Hillary Clinton's Smear BACKFIRED Hilariously, Leftists SLAM Incessant Orange Man Bad Narrative
Hillary Clinton's Smear BACKFIRED Hilariously, Leftists SLAM Incessant Orange Man Bad Narrative. The constant barrage of "orange man bad" is starting to take its toll on the left.For years we heard nothing else but Russia Russia Russia and it all turned out to be false. Not that long ago Hillary Clinton smeared Tulsi as a Russian Asset and now we have some hilarious backfiring.Tulsi now at 5% in the polls, up 4 points to put her above Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, and Beto O'Rourke. Perhaps when you keep saying nonsensical fake news people snap and push back.But its not just about Tulsi Gabbard, since the major announcement made by Trump high profile individuals on the left have taken to slamming 'libs' and the media for refusing to give Trump "one good day"Even the far left Nation published a piece in defense of the Durham probe.It seems the "orange man bad" narrative has gone so far that people have had enough. Leftists are starting to see that celebrities and the media is just crying wolf to get attention and now cracks are forming in their narrative.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Hillary Clinton's baseless smear against Tulsi Gabbard has backfired hilariously.
And it puts me in a good mood because you can see my bias, right?
I like Tulsi Gabbard.
And now there's really good news in this front.
And the baseless smears from the New York Times, yes, because they tried to protect Hillary and Hillary Clinton, are backfiring.
Wonderfully.
But the story goes beyond this.
In reality, I've actually got a couple different stories here where it looks like we're seeing the orange man bad media narrative finally start becoming too cumbersome for mainstream leftists.
Several high-profile left-wing personalities, I don't want to say they're overtly like far left, but they're left, you know.
They've come out and said, enough, right?
We just had this major historical moment.
Trump came out and made an announcement about this American operation in a particular location I can't talk about because YouTube will get mad at me.
But we took out one of the most dangerous men in the world.
And all of a sudden, you actually get celebrities angry at Trump.
And this was too much for the moderate and leftist individual to bear where they said, wait, wait, wait, wait, you can't give Trump one day?
Seriously.
One day, where this major historical moment happened, and the Washington Post refers to this guy as an austere scholar.
Bloomberg says he's a religious man.
They just... One guy, I can't even... We'll get into it.
I gotta be careful about how I talk about it, because this is YouTube.
But one dude refers to this, the most dangerous man in the world, as not actually a coward.
They're so desperate to hate Trump.
They're so desperate to push the orange man bad narrative, that people finally said, stop!
Trump deserves this one.
And I have one celebrity, Jamie Lee Curtis I believe, deleted a tweet after some high profile individuals said, are you joking?
Like, okay, so basically the gist of this video, it's going to be fun.
We're gonna look at how Hillary Clinton's smears backfired, first and foremost.
It puts me in a good mood.
And then how... I've got a couple stories from high-profile individuals on the left saying, stop.
Like, we're done with this.
So let's get started.
The first thing you're seeing here, New York Times stealth-edited the original story about Hillary Clinton to claim that she didn't say the Russians were grooming Tulsi, but that Republicans were.
There was no correction, no notice, this was done quietly.
So this was about a week ago.
That I noticed this.
The original story, everybody knew.
Hillary Clinton claimed Russia was grooming Tulsi Gabbard.
Now at first, you had a bunch of Trump supporters saying, I can understand why that's frustrating because Trump has been smeared relentlessly.
So there was kind of this Trump supporters patting us, Tulsi supporters in the back saying, I hear you.
I feel your pain.
And so you, interestingly, you have Tulsi who's very progressive and Trump supporters angry about the same thing.
But then they flipped it and made it worse for the Republicans.
They actually changed the story without notice, the New York Times, to claim it was the Republicans grooming Tulsi.
And there it is.
And now us Tulsi supporters are sitting there going like, whoa, now they're coming after you guys.
If you really wanted to make sure that Tulsi's fans Disaffected liberals, moderates, and Trump supporters came together.
This is how you do it.
But this is not the backfire.
You see, the backfire is actually much, much better than that.
It's about Tulsi's polls skyrocketing and putting her in front of some of the mainstream candidates.
I kid you not.
Before I show you, though, I'm going to self-promote.
Go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's multiple ways you can do it.
The best thing you can do, share this video.
I want this to be a lesson to all of you who want to baselessly smear a political candidate and a major in the armed forces who has served this country for nearly two decades.
If you want to smear someone as decorated as Tulsi, who is fighting for what she believes in to defend this country, she truly loves this country, let this be a sweet, sweet and hilarious lesson for you.
Check this out.
This is the Granite State poll.
This is New Hampshire.
It's a very, very important state in the Democratic primary.
I want to give a special thank you to Hillary Clinton for these results.
We can see that Tulsi Gabbard in February is at 1%.
Hillary Clinton opened her mouth and said some ridiculous conspiracy nonsense about Tulsi.
And naturally, me and many other people were really angry.
I mean, like I said, Trump supporters, you get the smear.
So you're laughing like first time, huh guys?
But no, we all get it, right?
Baseless smear.
Gloriously backfiring, putting Tulsi at 5%.
Seriously.
My understanding is this is a CNN poll, so it's qualifying for the debates.
Thank you for guaranteeing she can be on that stage.
If you want to claim it's the Russians or the Republicans propping her up, no, it was you making sure everybody for like a week nonstop talked about this.
And then when the New York Times tried to come out to protect you, no, no, no, it was the Republicans, not the Russians.
Y'all only made it worse.
Check this out.
This puts Tulsi above Tom Steyer, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke.
I don't know who Joe Sejnick is.
All these other people have dropped out.
But seriously, she's above Booker and Harris now.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I really, really appreciate it.
But there is...
There is more to go through.
This is just one story that I want to highlight, where the orange men bad narrative, the insane conspiracies have gone too far.
Media, left-wing personalities, you have to simmer down.
You know, the way I explain it is that if you put someone on the street with a polo shirt and a clipboard, and they smile and wave, and they say, hey, would you like to talk about climate change?
Most people are going to say no, and they're going to roll their eyes and be like, oh, the environmentalists.
But a lot of people stop and say, sure, what's up?
I used to do it for a living.
Now, what do you think would happen if you took that same person, but instead of giving them a clipboard, you put them in a ratty old duster with holes in it and gave them a sign that said, the end is nigh, and made them shake it up and down violently?
No one will talk to them.
So when you come out and start screeching about the Russians and Trump and we better listen, yet you lose people.
And regular Americans and leftists start saying, maybe you're crazy.
And then all of a sudden, Tulsi jumps four points in the poll.
Check this out.
Juan Williams, heed Clinton's warning on Tulsi Gabbard.
You won't learn your lesson, will you?
Well, you know what?
It's starting, we're starting to see the cracks.
Now, Matt Taibbi, I don't want to act like he's ever been this diehard, you know, individual who's blind to the facts.
There are many people who just run, they toe the line, they don't pay attention to the facts.
No, Matt Taibbi's actually pretty good.
He's on the left, you know, he's, I'll show you why.
I don't want to accuse him of being overtly left or anything like that, but he's written a book called Trump Insane.
He's written about hate in media.
He talks to Noam Chomsky.
So he's on the left.
I'm not saying he's far left.
I'm not saying he's a diehard.
I'm just saying he's an urban liberal type.
Baghdadi's story reveals divided and broken news media.
Now, I'm not going to read through this whole story for you, because the gist of it is... it's obvious.
And Matt Taibbi makes amazing points.
That you basically have a media... Let me do this.
They actually show these things saying... all of these points where the media was actually negative about this major historical moment.
Listen.
A group of very dangerous, violent individuals forming their own country emerged during Obama's years.
And it became extremely dangerous and powerful.
And in the Trump era, it has come to an end for the most part.
And that is good news for the world.
But the media wouldn't allow it.
They were furious.
And they still want to write some kind of smear.
Now, I just want to show you this real quick to show you why I'm ascribing leftism to Matt.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
But he did write about insane clown president.
Can't Breathe, it's about Eric Garner, and Hate Inc.
So he's, you know, Hate Inc.
is about MSNBC, Fox News, infotainment, and he talks with Noam Chomsky.
So he's not like a crazy individual, but he is more of a liberal type who's saying the media itself is broken.
And to me, look, I will recognize Matt has always been rather astute, so I don't want to act like this is some person having a great epiphany, but listen, we have thought leaders on the left looking at the media and saying, that's gone too far, okay?
This is a major moment for our country, for the world, for the Middle East, and for Trump.
Come on.
Are you kidding, media?
They called him an astute scholar.
Mind-blowing.
But check this out.
Nate Silver, into the fray.
He said, it's really amazing how many libs can't even permit Trump to have one good day.
Nobody will remember this stuff by Tuesday after U.S.
forces take out perhaps the world's most wanted I'm just gonna say it, terrorists.
I hope they don't ban my video because of this.
But Nate Silver.
Nate Silver is, according to his Wikipedia, he votes Democrat.
He's not like a, you know, he's kind of a moderate centrist type, but he votes Democrat.
This is the point.
The point is that the rational-minded, sane, moderate types are finally saying, can you please stop?
Okay, the constant, unrelenting, orange man bad narrative has finally gone too far.
Listen, man.
You know, Trump talks with Ukraine.
Now there's, oh, the impeachment, oh, this, that, this.
Okay, okay, I understand why you're arguing.
It's annoying to me.
But what just happened, you know, over in the Middle East?
That should be clear-cut, right?
Instead, the media is so unhinged that everything always must be this crazy conspiracy, be it Hillary Clinton smearing Tulsi as a Russian, smearing Trump as a Russian.
Listen, she smeared Trump as a Russian three years ago, and we had to deal with this investigation because of the nonsense.
And then, something interesting happens.
Trump and the DOJ say, we're going to investigate how this insane fringe conspiracy permeated through our government, through our media, for years.
And the left got mad.
And they said, Trump, what is he doing?
No.
You gotta stop.
Because people aren't having it.
In terms of impeachment, I will highlight another individual who is typically associated with the left, who does a great job of this.
Michael Tracy.
Always with very good points, in my opinion, he said, You can't question the background or motives of this week's impeachment hero, Lt.
Col.
Vindman, because of his valiant military service.
But it's fine to explicitly declare that Major Gabbard is doing the bidding of Russia.
As you can see, these standards are perfectly consistent.
I love it.
It's about time we started seeing people like Nate Silver just say, like, seriously.
Now, here's what's funny.
Nate Silver tweeted this.
Jamie Lee Curtis deleted the tweet.
I believe.
It's not there anymore.
Look, it's gone.
I think maybe she realized she went too far.
Let me tell you a secret, because I've got more for you.
The secret is, these celebrities, I made a video about it a couple months ago.
The activism is fake.
They're sitting there thinking, what can I do for retweets to expand my brand?
You want to talk about drifting.
The activists accuse people like me of griffing, of Stephen Crowder of griffing, of Dave Rubin of— No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We're the principled opposition who are telling you enough.
But the grifters are the people like Jamie Lee Curtis, who is, and I hate using this, I really hate saying grifter, but come on.
She's going to tweet a negative about Trump and what he's doing at this moment.
And you know what?
People say, sorry, I'm not going to take that, right?
Like you can't, you've officially gone too far.
It would be like, you know, the joke is that Trump could run into a burning building and rescue a box of puppies and they would, they would complain that, you know, Trump injured the puppies as he ran through the smoke and the puppies breathed in the smoke, like it was his fault.
If no matter what he does, he's always bad for it.
And eventually people are sitting there scratching their head like, hey, how is this one bad?
Like, how is, how are you mad about this?
And finally you get Nate Silver popping into this, it's comfortably smug on Twitter, and Nate Silver, verified high-profile editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight, pops in and says they can't even give him one good day, and she deletes the tweet.
But there's more.
There's more.
Check this out.
This is from The Nation.
The Nation is pretty far left.
But Aaron Maté has been very principled, and I'll say it again, astute, on the points pertaining to Russiagate, saying, Uncovering Russiagate's origins could prevent future scandals.
There are legitimate grounds to probe the intelligence officials behind the all-consuming Trump-Russia affair.
Cracks are forming.
Now listen, Michael Tracy, Aaron, Matt Taibbi, they've been pretty good at calling out inconsistencies and not falling on tribal lines.
They seem like very principled individuals.
So again, I don't want to make it seem like all of a sudden these were diehard anti-Trump people who all of a sudden woke up one day like, oh no, what's happening?
No, no, no.
These people have been pretty spot on.
Aaron's been pretty good.
Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracy have been some of the best in calling out the fake news,
mainstream conspiracy nonsense.
Glenn Greenwald in fact talked about how MSNBC wouldn't book him because he wouldn't toe
the line talking about the Russia conspiracy.
But you can see that the media has tried consistently to push a narrative about conspiracies, about
foreign threats, about Russia.
So the reason why Aaron had to write this story that the investigation into Russiagate is a good thing is because the left is freaking out, saying, no, no, you can't.
What is Trump doing?
He's trying to weaponize us for political reasons.
And here's Aaron saying, like, but we should be challenging These intelligence agencies.
What's really fascinating to me is that throughout my whole life, all of these left-wing activists were always criticizing the FBI, the CIA, the NSA.
I mean, we had the huge leaks from Edward Snowden talking about what the NSA was doing, and we were saying the intelligence agencies are going rogue.
What's Trump saying now?
He's quite literally saying the intelligence agencies are going rogue.
And let's bring this back.
Let's bring this full circle.
What do we get?
For years.
They say there is no deep state.
Trump's just, it's a conspiracy theory.
Trump's just got it out for the intelligence agencies.
And then the New York Times writes a couple stories saying there is a deep state, and it's just good principled individuals resisting a corrupt president.
So now they're actually, so here's the thing.
The idea of the deep state, some people, it's a conspiracy that there's the permanent government working to stop and overthrow and control.
But in reality, it's actually much more simple than that.
It's not a conspiracy.
It's just a lot of people who work in the intelligence agencies who have Trump derangement syndrome, probably because of the media, who then fuel that same media and push a narrative.
And it looks like it's a concerted effort, but it's actually more likely a standalone complex.
But you get this media pushing this nonstop.
The New York Times now saying, well, there is a deep state.
Okay, here's the thing.
Back to my first point.
Why was it that the New York Times quietly changed the story?
We all know Hillary Clinton was accusing Russia of interfering.
Just listen to it.
The audio was released.
This was one of the most insane attempts at gaslighting I've ever seen.
It's like the media narrative is falling apart and they're struggling to maintain their control over what we're thinking about.
I'm not saying, like, a conspiracy.
I'm saying the New York Times usually sets the trend in what we talk about.
And now they're struggling.
They can't.
Normally, you know, New York Times would have been like, no, we believe it was the Republicans.
And they'd change it and everyone would just follow suit.
Today, I'm sorry, it's too late.
The story is out.
Hillary Clinton, in the recording, said they Russia loves her.
Russia's doing X, Y, and Z. The most honest interpretation of what Hillary Clinton said is that she believes Trump and the Russians are one in the same.
That's seriously the most honest interpretation.
So if they change the story, why would the New York Times do this?
Here's the crazy part.
The correction they issued, they say, that it was in response to Hillary Clinton's staffer.
So let me, let's read this.
They say, an earlier version of this article described incorrectly an element of Hillary Clinton's recent comments about Tulsi Gabbard.
While Mrs. Clinton said the Democratic presidential candidate was the favorite of the Russians, an aide later confirmed The reference was to Ms.
Gabbard, Mrs. Clinton's remark about the grooming of a third-party candidate in 2020 race, was a response to a question about the Republicans, not about the... Oh, oh, oh, there it is.
And there it is.
Hillary Clinton's aide told us this is what it's really about, and we said, okay, and went in and changed it without issuing a correction.
Why would the New York Times do that?
The narrative exists, whether or not you want to believe it's true, but I tell you what, It backfires in such a glorious fashion, it puts a smile on my face.
I am happy to see that in New Hampshire now we're looking at Bernie Sanders number one, then Warren, then Biden, Buttigieg, Yang, Klobuchar, and then Gabbard.
And guess what?
Klobuchar and Yang are tied with Tulsi right now for fifth place.
Thank you for that.
So I do have some other stuff I want to pull up.
I can't because YouTube will get in trouble, but it's essentially... One of the stories I want to highlight specifically was how this guy Max Boot wrote that Baghdadi was not a coward, and this resulted in a massive backlash, forcing him to delete the tweets.
This is a really- this story is another really, really good example of people on the left saying, no more.
We get it, okay?
The orange man is bad, but he is not that bad!
It's like, dude!
They're presidents and politicians I don't like.
I don't freak out about it.
Right?
They're people I disagree with.
Like, I disagree with Dan Crenshaw on a lot of things, but I actually really like the guy.
I think he's a great dude.
He seems like a really, really, really solid guy.
Trump has bad character and bad policies I disagree with, and it combines to make me say, yeah, Orange Man's kind of bad.
But he's not that bad.
Like, what happened the other day, the announcement, I'm like, hey, well, you gotta hand it to him.
You know, when good things happen, you say good things happen.
I have no problem saying for AOC, when she comes out with good policy, for Elizabeth Warren, you come out with good policy and good ideas, on principle, and I will give you praise.
And that goes for AOC, and it goes for Trump as well.
But a lot of these people are in a tribe, and all they care about is clicks.
Now, again, I wanna go back to that point I made about the celebrities.
These personalities, They're in this bubble where everything about Trump is always bad and nothing can ever be good.
Think about what that does to you.
In reality, we know that some things are good and some things are bad.
Like, hey, chocolate ice cream tastes great, but too much is kind of bad for you.
I have no problem saying that.
Imagine living in the world where you were not allowed to criticize unhealthy food.
And we're going that direction with, like, you know, fat shaming and all that stuff.
Like, don't you dare criticize unhealthy habits.
No!
Not everything is perfect.
Not everything is pure evil.
It's not a binary world.
There is nuance.
Trump can be bad, but he can also do good things.
Trump can be good, and he can also do bad things.
And that's the conversation we need to have if we're going to find what's good and move forward.
But I'll tell you what.
A lot of people, they have a threshold where eventually you move too far and then snap.
They say, enough.
Tweets get deleted, stories get corrected.
It was a bipartisan outrage when the Washington Post referred to Baghdadi as an austere scholar.
Everybody was shocked.
What?
They're so desperate to push the narrative, and the narrative is falling apart.
We can see from many of these principled leftists calling it out, their narrative, you know, their desperate attempt to always make everything about Trump, is it's not based on principle.
It's based on what they think will get clicks and build their following.
But in the end, there's real tangible results to the insanity.
And I love it.
I have donated to Tulsi Gabbard.
The principal reason is to get her on the debate stage so that she can talk about core issues like war that aren't being highlighted.
Nobody talks about it when she's not there.
So that's what my support is for.
I'm a realist.
I don't think she'll win.
But I love tangible results.
I hope you can all agree with me that whether Whether just by supporting Tulsi and being happy she's doing well, or sheer schadenfreude, you're happy to see that these dishonest media tactics backfire and result in something positive.
You reap what you sow.
It's almost kind of like, it feels like justice.
You know what I mean?
That you just want to believe that if you do good, and you're good to other people, good things follow.
But too often in this world, we're faced with the fact that sometimes bad people get ahead, and the cheaters win.
But in this instance, at least this instance, we can see.
You want to smear a major in the National Guard, a decorated veteran who is serving her country?
This is what you get.
She rises in the ranks.
You have given her tons of press.
And now more people get to learn about who she is and what she stands for.
Thank you very much for that.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is a different channel.
At 6 p.m.
And I will see you all there.
A judge has reinstated the Covington lawsuit against the Washington Post.
And they will be moving into Discovery.
This is insane.
This is huge.
And everybody who is facing a lawsuit from Covington must be sweating in their boots because Discovery ain't pretty.
Okay?
I don't know what they're going to ask for.
I'm not a lawyer.
So I don't know what the scope will be.
But Discovery is basically, we get to see what you were doing when you were writing this story.
So you might have an email from someone saying, like, look at these MAGA chud far right there, insulting them.
Maybe not enough to prove defamation.
But we might see under the curtain, you know, behind the curtain, what's really going on.
I think we might see evidence of bias, but who knows?
Now, this is complicated, but there's, you know, CNN, I think, Cathie Griffin, a bunch of celebrities are involved in this.
For those that don't remember, the Covington story where the kids who were standing around, minding their own business, when a Native American dude walked up and got in this kid's face, banging a drum, and then everyone in the media rushed to condemn this kid.
You know what's really, really funny?
I'm going to make sure I bring this up before we go through this.
The other day, a writer for the Washington Post claimed that al-Baghdadi was not a coward.
What?
They had just previously called him an austere scholar.
Think about this for one second as we move into this.
There's a lot to talk about.
They called this kid the worst things in the book.
They insulted.
They made definitive statements of fact about what he did that were lies.
They're being sued over it.
Okay, I have to preface that with what I believe was incorrect information because we're in murky legal territory.
I don't want to get sued either.
But the accusation is they published false information.
And I'll show you why I believe that to be the case.
Yet, when it comes to Baghdadi, they can't give Trump one good day.
They say he's an austere religious scholar and he was certainly not a coward.
Are you nuts?
What is wrong with these people?
Now here's what's so crazy about the Covington story.
The initial dismissal of the, look, I think I know why the judge reinstated this, but I've got to read this to give you the context.
It's really interesting.
So the judge initially dismisses 33 claims saying, guess what?
Their opinions.
That's right.
Sang, it's an opinion piece.
And so we'll get into why I think he's flipped on this.
But when you actually read the story and I have the archive pulled up, at least what I believe to be the original archive, no, they make some definitive statements of fact without knowing the details.
And the videos were available.
They did no journalism here.
This is the big problem today.
And this is huge, okay?
Everybody down the line, they're probably worried now because Discovery's coming for you too.
If a judge is going to uphold this, guess who's next?
So here's the thing.
What I really want to talk about is the reason and the really, really bad news for journalism if the judge dismissed it and why he has to allow it to move forward.
But I'm going to read the story first so I can give you the context.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, crypto, physical address, you know how it works.
But more importantly, Share this video.
I now have more evidence that YouTube is actively throttling much of my content on both channels.
It's hard to know for sure, right?
Because I've said before, sometimes they prop it up, and they do.
Usually they throttle.
And now we have evidence, so... We'll see what happens.
But in the end, if you think this story is important, and you want to help me highlight the fake news and the lies they're pushing, please consider sharing this video.
Everybody who watched this video shared it, it'd be a million views, okay?
Let's read the story from the Hill.
They say, a federal judge has reinstated part of a lawsuit against the Washington Post,
alleged that the newspaper defamed a Kentucky teen in its coverage of an encounter between
high school students and a Native American activist.
Judge William O. Bertelsman on Monday ruled that the case could enter the discovery phase
and that a small part of the initial lawsuit could proceed.
The decision came just months after Bertelsman dismissed the case on grounds that the Post's reporting on the matter was protected by the First Amendment.
Yes.
But why it was protected is interesting.
He claimed their fact-based story was actually opinion.
Very, very interesting.
We'll get into this.
The family of Nicholas Sandman, the Covington High School student, sued the Post for $250 million in damages in February over its coverage of the teen and its classmates' encounter with a Native American elder in Washington, D.C.
The suit accused the newspaper of having targeted and bullied Sandman and of publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles about the incident.
Sandman had appeared in a viral video in January.
So we know the story.
He was on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
Native American guy walks up to Nick Sandman's face, who is like awkwardly standing there confused, like, what do I do?
And then the media made it look like he was the bad guy.
They lied.
They said Nick Sandman got in the face of the Native American, and then all you saw were these kids laughing, and they said all the worst things in the book, and it turns out it was a bunch of kids minding their own business when This Phillips guy, who's lying about his veteran status, gets in his face, and then proceeded to lie after the fact about everything that happened.
They say, Phillips had claimed that Sandman blocked his ability to move, though Sandman has denied doing so, the Post noted.
That's, the Post noted, that's in their story now, talking about getting sued.
So they're trying to defend themselves.
Bertelsmann in July cited statutes protecting opinion.
While dismissing the 33 statements that Sandman's family had sued the post over.
He also cited case law while arguing that statements in articles on Sandman needed to be more than annoying, offensive, or embarrassing.
Few principles of law are as well established as the rule that statements of opinion are not actionable in liable actions.
The statements that Sandman challenges constitute protected opinions that may not form the basis for a defamation claim.
After reviewing an amended complaint, Bertelsmann ruled Monday that three statements related to the Post's coverage of Phillips' claim that Sandman blocked Phillips warranted further review.
These three statements state that Sandman blocked Nathan Phillips and would not allow him to retreat.
Suffice to say that the court has given this matter careful review and concludes that justice requires that discovery be had regarding these statements and their context.
The court will then consider them anew on summary judgment.
Woo!
So it looks like Sandman and his lawyers did an amended suit going down to three statements and the judge said, there we go.
Bertelsmann noted that the amended complaint accuses Phillips of deliberately lying about the encounter.
The complaint also claims that Phillips had an unsavory reputation that the newspapers should have been aware of in its coverage.
The Washington Post did not immediately return a request for comment from the Hill.
Lawsuits by Sandman's legal team against NBC and CNN are still pending.
So here's what we have right now.
The Covington Kids lawsuit is... They've gained some experience.
They've seen what gets through and what they can actually go on.
I gotta tell you, man...
One of the most frustrating things about defamation suits is you need to prove damages, especially for public figures.
And that makes the political world a nightmare.
And if we don't do something about this, our political world is going to completely collapse.
You have these people on the left saying Facebook shouldn't allow politicians to lie.
Listen, man.
When they play these weaselly games in media where they claim that I pushed a conspiracy simply because out of the thousand hours of content I've produced, I mentioned something in passing for 30 seconds with a source that was later corrected, that's what they do.
They say that because I interviewed someone, I'm connected to them.
Okay, yeah, I'm connected to communists in, you know, former Soviet territories, if that's the game you want to play.
Because there's no direct damages, it causes a long-standing and lasting career damage.
And the people who write these stories are usually faceless.
There's no byline or they're activists.
They lie.
And right now, I'm dealing with defamation because some fuck... I almost swore.
Because some cartoon avatar account pulled some clips out of context and mashed them together to make a fake clip, and then someone from a major news outlet who hates me ran that as fact.
Welcome to the modern era.
We cannot allow this to continue.
The journalists have to do their jobs.
And if they don't, something must be done about it.
Okay?
I don't know the solution, but I'll tell you this.
Check this out.
Here's January 19th.
I don't know if this is the very first article that was written by the Washington Post.
This is the earliest I could find.
However, they do say this.
A viral video of a group of Kentucky teens in MAGA, uh, Make America Great Again hats taunting a Native American veteran on Friday has heaped fuel on a long-running intense argument among abortion proponents as to whether the close affiliation of many anti-abortion leaders with President Trump since he took office has led to moral decay that harms the movement.
Right away, they said they were taunting him.
That is a statement of fact we know to be false.
It's not, so here, here's the thing.
The judge said, it's opinion.
It's an opinion.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Here's why I think they absolutely had to reverse this.
Could you imagine if you had defamation precedent stating that a fact-based news report, or something alleging to be, was just an opinion?
That would literally make every single news report an opinion piece.
Think about it.
They say he was taunting the Native American.
We know, based on the context of the situation, that is not true.
But they argue, based on the video we saw, that's what we interpreted.
Ah, and there we go.
Facts don't matter.
We saw them taunting.
That's fair.
Okay, the judge says that's your opinion.
Whoa!
This is supposed to be a fact-based news report telling people what's going on and bringing up the issue.
Now, I don't know if this is actually supposed to be a fact-based news report, but it certainly doesn't say opinion up top like some of the other articles do.
Opinions.
The Covington students failed to act like grown-ups.
So did the adults.
This is January 22nd.
Washington Post ran these op-eds smearing the kids.
Look at this.
Nothing justifies what the Covington students did.
Look at this.
He says, I watched a one-hour, 46-minute video posted by one of the members of the Hebrew Israelites.
It shows during and after the infamous encounter.
Yada, yada, yada.
Basically, I don't know if they're suing for the opinion pieces.
I think they may have been, and that's maybe what got taken down.
But in the original article, they make reference to being blocked, citing Phillips.
They say, let me see if I can pull it up.
A few of the young people chanted, build that wall, build that wall, the man said, adding that a teen shown smirking at him in the video was blocking him from moving.
And that's one of the claims they're allowing to move forward, which is interesting because they're just quoting somebody.
So we got a big journalistic mess right now.
All of this bad reporting about Covington still exists.
They never took some of this stuff down.
There are some stories still to this day.
Have not been corrected.
And to me, it's mind-blowing.
Because you're about to be sued for a lot of money.
And the judge just reinstated this.
The kids did not block them from moving.
If anything, Nathan Phillips was blocking the kids from moving.
They never chanted, build that wall.
Many people definitively said they did.
The story, for the most part, we have here goes and talks about, you know, abortion rights and stuff like that.
So I don't know if this is the original video.
I'm sorry, the original article.
There is another, I believe this is the updated version of the article.
From January 20th, they updated it.
And here's the funny thing.
Here's the correction they added.
An earlier version of this article inaccurately described the statement of Catholic officials from Covington, Kentucky.
Their statement condemned the teens' actions towards Native Americans in general But did not apologize for those actions.
That's the correction they put in.
Well, you're being sued now.
There are a ton of outlets.
Check this one out.
The MAGA hat wearing teens who taunted a Native American elder could be expelled.
They're definitively saying the kids were taunting him, and here's where we get into really dangerous journalistic territory.
The kids were not taunting anybody.
By any reasonable view of what happened, here's what we know.
The kids were just singing songs and cheering for their school.
The Native American Nathan Phillips walked up to them, and they were cheering along, thinking he was drumming with them.
That's what they've said, and that's what appears to be the case when you watch the video.
The kids didn't really seem to care at all about the Native American guy, and according to Sandman, I believe, he said he didn't know what to do or what was going on.
So based on the context, we know they weren't taunting them.
So, why then can BuzzFeed still make a statement of fact?
Taunting means something, right?
Like, if you were there and I started going like, you know, like yelling at you, right, that's what taunting is.
But if these kids in the greater context were singing on their own and Phillips walked up to them, how could you factually state they were taunting somebody?
You can't.
However, based on their personal opinion on what was happening, they believe it is true that they were taunting him.
Well, that's not true.
And this is where things get really, really challenging.
If you watch only that small clip, a reasonable person might say they were taunting the Native American.
And maybe that's what they're basing this off of.
But that's false.
If you do actual journalistic work, you discover they were singing first!
Then the dude walks up, okay?
They're not taunting him.
They thought he was drumming with them.
In context, then, the fact remains the kids were likely not, but likely is the key word.
We don't know their frame of mind, in which case, BuzzFeed is probably protected because this is not fact-based news reporting.
It is very, very difficult for people to discern the difference between a fact and an opinion.
This is an opinion, and it's not labeled as one.
Because the fact-based reporting would be A video showing a Native American and MAGA hat-wearing teen sparks controversy.
That's a fact.
Saying that the teens who taunted the elder could be expelled, that's an opinion, and BuzzFeed reports it as fact.
And until we have organizations that are willing to address these differences in opinions, we don't have real news.
So check this out.
Going back to the... This is one of the original stories.
I don't know if it was the original.
I'll make sure that's clear.
They say... I don't even know what the title to this story is.
They say, a viral video of Kentucky teens in MAGA hats taunting a Native American veteran.
Full stop.
That's an opinion.
You can't say that's what the video of, because if you were going to report this as fact, you would say, a viral video of a group of Kentucky teens in Make America Great Again hats with a Native American veteran On Friday has heaped fuel on a long-running intense fire.
But even saying it heaped fuel on a fire is also an opinion.
So this may be in their opinion sections, it's called acts of faith, I guess the column, I'm not entirely sure.
This may be why the case was dismissed in the first place because most of the reporting was opinion.
But here's the problem.
I'll end with this, because I don't want to keep repeating myself.
The opinion stories say opinions.
Here we go.
Opinions.
Okay, fine.
If you want to get your story wrong in an opinion column, I get it.
That's dangerous, but I get it.
You're allowed to have your opinion.
I'm certainly wrong a lot too, and I understand there's problems and it's dangerous, but I try my best to use verified sources.
However, this one says Acts of Faith.
I don't know what that is.
I'm to assume this is legit, but it's an opinion.
BuzzFeed, in my opinion, is much, much worse, because this title is egregious.
This is an op-ed masquerading as fact, and BuzzFeed, you should change- like, how do you still have this up?
They do have an update.
A new video later emerged with more context about the incident, which was more confusing than the viral clips made it seem.
No.
Anybody who did any work would have clearly seen these kids were minding their own business.
They're rowdy young people minding their own business.
Phillips confronted them.
Phillips was the guy who started all of this.
Nobody was confronting or taunting anybody.
But people believe this.
A lot of people on the left will see it and say, dude, they were taunting him.
I've seen the video.
Dude, this is where it just breaks down.
It just completely breaks down.
So the last thing I'll just mention is the Washington Post covering themselves is hilarious.
I guess they have to or whatever.
But Paul Farhi, I believe, forgive me if I'm wrong, but he's the guy who refused to correct a story he got wrong about James O'Keefe.
And then later, an editor had to intervene and issue a correction.
So basically, I believe it was Farhi.
And if I'm wrong, forgive me and I apologize.
But there was a story where O'Keefe did an expose on CNN, Project Veritas, and said, I'd like to, O'Keefe says in the beginning of the video, I'd like to introduce you to so-and-so, a producer in Atlanta.
The journalist for the Washington Post said, James O'Keefe didn't disclose this guy's in Atlanta.
James said, what are you talking about?
It's like literally the introduction sentence.
And the dude said, I will not correct.
Later on, an editor, someone else, had to intervene and issue the correction.
That's amazing.
And now you have Farhi writing about their own organization being sued.
I think they should not have done that.
In my opinion, they should have issued a statement saying, here's what we believe to be happening, and here's our view on the matter, and it should come from the editorial board.
But having a reporter report on yourself presents all sorts of problems.
Come on, Washington Post.
You know what, man?
You've got this guy trying to defend Baghdadi.
And you also had, and I love calling this out, Dave Weigel, okay, he's a well-known journalist, a couple years ago, fabricated a story about Kim.com hacking into Seth Rich's Gmail account.
Now, he used words like may have, believed to be, and things like that, but he wrote a story about how they believed a hacker from New Zealand was trying to break into Seth Rogen's account, and that is just ridiculous.
And six months later, went in and made sweeping edits to the page to change everything.
Bravo, Washington Post!
Democracy dies in darkness.
Sure it does.
But you're not shining light on anything.
So you know what?
Maybe you can go into the darkness and die along with the rest of it.
All right, stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 PM, and I will see you all then.
Another day, another story about a guy in a MAGA hat getting attacked by someone on the left.
Why is it that all of these stories about street level violence involve someone on the left
freaking out and attacking somebody who's supporting the president or wearing a hat?
You know, we had a story not too long ago about people at a cheesecake factory,
and even the employees were apparently harassing them or something like that.
But now we have this story and I can't say I'm surprised that a guy spit on and slapped a man's hat and the guy was 67, okay?
You see, this is... Why are they targeting old people?
It's not just- Okay, actually, you know what?
In Portland, when that dude clubbed the guy over the head, turned out the guy who got clubbed was a Bernie supporter.
He was younger.
Why is it that when they attack Trump supporters, they always tend to be a little older, right?
We just saw that story, um, an Antifa guy got sentenced to, I think, 18 months.
Because he attacked a Trump supporter from behind, got him on the ground, choked him, and I guess he was surprised he was going to prison for over a year, year and a half.
Yeah, well, what do you think happens when you attack somebody?
But why are they always attacking old people?
You know what I mean?
Like, when it comes to...
No, I guess it makes a lot of sense.
I think back to that thing in Portland with the Proud Boys.
What do you think happens when these leftists or Antifa target a young Trump supporter?
You get the infamous Rufio one-punch man video.
You ever see that?
Okay, first, If you don't know what One Punch Man is, it's a hilarious anime about a guy who's so powerful he can defeat anybody with one punch.
Now that you understand the context, there's that famous viral video where the Proud Boy blocks a baton swing with his forearm and then winds up and then punches the Antifa guy and the Antifa guy just, like, falls down.
Now here's the thing.
I think I know why these stories always involve an old person.
Because they're targeting people who can't fight back.
I mean, or kids, right?
Like when the dude went to the, it was a El Pollo Loco, I think?
And he grabbed the drink and splashed it in the kid's face?
What is wrong with you, man?
Chill out!
All right, let's read this story from Newsweek.
Florida man arrested after allegedly spitting on a man and slapping his MAGA hat.
I don't even care.
I'm going to jail.
Well, dude, you should care, I guess.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work, or better yet, just share this video.
YouTube is definitely throttling, deranking all of our channels.
We have proof.
The data's being collected, man, and the only way to overcome this is if you guys who watch really think the video is worth being shared.
You know, for the most part, we on YouTube rely on the recommendation algorithm to be like, hey, if you like that, you might like this, but they're replacing us.
And for the most part, with Fox News.
I can't compete with that.
So if you like this video, please share it.
Let's read.
Newsweek Reports.
Uh, Matthias Ajpli, 43, approached MAGA hat-wearing Robert Youngblood, 67, at a restaurant in the city of Vero Beach on Friday evening, according to an arrest affidavit.
Youngblood told an Indian River County Sheriff's Office deputy that he was sitting at the bar of Hurricane Grill with two friends when Ajpli walked over and said, you should go back to Russia, you effing communist.
Okay, so wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
Uh, Adjplee, 43, approached the MAGA hat-wearing Youngblood, who was 67.
Okay, so Youngblood is the old MAGA guy.
And he was sitting at the bar when Adjplee called him, told him to go back to Russia, you effing communist?
Adjplee then slapped the brill of Youngblood's hat before leaning over a gate and spitting on him, the victim claimed.
The suspect then left the scene.
Yeah, dude, you got issues, man.
Come on.
The man's friends witnessed the altercation according to the Indian River County Sheriff's Office deputy who attended the scene.
Youngblood took down Edgeplee's vehicle registration number.
Police traced the vehicle back to the suspect's wife.
The manager of Hurricane Grill released the surveillance footage of the incident.
The video clearly shows Edgeplee slapping the brill of Youngblood's hat and leaning over the gate to spit on him, the affidavit states.
Told police she and her husband saw Youngblood at the bar, and she jokingly told her husband to tell him to go back to
Russia.
She claimed she didn't see the encounter.
Police contacted Edgeley, and he initially refused to make a statement,
but later told police, I was just trying to protect you guys because I support law
enforcement.
What?
Trump supporters are communists?
Okay.
Well, if you were to tell me that these leftists who were attacking Trump hat-wearing individuals were
insane, I would be inclined to believe you whether or not
they actually want to insinuate Trump supporters are communists.
That seems like you got your wires crossed, buddy.
But hey, if you're gonna attack somebody in public and spit on them, you didn't need to call a Trump supporter a communist for me to think that was the case.
So they have photos of the guy who say, in apparent reference to Youngblood, who is 67 years old.
Like, you're attacking an old guy.
Like, I'm not trying to be mean.
He's 67.
Come on.
Senior citizen.
He said, I don't even care that I'm going to jail.
This is actually exciting.
Plus, I have more time on this earth than he does anyway.
He probably feels so good about himself.
Dude, you are off.
This is nuts, man.
Police arrested Ajpal.
They mentioned where he was.
He was taken to Indian River County Jail without incident.
They say that he was an engineer charged with battery.
His bond was set at $500.
Edgepool was booked at 12.15am on Saturday, released the same day a couple hours later.
The incident comes amid a climate of division in the US, as critics of Trump regard the MAGA slogan and red hats emblazoned with it as a symbol of what they regard as the president's regressive policies on issues such as immigration and LGBT rights.
Well, I'm not going to stop here, because we do have more news in this space.
There's actually a ton of stories going on about this today.
We have another individual who was associated with Antifa who has been arrested for a hate crime.
Like, like not, like an act, yeah.
Yeah, Andy Ngo has the tweets.
So Andy Ngo tweeted the other day.
Antifa activist Jamal Oscar Williams, who threatened me with death last year and was arrested in August in Portland for violent protesting, was arrested in Seattle two weeks ago for allegedly shouting anti-Semitic remarks at two Orthodox men.
This received no media attention.
Williams is being held on bail for $100,000 for a hate crime charge.
He was also arrested on the 29th of September for reckless endangerment.
In August, he was arrested in Portland for disorderly conduct at the Antifa riot.
You know what's really funny?
Hey man, when you had, it was like 2016, you had a bunch of people claiming they were alt-right, and boy did they regret that once they learned what the alt-right was about.
But yeah, like Steve Bannon called Breitbart alt-right.
You had people like Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, I think maybe Pesobek.
I don't want to falsely accuse anybody.
But people were throwing this around, not really understanding what the alt-right was.
And as soon as it became apparent, boy did they regret it and call it out and disavow and say, no, no, no, no, no, stop.
And it is lorded over them to this day.
Okay.
Keep that in mind.
How come the right freaks out when they realize they're surrounded by these kind of, you know, bigots and far-right individuals, people, you know, these bad alt-right people?
They freak out and they say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!
Disavow!
What happened with Linda Sarsour?
Bernie Sanders hired her!
Oh, wow, that's inspiring.
Listen, man, I'm not a fan of Republican policy.
I would prefer to vote for somebody who is more progressive, but they're hypocrites and they're racists, so I'm gonna stand back and be like, You know, it'd be great if we had progressives in this country who disavowed the racists instead of standing side-by-side with an anti-Semite.
Dude, do you have any idea what's going on in Brooklyn, where these dudes run up to Orthodox men and chase them, attack them, because it's funny?
Okay?
This is what's... Where's the media in this one?
What happens when Steve King, Republican, comes out and says some dumb alt-right stuff?
Disavow!
Republicans are like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We refuse.
We do not want to be associated with that.
Get out!
Okay.
They drop him from all his caucuses.
Committees.
What happened to Ilhan Omar?
We won't denounce her, but we will denounce bigotry.
Okay?
Why is she being protected?
Listen, man.
Bernie Sanders hires Linda Sarsour.
We had this expose about the foundation of the Women's March.
We know that the people who organized it were overt anti-Semites.
They believe ridiculous conspiracy theories.
And guess what?
Hey, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Richard Tully, they love standing side by side with her.
Bernie Sanders hired her as a campaign surrogate.
They stand next to these people.
Now, I get it.
Bernie's an old Jewish guy.
So people point it out and say, that doesn't make sense.
No.
What doesn't make sense is why Bernie wouldn't call that out.
I don't care what Bernie personally thinks, you know, in terms of What's offensive to him?
I care about the fact that he's supporting somebody who is in league with these overt anti-Semites.
You know what I mean?
Like, you get this guy right here.
Hate crime charge.
Because he was shouting anti-Semitic remarks at two Orthodox men, at least according to what Noah is saying.
And according to, uh, I guess they have this statement, yeah, he was charged with a hate crime, it says it, okay.
So, so, so, so why, whatever, I'm sure we'll have a bunch of people on the left saying, it's the police targeting him, dude.
Listen, man.
Why can't you disavow it?
Why is it that Antifa, look at this picture, this beautiful picture of Antifa standing side by side, they got the sickle and hammer, and here's a dude who was charged with a hate crime.
Huh.
Why don't they disavow?
Why is it that they typically attack old people, They stand side by side with anti-Semites, the media doesn't call them out, and the media doesn't cover this story.
I can't tell you the reason, I can just tell you the bias is obvious.
And so we're in a really interesting position.
I remember when I was growing up, we had the people who were like, I'm socially progressive, but fiscally conservative, right?
And that was basically like, you don't want to overspend, you don't believe in socialism, but you do believe in civil rights.
And that really encompassed a lot of what became the big L libertarian community, right?
But today, we have, you're conservative, in most respects, including pro-life, but you're not racist.
Or, you're far-left progressive, you believe in progressive policies and healthcare and all that stuff, but you are racist.
And you know, they'll claim they're not racist.
Don't try me, dude.
Okay?
When you give me a bunch of white people, a bunch of progressive, upper-class, college-educated white people, telling Someone like Candace Owens, what she's allowed to believe?
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and call you a racist, dude.
You don't get it.
I'm not saying everybody on the right is not racist, everyone on the left is racist.
The point is, the right panics when they see racism in their ranks.
They go, oh no, oh no, what do we do?
So the left changes the definition of racism.
Try and move the goalpost.
Sorry, dude.
This guy is a bigot.
You're standing next to him, speaking in support of him, empowering him.
That's on you.
So why won't the left call out what they claim to be fighting against?
Because the answer is they're not really fighting against it.
They're fighting for power.
That's it.
And they'll do whatever they can to get it.
And the victimhood narrative is convenient for them.
So I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
I will see you all then.
There's been an ongoing controversy surrounding the new owners of former Gawker properties and their current staff, notably with the website Deadspin.
Deadspin is supposed to be a sports website.
You can see there's NFL, MLB.
However, for some reason, you'll notice they're talking about putting things in their butts and the Covington fiasco.
Okay.
Now, these stories on the front page are specifically in response to the management saying, only sports from now on.
This is the latest in the major controversy surrounding the new owners trying to say, you're a sports website, drop the politics, stick to sports.
The staff said, no, politics makes more money.
That's why Covington is on Deadspin.
Deadspin also broke that story about all of these news anchors.
It's not a sports website.
Here's the latest.
It's not so much that they're trying to purge the woke leftism from sports.
It's not so much that they're trying to purge the woke leftism from sports.
that they're trying to purge the woke leftism from sports.
Kind of.
They're trying to just make a sports website.
Now here's the thing.
In response to this, we saw, I believe it may be this story, the adults in the room, we had the staff of Deadspin basically say, we make more money this way, you should listen to us, we're editorially independent.
And that can be struck down very, very simply.
Listen.
This is one website.
The Gawker properties have many websites.
If we want to talk about Vigo the Carpathian or Covington, we will put that on the other website.
What Deadspin doesn't realize is that... Let me give you an ice cream analogy.
Let me give you a food shop analogy.
Chinese food sells really, really well.
That's why there's so many of them.
It's really good.
In fact, I think I might get some later.
So you can open a Chinese food restaurant, but then you realize Pad Thai sells a lot better.
So for some reason, your Chinese restaurant starts buying ingredients for Pad Thai.
You, the new owner, say, I really appreciate that, but can you guys please just make the orange chicken and not the Thai food?
And they say, Thai food sells better.
I know that, but guess what?
I have a Thai restaurant across the street.
I don't need more customers.
You're splitting up the base.
If Deadspin stuck to sports and their other properties ran these articles, they would build more audience by bringing in people who like sports.
Is that so hard to understand?
I don't do a gaming channel.
That's why I made a new channel called Timcast Gaming.
And I ultimately decided, not for me.
Now it's Timcast IRL.
You should subscribe if you haven't because we're preparing stuff.
The point is...
If I'm gonna do content on different issues, I make a new channel for it.
You may notice that my main channel, youtube.com slash timcast, is almost entirely about politics and Trump, impeachment, Democrats.
That's because this is the big story in the US, and there's a lot of complicated factors involved, but it's... I do one video per day.
You come to this channel, you get a bunch of random cultural stuff.
You see how I separated them, even though I'm the same person?
Let me talk to you about sheer entitlement.
GeoMedia says, Deadspin, you're our sports site.
We have Jezebel for politics.
We have Kotaku for games.
We have Gizmodo for tech.
Why is our sports site talking about Covington?
Let me read this for you.
And the big news is some dude announced he got fired for refusing to stick to sports.
Well, lo and behold, when your boss says your job is to do sports, for the longest time you've gotten away with not doing that.
If you don't want to work here, you can leave.
Then you get fired.
They say, Daily Beast, In a Monday memo to staff, GeoMedia editorial director Paul Maidman told the employees of the site, which primarily covers sports but also frequently writes about media, politics, and culture, why, to abstain from stories that do not have an explicit link to sports.
To create as much great sports journalism as we can requires a 100% focus of our resources on sports, and it will be the sole focus, Maidman said.
Deadspin will write only about sports and that which is relevant to sports in some way, and I'll tell you why.
Conservatives buy shoes, too.
It's a famous quote from Michael Jordan.
Why don't you get political, Michael Jordan?
He said, Republicans buy shoes, too.
I'm paraphrasing.
I may be getting the story wrong.
It may be apocryphal.
But the point is, if you do a sports website where you just say, that dude just scored a touchdown.
It was incredible.
Guess what?
Tons of people can read that.
But if you do a video, if you make an article where you're like, this dude scored a touchdown, here's why Trump is bad.
You're going to get a bunch of people like, I don't want to read that, dude.
I just want to know what happened at the game.
I want to know who got drafted.
Admittedly, I don't know a lot about sports.
But I can understand why as a business you're saying, listen, If you're doing things that could potentially be offensive to a large portion of the country, we're actually segmenting and losing audience.
What's hilarious is that the Deadspin writers are like, we're looking at the numbers and we can see politics gets more clicks.
Yes.
What you can't see though is how many people you lose by being divisive.
All right?
I talk about this all the time.
Grifting.
I hate it when people say, you're a grifter, right?
They accuse me of being a grifter.
Dave Rubin.
I think I mentioned this in my main channel video.
Let me tell you something.
If I truly was in it for the money, I'd be playing Minecraft.
It is for Fortnite.
Family-friendly gaming content.
And I'd be telling silly jokes, you know, and playing a game where you're a goose.
You see that goose game?
It looks hilarious.
I wouldn't be talking about controversial issues that get demonetized and deranked.
Are you nuts?
I'll tell you this, though.
You want to talk about grifting?
If you're a sports website that admits you produce political content because it makes money, you are grifting!
Why is a sports website talking about Covington?
Listen, man.
I am a political commentator and journalist who has covered conflict and crisis and major political issues around the world.
I talk about culture and politics.
That's specifically what my channels are about.
That's what they've always been about.
The very first video, if you go to my main channel and look all the way back, it's me doing these really awful stand-ups trying to talk about news and culture and politics.
I didn't change what I was doing, it's what I like doing.
You, on the other hand, were told by your bosses, guys, it's a sports website, you gotta stop.
And instead, they said, no.
Harumph, I say.
Vigo the Carpathian.
This isn't The Onion, man.
If you want to write for The Onion, go write for The Onion.
It's right there.
It's right up top.
Clickhole as well.
Congratulations.
You want to write satire?
Go do it.
But if you're going to be employed by a sports website, guess what happens when you refuse to do your job?
I mean no ill will towards Barry Picheski.
He says, hi, I've just been fired from Deadspin for not sticking to sports.
I mean no disrespect and no ill will, but listen, if your job is to write for a sports website, and your boss says just write sports, and you don't do that, you'll get fired.
Could you imagine if Burger King hired someone and said, your job is to grill burgers, and you're like, I'm gonna make tacos instead.
They'd be like, listen, We want everybody to make hamburgers.
And then you go, okay, and then go behind his back and start making tacos, get out.
Dude, if you're not gonna do your job, you're fired.
So I feel bad the dude lost his job, but I gotta say, man, listen.
First of all, Deadspin was doing its thing with impunity for a long time.
New owners came in.
This happens.
The company wasn't, was struggling.
Like, these companies are struggling.
They claim they're making money, but listen, man, the investors didn't want it.
It wasn't something that, so they're gone, they sell it.
The new owners came in.
They made changes.
This is life.
This is why I hate having a boss.
Because you get someone who comes in and changes things.
When I worked for Fusion, when I first started at Fusion, which now used to own some of these properties, they said, non-partisan.
And I said, spot on.
And that's one of the reasons I signed.
And then six months later, in comes a new boss and he says, Full far left.
Everything.
And I was like, not for me, buddy.
You can't make me do that.
My contract doesn't state that.
And it was just not pleasant.
I tried quitting within the first year, saying, if this is what you're going to play, I'm not playing this game.
I hate having a boss for this reason.
But I get it.
So my contract was up.
They didn't want to release me.
I said, fine, whatever.
And then my contract ended, and I said, sayonara.
I'm going to go do my own thing.
And that's it.
No, it's not a grift.
It's what I care about.
But if a new boss comes into your company and says, listen, the focus is X and you don't want to do it, well, then don't work there anymore.
For me, I actually tried leaving and they didn't want me to leave, probably because it would have looked bad.
You know, one of, like, they had a bunch of star hires and I was one of them.
And then I ended up saying, I'm going to leave.
I don't want to be here.
And they're like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
It probably would have been bad press across the board.
They didn't want to look like they were losing talent.
But, if I worked at, if I got a job at a pizza place, because I loved pizza, and then one day the guy comes in and says, alright, no more pizza, we're changing to Pad Thai, I'd be like, later dude, that's not my game, okay?
I'll find a new job.
It happens.
Now, I can see all these journalists saying, All of these journalists, like, SHOCKED.
Management has unilaterally deleted these posts from every site in the network in a clear violation of our CBA.
This is from their union that says, if you're as frustrated by our site's spammy new autoplay ads as we are, now's the chance to contact Geo's management and let them know.
So I guess they had autoplay videos that were really loud.
They then went and deleted all of these posts about the autoplay being noisy.
I don't know what the posts were.
But he tweets this.
Editorial independence.
This is just yesterday.
Decisions about editorial content, whether to post a story or the story's contents, headline, or placement, may only be made by editorial, including the executive editor.
Once a story has been posted, it can only be removed by a majority vote of the executive editor, the CEO, and the general counsel unless required by law.
Here's the big problem.
First, he's specifically referring to deleting posts.
I can understand that.
You have an agreement on editorial independence.
But when it comes to sports or not, you can write whatever story you want.
As long as it's sports, right?
So, Subverse is editorially independent from me.
They produce what they think is relevant, and I often think they're producing stories that I think are irrelevant.
But, that's the point.
My opinion doesn't matter so much as what the team ultimately decides to report on, where to go, and we end up covering stories that most people are ignoring.
You'll also notice at Subverse, there's nothing about the orange man.
But we've gone down to some of the protests because it's important, but I don't decide that.
I literally don't decide it.
They're editorially independent, but I'll tell you this.
If tomorrow they started making how-to videos like makeup tutorials, you better believe there's going to be a hard stop you can't... Actually, I'll put it this way.
If the Subverse crew interviewed a makeup tutorial person, I'd be like, that's a weird choice, but okay, I don't think we should do that.
If they did it a second time and said, look, we're getting more views, I'd say, that's great.
Why don't we make a specific channel that's not Subverse for makeup tutorials?
And then if they went behind my back and did more, I'd eventually say, full stop.
We are not a makeup tutorial channel.
Stop doing this.
Cover something else.
If you want to make a makeup channel, we'll put the makeup channel somewhere else.
And then, finally, if I issue a mandate, you can't make makeup content.
Do news.
And they refuse?
Yeah.
Sorry, you're out.
It's that simple.
We produce at Subverse News.
It varies.
But if you want to make something off of our core subject, that's not editorial independence.
That's you just running wild and making whatever you want.
If it's a sports website, you're editorially independent insofar as you're writing about sports.
You want to claim some dude's bad at sports?
I can't tell you what to write.
You want to claim that the Covington kids did something wrong?
That's not sports.
So anyway, I'll wrap it up.
You get the point.
I think what we're seeing here, these new investors came in and they've realized something very, very smart.
If every website you have from Deadspin, Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Jezebel, etc., are all covering the same stories, you are shrinking your market.
And if you want to maximize revenue and audience, you need Jezebel to be political.
You need Kotaku to be about games.
You need Jalopnik.
I don't even know what Jalopnik is.
Gizmodo should be about tech.
The Root is politics as well.
You have a space for those stories.
But Deadspin should be about sports.
I don't know what their deal is, but guess what?
Dude got fired.
Okay, well, congratulations.
You're all lucky the company still exists in the first place.
They were trying to offload this.
But this is it.
Politics has saturated, and these investors want nothing to do with it.
We'll see what ends up happening going forward, but hey man, as long as these companies keep collapsing, you're going to see these overreactions, this anger, this rage.
Anyway, stick around.
I've got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
You wanna know what really really bothers me about AOC that I've mentioned 8 million times?
Is that she makes everything about race because she is one of these progressive socialist identitarian types and it's really really annoying because to an extent I can get behind environmentalism and progressive policy but not when you start attacking people because of their race.
Then you're a racist and AOC is an overt racist who is actually apparently blaming white colonizers Colonizers to blame for the hurricane that killed her grandfather.
Yes, she's talking about environmental justice and then starts talking about race because it's a cult and these people are nuts.
Let's read the story and we'll break it down for you, but I see the idea they're trying to make, but they're just crazy.
They say AOC suggested last week that predominantly white colonizers were at least partially responsible for the 2017 hurricane that led to the death of her grandfather.
The New York Democrat's remarks came Wednesday during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, The Washington Times reported.
AOC asked Mustafa Ali, Vice President of Environmental Justice, Climate and Community Revitalization for the National Wildlife Federation, about the consequences of climate change in action for communities of color.
If we don't act, then we are going to lose more lives.
We're going to lose more African American lives, more Latinx lives.
Oh, there it is.
More Asian Pacific Islander lives, more indigenous lives, the witness replied.
Ali appeared to suggest that the only white people who could fall victim to the adverse effects of climate change would be wealthy white individuals.
Quote, We're going to lose more lives of white, low-income brothers and sisters, as well, because all of them are the ones that are placed right on the front lines of many of these things that are going on.
The freshman congresswoman then asked whether the global south and communities of color were bearing the brunt of climate havoc, to which Ali replied, without a doubt.
Ocasio-Cortez claimed that 6,000 predominantly black and brown lives had been wiped out by Hurricane Maria and Katrina.
And in terms of that wealth, that people are producing climate change, the folks that are responsible for all the largest amounts of emissions, or communities or corporations, they tend to be predominantly white, correct?
And Ali, former head of the EPA Environmental Justice Office, replied, yes, and every study backs that up.
Okay!
Let's stop for a second.
Do you know what's causing environmental trouble?
It's not the 1%.
It's not big corporations.
It's not Shell.
It's not Apple.
It's you.
Literally.
You.
And me.
And that person over there.
And my neighbor.
And the pastor down the street.
It's all of us.
It's just the way things are.
And it will change because we slowly adapt to fix things.
Did you know that there was a story about this, like, in the turn of the century, When everyone was in the big cities and there were horses everywhere, horses were pooping all over the place.
And apparently, this may be an urban legend or apocryphal, someone sent me a story on this to confirm it, I guess, but they were concerned that eventually the city would grow so large there would be horse poop everywhere because you needed horses to get around.
Guess what?
Car got invented.
Well, over time we've invented new things, but we do have a lot of problems.
And it is not white people, it is not rich people, it is literally every single person that is contributing in many different ways to environmental disaster.
Supply and demand.
The poorest people in this country still use gasoline, okay?
And so long as you do, Shell will continue to operate.
It's not because there's an evil mastermind who's like, I'm becoming wealthy off all the oil.
No, it's because people demand it.
And they go to their cities and say, we don't have enough gas in this.
You know what's really funny about all the oil stuff?
Do you remember what happened in New York after Hurricane Sandy?
The shortage because they couldn't get in gasoline.
Lines for hours.
People were furious.
Look at what happens in France when they tax gas for environmental reasons.
Rioting for nearly a year now.
The problem is not white people.
The problem is not rich people.
It is all of us and what we want and what we demand.
Now, should we change?
Yes!
We need to be conscious of the damage we do to the environment.
Guess what?
Typically, we do.
I mean, even when there's not a big deal, people over-overreact and impose a bunch of laws that probably go too far.
I'll refer specifically to the story about the Amazon and the fires.
When everyone started screeching, oh no, we're burning the Amazon, and it's like, well, the reality is they're just burning fields, and they do this every year, and this is not even the worst year, and no, they're not burning trees, but the bigger problem is urban expansion, which is chopping down the Amazon.
You see, the issue is, humans believe humans have a right.
There are human rights, okay?
So here's what ends up happening.
You get these good-willed people who believe, you know, we gotta help everyone.
Okay, but you realize, if you bring food to a bunch of people in, say, the Amazon, and they eat that food, they will have children.
Then there will be more people.
Those people will need a place to live.
They will need access to resources and water, and they will spread.
There is a potential for overpopulation.
There is a potential that population stabilizes.
I don't know, you know, there's a lot of conflicting narratives.
But the issue is, What I see here...
Hurts our chances of having a real conversation about reforms we can make to make the world a better place.
Ocasio-Cortez wants to interview a witness and say it is, what do they say, it's predominantly the white people that are doing this.
Yep.
And then, here's where it leads to.
When climate change happens, they say it's white, it's whiteness.
It's like, dude, like China has a billion people, okay?
There's what, like 500 million white people on the planet, but a billion Chinese people?
Let alone the rest of Southeast Asia and East Asia?
These people have lost it.
China is pumping out way more carbon dioxide.
They're building more carbon power plants, but you're going to blame white people.
Okay, you've lost the plot, dude.
This is why I cannot get behind her.
She's nuts.
They say, Ocasio-Cortez proceeded by segueing into one of her preferred narratives, white colonialism's impact on the environment and people of color.
Quote, my own grandfather died in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, she said.
We can't act as though the inertia and history of colonization doesn't play a role in this.
Okay.
I'm going to tell you a story.
When I was in North Dakota at the Standing Rock pipeline thing, a white guy, white progressive, told me that colonialism is causing all of these problems.
And it was specifically in reference to me saying I had a business meeting in a couple days at like 8 a.m.
I had to leave.
He said, schedules are whiteness and colonialist thinking.
And I said, what do you mean, scheduling is colonialist thinking?
And he said, the white colonizers brought all of this mentality to the United States.
The Native Americans, man, they didn't have time or schedules.
They just did what they needed to do and they needed to do it.
And I said, what does that have to do with anything?
What are you talking about?
He said, White people influenced the world to create scheduling.
And I said, dude, that's white supremacy.
You're a white supremacist if you believe that's true.
If you really believe white people did all of these things and made the world shaped in the way they want, you believe white people dominate everything.
I'm sorry.
To me, you're a white supremacist.
Because here's the thing.
I have history going back—my family?
Yeah, guess what?
Korean.
What do you mean they invented schedules?
China was way more advanced technologically than Europe was.
Dude, my ancestors were Korean.
We knew what time was.
We had schedules.
White people didn't make that up.
So here I have a white dude telling me white people, and then here's what he does.
He goes, well, you gotta admit, like, you know, what China was doing was heavily influenced by the Europeans.
And I was like, oh, there it is.
White guilt.
They are white supremacists with a guilty conscience.
That's what it was.
Here's a guy who was white going out to do activism and telling me that it was his culture that influenced mine and that he's sorry and we need to wake up.
Thank you.
I didn't realize that.
Let me share something with you.
Did you know that we use Arabic numerals in math?
There are a lot of great discoveries by many different races and cultures around the world and these people really do believe they're the best.
Now AOC's not white, okay, but she's in that narrative for whatever reason blaming white people for weather.
Listen, white people did develop a lot of advanced technology.
They did colonize.
China did not colonize in much the same way they did back then, but they're starting to now.
There are more Chinese people.
They produce more emissions.
They were also more technologically advanced going way back before Europe.
So what's the point you're trying to make?
The reality is, different people do different things at different times.
But she really believes, AOC, that white people are this dominant faction that control everything.
When white people are what, 600 million out of, what is that, 8 or 9% of the global population?
East Asians make up substantially more and China is doing way more damage.
You want to talk about climate change, you can talk about how in the United States we've done great.
We've done really, really well reducing our emissions.
China is actually building more coal power plants.
But they push this narrative.
And I guess it's cult-like behavior, I guess is the easy way to put it.
I'm not going to read any more of this.
I'm about ready to wrap this story up.
I'm so sick of this.
I would like technological advancement.
I would like a cleaner economy.
Fresher air.
Cleaner water.
You know?
Clearer water.
Cleaner air.
Instead, what do we get?
Weather is racist.
Because white people.
Thank you so much.
A Kentucky Republican rep, Thomas Massey, suggested during Wednesday's House hearing that initiatives like those put forth in Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal would harm Appalachian communities.
Saying, for the record, I'm not against solar, I'm not against electric cars.
I drive an electric car and my house is 100% solar.
But I estimate that I pay about twice the cost for transportation and electricity.
So this is not a burden we should put on low-income communities.
And you're correct, Thomas, uh, is that Thomas Massey?
What we need to do is continue to incentivize the production of clean energy and renewable energies.
And once we get to the point where solar panels and other forms of energy are cheaper and can produce a higher output, then we've solved the problem.
Thinking back to that story about poop in New York with the horses.
They say all the carbon in the atmosphere, it's going to burn the world down.
Okay.
Maybe we develop technology and get off of fossil fuels.
That's what we need to be doing.
So we need two things.
We do need, in a sense, a Green New Deal.
The problem is, AOC put her racism into it, and now it's not going to get the support it needs.
Also, she went nuts talking about healthcare and college.
No.
We should have the government offer tax incentives to companies that develop renewable technologies, which they do.
They should do more.
And we as a culture need to embrace and demand products that are recyclable, renewable, and better for the environment.
That is paramount.
We do not want to end up like yeast in a bottle, eating ourselves and pooping ourselves to death.
And it could happen.
Technology will be our saving grace, and the market, as well as government combined, can bring us what we need.
There's not one magic silver bullet.
It's going to be difficult, and hopefully we can pull it off as soon as we can.
But we can get to this renewable energy state.
It's going to be better for us all around.
And we're not going to do it by blaming white people.
We're not going to do it by offering up free college.
That makes no sense.
We're going to do it by saying, how can we increase the output of solar and decrease the cost?
How can we incentivize people to own these things?
Listen.
When cell phones first came out, nobody wanted them because they were bulky, expensive, and barely worked.
But over time, through market incentives, as well as other tax incentives and public, you know, like they needed to build cell towers and stuff, so they had to do public deals, tax breaks, companies built it, it expanded, and now you can use a phone almost anywhere in the world.
I was playing Hearthstone in Fukushima.
It was nuts.
You get the point.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
From Fox News, a second Democratic aide sentenced in Kavanaugh doxing case.
These are people who actually worked for Democrats, who broke the law because their Kavanaugh derangement syndrome was so intense, they actually decided to risk going to prison.
And I believe these are felonies.
It's mind-blowing that your hatred could be so thick and palpable that you would end your career and damage your life in this way.
Let's read the story before we go anywhere else.
Let's figure out what's going on first because this is the second person.
They say, A second aide to Senator Maggie Hassan, D from New Hampshire, has been sentenced in a scheme to break into Hassan's office to obtain and publicly post the personal information of several Republican politicians amid contentious confirmation hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The 24-year-old former aide, Samantha DeForest Davis, was sentenced to two years of supervised probation, with 200 hours of community service, with a suspended sentence of 180 days in prison.
She was ordered to stay away from Hassan's office, to include current and former staff, and not to use Tor or anonymized computer applications, the Justice Department said in a statement.
180 days suspended prison.
You're lucky.
And if they violate the terms, they might find themselves getting six months or so in prison.
Davis was a staff assistant in Hassan's office from August 2017 until last December.
She was fired after Capitol Police discovered her involvement in the so-called doxxing effort.
Prosecutors said Davis helped 27-year-old Jackson A. Kosko, another former Hassan aide, who has pleaded guilty to five federal offenses, including two counts of making public restricted personal information, and one count each of computer fraud, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice.
Prosecutors said that Davis was persuaded by Costco to wipe down Senate computers he had hacked on October 3rd, 2018, the morning after the break-in.
That effort was unsuccessful because another employee was in the office early that morning.
Costco was arrested that same day.
Costco admitted to using Davis's keys to get into Hassan's office the day before, and prosecutors said Davis understood that Costco needed the keys to unlawfully enter the senator's office to access Senate computers at the time.
The DOJ said, I want to stop here and make a couple points.
There are two individuals, one associated with the more, I don't want to say far left, but yeah, more far left activisty, and one more far right.
We have Aaron Swartz and Weave, both particularly controversial issues, individuals in their own right.
Weave was sentenced to, I believe he got four and a half years in prison, because someone else that he worked with Discovered that AT&T had essentially leaked the email addresses of all of their iPad users.
They used a simple script to go through a URL pulling back email addresses and then provided them to journalists.
They called this violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Four and a half years in prison and Weave wasn't the one who did it.
Now Weave is associated with the far right and Daily Stormer and stuff like that.
I'm not here to talk about politics.
I'm here to talk about the nature of CFAA and my concerns with this.
So you get this guy, Weave, and four and a half years in prison.
He eventually gets out.
I think it was like a year, because he got an appeal, there's a technicality, and then he took off to like Europe or something.
But anyway, they threw the book at him.
They said, simply by your friend going to a URL, you get nearly five years.
Then you have Aaron Swartz.
Aaron Swartz had access to, I believe it was called JSTOR, which is publicly funded, for the most part, academic research.
He was downloading them, because he was allowed to, but it took too long.
So he decided to hardwire into a server and download them all at once.
Government said that was a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
They said 35 years in prison, felony charge.
Story is sad in that Swartz eventually, he took his own life.
But we have these two individuals.
Anti-establishment individuals who got the book thrown at them.
What about this?
What is this?
I don't know what Costco they say, but this individual who assisted did substantially more than we've ever did.
Slap on the wrist.
I mean, she's getting two years of probation.
That's not gonna be fun.
Suspended sentence, though.
No jail time.
And she handed the keys to a Democrat—they're both Democrats—to commit a crime to harm Republicans.
I'm not saying I know why it is or what the deal is, but I'm continually frustrated by how it seems there's a pro- and anti-establishment bias.
This individual working for Democrats, it's like, eh, just get some probation.
But these other anti-establishment individuals, throw the book at him.
Let's read more.
Davis pleaded guilty to the federal charge of aiding and abetting computer fraud and to the District of Columbia charge of attempted tampering with evidence.
In June, Costco was sentenced to four years in prison, four years in the scheme, and was required to turn over the cell phones, computers, and other equipment he used.
A witness saw him during the break-in and reported it to Capitol Police.
Among the officials Costco targeted were five Republican senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Costco posted the home addresses and phone numbers of Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Orrin Hatch of Utah.
He put them on Wikipedia.
Costco, prosecutor said, became angry about the senator's support for Kavanaugh despite assault allegations leveled against the prospective high court justice that were fake, not proven, there's no evidence.
This person has Kavanaugh derangement syndrome where they just destroyed their life because they believed things without proof.
It is cult-like behavior.
I'm so annoyed by this.
They say Costco intended to intimidate the senators and their families, according to court records.
And he only got four years for that!
That's nuts.
At the time of his arrest, Costco was working as an unpaid intern for Rep.
Sheila Jackson, a Democrat who fired him soon after.
This is someone working directly for Democrats, essentially trying to extort Republicans, for years.
Amazing.
He was previously employed as a computer systems administrator in Hassan's office, a job that gave him intimate knowledge of and broad access to the computer systems in Hassan's office, according to court records.
But he had been fired from Hassan's office in May 2018 for failing to follow office procedures.
After the firing from Hassan, Costco became angry and repeatedly burglarized the office, court records said.
He copied gigabytes worth of data, including dozens of usernames and passwords belonging to Senate employees and contact information for numerous sitting U.S.
Senators, according to court records.
Can I seriously ask you?
I mean, look, maybe it's as simple as the U.S.
government finally realized that their abuse of the CFAA went too far.
Or maybe it's that if you work in the government you're in the club and you get a wink wink nudge nudge and if you're an anti-establishment personality that wants to challenge the system in any way they will make sure you rot for it.
They say, records show Costco sent a threatening email to the staffer the evening he was confronted about the break-in.
I own everything, Costco wrote, adding.
If you tell anyone, I will leak it all.
Wow!
How did it not go into extortion?
A threatening email to the staffer who confronted him?
This is amazing.
Costco previously held positions with prominent Democrats, including former Senator Barbara Boxer of California, and with the office of Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Left-wing activists separately targeted numerous other top Republicans amid the Kavanaugh fight.
In the wake of his vote to confirm Kavanaugh, for example, Republican Senator Cory Gardner told Fox News last October that his wife had received a graphic text message with a video depicting a beheading and that someone had publicly posted the names and addresses of his family members.
So that's the gist of it.
The second individual who aided this crazy person who was trying to extort Republicans because they were going to vote for Kavanaugh.
And he got four years.
This individual is getting two years probation, a year and a half suspended prison sentence.
I have a question.
And this is going to wrap everything up.
The first video.
Oh, wait, no, no, no.
It's not the first video I made.
Actually, no, let's go back to the first video I made today.
The Covington kids.
The media bias.
We then move into the next video I did talking about Antifa and why it is that whenever it comes to these things, it's always the left initiating.
With Covington, Nathan Phillips initiated against him.
Salmon didn't do anything, right?
He's minding his own business.
Then the media pounced.
Smearing him.
The story of the guy in the mog hat in Florida.
It was a conservative minding his own business, and this deranged dude walked up to him at the bar, spat at him, hit his head.
Got arrested for it.
With Antifa showing up to Trump supporter rallies, why is it always the left initiating?
I asked this question in the video I did about Antifa, but now we're looking at these two aides who conspired and schemed in this way.
What's the worst thing the Republicans have been accused of?
Grifting?
Like Charlie Kirk, they're like, the dude is just grifting, he's trying to make money and he's got no principles.
Is that the worst thing?
Like, Trump's accused of questionable things that's not necessarily proven, whether it was appropriate or inappropriate, whether it's actually impeachable.
That's a debate.
But this is literally them breaking the rules.
This is literally them committing high crimes and felonies.
I was going to say misdemeanors, but felonies.
A guy walking up to another guy in a MAGA hat hitting him.
An Antifa guy getting arrested for a hate crime.
Or, I don't want to say an Antifa guy, but a guy that Antifa was with and was supporting these protests.
It all seems to flow in one direction.
You have a group of individuals who break the law, who are intolerant, and they're zealous.
Like, this is insane cult-like behavior, where they're willing to sacrifice everything.
And I wonder why it is.
I think it may actually be inverted.
Not that be— Like, I'll put it this way.
People who are prone to extreme actions and violence might be attracted to what the left offers because they're prone to this, right?
It may not be that people on the left are radicalized into this, but those who are radical are more likely to join the left.
They don't like doing interviews, they don't like... And I want to make sure I clarify, it's not everybody on the left.
But seriously, I understand that there are some fringe far-right extremists.
They exist.
I get it.
And if we're going to play that game, I can point to this guy and say, OK, this is an extreme act.
It's extremely rare.
That's fine.
But when you look at all the low-level attacks, all the smears, all the initiation, the initiation is typically from the left.
