows and said these things.
But in the end, I do want to stress, this to me is insane.
Four years in prison?
Like, you're ending these people's lives.
You realize that, right?
Look, man, I think the prison system is broken.
I think these dudes should not be getting four years.
Man, I'm totally for criminal justice reform across the board, but let's just read.
He added, I'm not sure the most moral responsibility belongs to these two defendants.
Both Kinsman and Hare apologized for their conduct during the Manhattan Supreme Court sentencing.
I'm sorry about the whole mess.
I regret the entire incident, said Kinsman, who was married with three children.
I made a mistake.
In a similar statement, Hare told the judge, I made a mistake that night.
I made quick decisions.
I'm sorry.
They both testified at trial that they acted in self-defense.
Assistant D.A.
Joshua Steinglass argued for five-year prison terms.
This was not a schoolyard brawl.
These are adults who should know better.
The fight unfolded shortly after McInnes' speech ended, and the Proud Boys exited the venue, as 60 protesters, including members of Antifa, massed behind barricades and jeered at them.
To avoid a confrontation, cops directed the Proud Boys west on 83rd Street, then south on Park Avenue, while they shepherded their opponents in the other direction.
As the Proud Boys neared East 82nd Street, they saw six suspected Antifa protesters clad in black heading toward them.
Instead of walking away, the defendants and their pals sprinted more than 100 feet toward their foes, instigating the fight, Steinglass said.
Yup.
Initially, when this was reported, we saw Antifa throw a bottle and then them charge in.
But new surveillance footage that was eventually uncovered by the New York Times showed that the bottle was thrown after the Proud Boys started charging in.
Here's the thing, though.
According to BuzzFeed, Just a few blocks away, Antifa robbed a guy and stole his backpack.
This is where it gets into why I think four years is too hard.
You want to argue about gang violence and you want to give them the minimum sentence of, I believe, you know, it's four years or whatever.
Or it's a little bit less than that.
I'm listening.
Because I do think escalation is a problem.
But let's consider the greater context.
The Proud Boys, for one, made a huge mistake.
Not only did they win the fight, they went, you know, they tried to, I guess, finish it, as they call it.
Sorry, man.
A lot of people on the Proud Boy side are saying, hey man, sometimes you gotta make sure they stay down to avoid, you know, a fight.
I hear you.
I get it.
And in some instances, that will work.
Not when you're a proud boy.
You need to have tact, and you need to be aware that you need to be totally defensive.
And this was a huge mess.
Running towards Antifa, starting a fight.
Man, you gotta avoid confrontation.
Okay?
There's a saying in martial arts about...
The best way to win a fight is to not have one.
So I understand.
Here's the thing.
Here's the greater context.
When you're coming out of a club and you're surrounded by protesters, they've been violent before.
They've bashed people over the head.
We've seen antifa violence.
There's over 800 in the past couple of years of harassment and violence against Trump supporters, even a few blocks away.
Antifa jumped a guy and stole his backpack.
So I think, based on the context of the greater circumstance, I'm not surprised the Proud Boys took the decision that we need to get past these guys.
You know, we can't just keep turning around and running away.
But in the end, they took it too far.
And that's plain and simple.
But to get four years, man, I just think that's nuts.
Like, come on, seriously?
Probation, I think, would have made a lot more sense.
This is insane!
Four years in prison!
They say, Kingsman and Hare repeatedly punched, kicked, and stomped on the outnumbered and undersized Antifa members.
The victims in the case were never identified, and Antifa refused to cooperate with the investigation.
Prosecutors said that if they could have located the Antifa members, they would have also been charged.
A total of ten Proud Boys were charged in connection with the incident.
Seven of them took plea deals, and one is still awaiting trial.
I know enough about history to know what happened in Europe in the 30s when political street brawls were allowed to go ahead, Dwyer said during sentencing.
We don't want that to happen in New York.
So Dwyer, that was the ADA, right?
No, it's not. I don't know. Who is Dwyer?
I want to make sure we get the context perfect here, and I don't want to misstate who Dwyer is.
That's Justice Mark Dwyer, the judge, I suppose.
Yeah, so that's the judge in the case.
And he's got a point, he's right.
But I'll tell you this, man.
Mike Cernovich put on an event.
This guy right here.
He got 16 months.
Hold on.
I think it's fair to point out Antifa has been charged and convicted in crimes, but wait, wait, wait.
How come Antifa can show up flying a flag, organizing under a banner, and not gang violence against an innocent, unsuspecting person, but what essentially amounts to mutual combat gets these guys four years?
You don't have to be a fan of the Proud Boys.
That is not what this is about, okay?
I think they should not be fighting, and they screwed up by doing so.
They took things too far, but hold on.
Antifa showed up to this club, okay?
Mike Cernovich putting on an event, Night for Freedom.
They show up, they're organized, they wear similar clothes, it's hard to identify, so that when these brawls break out, like with the Proud Boys, they can escape and no one knows who they are.
They're hiding their identity, they're engaging in organized street violence under a banner, how is that not gang violence?
And when they targeted an innocent person, he gets 16 months?
What happened with the Proud Boys and Antifa is both sides knowing these fights are possible and Antifa showing up to an event where the Proud Boys are.
A lot of Trump supporters are saying it was total self-defense.
Look, man, I don't care if you think it was self-defense or not.
I think it's fair to point out the context of Antifa robbing a guy and taking his backpack.
The Proud Boys knowing that Antifa usually engages, but failing to address tact, like a bad strategy, and understanding the heavy scrutiny you will face.
This is more evidence that if you are on the right when it comes to these moments, you will be punished more severely.
Sorry, that's the way it is.
This is so much worse in my opinion.
Now, I will add, I'm not a lawyer, I can't tell you what, but this dude knocked a guy to the ground, choked him out, put the guy in the hospital.
The Antifa guys left.
They weren't even that scuffed up.
They just left.
Well, it's gang violence.
Well, what is this?
They targeted Trump supporters.
This guy put a guy in the hospital.
It's mind-blowing to me that he's going to get 16 months and the Proud Boys are going to get four years.
Now, of course, you know, fully expect all the left to be like, no, no, no, no.
No, I'm critical of a biased criminal justice system that is more concerned about bad PR and about how media pressure focusing specifically on the Proud Boys and ignoring this, who reported on this, okay?
When this guy shows up and nearly kills a dude, let's read, he says, Campbell was arrested near a nightclub after he punched and choked a 56-year-old man he had followed out of the event.
He was one of 80 Antifa agitators protesting the gathering.
They say, quote, when the Proud Boys got into a street fight with Antifa members, it was a nationwide story.
The mayor and AG tweeted about the street fight.
When Antifa attacked a 56-year-old man, silence from the press, Cernovich told the Post.
Now that the criminal case is closed, I will be taking legal action, and that's what, you know, Cernovich said.
That's a good point.
Where's the outrage?
That a 56-year-old man was choked, punched, knocked to the ground, put in the hospital.
16 months.
Dude, this is gang violence too.
Look, first of all, I think prison sentences are insane as it is.
I seriously think, like, a month in jail is intense for the average person.
That is shocking, and it destroys your life.
You don't, don't, don't, listen.
There's a lot of people gonna be like, one month it's so bad.
Your paychecks, okay, they dry up.
You get out, you miss, you miss a month.
Now you gotta ask friends for help.
You're fired from your job, you're late on rent, you can be evicted, lose your car, your credit cards, all of that in one month.
Now you're two months behind on rent, two months behind on cars.
You've got to get your affairs in order.
You've got to break leases.
You've got to ask someone to take care of you.
It is a serious problem.
And it's not about the Proud Boys, because you know what?
They've made their bed.
I get it.
Antifa starts these fights.
They had enough.
They wanted to fight back.
You know what?
It doesn't matter.
The court doesn't care about context and neither does the press.
So you might be screaming, it's so unfair the Proud Boys are getting the scrutiny and the press was writing about it but Antifa gets away with all these things.
You know what?
You know the rules, right?
You know that the city is not going to tweet about Antifa.
They're going to tweet about the Proud Boys.
And that's unfair.
It's absolutely unfair that this guy and 80 people can show up and injure this guy.
It's totally unfair.
But you have to know this.
Everyone knows this.
Mike Cernovich knows this.
This story, you know, October 5th.
I think it's fair to point out that if you're on the right, you must be aware that you are not going to be protected.
And it's rather unfortunate.
But I'll tell you what, man.
Should this guy get 16 months, you know, I kind of lean towards 16 months is pretty intense.
It is.
Maybe too much.
However, he almost killed somebody.
And so it's a challenge, right?
He showed up to an event.
He followed a guy out.
He knocked him down, punched him and choked him out, put the guy in the hospital.
Yeah, it's a tough call.
Tough call.
The Proud Boys?
Antifa showed up to their event.
Antifa robbed someone leaving the venue a few blocks away.
Antifa has repeatedly attacked these people before and gotten into street fights.
The context is very, very different.
I view this almost as a mutual combat situation, in which case, if two people show up to fight each other, what do you do?
But I'll stress one final point.
Look, man, you might not want to hear it, And I know there's gonna be a lot of people who are like, this is not fair, this is not fair.
You're right, it's not fair.
It's absolutely not fair.
Everybody knows it's not fair.
The left will claim it is fair, okay?
They're already on Reddit saying, but look at this guy who got 16 months.
It's totally fair.
Dude, that's not fair at all.
He attacked an innocent guy who was leaving and he followed him.
That guy didn't want to fight.
Antifa and the Proud Boys, they fight, okay?
So that's, it's very, very different.
And man, four years Their lives are over.
That's done.
That dude, uh, Kinsman, I think his name is?
Is that, uh, the 40-year-old John Kinsman?
He's got kids, man.
His kids are gonna grow up without his dad.
Or at least for four years.
Now, maybe they'll get out earlier, you know, but still.
Like, I think any prison time for this kind of brawl is ridiculous.
It's just, it's nuts.
But I will stress, expect to see more of this.
Absolutely.
There's a concern about escalation.
Antifa knows not to deal with cops.
Not to talk to cops.
And guess what?
They're free.
They came to the venue.
One guy gets robbed.
They throw a bottle.
They played their part in this and they lost, right?
When has Antifa been charged and convicted for the violence they've gotten into?
You know why they don't?
You know why all of the people who rioted in D.C.
two years ago got away with it?
They're wearing masks.
They organize.
The government tried to go after them.
They couldn't.
So there you go.
You want to talk about what's fair or not?
If you're on the right and you want to show up and be proud of who you are and what you believe, congratulations, the state will use that against you.
It's funny.
It's funny because my view on criminal justice, the police and everything, it leans left for sure, man.
Overbearing state repression.
And now you can see the Proud Boys are facing the brunt of that while Antifa has walked away.
Because Antifa exploits the system.
They know the rules, they've been organizing longer, and they get away with it.
Not only did the Antifa involved in this get away with it, but the Antifa guy who choked and punched a guy got 16 months.
I think, I think probation for both would have been fine.
I think probation is serious.
You're monitoring them, you know, get an ankle bracelet or something, track their behavior, have them check in, tell them no more protest activities, let them be with their families.
I think, you know, whatever, man.
It's nuts.
It truly is crazy.
And I will stress, the only reason this ended up where it is now is because journalists targeted the Proud Boys.
Journalists saw the brawl, sought out surveillance footage, reported stories like, they weren't arrested and New York won't say why.
Press is what resulted in the Proud Boys getting arrested.
I'd love to see the journalists talk about Antifa clubbing that guy overhead in Portland.
They don't.
BuzzFeed never wrote a story saying Antifa clubbed a Bernie Sanders supporter over the head and the police didn't arrest him, and they won't say why.
Where are those stories at?
But hey, you know what, man?
I'll end by saying this.
Gavin in the past has gone too far, and that's just not my opinion.
A lot of people have talked about that, and I think you gotta call it like you see it.
The Proud Boys, they wanted to finish the fight.
I can understand the mentality, especially as Antifa has attacked them in the past and all that, but you know what, man?
You win every fight you run away from, right?
So, don't be surprised when the media industry already smears and defames you, and then you walk around getting into fights, cooperating with the state, with the police, the city, and then the press comes out and demands you get arrested.
Look, New York City is a liberal place.
They're not going to defend you, Proud Boys.
And now you're going to prison for four years.
I think that is a travesty.
I think it's a...
I think the prison system is horrifying.
And what people need to understand, okay, they're so confused about what my politics are.
But Tim, he has left-wing politics, but how come he agrees with some conservatives?
Because I'll tell you what, it's not about tribe, it's about principle.
And the principle is, these Proud Boys who show up in New York City and are being punished under this law while the left cheers, guess what?
Out of the thousand times these laws are used to prosecute, it is 0.1% that they target right-wing white individuals.
It's almost entirely the city using these against poor minority communities.
You want to talk about how to solve these problems, you can't cheer when the state sentences people to four years for getting into a fight with another group.
Because the city is now going to use this and say, you didn't complain when we did it to the Proud Boys, why would you complain when we go to the Bronx and do it to these people?
You know what?
People are so concerned about tribe and race, they don't care about the laws that are being wielded against them.
And I warned over and over again about censorship against conservatives and how it's going to trickle into the left, and we're all next.
And guess what?
We see it.
It's happening.
The anti-war left, Tulsi Gabbard, they are being... Look, these tech companies are going after them.
It's about principle.
You have to protect rights for everybody, even those you don't like.
My advice to you, man, do not get into a fight.
If Antifa comes to start a fight, just defend yourself.
And you may get mad and say, it's not fair.
We have a right to self-defense.
I didn't say it was fair.
It's not fair.
End of story.
It's not fair.
If you want to win, you've got to learn what the rules are and how it's being used against you.
You want to get into a fight, stomp some dudes while they're on the ground?
Like, there you go, you're gonna get arrested.
Not only that, they live-streamed this, and some dudes started jumping up and down, bragging
and talking about how he stomped, you know, slammed a guy's head in the ground and all
this stuff.
Sorry, I get it.
You're getting that emotional satisfaction, and now they're coming for you.
So you know what, man?
I don't know what to tell you guys.
Stop fighting.
That's the easiest thing to do.
And you know, so much of what the Proud Boys want to do, there's, like, my understanding is the fourth degree is that you've acted, you've gone to a fight with Antifa in defense of free speech or some constitutional value or something.
And that's what you get.
You can't do it.
That's just, you know, ah, whatever, man.
I know I'm gonna, I'm basically, I'm gonna get it from everybody for talking about this.
The Proud Boy, you know, pro Proud Boy type people are gonna be mad at me saying, you should be defending them, blah, blah, blah.
Antifa's gonna be like, you're defending them too much.
I don't care, dude.
Whatever, man.
Look, I'll end this.
Four years is insane, okay?
Sixteen months, in my opinion, is even insane.
I think probation.
Like, we need to simmer things down.
I think the criminal justice system is broken in so many ways.
It's not gonna solve the problem to lock these dudes up for four years, especially a guy who has kids, especially a guy who's 27.
This is insane, okay?
And the Antifa guy from the party, I understand a lot of people might be cheering for sixteen months.
I think that's pretty much over the line, too.
I understand it's difficult.
Could've killed the guy.
Yes.
Yes.
But we have to remain calm, okay?
And it's not just that.
I'm very, very much a no-private-prisons, prison-reform, criminal-justice-reform, rehabilitation kind of person.
This is not solving the problem.
It's making it worse.
People are going to look at this and they're going to say, the state is supporting Antifa, and that's what they're saying.
And you already have the press saying, why won't they be arrested?
Next segment's coming up at 1pm, and I will see you all then.
In what may be one of the most shocking and egregious attempts to gaslight all of us, the New York Times has stealth edited the original article on Hillary Clinton where she asserted that Russia was grooming Tulsi Gabbard and changed it to Republicans.
I kid you not.
I'm not going to bury the lead.
I'm going to show you right now the original article and the archive.
This is the archive.
Tulsi Gabbard lashes back at Hillary Clinton after claim of Russian influence, which reads, Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was grooming Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii as a third-party candidate for president.
This sparked a major wave of stories, a response from Tulsi Gabbard twice now.
Van Jones, CNN.
CNN reporting Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are grooming Tulsi Gabbard.
And do you know what the New York Times has done?
They've completely stealth-edited the article with no notice.
Nowhere in this article does it say, editor's note, correction, a previous story said X or Y. Nope.
They quietly changed it, and I'll tell you why.
Look at this.
Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was backing Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii for president, and that Republicans were grooming her as a third-party candidate.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait.
Republicans were grooming her as a third-party candidate.
That is not a fair interpretation of what was said at all.
There is no correction on the story noting the change.
Bless you, archive.is.
Otherwise, we would not know about this.
But I'm a rational and reasonable person.
So I will just state, I'm gonna go with Hanlon's razor on this one.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
I do not believe necessarily the New York Times is doing this on purpose to help Hillary Clinton.
But I will tell you this.
This now, what's going to happen is there are already Twitter threads going viral where they're saying Tulsi Gabbard didn't even bother to fact check and all the reporting is based off of what she said and her response.
And they're saying, see?
The New York Times said it was Republicans that were grooming her.
The Republicans were grooming her.
Amazing.
I assure you, in a few months, if we don't get on top of this, in a few months, you will start seeing narratives in the press of people going, Russia?
Hillary Clinton never claimed Russia was grooming Tulsi Gabbard.
No, she was talking about the Republicans.
She mentioned that Russia had bots and stuff, but she was talking about Republicans.
That's what's going to happen.
You'll see on Wikipedia, someone, they'll put it in on Wikipedia
somewhere, like this big thing happened.
It was a big national outcry.
And then there'll be in a few months, someone will say, Hey, that source doesn't support this.
The source said Republicans, not Russia.
And I'll tell you what, again, Hanlon's razor.
I think it's fair to assume based on the full transcript that Hillary Clinton
may have been talking about Republicans.
I think it's fair to assume that, to a certain degree.
But I think a reasonable interpretation, based on what Hillary Clinton said, is that she was talking about Russia.
And that's why CNN said, Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are grooming Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run.
Everyone saw that.
And everyone believed it.
Now, I have the transcript of what was said from PolitiFact.
And so, I'm going to tell you exactly what I think is happening now.
I do think to an extent they're activists who are absolutely acting in defense of Hillary Clinton, but in the end all that matters is that At the very least, what we can say is the New York Times just committed a major, major ethics violation.
The story does not contain a correction.
It just changed the paragraph.
It doesn't say anything.
Nowhere in this do they say that a previous version of this article incorrectly stated X or Y. Nope.
So nobody knows.
As far as anyone can tell, this is the original article.
It's not.
Archive.is has the original Russia Was Grooming Rep Tulsi.
So I'll tell you this.
If you're a Tulsi Gabbard fan, and if you're a Republican, we should all be equally as outraged.
I am a fan of Tulsi Gabbard.
And I am outraged at the repeated smears.
And I gotta tell you this, man.
My support for Tulsi has always been slightly lukewarm.
The main things I like about her is getting rid of the war stuff.
That the US is always trying to butt in and change international market economies by use of force and weapons instead of focusing on what our country needs, healthcare and school and all that stuff.
And so, I like that about Tulsi.
I like that she doesn't like the war on drugs, she wants to end all that.
Yes, prison reform 100%, be it the war on drugs, ending private prisons.
It's always been just about that, though, because there's a lot of things I disagree with her on.
She opposes nuclear energy?
Wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Okay?
She's a bit... I think she may be much harder on 2A than I am, though I am kind of on the left when it comes to Second Amendment issues.
Long story short, Every time I see this, it makes me want to dig in deeper with the how dare you.
How dare you, okay?
I am not an ardent activist.
I don't go out waving signs and screeching.
I don't even own any Tulsi Gabbard merch.
I just think she's the best person so far.
Like, so it's kind of like, yeah, she's pretty good.
I like what she has to say.
I appreciate her service record.
She's a major.
And then when I see the media lie, the smears claiming she supported Assad lies, and now this.
But you know what?
Michael Tracy was tweeting something about how someone said it was weird that all of these right-wingers are supporting Tulsi.
And I was like, what do you mean?
It's not weird at all.
She loves America.
She served her country.
She thinks the wars are bad.
Those are issues that Republicans love.
And she's being smeared repeatedly by the media.
I can't believe this.
This is the New York Times.
The gray lady, the paper of record, with no correction or update on this article, where they've changed it now to accuse Republicans.
This is insane.
So if you're a Republican, guess what?
They're blaming you now.
Yup.
Because the original article said Russians.
And that's what everyone else reported.
But this is the paper of record.
This is the source they will use.
Here's what I'm going to do.
Because I'm fair.
And I'm reasonable.
I want to show you the transcript.
And I want to explain to you what they're doing.
On October 22nd, yesterday, a new narrative started to emerge.
That Tulsi wasn't talking about Russians at all.
She was.
And they're trying to use the fact that she used a pronoun to defend the idea that she was talking about Republicans the whole time.
She wasn't.
I think that's an unfair interpretation.
I think it's... I'll put it this way.
I think it is fair that some people might look at it and believe she was talking about Republicans, but the overwhelming majority of people saw what she said, heard what she said.
That's the Russians.
She was talking about the Russians.
She was talking about Republicans, then started talking about Russians.
Check this out.
PolitiFact.
And PolitiFact actually did, I think, an okay job trying to broach the issue, but I think this is now being weaponized.
And the New York Times, this is nuts, man.
This is nuts, nuts, nuts.
The other day we saw from... Steven Crowder came out with some information, and we'll talk about that in a second, about how Tulsi is being targeted, smeared, and Big Tech is after her.
We'll get to that.
PolitiFact said, Hillary Clinton in a podcast interview said that a Democratic contender for president is being groomed to eventually run as a third-party candidate in the 2020 election.
Without giving a name, Clinton said the female candidate was the favorite of the Russians.
At the end of his interview with Clinton, David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, said, some of the headlines coming out of it may be her belief that Tulsi Gabbard is going to be a third-party candidate propped up by Trump and the Russians.
Trump, not Republicans, okay?
I think if we wanted to be absolutely fair to Hillary and everybody else, at the very least we could say Hillary Clinton views the Russians and Trump as the same thing and as the Republican Party.
But I think the most honest interpretation is that Hillary Clinton was talking about Russians grooming Tulsi Gabbard.
They say Clinton's remarks did prompt news headlines, saying Clinton suggests that US rep Tulsi Gabbard was being groomed by Russians.
Van Jones came out, they mentioned all this.
But Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill said Clinton was being misinterpreted, and that people should listen to the podcast.
She doesn't say the Russians are grooming anyone.
It was a question about Republicans, and that's where the lie is.
Check this out.
Going through the conversation, we get to this section.
He's asking her about Republican strategy.
She says that, you know, something like, Republicans are going to say Democrats are extreme and they're going to ban hamburgers so you can't vote Republicans.
She then goes on to say this.
He asks.
You know, uh, okay.
He's going to try and drive the people to not vote for him, but just to say, you know, you can't vote for them either.
And that seems to be, I think, to the extent that I can divine a strategy, their key strategy for now.
Clinton.
Well, I think there's going to be two parts.
And I think it's going to be the same as 2016.
Don't vote for the other guy, you don't like me.
Don't vote for the other guy, because the other guy is going to do X, Y, and Z. Or the other guy did such terrible things, I'm going to show you in these, you know, flashing videos, That appear and then disappear, and they're on the dark web, and nobody can find them.
But you're going to see them, and you're going to see that person doing these horrible things.
She said there's going to be two parts.
She did not say the Republicans are going to be doing both parts.
They're trying to play with language to change the narrative.
She goes on to say, quote, They're also going to do third party again.
And I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary, Also, meaning Tulsi is a Russian asset, who is the favorite of the Russians, and sites and bots are supporting her, and Jill Stein would have to give it up.
supporting her so far and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up which she might not because she's also a
Russian asset also meaning Tulsi is a Russian asset who is the favorite of the
Russians and sites and bots are supporting her and Jill Stein would have to give it up. What does that mean?
First of all, she's talking about Russian sites and Russian bots
She did say there, though.
Okay, so maybe she's talking about Trump, because they were talking about?
Either Hillary Clinton thinks Trump and the Russians are working together still, which is an insane conspiracy, or she's talking about the Russians.
Pluff inaudible.
Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally.
And so, they know they can't win without a third-party candidate.
And so I don't know who it's going to be, but I will guarantee you they'll have a vigorous third-party challenge in key states that they most need.
Who's they?
That's a question I have for you.
Who's they?
I believe the correct interpretation is that Hillary Clinton specifically mentioned Russian assets, calling them both Russian assets, referring to the sites and bots supporting her.
She's not saying they as though Republicans.
In fact, the quote was actually Trump and Russians, okay?
That's what they say in the beginning.
Where was it specifically?
Here's the quote.
Some of the headlines coming out of it may be her belief that Tulsi Gabbard is going to be a third party candidate propped up by Trump and the Russians.
And the Russians.
And the Russians.
That's from David Plouffe at the end of his interview.
She goes on to say they several times about what their strategy is going to be.
I think she's talking about the Russians.
Not Trump.
I'm sorry, Trump to an extent.
But here's the, at the very bare minimum, okay, it sounds like Hillary Clinton is saying, Trump and the Russians.
That's the quote from David Plouffe.
They didn't say Republicans, they said Trump, okay?
I believe that's what they're referring to, Trump.
You know, Donald Trump, as you know better than anyone in the world, only got 46%.
Yadda yadda yadda.
But one of the reasons he was able to win was third party vote.
It's clear to me you mentioned, so does he say Republicans in this?
Is Republican in there?
It was a question about Republicans, he claimed.
Nope.
Nowhere in the transcript did it say Republicans.
Hillary Clinton is talking about Russia and Trump together.
She still thinks they're the same thing.
She is a conspiracy theorist nut.
She was talking about Russia.
Dude, this is insane.
That the New York Times made this change and she never said Republicans.
Let me drive this home for you.
She never said Republicans.
This is nuts, man.
You can't get a fair win in this country.
Trump wasn't supposed to win.
And he did.
And he's lucky he did.
But for those of us that are on the populist more left side, I used to be a big fan of Bernie Sanders, but I don't think his integrity is there.
He's old.
There's a lot of issues.
I think Tulsi is willing to be a president for all Americans.
That means recognizing the moderate and the political reality.
I respect that.
But it's not even about Tulsi's policy at this point.
I'm so deeply offended by the smears and the attacks against her.
It's making me dig my heels in further and further and further, saying, you know, a big F you to the system.
Because I just said, like, hey, you know what?
I happen to like Tulsi.
That's how it all started.
I was like, I like Tulsi, right?
And it's her service record.
It's a big factor for me.
And the more the smears came in, the more they did things like this, the more I was like, I am going to back this person because you are wrong.
Like, I know right from wrong.
It's like, um... My policies lean towards Tulsi in a lot of ways.
And so that's the only real reason I was ever interested in her candidacy.
And there's, you know, her service record.
Check this out.
Stephen Crowder claims YouTube is selectively censoring Tulsi Gabbard.
This is being disputed by many individuals.
Stephen Crowder showed two videos.
When the Hillary story broke, Steven Crowder went in and searched for Tulsi Gabbard and her channel did not appear in search results and he put a video of it.
He then used a VPN to view YouTube outside the US and her channel did appear.
So he was saying that around the same time everybody's going to be searching for Tulsi, all of a sudden her channel's gone.
He then shows, on the 20th, both international and national become identical again.
So he asserts this is YouTube tomfoolery.
It's potential, you know, screwiness.
And he says either it's an egregious error that must be rectified or it's overt.
I will say this, okay?
Tulsi Gabbard is suing Google because they shut down her ad account after the first debate.
If- Listen, man.
Okay?
With all of this, this is- It's insane.
I will tell you this right now.
Is there a conspiracy against Tulsi Gabbard?
No.
I do not believe there is.
I hate conspiracy theories.
I don't think that there's secret people like plotting, but I do think there is a bias against Tulsi Gabbard.
I think the establishment doesn't like her, they smear her relentlessly, and they do things like this.
The bias is palpable.
Okay?
The New York Times changing the story without notice is like getting kicked in the gut.
They're blaming Republicans for this, okay?
And this is why you see the Tulsi Trump memes.
Because we're sitting here like, whoa!
For Steven Crowder to come out, whether he was right or wrong in defense of Tulsi, and even said, he said he didn't want to be president.
He's like, no!
But I know right from wrong.
So other people have tried to show the same phenomenon happens with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.
So Crowder may have been wrong on that point.
I haven't done a deep dive, so I don't want to assert, but I want to make sure you guys have heard there is criticism of that.
You can't defend this, New York Times.
You cannot defend this, okay?
This is absurd.
In the interview with Clinton, In what Politifact is even trying to assert, they don't say the word Republican.
They specifically talk about Donald Trump and the Russians.
Over the past year or so, there have been an endless slew of smears against YouTubers and YouTube as a whole.
I was subject to many of these smears, where they repeatedly claimed that there was a rabbit hole phenomenon, where if you go on YouTube and watch a video, you will be let down a rabbit hole where you will be radicalized.
It was fake news.
It's insane to me that this idea of a rabbit hole could even exist when you could simply use common sense to realize no matter what YouTube recommends, and this is for the most part, right?
No matter what YouTube recommends, you have to select it.
Now, I will admit, there is a problem in the autoplay function for babies, and that was nightmarish, that babies would just sit there staring at the screen as whatever played played.
But this idea of a rabbit hole makes no sense, because it implies humans don't think and don't click things.
Well, guess what?
Now the story's for the most part debunked because legitimate research has come out, not stupid New York Times fake news or an op-ed piece.
No, it's a legitimate Penn State political scientist coming out and saying, no, it's actually community building.
Yes.
Duh.
Long story short, guess what?
People who go on YouTube and then see a video, like you type in immigration, you get a video, you click the video, you go on YouTube, you click videos you like.
If you see something that offends your sensibilities, you don't click it.
Or if you do, you do it because you don't like it and you give it a thumbs-down.
This idea that YouTube radicalizes people is so ridiculous because it would make no sense that videos that have massive thumbs-downs should never exist because... what?
People... how does that make sense?
So here's the problem.
They're now saying, oh, look at this research.
The actual research is saying it's not the rabbit hole.
It's that people are building communities and people who like certain subject matter follow those same people.
Duh.
That makes sense, right?
But guess what?
YouTube made dramatic changes to the algorithm, to the recommendations, that are negatively impacting my channel and many others because of fake news and because YouTube lacks a spine.
So if you like this video, please consider sharing it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let's read the story from Wired.
Maybe it's not YouTube's algorithm that's radicalizing people.
Okay.
In a new report.
Penn State political scientists say that it's not the recommendation engine, but the communities that form around right-wing content.
That's right, good old right-wing Joe Rogan!
I love that.
Joe Rogan is a borderline socialist.
And Jordan Peterson is, like, a moderate.
I don't even know what his, you know.
But I love how they have in the same box Ben Shapiro and Richard Spencer.
And Joe Rogan, like, what?! !
Joe Rogan borders on socialist, Ben Shapiro is an orthodox Jewish conservative, and Richard Spencer is the most prominent white nationalist.
These things don't mix.
Thank you.
Great.
Let's read.
YouTube is the biggest social media platform in the country, and perhaps the most misunderstood.
Over the past few years, the Google-owned platform has become a media powerhouse where political discussions is dominated by right-wing channels offering an ideological alternative to established news outlets.
Full stop.
Progressive channels exist.
The most prominent, the Young Turks, Network.
The Young Turks Network is bigger than say like Crowder, which is the next biggest political channel.
So on its own I believe Crowder is the biggest and it's conservative.
But to act like right-wing channels dominate?
You don't even have research to back that up.
You're just looking at right-wing channels and then being like, there's too many!
They say, according to new research from Penn State University, these channels are far from fringe.
They're the new mainstream and recently surpassed the big three U.S.
cable networks in terms of viewership.
Yet for some reason, YouTube suppresses us.
Yep, that's right.
And they're propping up the big three.
CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.
Surprisingly, they're knocking down the New York Times and ABC News for whatever reason.
The paper, written by Penn State political scientists Kevin Munger and Joseph Phillips, tracks the explosive growth of alternative political content on YouTube and calls into question many of the field's established narratives.
It challenges the popular school of thought that YouTube's recommendation algorithm is the central factor responsible for radicalizing users and pushing them into a far-right rabbit hole, perhaps because rabbit hole theory was never legitimate data.
It was literally just people saying, hey, I think this thing happens.
And then all these news outlets doing no research and saying it was true.
And it takes two seconds to think about it.
That if you get a series of videos in front of you, you're going to move your mouse and pick, guess what?
I get recommended all the time.
I make political videos.
I get recommended Marvel Cinematic Universe theories.
That's like all I get.
And you know what I do when I don't care about the video?
I refresh.
I look for different videos, and then sooner or later a skateboarding video pops up, and I will click that.
It's insane to imply that, well, actually, I'll be fair, right?
To a great deal, you will watch what's placed in front of you, okay?
So you will see very lowest common denominator content vlogs and stuff appearing a lot, and if the clickbait is good and strong, you'll click it.
But this idea that you can see a video that's got some offensive political statement, and you're gonna be like, that's what I wanna watch, and click it, and go, oh no, now I believe it!
It's like, dude, People choose what they want to watch and what they're entertained by.
That's it.
Period.
And if they choose a video on immigration, and YouTube recommends two videos, one could say immigration good, one could say immigration bad, what do you think they're going to pick?
They're going to choose whichever one affirms their bias.
So it could go either way.
You see the point?
Like, I don't watch videos... The example I often give is that when they talk about this radicalization, Imagine you search on YouTube for Superman, and you start getting Superman videos.
Do you become more extreme in your fandom of Superman?
No.
Well, why is that?
But wouldn't you increasingly see more extreme, pro-Superman or anti-Superman content?
No.
That makes no sense.
There's no telling what the subject matter would be in terms of positivity or negativity.
They're lying.
The authors say the thesis largely grew out of media reports and hasn't been rigorously analyzed.
The best prior studies, they say, haven't been able to prove that YouTube's algorithm has any noticeable effect.
We think this theory is incomplete and potentially misleading, Munger and Phillips argue in the paper, and we think that it has rapidly gained a place in the center of the study of media and politics on YouTube because it implies an obvious policy solution, one which is flattering to the journalists and academics studying the phenomenon.
Instead, The paper suggests that radicalization on YouTube stems from the same factors that persuade people to change their minds in real life, injecting new information, but at scale.
The authors say the quantity and popularity of alternative, mostly right-wing political media on YouTube is driven by both supply and demand.
The supply has grown because YouTube appeals to right-wing content creators.
Not true.
That makes no sense.
With its low barrier to entry, easy way to make money, and reliance on video, which is easier to create and more impactful than text.
Sound is easier to create.
Talk radio!
Is easier to do.
Podcasts are easier to do.
YouTube appeals to Minecraft videos, and if you really wanna get promoted, you wouldn't be talking about politics.
You'd be talking about Minecraft, like PewDiePie does, and then you might find yourself on the front page of the default YouTube.com Where you will get millions of views and congratulations be rich.
Doing politics is divisive and esoteric.
It's insane that we're having an argument about politics when I assure you my videos get very little traction relative to someone talking about a celebrity.
Quote, This is attractive for a lone fringe political commentator who can produce enough video content to establish themselves as a major source of media for a fan base of any size without needing to acquire power or legitimacy by working their way up the corporate media ladder.
That's just the internet, dude!
So I can respect they're talking about it, but man, you know what bothers me?
I cannot stand academics, man.
They're just like these nerdy Blind individuals in the corner of the room being like, looking at you as though they're studying an animal, instead of just being, instead of going in, actually testing things, and being like, what works and what doesn't?
I assure you, I have more knowledge about YouTube, its algorithm, what works and what doesn't, in my pinky, than all of these researchers have in their whole bodies.
They don't understand anything about YouTube.
The idea that this is the appropriate place for politics?
I've been promoting my podcast!
It's way safer!
Dude, I get deranked, demonetized, I get my videos restricted, age restricted.
If I really... YouTube is just a place where I have found, you know, I make videos and I rant, and I'm actively trying to promote the podcast.
Why?
The podcast is safer.
It grows faster.
You have a core audience of fans who choose to watch your content, are more likely to engage.
Now, the advantages for YouTube is just that it's, like, you film my reaction, and I don't know, you know, I gotta be honest.
I have no real reason why I would use YouTube.
I use Twitter way longer, and I've got nearly 400,000 followers on Twitter.
YouTube is just a place for me to put videos.
I could easily put them anywhere else, but admittedly, YouTube pays money, right?
That's a factor, too, for sure.
Here's the thing.
If you were to take the portion of people on this planet who like certain things, politics is going to be very slim.
In that case, the argument is better made that YouTube appeals to gamers.
It appeals to regular people who produce entertainment content because they actively promote it.
YouTube actively suppresses this.
That's why I'm always asking for people to share content.
I don't want to rant on this.
I really hate talking about this.
I didn't want to do a video about it.
Ha ha ha, it's very funny they're putting Joe Rogan next to Richard Spencer again.
Lauren Southern retired a long time ago.
You get the point.
I'm sick of this narrative.
It's fake news.
It's literally fake news, okay?
If you go to YouTube.com on your own, you're gonna see mainstream content.
YouTube is suppressing politics.
It is not where you want to be for this.
That's why I've got like 60,000 subs on Bitchute.
Because people are actively trying to move over there.
I'll leave it there.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Why are so many young men losers?
Why are so many not working?
Why are so many living with their parents?
Why are so many not going to school?
Why are so many not in relationships?
Man, there's a lot of reasons and I can't tell you all of them.
I can tell you this one right here.
Majority of Americans say parents are doing too much for their young children.
Young men are taking longer to reach financial independence, as young women have gained ground.
Well, some might say, the feminists, it's a strike against the patriarchy, and good news.
In reality, if you're truly for gender equality, this is a nightmare.
Men are failing, and they're failing fast.
And one of the big factors is snowplow parenting.
Taking away all obstacles from in front of your children means that they're going to be weak and sensitive, and won't be able to function in the real world.
And that's what's happening.
And, I mean, there's a bunch of other factors I've gone over, like the internet, Tinder, and digital dating has created a huge gap between younger men being able to attain a relationship without a lack of skill, and this is resulting in men having no motivation, and the rise of incels.
Interestingly, if you look at some of these interviews from incels, they're normal-looking guys.
They have psychological issues.
But let's read.
I'm not going to talk about incels all day.
Pew Research says, this is Pew Social Trends, financial independence is one of the many markers used to designate the crossover from childhood into young adulthood, and it's a milestone for most Americans.
64% think young adults should reach by the time they are 22 years old, according to a new Pew Research Center study.
But that's not the reality for most young adults who've reached that age.
The share of young adults who could be considered financially independent from their parents by their early 20s, as assessment based on their annual income, has gone down somewhat in recent decades.
A new Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data finds that in 2018, 24% of young adults were financially independent by age 22 or younger, compared with 32% in 1980.
You want to talk about financial independence?
Let me tell you what I did when I turned 18.
I left.
And I was working a job that paid like, I think I was getting like nine bucks an hour.
Eventually got a raise.
Got to like ten something.
And I was broke.
And eventually I ended up homeless, living in my car.
Yeah, we'll talk about financial independence, okay?
It's when you truly decide to make it on your own and solve your own problems.
I don't care how much money you think you need.
You need to grow up Leave your parents' care and find your own path.
And if the parents won't tell you to GTFO, they're setting you up for failure, and you're gonna end up like a 30-year-old dude at home with your parents and no job.
And I don't mean to be disrespectful to those of you who find yourself in that situation, but I will tell you... Actually, I'll say this.
That's why I think Jordan Peterson is so positive and prominent.
You need, if you find yourself in these circumstances, to find the heaviest thing you can carry and carry it.
And I always say, you know, it starts with going outside and going for a walk.
If you find yourself sedentary, doing nothing, start doing something.
Let's say you play video games all day.
Start streaming it.
I had a buddy who played video games non-stop and I was like, dude, I will support you playing video games 24-7 as long as you livestream.
Turn it into something positive.
You have to be responsible for your own success.
But we are creating a generation of children, permanent children, who will not survive when the boomers go.
They say, looking more broadly at young adults ages 18 to 29, the share of who are financially independent has been largely stable in recent decades.
Overall, young men are more likely than young women to be financially independent.
Well, that's okay.
That's okay.
I think we need to get women and men to be kind of like an equality, right?
We're for equality.
So we don't want to be in a situation where women are not.
But this gender gap has diminished significantly.
Uh-oh, wait, it got worse.
The new survey findings underscore the extent to which many young adults are financially reliant on their parents.
Some 45% of adults ages 18 to 29 with at least one living parent say they have received a lot or some financial help from their parents in the last 12 months.
According to parents of young adults, those shares may be even higher.
About 6 in 10 parents with children 18 to 29 say they have given their kids at least some financial help in the past year.
Well, hold on, hold on.
Giving some financial help is very, very different from letting them live in your basement.
The first survey of 9,834 adults was conducted online.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
A majority of young adults who have received financial help from their parents say at least some of it was for recurring expenses.
Six in ten say the money went toward household expenses such as groceries or bills, and significant shares use it to pay their tuition, rent, or mortgage.
You know what I did?
Let me tell you a story.
When I lived in Los Angeles, and I was sharing a studio with two other people, I would busk, play guitar in the streets, then I would take the couple of bucks I'd make and I'd buy a bag of tomatoes and some tortillas and I'd fry them on the stove and that's what I would eat.
And so, you know, I'm not going to tell you to go out and suffer.
I'm not going to try and pretend like everybody should have this horrible life, but I will tell you, you want to talk about perseverance, strength, making yourself a better and more well-rounded person, you need to experience hardship.
I don't like the idea of suffering, but I will mention that a certain degree of hardship, not suffering, hardship, makes you a better person in a lot of ways.
It makes it so insults roll off your back, you can move on, you're less Finicky, and you have less anxiety, you have more confidence.
I'll tell you what, man.
Hang out in the streets a couple nights with nowhere to go, and the only people you know are some gutter punks who are drunk 24-7, and you're gonna be more confident.
I assure you.
Much, much more confident.
Because when you see that crazy drug addict wielding a knife, and you get scared, later when you're at work and you're concerned about a promotion, you're not scared!
You're like, this is boring, you know?
So, let's read on.
They say, Beyond financial independence, the pace with which young adults are increasing other markers of adulthood has slowed significantly over the past several decades.
Today's young adults are staying in school longer and are marrying and establishing their own households later than previous generations.
And I think this is all bad.
But you know, interestingly, I think a lot of this has to do with relationships.
Here's what's interesting to me.
I talked about this before, how dating apps have changed the dating landscape.
Consider this.
15, 20 years ago, men and women only knew the people like, okay, if you were in college and you were 20 years old, you only knew other people from your college for the most part, men and women included.
With the advent of dating apps, the dating pool for men and women has expanded to near infinite range.
You can even search for someone in China.
OkCupid is just rife with Pacific Islanders and East Asians who are trying to find American relationships.
So now your dating pool is ridiculously huge.
Think about what that means.
Young men have a hard time competing with older guys.
Okay, I'm 33, got my own house, I have a big van.
Yeah man, look, you wanna come hang out with me?
We're gonna go on an adventure.
You wanna go skydiving?
You wanna rent a boat?
We can do fun things.
But a 22-year-old guy can't compete with that.
Because what do they have?
They have debt, they're in school, no job, no income, and they rely on their parents.
On average, I'm saying.
Now think about what happens when a woman opens up Tinder and is presented with two choices.
I can hang out in the dorm with this guy who seems pretty cool, or this other guy seems pretty cool, wants to go on a helicopter ride, because it's only a couple hundred bucks to rent a helicopter.
I think, in my opinion, I'm not a scientist, over a long enough period of time, Anyone, male or female, will skew towards going on an adventure.
Well, a 22-year-old guy on Tinder is, according to OkCupid data, a 33-year-old woman who can afford a ride in a helicopter.
I shouldn't have used that, but it is a common, fun thing people do, and they post on Instagram, but now people are gonna start talking about communists or whatever.
The point is, it's a couple hundred bucks to spend a day riding around, a couple hours, flying over your city, taking photos, and it's an adventure, right?
But 30-year-old women are not attracted to 22-year-old guys.
However, 22-year-old women are attracted to older guys to a certain extent, which means these 22-year-old guys are competing with 30-year-old guys with these other college women.
Combine that with younger women looking for career more than family.
Young men are not getting relationships.
They're feeling like it's impossible.
Their parents are picking up the slack and taking care of them, and they end up sitting around not working, doing nothing, not forming relationships, not, you know, getting married, not fighting or striving for something they're passionate about, and that's going to trickle up into the next generation.
So right now you've got millennial dudes, who many of which I think are frail and quite pathetic, but you do have a decent amount are totally fine.
You know, they're regular people.
Regular, well-rounded people.
Then you have the more extreme cases of people like me who've been homeless and then clawed our way out of the bucket of crabs or whatever.
But what do you think's gonna happen when you have these 26-year-old dudes who are living with their parents, financially dependent on their parents, haven't worked, what's gonna happen when they're 40?
Who's gonna take over industry?
Well, it's actually quite simple.
Women!
And thus the patriarchy will end.
And major institutions will primarily be run by women.
Already the military-industrial complex is run by women.
I don't think it's a net negative in that capacity.
I do think gender equality is important.
What we're seeing right now is a track and you can bet a solid dollar.
That coming into the next generation, coming into the next 10 or 20 years, there will not be gender equality.
There will be an inversion.
There will be women in positions of power.
It's going to be interesting how this plays out in the theater of war, in major careers.
I think we're going to see a lot more men doing low-quality trades work and women doing higher-tier, like, academic work, which is already, I think, what we're seeing, right?
But these younger guys who don't have relationships They're not... I don't know.
They have nothing to finance, nothing to protect, no one to provide for.
And I think this trend... I'll leave it with this.
It's the parents' fault for taking care of all their kids' problems.
You need to kick your kids out at a certain age.
Say you're an adult, you're on your own.
Bye!
Sleep in the back.
It's just all this snowflake, you know, parenting, snowplow parenting.
But just consider this.
What happens ten years from now, when the 22-year-old guy, living with his parents, with no job and no school, plays video games all day, when they're in their 30s?
Who's going to be in Congress?
Who's going to be running industry?
It's not going to be dudes.
There is a major shortage of dudes in college and in careers, and with families.
It'll be interesting to see what happens, because I'd be curious to see, based on OkCupid's data, if career women are accepting of househusbands.
So things will get weird, in my opinion.
But, I don't know, we'll see.
Society changes, culture changes, and, um, you know, I guess in the end, all I can really say is, I'll be alright.
Whether or not anybody else will be, eh, we got problems.
Anyway, stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Democratic governor of California Gavin Newsom is stumped by high gas prices in California where gas taxes outstrip the other 49 states.
There was a viral photo recently that showed two gas stations and they were only miles apart from each other.
One was in California and the other I think was Arizona.
Is that what it was?
I'm bad with geography.
I'm not.
Okay, anyway, the point was outside of California gas was like two bucks and right like a couple miles away in California was four something.
Why, that is.
Could it be, Gavin, that you supported a gas tax?
Check it out.
The Daily Caller says, Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom threatened possible legal action against oil companies in a Tuesday tweet complaining about the high cost of gas in his state.
He said, California drivers have paid an average of 30 cents more per gallon.
There's no identifiable evidence to justify that.
I'm demanding an investigation.
If oil companies are engaging in false advertising or price fixing, legal action should be taken.
When I heard this, I just couldn't believe it.
Gavin, you quite literally supported the gas hike, right?
You supported massive gas tax hike.
So why is California on average paying 30 cents more?
Maybe it's because your state has a higher rate.
Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Maybe Gavin isn't talking about taxes.
Maybe he's trying to imply that outside of taxes, they're paying 30 cents more.
Oh, okay.
Well, The Daily Caller does have an answer to those as well.
Gasoline blends.
Let's read what they have to say.
While Newsom claimed that there was no identifiable evidence to justify the fact that California is paid 30 cents more per gallon, there were a few key indicators that the California governor appeared to be ignoring.
California ranks first in combined state tax rates and fees, which amount to approximately $0.61 per gallon.
Only two other states, Illinois and Pennsylvania, have combined tax rates over $0.50 per gallon.
Another eight states, Hawaii, Washington, Michigan, Indiana, Florida, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, have combined tax rates between $0.40 and $0.49 per gallon.
The vast majority have tax rates of $0.39 or below.
Gasoline blends.
California's more stringent environmental regulations have also played a part in raising the price residents pay at the pump, effectively turning the state's fuel market into an economic island.
A 2015 article in the LA Times explained the phenomenon, saying that the golden states of market is isolated from outside fuel suppliers that might moderate prices.
In addition to the environmental regulations that affect all gasoline blends sold in California, the formulas change with the seasons, and the summer blend is even pricier than its winter counterpart.
Additional environmental requirements established for refineries have caused a number of refineries to close their doors, leading to further decreases in competition.
While California's most recent gas tax hike, which Newsom supported, went into effect this past July, many of the environmental regulations impacting price of the pump predate his time in the governor's mansion.
You know what is a major factor in getting re-elected and whether or not someone's going to support you?
Gasoline prices.
Because at the end of the day, you want to go to the store and buy milk, you can't do it if you don't got gas.
You want to drive to work?
Well, you can't do it if you don't got gas.
Gasoline, fuel for your vehicle, is one of the most important purchases someone can make in their life.
Gas prices are a major factor in why Moody's Analytics is saying that Donald Trump is going to sweep 2020.
Because the gas prices are down, down, down.
That means more traveling, more vacation, more food, cheaper prices, lower inflation.
Because it all starts with petroleum.
You want to get corn from the field?
You want to grow the corn?
Need a tractor.
You need supplies.
You want to get the corn to the supermarket?
You need a truck to do it.
You want to ship your wood across the country?
You know, bring iPhones in?
On a boat, you gotta have cheap, cheap oil.
Okay?
And Trump, under Trump, gas is cheap.
Now in California, it's not.
So I have to wonder, if this is fake outrage, that Gavin Newsom is pretending like we're being gouged, so he can pass the buck, and say it's them, it's their fault, don't blame me, I didn't do anything wrong.
Well as it turns out, he's the one who supported the massive tax hike.
So you know, I don't trust California at all.
California cities like L.A.
have Democratic supermajorities.
Okay, so Los Angeles can't pass homeless reform bills, even though they're all Democrats.
Now, why is that?
They also pass these massive gas tax hikes, environmental regulations, driving prices, people are fleeing California, there's diseases, feces, the whole thing's a nightmare.
And they keep doing the same things.
Listen, man, We got a problem.
There is a certain point where we gotta say, hey, we don't have enough of a certain resource.
I'm not saying we're there now, I'm saying we'll get to the point where, like, we don't have enough water.
That's scary, when that happens.
The point is, at a certain point, you can't just start jacking up prices with taxes, because people won't be able to afford it, they'll get angry, they'll blame you, and they'll leave.
Let's read this story from Reason.
Just the other day, the governor's request for an investigation comes after the release of a report finding the state's taxes and regulations explain half of the higher prices gold and state motorists pay.
It could also be, because of the taxes, refineries and other companies don't want to come there because they can operate safely and securely in less regulated places.
Now, I'm for regulation, right?
But you gotta have that happy medium.
And California, you're facing the brunt of going too far.
They say Gavin Newsom is at it again, requesting on Monday that California Attorney General Xavier Becerra investigate possible price fixing by California's major oil and gas companies.
The request comes after the release of a new report from the California Energy Commission, which found one partial reason for the Golden State's highest in-the-nation gas prices To be the higher prices charged by brand retailers like Shell, Chevron, and 76.
Newsom had requested this report back in April to figure out why Californian motorists were paying a mystery surcharge, a term that refers to the price difference between state and national gas prices that can't be readily explained by California's higher taxes or unique energy regulations.
So that's what I was trying to say before we got into the Daily Wire stuff.
I'm sorry, Daily Caller stuff.
It may just be He's not talking about taxes.
He's talking about why there is a bigger charge.
So I'll give you a simple explanation before we read on.
Well, like I said, these companies might not want to be there because of regulations.
So you can say the regulations don't cost this, but it could also reduce competition, and it could also then mean that companies have to pay a premium to attract workers to work in the state.
Well, let's read.
They say Newsom had requested this report back in April to figure out why Californian motorists were paying a mystery surcharge.
There is no identifiable evidence to justify these premium prices, wrote Newsom in his letter to Baquera, according to the LA Times.
The mystery surcharge adds up, especially for cost-conscious working families.
If oil companies are engaging in false advertising and price-fixing, then legal action should be taken to protect the public.
That Newsom would use the release of this report to criticize gas companies for their high prices is somewhat puzzling.
After all, the CEC investigation makes clear just how much the state's high taxes and regulations are contributing to higher gas prices.
The commission's investigation found that the per gallon gas prices were roughly 75 cents higher in California last year than in the rest of the country.
Of this difference, some 40 cents was attributed to the state's higher taxes.
You want to talk about mystery surcharge?
and trade regulations and its low carbon fuel standard.
Newsom famously supported the state's 2017 gas tax increase and argued against a 2018 ballot measure
that would have repealed it.
Of the remaining price difference, some 10 cents was the result of higher crude prices
in California.
Retailer and refiner margins accounted for another 23 cents of the difference.
You want to talk about mystery surcharge, dude, it's simple.
If California has a regulation on a certain aspect of the industry that's not directly related to the purchase
of fuel, they got to pay for it.
So, yeah.
Like, it's that simple.
Contra Newsom's claim that there was no justification for these higher prices, the CEC listed a number of reasons why branded retailers might be commanding a premium at the pump.
There are a number of possible reasons why consumers continue to buy higher-priced gasoline, including station location, the acceptance of credit cards, and brand loyalty.
There may also be perceived differences in gasoline quality based on retailers' claims regarding gasoline specifications or additive packages.
These are all legitimate reasons why consumers are continuing to purchase these higher-priced brands.
It's also possible, man.
Regional, okay?
California has specific terrain.
It's mountainous in some areas.
It's hilly.
You got California where you gotta drive into the valley.
That could all play a factor.
It's really quite simple.
You got a flat desert over here in the Mojave.
Yeah, well it's a straight line.
It's easier to bring these supplies in.
Does the drought play a factor?
Does weather play a factor?
Does the fact that there is a massive demand play a factor?
Whatever retailers reason for charging higher than average gas prices, Newsom's request for a price-fixing investigation seems like a clear attempt to deflect blame from the state's own price-increasing policies.
And there it is.
If it's his fault, he's not going to get re-elected.
But I'll tell you what, man.
I'm not trying to make this a dig about Democrats, okay?
There are Republican-led states that are in much worse condition in some areas, okay?
Homelessness, lack of education.
I get it.
But California is supposed to be this glorious golden child, right?
Where they've got all the different terrain for a vacation and all the celebrities want to live there.
You've got LA and San Francisco.
You've got the booming tech industry and the massive billions of trillions of dollars they command, right?
Yeah, for some reason the state is riddled with disease, homelessness, extremely high gas prices.
I mean, beyond the natural disasters, you've got human waste everywhere.
So you want to talk about gas price problems?
I hear you, man.
But I'm gonna go ahead and blame you.
Based on everything else we've seen from California, am I gonna sit here and be like, maybe it's the oil companies that operate the same way in every other state?
Nah, man.
I think it's you.
And I think it's your administration.
I think it's your policies.
And it's the fact there's no political market competition.
