Police Now Involved In Democrat Ethics Scandal As SECOND Democrat Hit With Ethics investigation
Police Now Involved In Democrat Ethics Scandal As SECOND Democrat Hit With Ethics investigation. Police are now investigating leaked photos of Democratic rep Katie Hill following the publication of photos by two news outlets.The allegations against progressive democrat Katie Hill were announced recently by the house ethics committee and Hill has admitted to an inappropriate relationship.Following this questions emerged about payments Hill was making to her lover up until last month from her campaign. While Hill denies one of the allegations against her she has admitted to the other. Conservatives are making the case based on text messages that were leaked that Hill was pressuring her subordinates and staffers into things they did not want to do. Admittedly this scandal is very complicated and new details are constantly emerging.In a shocking turn however the house Ethics Committee has announced a SECOND Democrat will be facing an investigation into an affair and campaign finance violations.In the past we have seen Ocasio Cortez and Ilhan Omar face similar accusations and Omar even had to pay a fine for misusing campaign funds. For some reason many of these complaints are centered around the younger far left Democrats, which may be a result of arrogance or simple ignorance as they are new.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A Democratic congresswoman is in the midst of an ever-widening public scandal after photos were leaked and allegations were made about inappropriate behavior.
A House ethics investigation was launched against her, and then she admitted she was actually having an inappropriate affair with a young female staffer, but not the male staffer she was accused of.
This story is ridiculously complicated.
Shortly after news broke, however, more photos of her in intimate positions and smoking marijuana started to emerge.
And then she filed a cease and desist, and now the police are involved because it may have been illegal to post these photos, but some argue the photos were already publicly made available by her and her husband.
So, needless to say, this is complicated.
And I'm going to try to do my best to walk you through what's going on.
But there is another big story here.
A second Democrat is now facing a House ethics violation for an inappropriate affair with a staffer.
So that means we have two Democrats facing these investigations.
I'm going to go through some light details on the Katie Hill story.
It will not be perfect, but I'm going to do my best.
You see, in this story, someone posted these photos, and I find that personally, disgusting.
If we want to talk about someone doing something wrong, like smoking marijuana, which is federally illegal, we can do that.
If we want to talk about double standards, fine, we can do that.
But posting these photos, I believe, was a step too far, and many publications that were critical of Katie Hill avoided doing that, and it was the right thing to do.
Well, let's get into the news and try and figure out what's really happening because not only is she being accused of having an affair, she's actually accused of being abusive and essentially using her authority and power to pressure young staffers into these relationships.
This story is complicated.
Before we get started, Head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
YouTube has been deranking political commentary across the board.
For a while I was getting some kind of benefit.
Now they're striking back and my channel is starting to do worse again.
So all I can say is if you think this video is important and you think I do a good job, please consider sharing this to help me continue doing the work I do.
From CNN, Katie Hill admits to relationship with campaign staffer after ethics probe announced over separate alleged relationship.
CNN reports, the House Committee on Ethics announced Wednesday it is opening an investigation into allegations that Democratic Rep Katie Hill of California engaged in an improper relationship with a congressional staffer in possible violation of House rules.
In a separate statement, two constituents released on Wednesday, Hill admitted to having an inappropriate relationship with a campaign staffer before entering Congress, for which she apologized.
Hill on Tuesday denied having a relationship with Graham Kelly, who currently works as her legislative director, according to Legistorm, a private research organization dedicated to tracking Congress.
There is no evidence of that alleged relationship.
Now, as for her relationship with the female, there's tons.
There's photos of them in intimate positions and doing certain things.
I won't mention because, listen...
While I think it's important that we're learning about improper behavior and potential ethics violations, I also think people have a right to their private lives.
That being said, the allegations extend beyond just having a private relationship.
They extend into the realm of potentially using her office and pressuring and scaring young staffers into these relationships.
But let's read a little bit more about what CNN has to say before we start getting into more of the nitty-gritty.
They say CNN reached out to Kelly, the male staffer, and he has not responded.
A statement from the committee notes that just because it has opened an investigation does not mean that any violation has occurred.
So again, it's a complicated story.
We will see what happens.
They say last week a conservative blog released intimate photos of Hill, alleging she and her husband had a separate relationship with an unnamed female campaign staffer.
That report included three photos of the congresswoman, including an explicit photo.
She said, Intimate photos of me and another individual were published
by Republican operatives on the internet without my consent.
I have notified Capitol Hill police who are investigating the situation
and potential legal violations of those who posted and distributed the photos
and therefore will have no further comment on the digital materials.
Now stop.
I can absolutely push back on anybody who's publishing intimate photos
because you don't need to do it.
And there are many right-leaning and conservative outlets that have avoided doing that, and that is the right thing to do.
We don't need to see these photos.
You know, look at what happened with Hulk Hogan.
They put out that video.
We don't need to see it to know the story, alright?
People are entitled to their private and intimate details.
However, that being said, we must address the deeper consideration here.
It's not just that she was having an affair.
There's actually a bit more than that.
Check this out.
Rep Katie Hill paid female lover thousands of dollars in consulting fees.
This may actually be moving into the realm of not just unethical behavior, but finance violations.
Was she giving money to her lover through Deceptive means, or was she obfuscating the reason why she was funneling money to this lover?
Check this out.
This is from the Washington Examiner.
California Democratic Rep Katie Hill was still paying consulting fees to her campaign staffer and former lover Morgan Desjardins, 24, as recently as last month.
According to FEC records, since April 2019, Hill's campaign has paid a little over $14,000 in fundraising-related consulting fees to Desjardins, doling out around $2,500 most months.
Additionally, between 2017 and 2018, she made around $50,000 as a senior campaign staffer.
Hill, who was facing a House Ethics Committee investigation over allegations she had an
intimate relationship with her legislative director, Graham Kelly, found herself under
scrutiny after a nude photo of her brushing Desjardins' hair was posted on the Red State.
Hill, 32, has admitted her relationship with Desjardins during her successful campaign for House seat, based in northern Los Angeles County, but disputed any inappropriate relationship between her and Kelly occurred.
The image was posted along with a text message sent between Hill, the Congresswoman's estranged husband Kenny Heslip, whom she is divorcing, and Desjardins.
According to the text posted at RedState, the trio had an intimate three-way relationship during Hill's first campaign for office, but it soured quickly after she won her race and went to Washington, D.C.
I am still in love with her, Hill texted Heslip.
It rips my heart out every time I have to see her or have someone say something nice about her.
Desjardins can be seen in a Vice News Tonight, HBO film with Hill, and other campaign staffers calling donors and asking for contributions to Hill's first campaign.
This is her lover.
And we can see here, according to what appears to be FEC records, she was paying a former campaign staffer and lover in California up until last month.
The insinuation here is that the campaign is over, she is not running for Congress anymore, And there are questions about why she is still paying for consultation over someone she claims to still be in love with.
Now, I will say right now, I don't know if this is anything illegal, if there's anything wrong here, but considering the salacious nature of the story, this is getting, this is getting particular, this is getting a lot of coverage, right?
People are asking, is this similar to what Ilhan Omar is accused of doing?
For those that aren't familiar, Omar was making bulk payments to, I believe, Tim Mineta is his name.
They weren't itemized.
People are concerned that was already a finance violation because you must itemize, but now the Daily Mail is reporting they have evidence and sources saying Ilhan Omar is in a relationship with this guy.
In which case, was Omar paying him to romp about in their relationship?
Considering that Katie Hill is now in Congress, and it's been several months, the question I suppose is why is she still being paid?
Well, It may be completely normal and reasonable to be, you know, paying someone for consulting.
There is still an election season.
She'll be up for reelection, I believe, next year.
So it does make sense.
But I would stress it is a serious violation of anyone's, I think, standard ethics.
Like, any regular person would agree, don't pay your lover a consulting fee from your campaign after your campaign is over, right?
So while there is going to be a campaign season, I think it looks fishy in a lot of ways.
Now let's move on to some of the news moving forward.
Katie Hill has threatened legal action against the Daily Mail and I believe the Red State.
The Red State took down the photo, at least that's what's being reported, but the Daily Mail is refusing to.
As much as I personally disagree with the Daily Mail publishing these photos, and I think that it was wrong and we don't need it, You got a problem here.
Now, Hulk Hogan sued Gawker and took them down because it was determined they didn't need to publish what they did.
You know, in the Gawker story, they could have just shown a screenshot and said, this is proof, right?
But they showed the whole video.
Now here's the more troubling question.
In this photo, Katie Hill is seen holding a bong.
We don't know what she's doing in it, but I think it's safe to assume she's smoking marijuana.
If that's the case, Even if today recreational marijuana is legal in California, I think we have a serious problem if a federal representative is doing a drug, as much as I think marijuana should be legal, it's still illegal at the national level, and she is in Congress.
Now here's the thing.
The photo was taken in 2017.
According to metadata, at least that's the claim from the Daily Mail.
In which case, perhaps she wasn't doing this while she was in Congress.
But then the other problem is, in 2017, marijuana was not legal recreationally in California.
In which case, it seems to be a photo of criminal activity.
So, I don't know what the statute of limitations is, you can't prove she was smoking weed, but this is why I think we're now getting into the territory of newsworthiness.
Daily Mail says here's a photo of her potentially breaking the law.
That's newsworthy, and they censored her more private bits.
However, they also went on to claim that she had an Iron Cross tattoo, and they made some accusations about World War II that I think are completely, completely wrong.
But, um, let's actually read the story from Politico and see what's going on.
It was reported yesterday night, attorneys for Rep.
Katie Hill on Thursday threatened to bring legal action against a British tabloid for posting what it claims are nude photos of the freshman California Democrat.
Hill's legal team suggested Hill was defamed over a report by the Daily Mail that she has a World War II-era tattoo from Germany.
Now here's what's really frustrating to me.
She had an Iron Cross, okay?
There's nothing bad about that symbol.
Skateboarders use it.
It's on skateboard trucks.
What a lot of conservatives are saying is that the reason they're saying this is because the Democrats and the left have done the same thing to them.
Personally, I believe in principle, I don't care who's done it or why, okay?
You can't falsely accuse someone of bigotry or whatever based on an innocuous symbol.
But there are many conservatives who believe you reap what you sow.
If you're going to have people on the left accusing somebody like a veteran we saw with that New Yorker, I believe it was a fact checker accused a veteran who had a Maltese cross of having an iron cross, if that's going to happen and people are going to be targeted and cancelled, or PewDiePie for instance, then why wouldn't Republicans do the same thing?
And I'll tell you what, man.
When it comes to the culture war in politics, Republicans are in a pretty, they're between a rock and a hard place.
Because, for whatever reason, you have people on the left making these accusations which are false, smearing people, and it affects me as well.
But those with principle, who refuse to cheat and lie, find themselves at that disadvantage.
One of my biggest fears is that because people like me, politically homeless, disaffected liberals, conservatives, are refusing to lie, We have a serious disadvantage that will result in a complete loss of an argument for free speech or freedom.
They will use character assassination techniques like this.
Well, now you can see many conservatives don't care.
Not all, not all, but enough are calling this, you know, making references to World War II and this tattoo, and it is not fair in my opinion.
I understand why they're doing it.
I think it's lacking principle if you did.
But in the end, politics is a dirty, dirty game.
And you play with fire, you get burned.
So I can't say I'm surprised people are trying to use this against her, especially when she has come out and made statements in the past and old tweets are emerging where they're calling her a hypocrite.
She's pointed to other individuals who have posted similar things, and that's what the accusation is.
How can you call someone a bigot for a symbol and then be mad if we do the same thing?
In the end, you know, I don't know what the right thinks is gonna happen.
You're not going to get people on the left to play fair.
They're not, you know, look, you've got people in media who play dirty, and they'll still play dirty now.
So, you know, you play with mud, you lie with dogs, you get fleas, right?
I don't think this is gonna be good for anybody.
They go on to say, however, that we're learning now about the photos and their legal case, but here's the bigger news.
Police are now investigating the release of revenge photos, we'll call it that, showing Democratic representative using bong while naked.
This is from Newsweek.
And then after this, we're going to jump into the next House ethics investigation into another Democrat Capitol Police have launched an investigation after a series of nude photos of Katie Hill, a freshman congresswoman from California, were published in two media outlets.
The first story came from the conservative website RedState, followed by the Daily Mail.
They say that RedState has removed the photo, Daily Mail has not.
They go on to describe the photos that we already know.
They say Hill's legal team have sent the legal notice, so I think we get it, right?
This is just a story telling us, rehashing everything that's happened, and then letting us know the police are investigating.
I think this is the important takeaway, that they're now going to be looking into how these photos got released, because what a lot of people on the right are saying is that these photos were published years ago on a wife-sharing subreddit forum.
However, I don't think the law cares about how they were published or who got them.
It's a complicated problem.
The general law is supposed to be that if you're in a relationship and you share photos, you can't then publish those photos for revenge.
If these photos were published years ago, then it wouldn't fit that criteria, in which case, it's just coming down to, I guess, irresponsibility.
I mean, look.
I think if you want to post intimate photos on forums and wife swap and do whatever you want, hey man, I believe in freedom.
You do your thing, right?
The problem is, you're in politics, and people are going to then post them.
So I have to stress, while I disagree with the posting of the photos, I understand the potential for newsworthiness, and I don't think Daily Mail will take them down, and I think it's within their rights to keep those photos up.
It is a tough situation, man, because me personally, I have my own set of ethics and standards that deviate from the news media.
It's complicated, it really is.
There are the standard ethics that exist from the Society for Professional Journalists and Thomson Reuters and things like that.
For me personally, though, I have my own standards.
For one, I will not film people who ask not to be in many circumstances.
This is a more nuanced position.
Typically when I'm doing interviews with people, I could just film anybody I want.
You're allowed to film in public.
If someone asks me not to, typically I will, but usually this involves somebody who is injured in some capacity or receiving first aid.
Now this is a complicated situation when it comes to what you should or shouldn't publish in news media because Well, think about it.
If the Daily Mail didn't publish that photo, we wouldn't know that she's possibly, or she's holding a bong, at the very least.
And I think it's important that, you know, some of these things, that her constituents are allowed to know that she potentially violated the law.
I am of the opinion marijuana should be legal around the country.
I, for one, don't smoke, and I don't think people should, for the most part.
But I'm a very liberty-oriented people.
And in the end, it is legal in California, so I don't know what else I can tell you.
But, people have a right to know about these particular details.
You wanna argue about it, but, you know, go ahead, I'm probably gonna get in trouble on YouTube for simply talking about it, but it is what it is.
Some will argue, and I believe the argument is fair, they're learning important details about their representative, and Americans are learning about this individual based on that photograph.
So, they did censor certain bits of it.
Personally, I wouldn't do it, but I would describe it, and that's what the New York Post and others have done.
Now, I do want to briefly mention that this goes beyond just she had an affair.
See, a lot of people are saying that, you know, what people do in their private lives is their business.
But according to Red State, if you want to trust them, I know it's controversial, the left is going to say no way.
There are text messages, which they've published, where someone talks about feeling like they will lose everything if they make her angry and everything can be taken away from her.
So it does sound like there's potential for abuse here.
That you have a prominent individual, a representative in Congress, essentially saying you must do X. And this brings us back to the giving money to this individual.
Is it possible that Katie Hill is paying her through the campaign just to support her lover while she's away in DC and is still in love with her?
These are questions that the House Ethics Investigation will probably look into, and that's what they should do.
And we're not done.
Because while that is the big story, We have to talk about this story from the New York Times.
House Ethics Committee Opens Investigation into Guam Delegate.
Now, the first.
Delegates from Guam are in the House, but they are non-voting members, okay?
So there are other territories the United States has jurisdiction over, and they have delegates who can come and explain their position and advocate for their territory, but they don't vote.
The New York Times says the committee said it was investigating allegations that Michael FQ San Nicolas, a Democrat, had a relationship with a congressional staff member and broke campaign finance laws.
How many campaign finance laws have been broken now from these new House members?
Ilhan Omar had to pay a fine.
There are accusations that Ocasio-Cortez... I don't know what's going on with those, but there have been numerous complaints to the House Ethics Committee.
Now we have Katie Hill giving this money to her lover in California.
And now we have a Guam delegate being accused as well.
You have Ilhan Omar.
So come on.
The list is extensive.
We'll read a little bit from this, and then we can wrap up on this one.
I do have one final thought.
They say that a former chief of staff and campaign official for the delegate accused Mr. Sandnicholas in September of having an affair with a woman he then hired onto his congressional staff.
The former staff member, John Paul Manuel, also alleged that Mr. Sandnicholas used campaign funds to pay for a trip he took with the woman.
Why are all of these allegations about secret love affairs?
They all are.
AOC giving money to her boyfriend, Katie Hill giving money to her girlfriend, Ilhan Omar giving money to her lover, and now this Guam delegate giving money to a woman, or I'm sorry, to pay for a trip and hire her that he's having an affair with.
I'm gonna have to lean towards where there's smoke, there's fire.
It's not something I like to typically lean on, but look, man.
We have a lot of stories.
Check this out.
Mr. Manuel also accused San Nicolas of accepting more than $2,700 limit in campaign contributions from a single donor as a candidate.
The congressman welcomes the opportunity for due process, the delegate's office said in a brief statement.
And I will absolutely respect that across the board.
Everybody is entitled to having evidence before we convict them.
That goes for Katie Hill, Ilhan, AOC, everybody.
I do not play these double standard games, nor do I appreciate it.
You know, when they want to call Katie Hill's tattoo or whatever, no.
I don't play those games.
If you do, you do you!
Okay?
I'll criticize that all the same.
So this is the gist of the story.
He's being accused.
He's being investigated.
We'll see what happens.
The Katie Hill story is complicated, but I'll end with one final thought.
Rep Matt Gaetz came to the defense of Katie Hill over the leaked photos, and I have tremendous respect for Matt Gaetz for doing this.
I believe using intimate photos and personal pictures to target her is a cheap shot.
You want to talk about her cheating on her husband or something like that?
We can talk about that too.
It doesn't seem to be the case.
That Bong photo is a different story.
But in the end, let's keep it to the ethics violations.
Let's keep it specifically to, you know, hypocrisy and, you know, violations of oath of office and political ideas.
And let's not make this about sharing photos to win points.
That is salacious, celebrity nonsense.
Look, I talked about those photos, right?
And I think it's fair to talk about them.
I think it's fair to an extent when you want to show that she was smoking that bong.
I personally disagree, but I understand the arguments.
In the end, let's talk about the ideas.
Let's do our best to keep private life, you know, private details out of these political debates.
In the instance with Katie Hill, however, with the accusations of abuse, I think it now warrants, you know, inclusion in the investigation.
All of this is really complicated.
Police are involved.
We'll see what happens.
I don't think I have the full story here, because details are consistent, are constantly emerging, and it's complicated and hard to know exactly what's happening.
But I hope I did my best, and I hope YouTube doesn't delete this video because I talked about the photo, and I admit...
It's a fact.
I don't even think I could show that photo on YouTube.
Not the intimate one, but just a photo of that bong.
I don't think I could do it.
I think YouTube would take it down, and simply talking about it may result in this video getting hard censorship.
So for that, I apologize.
I'm doing my best over here.
They've already put hard restrictions on this channel, if you haven't noticed.
So anyway.
If you think this is important and you've made it this far, please consider sharing this video because this one might be dead in the water.
Because YouTube doesn't want this kind of conversation.
And I don't know what to tell you, man.
But I won't shy away from it if I think it's important.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
And I will see you all.
I will see you all there.
Is there a deep state?
Technically, no.
Depends on what you read.
The New York Times is now using the phrase deep state to refer to people who work in the government from various agencies who are resisting Donald Trump.
Although many people referred to the deep state in that exact way up until now.
I hate the phrase.
It's like a weird conspiracy.
But I tell you now, Things are about to light up.
DOJ opens criminal probe into its own Russian collusion probe that could force former FBI head James Comey and ex-CIA chief John Brennan to testify and may even see charges brought.
The reason I bring up the deep state is because it is the subject of many conspiracy theories and people are accused of all these things and I think there's no reason to even use the phrase but I understand the colloquial idea behind it.
In the end, let's set aside any of this, all of that stuff, okay?
I get it, you talk about whatever you want, but listen.
If the DOJ has just launched a criminal probe into itself over the start of the Russia collusion narrative, something's happening.
And I don't know, you can call it whatever you want, some people call it a coup, they call it, you know, internal civil war, whatever, I don't know.
All I know is, John Durham, who is leading the inquiry into the origins of the Special Counsel, has just turned this investigation criminal.
Interesting.
That means they're going to be able to issue subpoenas, call witnesses, force testimony, and it may result in prosecution of former government officials Who may have done wrong in launching what we now know to be almost entirely a conspiracy theory based off of trash.
And you know who got played like a fiddle the whole time by literally everybody is our inept and terrible media institution.
The Media Industrial Complex.
They're the worst.
Like, you know what?
Let me say this.
We have the military-industrial complex, like all these different weapons manufacturers.
Man, they are good at maintaining a narrative and getting us involved in these wars.
But you know who's really, really bad at what they do is the media-industrial complex.
They keep falling for all of the hoaxes.
I know, I know.
Now people are gonna pop out and say, Tim, the media is part of the Deep State.
Nah, okay, whatever.
I don't care.
Listen.
Trump plays the media like a fiddle, but so do these government actors.
Now, I don't know who did what.
You're going to have the left saying, no, this is Trump striking back at those who resist him.
Whatever, man.
You call it whatever you want.
It's happening.
There is a battle going on between Trump's administration and the old guard.
And it's not my opinion.
Trump's war on the deep state turns against him.
The New York Times, two days ago, The impeachment inquiry is in some ways the culmination of a battle between the president and the government institutions he distrusted and disparaged.
Okay, so right now, the impeachment inquiry is being fueled by people who work in these intelligence agencies that are simultaneously being investigated for the origins of the false Russia collusion narrative.
You see what's happening here?
I'm not gonna tell you who's right or who's wrong, but I'll tell you this, history is written by the winners.
Whoever comes out on top of this one, Well, they're going to be the one who writes the history, and we'll see what happens.
Trump is just a dude, and he's going up against people who have extensive intelligence backgrounds and understanding.
This will get interesting.
But let's read this story from the Daily Mail.
DOJ opens criminal probe into its own Russia collusion probe.
They say, The Justice Department has reportedly launched a criminal investigation into its own probe that could force top U.S.
intelligence officials to testify and may result in charges.
Government sources said Thursday that the inquiry opened by Attorney General William Barr and led by U.S.
Attorney John Durham concerning the origins of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election had transitioned from an administrative review to a criminal investigation.
It is not clear what potential crimes are being investigated, but should the designation of a formal criminal investigation prove true, it would give prosecutors the ability to issue subpoenas, potentially convene a grand jury, and compel witnesses to give testimony and bring federal criminal charges.
Now I ask, the left will say, this is a Hail Mary last ditch effort from Trump and his people to go after You know, the intelligence agencies because of the impeachment hearing.
Or you'll hear people on the right potentially say that this is them preempting Trump.
The Durham investigation has been going on for a while.
They knew he would uncover criminal activity and so impeachment was intended to stop Trump before he could dig in further.
You want to talk about Trump's war with the deep state?
I mean, this is it, okay?
It doesn't mean that there's a literal group of people twirling their mustache behind the scenes.
I think what we're seeing is there is an establishment that has an idea of what they want this country to be and what they want it to do.
Trump wasn't supposed to win.
I don't think it's this grand conspiracy of like an Illuminati cabal.
I just think it's literally anti-Trump people.
They exist everywhere.
Some people who work at these intelligence agencies are probably in the resistance watching MSNBC all night.
And so they're not... It's kind of like... You know what's interesting?
It's kind of like a standalone complex.
That because all of these people who work at these agencies are anti-Trump and come out at the same time, it looks like a concerted effort.
And I think it's important to always say, never, for, like, there needs to be some kind of, like, razor for how you don't assume it's a conspiracy.
It's just that, the simple solution, people, a lot of them, don't like Trump.
And the media repeatedly says Orange Man bad.
And so these people have come together at various points and presented evidence and made claims, and it's bad for Trump.
It's that simple.
We'll see what happens though, right?
There's going to be accusations of conspiracy, and here's the big challenge too.
The left and the right both have their conspiratorial view of what's going on, and I'm always the person like, give me the proof, show me the evidence, let's not jump to conclusions.
But the left is now assuming that Trump is organizing all of these things, he's trying to, he's, like, they literally believe Trump and Giuliani are conspiring with these guys to go to Ukraine early and, like, Smear Joe Biden, all of these things.
You want to talk about the transcript where Trump talked to, uh... This is what really, really annoys me about this idea of conspiracy theory.
It's an obvious smear, okay?
If Trump had a phone call where he said, do X, and there are accusations.
It's not a conspiracy theory, okay?
Jeffrey Epstein.
That guy disappeared, right?
Remember that guy?
What happened to that?
It is not a conspiracy theory to have a bunch of things happen that point in a direction and ask for an investigation.
If that were the case, literally everything done by every single... Like, could you imagine if every time a cop said something like, I noticed there was a guy at the dock meeting with another guy, and he was passing off papers.
unidentified
And then his captain was like, that's a conspiracy theory!
You see something strange and you say, we must investigate.
But we're at a point now where conspiracy theory used to mean, like, you believe there's lizard people taking over the moon to build a giant weapon to blast Earth or something.
You know, conspiracy theory used to mean, like, aliens are here.
Now it's literally Hillary Clinton deletes her email servers, and we say, hey, that was illegal, and they go, that's a conspiracy.
No!
She literally deleted public record.
All right, listen.
Donald Trump, what he's doing with Ukraine, you have yourselves a conspiracy theory.
And I say that because I'm using the standard they apply today.
But let's be real.
If Donald Trump made the phone call, if aid was withheld, if there are witnesses, well then we investigate it.
We don't scream conspiracy.
Now, if there is an investigation into these intelligence agencies, the origin of the Russian collusion probe, that is also not a conspiracy.
Think about it this way.
They're literally conspiracies.
But how are you going to call everything a conspiracy?
That's the problem.
And so right now, Hillary, Clinton's a conspiracy theorist.
Trump's a conspiracy theorist.
The media are conspiracy theorists.
They say that the conservative media is all conspiracy theory.
Dude, you've lost it, okay?
I am so sick and tired of this phrase.
I'll tell you what.
History is written by the winners.
We'll see who comes out on top.
Maybe Trump gets taken down in the impeachment inquiry and he's out.
Maybe he gets removed by the Senate.
But it doesn't mean the Durham investigation is going to stop.
It could be stopped, though.
But if Trump is impeached, Mike Pence takes over.
And is Pence going to just, you know, say, OK, that's it.
Cancel the investigation.
They're already there.
And if they're converting an administrative review into a criminal investigation, it stands to reason they have probable cause.
They have probable cause to believe a crime was committed.
Now here's the thing.
We shouldn't jump the gun.
Who knows what this could be.
For all we know, in Durham's investigation, he found that all of these things in the Russia collusion stuff was on the level, but some dude who works in an office was selling drugs in the office.
And so he was like, hey, we kind of found this.
I'm being extreme in my pulling back here.
It's very likely they found wrongdoing specifically tied to the Russia collusion narrative.
And I think it's fair to point out, with all of the dirty tricks that we've been seeing since Trump won, I mean, there was an article where it came out, like, an article came out almost immediately after Trump was inaugurated saying, and now the impeachment begins, or something like that.
Yet we know that these people don't like it.
Is it a conspiracy?
It's not a conspiracy, okay?
Here's what you need to understand.
Conspiracy would imply that, like, Hillary Clinton had a secret meeting with somebody and said, here's the plan, and laid it all out.
It's possible, okay?
I just don't think it's likely.
What's more likely is a lot of people don't like Trump, and they're contributing in a decentralized manner.
So you end up with, you know, somebody who works in intelligence who's personally offended by Trump, and they're biased against him, and so they accept this.
Then people start coming out of the woodwork, making accusations, making exaggerations, and it all starts building up to a critical mass and flows in a certain direction.
There's a particular conspiracy theory I'm not going to name that CNN referred to as fake news.
And this is what really bothers me.
Because it seems like so many people don't understand the nature of decentralized information exchange.
CNN was committed to the narrative that this prominent conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton Was fake news and what they meant by that was that one person literally made the story up on a website and it went viral, which was not the case.
CNN literally pushed a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory.
What really happened was that different people on the internet started sharing ideas and a distributed network of individuals created a narrative, not intentionally.
That's the formation of a conspiracy theory online.
CNN was trying to convince us that it was actually a cabal of fake news, pro-Trump people going, ha ha ha, and hiding in the shadows and making things up.
And then you get Hillary on this podcast saying that there are flashing video, I kid you not, she said, there are flashing videos that are only on the dark web and that disappear and you can't find them ever again.
And it's like, what are you talking about, dude?
You made that up.
So, look, I can rant on this kind of stuff for a little bit, but the news is very, very simple, man.
We don't really know exactly what they've found, and we don't know the severity to which the criminal activity may be.
We don't know why they're converting this into a criminal case, but this could be serious.
Now, there's going to be a lot of people on the Trump side, in my opinion, who are looking at this in a very, very serious manner.
It may turn out.
Everyone involved in Russia, save one person.
There could be one assistant to James Comey who altered text or something.
And I'll admit, there are probably a lot of people who know more about this than I do, because I will tell you right now, the people who know about this are most likely going to be Trump supporters, because it was proven false.
Trump did not collude with Russia.
The narrative was fake.
The dossier was fake.
All of these smears were fake.
And it was seemingly an attempt to just take down Trump.
I'm not saying that people came together on purpose.
It may be the case.
The reason I say that, though, is while you may have read something that says the dossier, fusion GPS, you know, steel, all that stuff, we gotta have it proven.
We have to have it proven.
We have to have the evidence presented.
And yes, maybe you read a bunch of things that say it's very likely true.
That's fine.
The point is, you don't win by jumping the gun.
You come out right now and start making all these claims, and they will use that to discredit you.
Let Durham do his investigation, let him present evidence, and stay on top of it.
But follow the line, okay?
Let him draw the conclusion.
Otherwise, they will try to destroy the investigation before it can finish by claiming it's a conspiracy theory.
And that's what they're doing with Trump and Ukraine.
Joe Biden did quid pro quo with Ukraine.
That's a fact.
Now whether or not he was right to do it or wrong is totally different.
And what he was doing it for is totally different.
But the fact is, Joe Biden said, fire this guy or you don't get money.
That's quid pro quo.
The right says it was corrupt, the left says it was to weed out corruption.
Fine.
Okay?
It is not a conspiracy theory when you say, I believe it was for negative, you know, for malintent.
That's not a conspiracy theory, OK?
That's you forming a hypothesis based on a quid pro quo and asking for investigation, the same as they're doing to Trump.
You know, it's all tribal.
It's all double standards.
They say that Joe Biden was trying to weed out corruption.
So he did a quid pro quo.
Now they're saying that Trump, believing a conspiracy theory, offered a quid pro quo.
Okay, wait, wait, hold on.
If it's now been admitted by Mick Mulvaney that the quid pro quo for Ukraine aid was about investigating DNC corruption, not Joe Biden, why are they upset still?
Because whether or not you think Biden or Trump was correct, they were both seeking to weed out corruption, right?
Yeah.
Let's read a little bit here.
They say the transition from an administrative to criminal is likely to elicit concerns that President Trump and his allies may be using the powers of the government to go after their opponents.
Bingo!
That's exactly what I was saying.
The impeachment inquiry and the Durham investigation.
It's it.
You know what, man?
I hate talking about the idea of civil war, I really do, because it seems tired and who knows what's going to happen.
But listen, this investigation, the idea of the deep state, the New York Times calling it a deep state, saying these people are coming out against them.
The New York Times ran an article saying the deep state is real and it's patriotic Americans resisting Trump.
At the end of the day, people are choosing sides.
Either Trump is a bad guy or a good guy, and no one knows for sure because the media is lying left and right across the board.
And not just lying, but everybody has a different framing of what's really going on.
History will be written by the victors.
So I don't know.
Combine the street battles with Republicans storming into the closed hearing, with two investigations going on right now.
The impeachment inquiry in secret, and you've got the criminal investigation now by Durham, and we are priming ourselves for something truly disastrous.
Perhaps it results in one faction winning over, and it's a coup.
Or not.
Or maybe Trump wins and gets re-elected.
I can't tell you, man.
All I can tell you is what we are looking at seems to be unprecedented, at least in my lifetime.
Now, I know we had mafioso tactics back in the day, and there's some crazy stories about Nixon and what happened in the 60s.
I mean, we had a president who actually got killed because some crazy dude went crazy.
So I think that's actually a good way to kind of round this off.
You look at what happened with JFK, and you've got Oswald.
It was Oswald, right?
Yeah.
And all it takes is one crazy person, okay?
All of this going on, when I talk about conflict, coup, civil war, perhaps the end result isn't going to be two factions of law enforcement colliding and trying to arrest each other, and people counting heads, like Matt Taibbi said, like who's on whose side.
Could result in one crazy person going out and doing one crazy thing that ends everything, and that's scary.
It's all scary.
So I'll tell you what, man.
We've got two big stories right here.
I'll wrap this up.
The New York Times saying Trump's war on the deep state turns against him, the impeachment inquiry.
But you also have Durham's investigation of the origins of Russia collusion.
If it turns out that the origins of the Russia collusion narrative proves Trump's Ukraine investigation right, wouldn't that resolve the impeachment inquiry?
Think about it.
If this investigation shows the DNC did collude with Ukraine, as Politico stated, and did criminal activity, and then that in turn would preempt everything about Ukraine with Trump saying, I want to investigate the DNC, that he would then come out and say, see, Durham proved it.
I was right to ask Ukraine for help.
Currently, though, they're saying the Ukraine narrative is a conspiracy theory.
All right, well, take it up with Politico, man!
If Ken Vogel is that bad of a journalist, the New York Times shouldn't have hired him.
So I don't know.
All I know is you got two factions that will lie, cheat, and steal as far as I'm concerned.
And I say that because, not because I want to accuse anyone of doing anything.
I say that because the left will claim one, the right will claim the other, and all I can do is tell you You gotta decide for yourself, right?
At the end of the day, we choose who we trust, and it's based off of our experiences in our lives, you know?
If the economy is doing really, really well, and you're not someone who's easily angered, you're probably gonna be like, Trump's fine, whatever.
But if you're somebody who watches MSNBC, and you're freaking out, and you believe the Russian narrative they've peddled for years, I mean, that's it.
Actually, let me show you something that's really, really crazy, and I might do a segment on this later.
If you watch Fox News, you likely think the US economy is great.
If you watch MSNBC, you probably think it's bad.
This blew my mind.
It's from Reuters just the other day.
You know what's crazy about this?
The economy is great!
And Reuters even says it!
So what does that say about MSNBC and those who are charging full steam ahead into the resistance to remove Trump?
I gotta say, it's freaky, man.
Fox News has a bunch of really dumb stuff on it.
Like, I always mentioned this a couple months ago when they had a segment on where they talked about evolution not being real, and I'm like, Fox, wow.
Wow, Fox.
We're still having that debate 20 years later?
But I'll tell you what, man.
If you watch Fox News and they tell you the economy is doing well, that's because it is.
Record low unemployment.
There's wage growth.
We've got record job participation.
The economy's doing really, really well.
And I experience that on a day-to-day basis.
But if you watch MSNBC, you think, not so much.
What is MSNBC telling you?
It's a fact that the economy is doing well.
Moody's Analytics shows the economy's great.
Gas prices are down.
Jobs.
This is insane.
And this is what scares me.
So, you know, typically I find myself... What am I supposed to say, right?
Fox News was correct about Russia.
The Russian stuff was nonsense, and MSNBC paddled in conspiracy for years.
Fox News is right about the economy.
What am I supposed to say?
Alright?
I'm not a big fan of the big pundits.
I think Tucker's pretty good.
I think he's okay, because he brings on opposing voices, and they have these conversations.
And he called me an honest liberal.
I respect that.
He says, I think that guy's a liberal, but an honest one's so good for him.
But the right-wing opinion shows are exactly what they are.
They're more bombastic.
You know, I can agree with Ingram and Hannity on some things.
I just think that they're bombastic and they're too... It's hard to explain.
I think I'm much more receptive to trying to understand the perspective of the other side.
And I think Tucker does a decent job of that.
It's kind of why I like his show.
But aside from Tucker, it's like...
There's a lot of stuff on there.
Admittedly, Brett Baier is fantastic.
But that's the thing, right?
Brett Baier is your... He's a real reporter.
He's a real anchor.
He brings you the facts.
He's not an opinion guy.
And that's maybe why you're getting truth.
Because MSNBC is pundit commentary across the board.
Glenn Greenwald complained they wouldn't even let him on the air because he disagreed with the Russian narrative.
All you gotta know is if somebody watches MSNBC, their brain is being melted.
So anyway, this kind of went off the rails.
I'll leave it there.
The news is the news.
It's very simple.
It's a criminal probe now.
The investigation of Russian collusion has gone criminal.
We'll see what happens.
We'll see what happens.
But expect to see... I don't know if we'll get a perp walk like some people might want to see.
But I think we'll see some subpoenas.
We'll see grand juries.
That's the only reason they do it, which means I think they have probable cause.
I think they've found something already, and that would make sense, right?
Anyway, we'll see what happens.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m., and I will see you all then on this channel.
Tulsi Gabbard has announced she will not seek re-election to Congress in 2020 and that she is fully committed to her run for the president.
This has sparked a bit of a debate with many on the left, arguing that the real reason she's announcing she won't seek re-election is because she is facing a tough primary, an opponent who is outracing her, and that she is soured with many people on the left.
For me personally, as a fan of Tulsi, I do believe this may be, it may be the end of her political career, and I say that as someone who appreciates who she is and what she does, but let's be honest, and let's be realists.
I know it's a bit negative, and I hate to be a pessimist, but Tulsi Gabbard is not going to win the Democratic primary.
It's not going to happen.
There's a lot of reasons for it, the least of which, or I should say, This is partly due to the constant smears in the media and how they lie about who she is and what she believes.
That alone is probably causing her harm in her home district.
If she doesn't seek re-election in the House, she is not going to be nominated.
Will she run third party?
She says she's not seeking that, but who knows?
I know politicians say this all the time because they legally, technically have to.
But in the end, what comes next?
Is Tulsi going to continue to run?
She's not going to be in Congress.
She's not going to be in the presidency.
Some people speculate that she'll run in 2024.
We'll see, but I really doubt it.
I don't want to necessarily say it's the end of her political career.
But I will stress, I think what we're seeing here is something that most of us probably understand.
Tulsi Gabbard's move from a progressive Bernie supporter into a disaffected liberal.
I used to be in a very similar position.
Even only a few years ago, I was much further left on a lot of policy issues.
I'm still decently left, especially if you look at my political compass test, but I'm a political realist.
I know that while I do like the idea of universal healthcare, I believe it's an ideal to strive for, it's not a political reality.
And that means we have to focus on what we can accomplish compromising with conservatives and Trump supporters, in which case a public option seems like it might be a compromise, in that All you're really doing is creating a sort of competition for the private market.
I know, however, that the conservative talking point is typically to remove the regulations if the market decide.
I don't necessarily agree, but I do... I think we all agree it's extremely complicated, and I don't want to act like I'm smarter than anybody else.
So I just say, you know what, let's compromise, right?
Tulsi has been smeared.
She has been berated.
They have lied about her.
They have dragged her through the mud.
And I think what ended up happening then is with this hostile press, well, she turns to any of, like, who the rest of us turn to.
Who's going to invite Tulsi onto television?
Well, it's going to be Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity.
And so, this is the way I often explain it.
Think of two rooms.
There's two bars.
People are drinking.
You go into one bar, and you express principled opposition to what they're saying, and they all start chanting, you know, go home, and yelling at you, and singing, na-na-na-na, hey-hey-hey, goodbye.
That's what they do.
They've done this to conservatives.
And so they start yelling, so finally, like, okay, I will leave the bar.
I won't drink then.
It doesn't change your opinions.
You walk outside, and there's a guy in a moghat smoking a cigarette, and he was like, I just heard what happened, man.
You want to come in for a beer?
And they're like, I do want to come in for a beer, because I'm upset about this, and I want to talk to someone about it.
And guess what?
Sean Hannity will invite you on the air.
And now they're using that to smear Tulsi.
So, I haven't actually been doing this for a while, but I should start, you know, letting you guys know.
Go to TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
There's a couple different ways you can do it, but most importantly, just share this video if you think what I'm saying is important.
I'll keep these promos short as I can.
But check this out.
This person on Twitter, I don't want to sit here and act like this person is particularly noteworthy.
I'm not saying it to be disrespectful.
I just, I hate when journalists pull up random tweets.
But this one is a point I want to address.
Alaa Pundit said, if you're a progressive looking to gain traction in a Democratic primary, the obvious place to go is Hannity.
And this is a link to a tweet that says Tulsi Gabbard appears on Hannity and criticizes the impeachment inquiry process by saying she doesn't know what's going on behind closed doors and that she wants transparency.
Stephen Miller, who I believe is a conservative, said, she's the Ron Paul of the Democrats and she's going to come out of this with the same weird online subculture backing that led to Trump.
I don't- I don't- So is it- There's gonna be a different kind of Tulsi personality?
Who wins?
I have no idea.
However, I did find this quote hilarious.
She's cuter than Ron.
That's right!
You heard it here first!
Tulsi Gabbard is cuter than Ron Paul.
I guess coming from a heterosexual male, sure.
Right?
I think it's funny though.
I don't know if that matters.
Because I kind of feel like with Tulsi Gabbard not seeking a re-election, not going to win the presidency, where does she go from here?
Tulsi Gabbard echoes Republican frustrations with impeachment inquiry.
I don't know what's going on in those closed doors.
You know who's a really great journalist?
Michael Tracy.
You should follow him on Twitter if you don't.
And he tweeted out, I mean, I say journalist, but I'm going to cite his points and his opinions here.
That's why I like it.
It's confirmation bias, I must admit.
Okay.
Michael Tracy, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté are leftist journalists and they've been spot on talking about Russia and a lot of these talking points were correct.
And they get smeared as being conservative because it turns out, you know, people like Tulsi, people like me, we believe in certain norms, transparency and journalism, right?
I bring up Michael Tracy because he made an excellent point.
He said, it's not disputed.
The impeachment inquiry is happening behind closed doors.
No one has access to information.
Then he puts journalists.
We're okay with that.
And I saw that and I'm like, that is exactly how I feel.
You know, I was talking to Sam Seder, and I must stress, it was a very cordial and I believe it was a polite and good conversation from different perspectives.
Much respect to Sam for agreeing to have the conversation with me.
And his perspective was, well, eventually this will all get released anyway.
And I'm like, no!
No!
I am a journalist!
And I have always been very pro-transparency.
I wouldn't... You know, people in the past have called me like a transparency extremist or something.
It was like some old story they did, a radical transparency activist.
No, no, no.
I believe in basic freedom and journalism.
It's why we have the Freedom of Information Act.
And I think if... I agree with Tulsi!
So here's the thing, man.
Is Tulsi a conservative?
No!
And Trump supporters have been calling her out for this.
They've been posting memes saying she's far left.
Listen, the point is, whatever is dividing us, I don't know how you define it.
They say left, right, globalist, nationalist, authoritarian, libertarian.
I'll tell you what, man.
For my bias, you know, coming from the media, I've always viewed it as a, which media faction are you on?
Tulsi Gabbard and I are, like, if, here's the thing, man.
If I went through the policies I wanted enacted and the world that I wanted to exist, I'm like Bernie Sanders.
I'm, you know, I'm like far left.
But I believe in respect and compromise, which means my opinions on the world are not paramount.
I do not have the perfect solution to everything.
I just have my opinions.
So when I sit down with someone who's, say, a Trump supporter, I weigh our opinions equally.
You see how this works?
And I think to myself, I think I know what's right.
They think they know what's right.
Perhaps the best thing we can do is compromise.
To an extent.
And it's a really weird position because a lot of people hate compromise.
But you know what?
At least I'm willing to do it.
And so, you know, for me, for Tulsi, and why I like Tulsi, we're now being respected and given a platform and a place to speak by conservatives.
How strange is that?
How crazy is it that Megan Murphy, a radical feminist, went on the Ben Shapiro show and they had a conversation?
Not only that, I may do a story about this, a feminist Democrat was on Tucker Carlson just the other night talking about how they can't get airtime.
So I'll tell you what.
The fact that Tulsi Gabbard is upset about transparency is not a right-wing position.
How insane is it that left and right today have nothing to do with where you stand economically or policy-wise?
I agree with Tulsi.
We are not conservatives, but we want transparency on what's happening with the impeachment inquiry.
You know, we get into the whole thing about who's on the committees or not.
Whatever, man.
The point is, I don't like these secret hearings, okay?
Actually, Will Chamberlain, I believe, made a funny point.
I didn't read his whole comment.
I don't know if you know who he is.
He's a conservative personality Trump supporter.
But he said the impeachment inquiry is obstructing the Durham investigation, essentially.
So anyway, I shouldn't bring that up.
We should stay on point.
I should wrap things back up.
Tulsi Gabbard is not going to be in Congress.
She's not going to be the president.
So I don't know where that leaves us.
I really, really don't.
But I will say one important thing to address the point here from this pundit.
Yes!
Yes it is!
Bernie Sanders went on Fox News.
It is absolutely a smart choice to go on Fox News if you're looking for support.
You know why?
Trump converted many Democrats.
Duh!
12 to 18 percent of Bernie Sanders voters went to Donald Trump.
They're probably now watching Hannity.
There are moderates that Tulsi is looking for.
But I think ultimately what we can see is whatever her policies are, and the same is true for me, This is why I like Tulsi, because there is an attempt to actually reach across the aisle and say, hey man, I'm here for you too.
I know we disagree, let's have a conversation.
That's what our politics should be like.
I think there was a, I can't remember who said it, but remember the show Crossfire?
Was it CNN or whatever?
They had a conservative and a liberal and they would argue.
And Jon Stewart was like, this is awful, you shouldn't do this.
And I think, you know, maybe we should.
Maybe we should have conservatives and liberals, you know, having that conversation and figuring out where they can agree.
Because I think at the end of the day, there's a few important points that need to be made.
It's true for Tulsi, it's true for most people.
We all want to make the world a better place.
We all just see things very differently and disagree on how to make the world a better place.
And not only that, You know, when I was having a discussion with Sam, his view on what was right or wrong was philosophically very, very different from mine, because he was a utilitarian.
He said we must minimize harm, and I said we must not commit immoral acts.
Those are two different philosophical worldviews.
So, I don't want to get into all his philosophy, but I'll do a little bit.
Basically, I was fascinated by this YouTube video I watched on Avengers Endgame that talked about the philosophical conflict of Thanos being a utilitarian, saying there will be less suffering if we kill half the population instantly without pain.
And that's utilitarian, minimize suffering.
Spock was also, I believe, you know, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
But Captain America was a deontologist, meaning that he felt we cannot commit an immoral act.
We don't trade lives, right?
It's not one for one.
Like, you're not literally one or the other.
There's nuance, right?
For me, though, my view of everything was, you put one Trump supporter in front of me, okay?
And you tell me, I have to commit an immoral act against that person, and it will benefit the people behind him, I will say, I won't do it!
And it's a complicated issue, right?
When talking to many people on the left, many Democrats, they say, well, it's better to protect the hundred people versus the ten people.
And my response is, I would like to protect all of them, but the challenge is, are you going to directly cause harm to ten people?
And so it's a tough call.
It's a tough call.
But because of that view, I feel like it's very important to have a real conversation and explore the news sources held by people who are politically different to me.
And this creates the divide that I think Tulsi will probably find herself on right now.
And it's that... Actually, I'm gonna go right back to this, okay?
I showed this in my last segment.
Check this out.
Watch Fox News?
You likely think the U.S.
economy is great.
MSNBC viewers?
Not so much.
The fact is, the economy is great.
It's a record economy.
We know that's true.
Now think about this.
If you're somebody who lives in the MSNBC bubble, you think Tulsi Gabbard is pro-dictator, which is a smear.
You believe fake news.
And if you watch Fox News, you've heard it straight from Tulsi's mouth.
Her defense, her positions, why she does what she does.
MSNBC?
Not so much.
If you watch MSNBC, you believe a false reality.
And that's funny for me to say, because I grew up with Fox News being wrong!
And it is complicated, because I always want to give props to Brett Baier, because I think he does a fantastic job just being a newsman.
But how is it today that the left, you know, calls Fox News conspiracy?
You see, this is mind-blowing.
Jeff Zucker of CNN, the other day in an interview with Brian Stelter, said Fox News is fake news.
I took offense to that.
You know why?
Because Trey Yingst, for example, is a legit journalist I've known, I've seen, I've met on and off before, and he's been on the ground in the Middle East reporting for Fox News.
He actually, you know, hit back at CNN saying, dude, look at the work we do.
But no, Zucker said it's all fake news conspiracy.
Brian Stelter even defended Fox News saying, no, the opinion people are different.
The news is legit.
Brian is correct.
The opinion is your opinion.
Tucker, it's your opinion.
Hannity, Laura, they have their opinions.
It's fine.
Okay?
I disagree with many of their opinions.
I think some of them are factually incorrect.
But when it comes to news and fact, they're not just making things up.
They just have different perspectives.
And depending on who you trust, you'll get things wrong.
But look at this screen.
If you watch Fox News, you will correctly note the economy is doing well.
If you watch MSNBC, you probably think the Russians are out to get you.
And that's the problem.
Tulsi Gabbard appearing on Fox News is the right approach.
Bernie Sanders appearing on Fox News, the right approach.
Yeah, whatever happened to the left, I have no idea.
The establishment is desperately trying to grapple onto, you know, these establishment Democrat types where they're weird corporate people who believe fake news watching MSNBC.
And then I'm torn, right?
I'm torn because I looked at some of these progressives who I think policy-wise have lost it.
But they're challenging the fake news establishment.
Now, there's an overlap, for sure.
And I think AOC has peddled her fair share in conspiracy nonsense and fake news, and I'm particularly not a fan of her, for the most part.
I'll give her praise on some of the things she does, but think about it.
Let me wrap this up, because I could just rant on this stuff too much, okay?
I don't know what's going to happen at Tulsi Gabbard.
I'm a fan.
But I think something is happening in this country.
And part of it resulted in Donald Trump.
And that's people, regular people, progressive individuals, Bernie Sanders supporters even, who went to Trump.
We are now being smeared and attacked.
For just trying to talk to people we disagree with.
That's what's so insane.
It's like, hey man, I disagree on policy, but I agree with you on this.
What can we do to work together?
Isn't it fair that Tulsi would do that?
No, for her troubles, she's been attacked and smeared.
And it all started when she refused to endorse Hillary Clinton, because she was a golden child.
You see what happens when you step out of line for the establishment?
They come for you.
But I will tell you this.
Establishment, you are failing.
It's over for you.
You know that Hillary Clinton is getting smeared for conspiracy theory nonsense.
It is it.
It's done.
Your era is over.
The Republican establishment faltered when Trump took over, and now we've got the populist left moving forward.
And you know what?
Because the Democratic establishment refuses to concede to the new progressive, independent, far-left, whatever you want to call it, this mix.
I'm saying Bernie because he's independent.
I'm saying independent because Bernie is independent.
They refuse to concede, but these are not the centrists, okay?
That is a mask.
Centrists are people who want to have a real conversation, and there's very few of them.
What Hillary is, is crony corporate establishment elitism.
Okay?
And they are failing.
Now, there's overlap between all, you know, every, you know, faction as it is.
But in the end, because they refuse to let go, because they go to destroy Tulsi, what ends up happening is Trump 2020.
But I'll tell you what, the economy is doing great.
And I feel bad for people who think otherwise.
But here's the other thing.
MSNBC viewers trail Fox News viewers.
I've been out in the real world, okay?
I make these videos, they're only, you know, 10 to 20 minutes long.
I go out, I go to stores, I go buy things, we're expanding, we're putting a building together, there's a lot of work happening behind the scenes, you just can't see it.
Okay, don't assume I'm just sitting here all day doing nothing, it's a lot of work happening.
But I talk to these people, they tell me the economy is great.
So, let's say you turn off Fox News and MSNBC, you probably think the economy is great.
If you believe MSNBC and it's all you watch, you live in a paranoid, delusional state where the Russians are out to get you, and there's no economy, and I feel bad for you.
I feel bad.
MSNBC, man, has been so awful.
But anyway, let me know what your thoughts are on Tulsi not running for re-election.
You know, I don't live in Hawaii, so I can't say I'm super bummed about it, but I find it interesting.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
youtube.com slash TimCast, and I will see you all there.
Thanks for watching.
Now, this is a complicated story.
The mother believes the child is transgender, the father believes the child is not, just a little confused.
And you've got two sides arguing over what... we really don't know the whole details.
Now the conservative position is typically that children aren't, they don't know if they're trans or not and they should be left alone.
I believe this position makes a lot of sense simply because of something called desistance.
This is, you know, our current understanding of transgender children is that 65 to 94 percent, based on different studies, will desist.
Meaning, once they reach 15 or 16, they believe they're no longer trans.
They'll revert back to their biological or gender assigned at birth.
If that's the case, the argument stands that the children should be left alone.
Now the compromise from the left is to put the children on blockers, not to transition them.
That way they can decide if they end up desisting.
It's complicated because many people on the left are arguing that desistance numbers are incorrect and that we should err on the side of giving the children what the child wants.
This whole mess is complicated, and in my opinion, we got the best possible result here.
Okay?
James Younger is going to share custody with his wife and will have a say in what happens.
That means both parents have a say in what happens.
Now, I understand there's going to be many people on the right and left who refuse to accept this, but I believe this is the best you could hope for.
The left is viewing this through the lens of the child as being abused by the father, and the right is viewing it through the lens of the child as being abused by the mother, and me trying to be a milquetoast fence-sitter can only say, everybody calm down.
I think the judge ultimately made a fair ruling in giving both parents say in what goes on.
Now it's complicated.
Because as you know, I just stated, I err on the side of, if desistance numbers are currently that high, we need to err on the side of not transitioning children.
I'm not saying that all children should not be treated by the doctor.
The doctors have final say.
End of story.
I don't know what's going on.
I didn't hear the court transcripts.
So I'm just giving you my personal opinion, but then on top of that we'll defer to the courts and the medical system, you know, science and all that stuff.
The reason I bring this up in terms of desistance is that current science says this is the case.
You want to argue against that, get new science.
My opinion is not about the rights of individuals or anything like that.
It's about what the current academic research says, and I'm deferring to them.
Now, in this particular instance, I understand there'll be a lot of conservatives who are angry that I'm not going to be harder on whether or not the mother is right or she isn't.
Listen, I'm not the parent of this child, I don't know what this child is going through, and you have a contentious debate.
What I can tell you is that right now it seems many conservatives are happy with this result, keeping the father involved in the child's life to some degree they feel is good.
Okay.
However, the left is not accepting of this.
I feel like I've been very fair, right?
Would you agree that me saying, let the mother be involved, let the father be involved, they both clearly love this child and disagree on what's best for it, it's a complicated problem, and I'm not involved in this family, and I don't want to harm a child.
Now, I kind of lean more towards, let's be safe about this and cautious, and I don't know all of the details.
But I do know that if you are of an opinion similar to mine, you will be smeared and you will be accused of transphobia and wrongdoing and all of this stuff.
The bigger picture here, now I know a lot of you may already know about the results of this case and we'll come back to this, but I want to highlight how the left is framing this.
The Daily Beast writes, how the right weaponized a seven-year-old trans child.
Absolutely not.
When the left engages in online activism and calls politicians and gets Tucker Carlson's advertisements removed, they herald this as a victory.
It was the right thing to do because Tucker's a bad guy.
Well, conservatives did something similar.
They rallied their base, they contacted politicians, and they said, please do something.
And now the left is treating it like, listen man, In this world, we disagree, okay?
There are tactics.
You can't call it weaponization of a seven-year-old when they use the exact same tactic the left does.
And this story basically goes down and frames it very much as Luna is trans and— No, no, no, no.
Stop, Daily Beast.
You don't know anything, and neither do I, and that's why I am happy the court ruled both parents can be involved.
If the child is trans, then it absolutely must be.
That the child is protected and receives the treatment that she deserves.
Okay?
I respect that.
And I think it's very important we protect the rights of the child.
Now, what I see here in this political debate is that instead of talking about the rights of the child, they're talking about the collective rights of the transgender community versus the collective rights of the conservatives, whatever.
Listen.
There's a child here, okay?
James.
Whether or not James is trans is going to be up to the medical community.
And I know conservatives don't like that because they feel they're activist doctors.
I can't tell you.
I'm sorry, man.
Okay?
If the doctor's diagnosed and the courts rule, we... I defer to the experts.
I am not an expert.
But I believe it is the fairest and best way to protect the rights of the child.
To make sure both parents have a say.
And that's what the court has... I hope that's what... That's my general understanding.
Texas judge rules father can fight to stop his transgender son, Seven, transitioning to a girl after he argued the child's mother made him grow up wearing dresses and constantly told him monsters eat little boys.
So, complicated story, okay?
And I've talked to some of my progressive friends about this, and I know it means very little in terms of argument because it's hearsay, but I've had some progressive friends say this story sounds a bit fishy.
Because there's a video of a three-year-old James saying, Mommy tells me I'm a girl.
And if that's the case, it sounds like the child is being confused by the mother.
And we have to be very careful because kids don't know anything.
Okay, when I was three, I said I wanted to be a pumpkin.
I'm not making that up.
Okay?
I literally said I wanted to be a pumpkin.
I was three!
And my mom made fun of me.
I don't want to say she made fun of me, but she thought it was endearing and cute.
That three-year-old me didn't understand the difference between what you want to be when you grow up, And being an inanimate object, well... Wait, hold on.
Pumpkins are animate, right?
They don't move around, but they are alive and they grow, so... I'm not trying to rag on pumpkins here.
The point is, you can't be a pumpkin, okay?
The problem is...
We are dealing with a very, very real condition that, if treated early enough, can protect lives.
That's a fact.
Whether or not they're conservatives who want to entertain this, they're individuals, and we're trying to find treatment to protect them and save lives.
I can totally respect that, and I'm interested 100% in making sure we do that when it makes sense.
The problem I have is the desistance numbers.
That's where I come to this impasse.
Now, in this instance, I know nothing of this child, okay?
But you can clearly see... I'll tell you what, man.
I'd be willing to bet...
This is the only place you're gonna hear something like that.
And I mean it.
You go to a conservative site, and they're gonna be very biased in favor of the father, and say the mother is an activist, and it's- it's something called, like, uh, Menchazian- I'm probably getting it wrong, but it's something where a mother projects an ailment on the child, and we've seen another story like this recently, where a mother was abusing a child by saying he was sick all the time, and putting him in a wheelchair.
This happened.
It happens, alright?
I forgot what the word is for it.
But I assure you, Well, I'll say this.
It is very, very likely that you're going to see this.
Most mainstream sites are going to act like this is a great injustice and that transphobe conservatives are restricting.
In this story, they actually say that the father uses transphobic language and stuff like that.
You know what, man?
I'm not going to blame the mom, and I'm going to get flack for it.
I'm not going to blame the dad, I'm going to get flack for it.
The court said, the father will have a say, so my understanding is it's basically going to, it's joint conservatorship over the child.
Good.
Right?
I don't know who's right or wrong, man.
What I can tell you is, the left is going to argue that this is Luna.
You know, this is really, really, really fascinating to me, and, and, and, listen.
I don't care about whether or not Luna is or isn't trans.
I care about whether or not Luna or James is having their rights protected, period.
If it turns out the mother is abusive, we need to protect the child.
If it turns out the father is abusive, we need to protect the child.
Can we just leave it at that?
This right here, this paradoxical article how the right weaponized a seven-year-old trans child is quite quite literally the exact same thing that they're accusing the right of doing.
Weaponizing the story for a left-wing argument.
Going on to say that because we know that Luna is trans we're going to use these pronouns.
I feel bad for the kid because the kid doesn't know anything.
All right.
Let's read a little bit of the story and then, you know, I just want to make sure you get the gist of the details.
A judge has ruled that a father fighting to stop his seven-year-old son from transitioning to a girl will be allowed to have a say in future medical decisions related to his child.
Jeff Younger has been battling his ex-wife, Dr. Ann Georgilis, in a Dallas family court as part of their bitter custody fight over whether the child, James, has gender dysphoria.
Judge Kim Cooks ruled on Thursday that the divorced parents will have joint conservatorship of the child.
It means that they will have to make joint medical decisions regarding their child, which includes whether James would undergo hormone therapy.
I'm gonna have to say this sounds like the father ultimately wins, though.
Because if they need joint decisions, and the father simply says no, well then they don't move forward.
Now, interestingly, the Daily Beast's framing of it is, well, you know what?
The Daily Beast is going off of the mother's narrative.
It's exactly what you can expect to see.
And all I can really say is I think this is going to pan out in the father's favor.
I think that's it.
I think you get the point.
I think I can wrap it up there.
It's an impossible world to navigate.
It is.
You know...
I can't tell you what is or isn't right, and I try, but I can tell you this.
Every time I have tried to broach this subject, I have been accused of being transphobic.
It is the most insane, nonsensical thing to me, and it makes it very difficult to have a real conversation about how we move forward in this country.
When I was talking to a friend on the last segment I did on this, they said, it sounds like I'm trying to frame questions in a way to sow doubt.
And I'm like, oh man.
If that's how you feel, okay?
We're stuck.
We're seriously stuck.
If I can't be a milquetoast fence-sitter, what am I supposed to do?
How is any regular American supposed to deal with these problems?
They're not!
Because when it comes to, I gotta say, and I don't mean this in terms of, there's an activist community here that is trying to shut down science and they are acting in a very, very, I don't know, biased manner.
That's making it difficult to have real conversation about how to help people.
I'll leave it there.
This doesn't need to be longer.
I got a couple more segments coming up.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
From record fundraising, to Moody's Analytics predicting a Trump easy win, and now to Bernie or Bust, the Democrats have already lost and they don't even know it yet.
I'd imagine some of them do, though, because they're panicking.
I did a story recently about a Democrat fundraiser where they were worried, is there anybody else?
But I'll tell you this.
The biggest problem the Democrats face is not Donald Trump.
It is not Donald Trump.
It's not the economy.
It's not the forecast models.
It is not impeachment.
It's not Ukraine.
None of this matters.
You know what matters?
It's the Democratic Party is in a state of civil war.
Bernie or bust is a warning.
Ignore it and Trump wins.
You heard it!
Bernie supporters are saying either you vote for Bernie or we sabotage it all.
Okay, it's a little harsh.
What they're really saying is, we ain't voting for anybody else.
And I'll tell you what, I hear that.
Because I know who I want to vote for, and I ain't voting for anybody else.
You know what that means?
Trump wins, period.
Trump is an individual with a massive base.
They're going to vote for Trump.
They are people who are not Republicans, they are Trumpians.
They like Trump, they vote for Trump.
They weren't Republicans before, they aren't Republicans now, they're going to vote for Trump.
But they're Republicans who say, we just want to win.
I did think it was going to be Kamala Harris because of intersectionality, but I think Warren takes the nomination.
I think the reason why she's not talking about Hillary and Tulsi like everyone else is because she wants to court the establishment.
Elizabeth Warren is their plan B, right?
She is very much so a Hillary Clinton type.
But she plays to the Bernie base.
That's their plan.
You see how this works?
They're hoping Bernie Sanders voters will support Elizabeth Warren, but guess what?
They're not gonna do it!
I know, because for one, I used to be a big Bernie fan.
I know the mentality.
But I actually have had some conversations with some Bernie supporters who straight-up said they wouldn't support a Bernie-Warren ticket.
They do not like Warren, and they will not vote for her.
Guess what?
Democrats, your party's split in half.
You've lost already.
Check out what this guy writes for Newsweek.
He says, Bernie or Bust 2.0 is a pledge that Bernie Sanders' revolutionary supporters take to send a message to the members of the Democratic Party.
It is a commitment to vote for a true progressive on November 3rd, 2020.
Or bust does not mean staying home.
It does not mean writing in a candidate who has not registered as such.
It means voting for a genuinely progressive candidate who is actually running, who reflects a voter's values, and who is not a means to perpetuate the neoliberal machinery that has been in place for more than 40 years.
Bernie or bust is a demand.
If you prefer another candidate and vote for that candidate in the primaries, you will need to acknowledge that you are ensuring another four years of Donald Trump.
This is a threat!
You will need to acknowledge that you are ensuring another four years of Donald Trump.
I read that.
While all Berners are helping bend the arc of history toward justice, Bernier Busters are the adults in the room.
I gotta say, I got a lot of respect for the Bernie voters.
I will not vote for the lesser of two evils.
I'm not gonna vote for Bernie, but I can respect those who are saying the same thing.
I am gonna support someone of principle or no one.
Good.
Good on you.
That's principle.
I respect that.
Bernie or bust is a Ralph Nader problem.
But unlike in 2000, Democrats can easily solve this problem by nominating Sanders.
And there's the threat.
If you don't support our guy, we ain't with you anymore.
And Trump will win.
That is bold.
The climate change crisis demands a progressive form of governance to mobilize resources on a grand enough scale to transform the energy sector from fossil fuels to renewables, capture carbon from the atmosphere, and determine the safest manner to help cool the planet, then implement that plan.
Race, gender, and so forth are unimportant compared with policy.
Hey, wait a minute.
I like that, right?
Yes, we welcome a woman president.
Yes, we welcome a gay president.
However, identity politics are always trumped by policies that will be carried out by someone who will do more than pay lip service to the kinds of change that will benefit the vast majority of Americans.
I have respect for that, too.
Absolutely.
Now tell Bernie to retract his statement about white people not knowing what it's like to be poor, and maybe we'll talk.
Bernie or Bust is a battle cry in a war of words and a book.
Bernie or Bust, Pioneers of Electoral Revolt, provides a list of grievances to explain why the people needed a revolution before Trump was elected, and why we the people need to unite against the dominant, pervasive neoliberal order for higher wages.
Let me stop right here and tell you why I like this man Bernie and why I'm not so much anymore.
Mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex, a better public education system,
and the removal of big money from politics.
Let me stop right here and tell you why I like this man Bernie and why I'm not so much
anymore.
First, I understand the pervasive neoliberal order.
I do not like that.
Basically, what I see here is, you know, moralistic, corporate, faux-liberalism.
They pretend to be for all of these things that pander to your emotions.
That is not what I care about.
So when Bernie came along as an independent who was progressive and fought for civil rights, I said, here's a guy who really means it.
I respect that.
And it's very similar to what people liked about Trump.
Now get this, Trump and Bernie shared a lot of policies on free trade, on borders.
Bernie is very nationalistic, and he was smeared for it, actually, by socialists.
So, higher wages.
We do need higher wages.
I'm not convinced you can do that with Bernie's policy.
Healthcare coverage for everybody.
I'd like that as well.
And idealistically, I'm very much for universal healthcare coverage.
I don't see problems with universal fire departments.
We seem to manage that just fine.
But admittedly, it's a complicated problem.
And some people like their coverage, and we can't just take that away from them.
So I don't know what you do, and I don't even think Bernie Sanders would solve this.
Barack Obama wanted universal healthcare.
He couldn't get it done either.
I don't think you will.
Free college education.
No, how about college education reform?
Just saying free, it's taxpayer.
Saving our planet?
I'm an environmentalist.
I can agree with this to a certain degree, but please stop injecting your weird socialism into our environmentalism.
Ending to imperialism.
Let me rephrase that, okay?
If you want to talk about ending foreign wars and getting, you know, the United States involved in these endless Middle Eastern wars to change governments so that we can get more favorable policy, I'm right there with you.
Mass incarceration, spot on 100%, and the end of the prison-industrial complex.
You got me 100% right there, buddy.
A better public education system.
I agree with that, but I think I disagree on how to get there with you, and the removal of big money from politics, and I agree with that as well.
You see, I agree with a lot of this.
I agree with a lot of this.
The problem comes when Bernie goes up on stage and says, white people don't know what it's like to be poor, gives up his stage to these activists, and lets cancel culture wokeness take over, and I say, you do not have the strength required to be president.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry you've lost me.
But Tulsi stepped down from the DNC as a progressive golden child of Democrats on principle, as a major in the National Guard, and as somebody who posts videos of, like, kickboxing training.
That I respect.
Strength in character.
Alright?
Our book is a how-to guide for peaceful revolution.
It includes two exercises voters can use to evaluate candidates on 14 characteristics of fascism.
All right, you lost me.
You see, this is the problem.
We can agree on these policies, but you're nuts when it comes to the paranoid delusions of fascists and Russians, and this is where I can't stand.
You want to implement any of these things?
The first thing you've got to do is walk over to Trump supporters and say, hey, how's it going, guys?
Want to grab a beer and have a conversation about politics?
Guess what?
So here's the point.
Idealistically, you guys know I'm pretty far left.
But realistically, I know that's not possible.
Obama couldn't get it done.
I see that.
We need to have strong, you know, I will say this, the far left offers up me the big ask opportunity to be like, hey guys, It's us or them, right?
You want the crazy socialists calling fascists out, or do you want the more moderate left-leaning individual who wants a public option in healthcare?
So I get it.
And this is why a lot of conservatives have been saying not to give an inch, because it keeps incrementing in a certain direction.
Here's what I think.
I think you've got to give a little to get a little.
I think there are a lot of things I don't know.
I think I'm wrong about a lot of things.
And I think even if I knew I could implement one of these plans, say universal health care, something like that, is it going to result in a happy, healthier population, or will I cause harm?
You see, the big problem with my philosophy, avoiding moral harm to others, means that even if I want to implement universal health care, if it hurts one person, we've got a serious problem.
People are suffering right now because healthcare isn't good enough.
Yes, but we didn't take it away from them.
If I implement a program to give healthcare to one person and take it away from somebody else or raise someone else's prices, I have now committed a moral harm against them.
It's a trolley problem, you see?
If somebody is already in the path of that train, and you're saying, pull the lever to kill that other person, I'm like, dude, I can't.
That's a tough, tough problem, I gotta admit.
Taking the action that ends someone's life or letting more people suffer is a hard problem to solve.
I wanna solve it.
I believe I want to maximize for good.
But I also am stopped when I get to the point where you tell me that in order to do it I gotta steamroll people who have good healthcare.
I cannot make that jump.
So we gotta figure something out.
And I think ultimately it's compromise that gets us done.
But anyway, you see the message here is very, very clear.
What he's really saying is not burning your bus as a warning, ignore it and Trump wins.
They might as well have just titled the story, I'm a progressive and Trump is going to win, period.
He's not going to beat Trump for a lot of reasons.
And they're not going to nominate him to the Democratic party.
They're not!
Bernie's an independent.
They're not.
It's going to be Warren.
At least for now I think it's Warren.
She's their safety net.
Warren's not going to take it.
Warren is way too weak.
Regular Americans who are not involved in politics are going to look at Elizabeth Warren and say, that frail little woman is going to be leading the armed forces?
No way!
No way!
We do not want a stodgy librarian type to be leading the most powerful military on the planet.
And I understand there's a lot of problems with Trump doing it too, but at least Trump is More aggressive!
Man, I understand there's a concern about Trump, you know, being a bit sporadic, to say the least.
But so far, what he's done in terms of foreign policy hasn't been as bad as Obama.
But it's been close in a lot of ways.
Okay, commando raids in Yemen, which resulted in the loss of a little girl.
There's a lot of complicated things going on with Trump.
But I'll tell you what, man.
You give the average American the choice between Elizabeth Warren, a frail academic librarian type, and Donald Trump, a tall, 6'5", boorish, aggressive man, and they're gonna be like, look, It's Congress that passes laws and argues.
It's the president who stares down foreign rivals and says, don't get in our way.
And that's why people vote for strongmen types.
It is the executive branch.
It is not the most important facet of our government.
People think the president has way too much power, but let me wrap this up.
Otherwise I'll rant for a million years.
Newsweek writes an article from a Bernie supporter saying Trump won.
Okay.
I get it.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The issue of YouTube radicalization has been an annoying fake news story for a long time.
And new research actually kind of debunks it.
But interestingly, we have another interpretation.
Not just that YouTube rabbit hole radicalization exists, but that conservative YouTube content is de-radicalizing people.
This is actually a fascinating interpretation I didn't consider.
But when you combine this with the New York Times story, their data, it kind of stands to reason.
It's a fact.
The more conservative engagement we see, the less fringe far-right engagement we see.
I think it's fair to point out That when you had people watching mainstream media and seeing lies, they thought to themselves, this is fake news.
I need to go find an alternative.
But the only alternatives were the more fringe, extreme content.
Over time, conservatives started coming onto YouTube and making content, and that gave a real home to people who then walked away from the alt-right and the fringe far-right and said, hey, this makes a lot more sense to me.
The data shows that conservative content is getting substantially more traction, and at the same time the alt-right is going down.
Combining this with the New York Times story where you saw a conservative, who then watched the intellectual dark web, and then watched progressive content, and it stands to reason that's the path.
That most people are watching, you know, people like Ben Shapiro, and they're getting their fix of alternative media, and then saying, maybe those other guys were nuts.
This guy's way better.
Now, I got a lot of criticism for Ben Shapiro, for sure, but I think it's fair to say, if the data shows it, man, the data shows it.
Check it out.
Conservative goes up, and alt-right goes way down, and alt-light is going way down.
So let's read the story from the Daily Wire.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video to prove to everybody once and for all that from moderates to conservatives and even to an extent progressives, we are doing the good work on YouTube, de-radicalizing people and creating an enriching and decentralized conversation around political issues the mainstream media never could.
Right.
Otherwise, they want to destroy us.
And that being said, this channel is heavily de-ranked, okay?
They make sure people don't see these videos and I don't know how long it'll last, so...
Let's read on.
A new study out of Penn State's political science department found that rather than conservative content online leading to radicalization, as the popular gateway narrative insists, the reverse appears to be true.
Now I'll stop here.
First, it's called the rabbit hole theory.
And I also did a video on this a couple days ago, but I didn't see this interpretation, which I now find fascinating because I believe it's actually correct.
Let's read.
The study titled, A Supply and Demand Framework for YouTube Politics, published online in October, takes a closer look at the popular narrative that YouTube serves as a radicalizing agent, particularly for the right.
Conservative content, the narrative goes, supposedly acts as a gateway for viewers, potentially leading them to the fringes of the far right.
But as Birkbeck University of London's Eric Kaufman puts it in his succinct summary of the study's key finding, contrary to the gateway drug narrative, the study shows the intellectual dark web, Jordan Peterson, PragerU, Joe Rogan, and Ben Shapiro, Rubin Report, is de-radicalizing potential alt-right viewers.
Now that is fascinating.
And I will stress too, they put this channel in that intellectual dark web category as well, although I do not identify, I gotta admit, Aside from Dave, I find a lot of the IDW types to be rather elitist, and I'm not a big fan of Ivory Tower, you know, academic elitism type stuff.
I don't mean that as a negative, I'm not trying to be disrespectful to the people involved, I just think they're very, very much so...
Look, man.
You know, Sam Harris, um, you know, Peterson, uh, Weinstein, these are, like, upper-tier academic ivory—like, I retire on the literal sense type individuals.
You know, these are people who appear on HBO and these establishment shows and things like that.
Not people like me, you know what I mean?
And people like Sargon and these other more blue-collar types who rose from the ghettos I don't want to say that for Sargon, but certainly for me, you know, being from the south side of Chicago, and then, you know, finding my way through all of this, I do not feel I have much in common at a worldview perspective level to an extent, like we agree on a lot of things, but I do believe the IDW has a bit of an elitism air to it.
And, you know, people might get mad that I said that, but that's how I feel, so, hey.
The study's authors, Kevin Munger and Joseph Phillips, offer five categories of the Alternative Influence Network, highly influential thinkers and commentators who have risen up to be competitive voices with the mainstream media.
The first category in the leftmost flank, the liberals, like Joe Rogan.
The second are the slightly more right skeptics, who push back against some of the leftist orthodoxy, among them Carl Benjamin, Jordan Peterson, and Dave Rubin.
The third, slightly more right category, actually I don't know if I'm in this study, maybe I'm thinking about a different one, are the conservatives, including Steven Crowder, famous for setting up booths at college campuses, challenging people to change his mind about a conservative pro-Trump belief.
Ben Shapiro, a former Breitbart reporter, known for criticizing the left for their use of feelings over facts.
And Dennis Prager, host of PragerU, a channel that expresses conservative viewpoints with an educational motif.
Here's how the study describes the conservatives' ideology.
Like the skeptics.
They often lampoon the use of identity politics and de-platforming by mainstream progressive social movements.
But unlike skeptics, they also disagree with mainstream liberals in principle.
They tend to have more traditional pro-market and socially conservative beliefs.
They are different from further right segments of the AIN, however, in that they explicitly oppose antisemitism and open appeals to race.
Hold on.
I shouldn't have to do this, but you can literally see the yarmulke on Ben Shapiro's head.
His last name is Shapiro.
It's mind-blowing to me.
I cannot stand anti-Semitism.
You have no idea.
It is particularly, like, I think racism is bad.
I think ethno-nationals and all this stuff is really annoying, but the anti-Semites really, really get me because they have the same beliefs across the political spectrum from the far left to the right.
They believe all the same insane nonsense about weird conspiracies over a small group of people.
It's just nuts.
Anyway.
The fourth category is the alt-right, which generally attempts to antagonize or troll the left and sometimes espouses racial ideology.
The fifth category is the racist alt-right, which is firmly committed to a far-right ideology and often expresses strong anti-Semitism and the belief that white people are genetically superior and advocate for an all-white ethnostate and an end to non-white immigration.
The study found that with the skyrocketing of conservative content online, Despite a similar increase in alt-right and alt-right content, the total views of conservative content continued to climb while far-right traffic steeply declined.
According to Trends, the researchers conclude, the proliferation of conservative content produced by the likes of Shapiro and Crowder has more likely helped de-radicalize viewers than radicalize them, as the popular narrative has assumed.
I missed this in the initial story, and it's probably because Wired didn't write that.
Of course the Daily Wire will, because this makes Ben Shapiro look great!
That's Ben Shapiro's outlet, you know?
They say.
Between 2013 and 2016, all segments of The Ain, including The Alt-Right and The Alt-Light, rose in viewership.
However, since the middle of 2017, both of these ideological segments of the AIN have seen a steep decline in viewership.
By contrast, conservative and liberal content creators who have much more in common with mainstream discourse than other segments of the AIN have either continued to grow or plateaued in viewership.
These patterns are inconsistent with radicalization happening at major scale.
Indeed, from these data alone, de-radicalization seems a more plausible baseline hypothesis.
This does not rule out the possibility that some people are making the ideological journey from liberals to skeptics to the far right.
This is certainly not the dominant trend.
Right around the time viewership of conservative content started skyrocketing, conservative content creation also rose dramatically.
Conversely, despite the alt-right and alt-right stepping up its content creation activity in 17-18, viewership of such content has been declining.
Our preferred explanation for these trends are as follows.
Previous increases in viewership of alt-right and, to a lesser extent, alt-right content reflected such content being the most ideologically adjacent to conservative users.
The content did not align with most users' views, however.
And increased competition from traditional conservative and liberal viewpoints enticed large portions of this audience to abandon what was once the only game in town, standing ovation, actual data.
You know what they did in one study?
They falsely labeled random channels to make it look like there was a pathway to radicalization.
It is mind-numbingly insane.
Because guess what?
It's exactly as I said.
Conservatives weren't getting the content they wanted from the TV.
And the best thing they could get was this weird fringe alternative content on YouTube.
And when people like Shapiro started to emerge, they said, this makes sense.
And guess what?
Ben Shapiro was the most targeted journalist by the alt-right, according to the Anti-Defamation League.
I'm so sick of this narrative.
YouTube is populated by a growing community of political commentators who are regular people, who exist in the same space as the mainstream media, but push back on the terrible job they do and provide reasonable, in-depth explanations.
And let me just stress, as an independent individual, I have no boss.
No Jeff Zucker to come behind my back and whisper in my ear and tell me what I have to say.
I've been in those situations.
Okay?
If you don't trust me, it's because you don't trust me.
But these people work for these big companies.
If you don't trust them, it's because they got somebody whispering in their ear, telling what they need to say in order to get those clicks.
YouTube is not that space.
The AIN, whatever you want to call it, we don't agree with each other.
We very, very much disagree with each other.
I was on Crowder's show a while ago.
There is respect between me and Crowder for the work we do and a complete disagreement over our opinions on policy and foreign policy, security, healthcare, all that stuff.
But you know what?
We're regular Americans.
And there's a respect for the work that both of us are doing.
There's probably some criticism there as well.
But as regular people, we talk to each other.
It's mind-blowing to me.
And because I exist in a space like this, they say I must be conservative.
Man, I tell you what, I'm pretty darn progressive!
And I've said this before, that idealistically and policy-wise, I would be voting for these kinds of policies.
But I'm trying my best to have a conversation with those I disagree with.
I'm trying my best to come to the middle because I realize with everybody abandoning the center, someone's got to hold that.
I recognize I won't get this idealistic reality that I want.
I won't have a utopia like, you know, a Star Trek utopia unless we can make it that far, develop the technology, and work with each other to figure out what makes the most sense.
I think there are good ideas on the right.
I disagree with a lot of them.
I think there are good ideas on the left.
I also disagree with many of them as well.
And it leads me to say maybe the best thing we can do is find the people who are willing to have that conversation.
And you know what?
This space that I'm in, I'm critical of the weird mainstream far-left individuals and the Antifa.
It's because the media ignores it.
That's the real gist of the issue here, okay?
The media does not spare a minute to rag on all the Republicans.
You don't need to hear the same thing from me.
You leave CNN, Fox News, MSNBC because they do it all day.
So it's not... I've criticized Trump over and over and over again because I really feel that way.
But the reason why I so heavily focus on the media and the far-left is because they get away with it all the time and that's frustrating to me.
We want to build bridges, okay?
I don't think I'm the best person in the world.
I don't think I'm perfect.
I'm doing what I find interesting, and I have my opinions, and a lot of people don't like that.
They say, Tim must be far right because he's angry at the social justice warrior types.
No, they're authoritarian weirdos who are making it harder to have a real conversation about how to solve problems.
I sat down with a table of Trump supporters and explained the concept of systemic racism.
And many of them went, oh, I never heard that before.
I never heard it that way.
That's right.
Because what happens in the media is either you believe it or you're a bigot.
That's not helping anybody, man.
When I sit down with people and say, let me explain to you how Pruitt-Igoe worked in St.
Louis and how racial covenants created this pervasive racist system, it's not that the individuals themselves, the police, are overly racist, it's that there is a negative impact on people who historically don't have wealth, who struggle to pay fines in multiple jurisdictions, and that's what they mean by institutional racism.
Unfortunately, many people on the left just tell you to bend the knee or else, instead of explaining to you these things.
So that's where I find myself.
I don't want to rant too much on this.
I think this is fascinating.
And you know what?
It confirms my bias.
So I'm going to go ahead and believe it.
But take it all with a grain of salt, man.
Do your own research.
Fact check for yourself.
And I think, you know, all I really strive for with doing these videos and anything is to have a calm, reasonable conversation.
And, like, even when I talked to Crowder, I ended by saying, look, man, these are my positions.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
I don't think I know everything.
And that's all you gotta say, man.
That's all you gotta say.
I can sit down with someone who's the most ardent Trump supporter in the world, we can talk about our ideas, and they'll end by saying, man, you are so wrong, you have no idea, these ideas make no sense, but at least you're being fair and trying to communicate.
I'm like, right.
And that's why people like Tulsi.
That's why Trump supporters like Tulsi.
Because she's willing to go on Tucker, willing to go on Hannity.
She says, let me talk to you about this.
Let me share with you my ideas and take you at your word and act in good faith.
Anyway, thanks for hanging out.
I might have some segments later.
We'll see what happens.
But at any rate, I will see you on the next segment, Podcast Every Day at 6.30 p.m.