Democrats Formalize Impeachment, But Whistleblower Identity EXPOSES This As A Political Hit Job
Democrats Formalize Impeachment, But Whistleblower Identity EXPOSES This As A Political Hit Job. The House has formally approved the Impeachment Inquiry with the vote going straight down party lines. Democrats in favor, Republicans opposed, with two Democrats defecting and also opposing the inquiry.But all of this happens in the backdrop of a new story exposing the identity of the "whistleblower" as Eric Ciaramella.It turns out Ciaramella is a hold over from the Obama era and has close to ties to top intelligence officials as well as Democrats. More shockingly however, is that he was working with Alexandra Chalupa in some capacity. This is the woman accused of colluding with Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump as outlined in the Politico story.Assuming this report is true it stands to reason that with ties to the origins of Russiagate and now sparking Ukrainegate that this is nothing more than a political hit job designed to smear Trump and help democrats in 2020.Democrats are betting on impeachment being a driving factor in their elections. Instead of focusing on what they can do for Americans they seem to be focused on ensuring people hate the President so much that they vote against him instead of for them.Many people say this is Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats trying to reverse the results of 2016 and that is technically true. But the reality is that this is all an attempt to make the president look so bad they win by default.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The House has finally adopted its impeachment inquiry resolution.
And the vote, it went basically down party lines.
Kind of obvious.
Democrats support it.
Republicans oppose it.
Two Democrats defected, which is really interesting.
But let's be honest.
The Democrats control the House.
They're probably going to impeach Trump after the inquiry.
They've been trying to impeach him since literally the day he got inaugurated.
Yes, I have the story I can show you.
But new information has emerged the other day about the whistleblower.
Apparently this individual who started this whole, the current fiasco, has ties to the origins of Russiagate, worked with a woman who was accused of colluding with, between the DNC and Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump, he's connected to a bunch of Democrats, and apparently he's a registered Democrat himself, which says to me, the whole thing is a sham.
I believe Democrats are doing this just to generate negative press.
As I stated a few days ago, 2020 will not be about Democrats versus Republicans.
It's going to be Donald Trump on trial.
The Democrats cannot win on their merits alone, so they're hoping to just smear the president.
I also believe they're hoping that by making Trump look really, really bad, they can try and win House seats or the Senate.
By showing people that Republicans would not uphold the rule of law.
When you look at who this whistleblower is, it sounds like another political operation.
But I do have one quick question before we get started.
How is it that it took this long to finally figure out who this whistleblower is, when most stories now are saying, you know, everybody knew who he was.
And his name was speculated for quite some time.
People thought they knew who this person was.
The reason I'm asking is because there was a guy who made a meme about CNN, and he got doxxed, and they published his workplace and who he was.
So we could find some random warehouse employee, but it took this long to figure out who the whistleblower was.
It turns out he's worked with a bunch of Democrats, and he's tied to a woman accused of colluding with the Ukrainians.
It's a complicated story.
I want to be very careful for legal reasons.
But to me, the whole thing is a scam.
They're just trying to make Trump look bad.
The economy is great.
The forecast models say Trump is going to win, unless they can drum up negative partisanship.
So let's read the story.
About the impeachment resolution.
And then I want to show you who this whistleblower is and why I believe this whole thing is just a big political operation with no merit.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video.
I'm competing with a bunch of big channels.
They're going to give their perspective.
But if I'm going to succeed doing this, I need your help.
Word of mouth is the most effective way to overcome YouTube censorship and throttling.
And competing with these big channels.
If you think I do a good job, please share the video.
Let's read.
From Town Hall.
The Democratic-led impeachment resolution to formalize the investigation against President Trump has passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 232 to 196.
Two Democrats, Colin Peterson and Jeff Van Drew, voted no.
Before the vote, the House engaged in some lively debate over the measure.
Democrats insisted it would provide more due process for President Trump.
But Republicans rejected that notion and noted how their colleagues are running this sham impeachment process in the basement of the Capitol.
Republican leaders are united in the conclusion that Democrats are obsessed with impeaching Trump because they want to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election.
Well, they do.
They do want to overturn the results.
They are mad they lost.
But that's not what I think is happening.
I think this is forward thinking, not backward thinking.
I think their strategy actually makes sense.
And I must admit, it seems like Adam Schiff's strategy, be it, in my opinion, amoral, unethical, quite See, the thing is, the Democrats didn't want to vote on impeachment.
They said they weren't going to do it because they didn't need to do it.
The reality was they didn't have public support.
By doing these secretive inquiries and selectively leaking information that made Trump look bad, that generated more public support, and it brings us to the next bit of information.
This is a memo I talked about, I believe it was a week ago or so.
They say this.
Recent polling in national and battleground surveys has demonstrated that voters' views on impeachment have shifted since the summer, with support for the impeachment inquiry growing as Democrats consolidate support and independent voters reject President Trump's actions regarding Ukraine.
They say, National polling conducted by the DCCC finds voters back a Democrat who supports an impeachment investigation over a Republican who opposes an impeachment investigation by 11 points.
Even in the 57 most competitive battleground districts, moving the inquiry forward is slightly favorable at 49 to 48.
Additionally, Democrats' lead in the generic ballot remains steady in national polling plus 8 average and in battleground districts plus 3.
It's their big bet.
I do not believe they're trying to overturn 2016.
They're trying to win 2020 using underhanded methods.
They know that getting people angry at Trump is the best way to beat Trump.
As I stated earlier and in my past videos, there is nothing the Democrats have that's going to place them above Trump.
The economy is doing really well.
Unemployment is down.
Forecast models say Trump is going to win.
So they need to make sure they get enough angry people or enough scared people who don't want to cross that line to say, I'm not going to vote for him.
That's what they're betting on.
And they're also betting on it in the same capacity with congressional seats.
Now, here's the big story, though, OK?
So we get it.
This is the big breaking news.
They voted on impeachment.
But check this out.
This expose investigative piece from Real Clear Investigations dropped yesterday at 4.21pm.
How whistleblower may be outed.
Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's staff, etc.
Now this story is quite long.
And they talk about a woman named Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government.
He knows her.
He had her in the White House, said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
Now, I think you should check this investigation out from RealClearInvestigations, but there is a more succinct showing, a more succinct take from Town Hall.
It's Town Hall Reports.
Whistleblower who complained about Trump's call to Ukrainian President Zelensky has been revealed.
They say, everything Trump's defenders feared about the whistleblower is true.
According to a report from Real Clear Investigations, the whistleblower is 33-year-old Eric Caramella.
Charamella is a holdover from the Obama administration and a registered Democrat.
He's been accused of leaking like crazy.
He worked with Joe Biden.
He's a vocal critic of President Trump.
He invited a DNC operative inside the White House to attend meetings.
He also helped instigate the investigation into Russian collusion.
So, of course, Democrats would believe his secondhand complaint about President Trump's phone conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky over the actual transcript of the call itself.
That doesn't matter.
I don't think they believe him.
I think there's enough Democrats who don't care whether it's true or not, because they want to win by any means necessary.
This guy invited Chalupa into the White House, at least according to these stories.
If that's the case, this is the woman who was in a report from Politico.
That says, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
And they specifically referenced Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American, and what she was working on trying to dig up dirt.
We now know this guy was working with her as well.
This is not Russiagate 2 Ukrainian boogaloo.
This is still Russiagate.
It is all part of the same insane attempt at just hating the president, orange man bad.
I don't want to tell you, but I can come to no other conclusion when you learn about who this guy was.
We saw all of the data in the past, or the information that he was working with Democrats, that he had contact with Adam Schiff, and Adam Schiff claimed he didn't have contact with this guy.
Well, that's not true.
Let me read some of these things for you.
From Real Clear Investigations, he was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump, said a former NSC official speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
Also, Caramella huddled for guidance with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era, whom Schiff's office had recently recruited from the NSC.
Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.
I read that part already.
worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign
during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings.
Former White House colleagues said the operative, Alexander Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who
supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian
government.
I read that part already.
They go on to say, the report claims that federal records show Charamella attended a
state luncheon with Joe Biden's office back in October 2016.
You'll never guess who else was there.
Former FBI Director James Comey.
Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper.
You can't make this stuff up.
The report says it was strange for Charamella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, to have been there.
And it describes Charmella's invitation as unusual, saying, quote, signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House.
Here's actually what the RealClear investigation said.
With Charamella's name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him.
A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have been conducted based on it.
One brief Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.
On the internet, meanwhile, Charmel's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president.
The mainstream media are also aware of the name.
I disagree with that.
And I don't necessarily think it's a conspiracy.
I think it's much more simple and scarier than that.
on the whistleblower's identity.
Now William Barr needs to investigate the origins of the whistleblower's complaint.
So we can get to the true conspiracy here, which is more and more looking like just another attempt
to overturn the results of the 2016 election.
I disagree with that, and I don't necessarily think it's a conspiracy.
I think it's much more simple and scarier than that.
There are a lot of people who act independently, who don't like the president,
and who are contributing grains of sand to build that heap.
I do not believe there is a top secret cabal of individuals who are like, this is the plan, working it, you know.
But I do think there are strategies, there are individuals, there are chess pieces.
Someone like Adam Schiff wants Trump impeached.
So he looks around at what he can do and who's interested.
It's not necessarily a conspiracy.
That would imply that Adam Schiff goes to someone like Charlie Mellon and says, what can we do to stage a coup?
It's actually simple.
All of these people independently just want Trump impeached and work together.
Here's the problem.
This is clearly not about the truth.
It's clearly not about what Trump did.
It's just about another excuse.
So again, I want to clarify.
I do not believe it's a conspiracy.
I think Adam Schiff will grab whatever he possibly can just to play this game.
The truth is, the Democrats saw this in the polls, and they're betting on impeachment working for them.
It might actually work.
It's pretty clever.
And I have to wonder about the media, however.
Why is it that the media never published this guy's name?
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Because they have no problem doxing meme makers.
They have no problem releasing the name of, say, Carpe Dongtum or that guy at the warehouse who uploaded a video of Nancy Pelosi.
They have no problem threatening to dox and finding out the information on a guy who put a CNN logo over a wrestling match face.
But when it comes to the whistleblower, mum's the word.
No one in the media dare say a thing.
Finally, RealClearPolitics comes out with the story.
Let's move on from here.
I want to highlight some important details.
First, the Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
This is a thing.
It happened.
They try to claim it's a conspiracy theory.
No, I'm sorry, it happened.
The whistleblower is connected to it.
In my opinion, the whistleblower, based on secondhand information, is full of it.
It's just another excuse.
But check this out.
Audio leaked.
This is an audio leak that The Blaze apparently had.
Audio email evidence shows DNC colluded with Ukraine to boost Hillary by harming Trump, report says.
Okay.
This is from conservative media.
But the left isn't reporting it, other than to try and refute it, up until The Hill.
The Hill is fairly mainstream, moderate, and pretty good, pretty accurate.
Ukraine Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016.
Where's the press?
Where's the investigation?
No, seriously, where's the investigation?
This is... How many years now have gone by where, based off of a fake news conspiracy dossier and hearsay, we went through the Russiagate inquiry investigation, special counsel, but here we have it.
Numerous statements reporting from mainstream sources saying they did this.
Nothing.
It makes you wonder, at the very least.
It seems like a definite double standard.
And it ties back to what's happening now with impeachment.
The whistleblower was working with this woman in some capacity, inviting her to meetings, and that makes everything he's doing questionable.
But I want to make one more point about impeachment.
I have a couple more stories I want to highlight.
So check out this story.
There's a lot of stories that happened over the past few days that I need to include in this for context reason.
I can't stand talking about this, to be honest.
But look.
Vindman testified he tried to fill in omissions in Trump-Ukraine transcript.
They say that defying White House orders, an army officer serving with President Donald Trump's National Security Council testified to impeachment investigators Tuesday that he twice raised concerns over the administration's push to have Ukraine investigate Democrats and Joe Biden.
Alexander Vindman, a lieutenant colonel who served in Iraq and later as a diplomat, is the first official to testify who actually heard Trump's July 25th call with new Ukrainian President Zelensky.
Basically what they're saying is, He wanted to edit the transcript.
He says he wanted to fill in at least one of the omitted words, barisma, a reference to the company linked to Biden and his son, according to people familiar with his testimony.
But Vindman was unsuccessful.
They go on to say that his concerns didn't matter because, with or without the edits, it didn't change their understanding of what transpired during the call.
Now here's where we end up.
The media can frame this as though this guy's a hero.
They can say he was trying to make sure people knew the truth.
It's also possible to frame it in the other way.
You can say that an army officer sought to edit the transcript to add defamatory information.
If you're viewing this from the perspective of this guy is trying to smear and hurt the president, you could actually make that argument.
Here's the one guy out of everybody involved in this transcript trying to add words.
Seems odd, doesn't it?
Here's the problem.
The media will always frame it in one way.
I can't tell you why I think the media is biased, to be honest.
But they're gonna pretend like this is just a regular army officer who's doing the right thing.
But here's my question.
Why is it that you have one person come out and say there was quid pro quo and they say that's enough we're good let's let's launch impeachment but even after multiple people deny it never happened and the transcript shows Trump never said give me this and I'll give you that never happened how is it that after one person they finally find the person there it is Okay, now we can impeach.
Is that how it's supposed to work?
I mean, honestly, I don't know.
If you're doing a grand jury, and you had seven people say, that person did not commit the crime, and then one person says he did, is that enough to prosecute, to launch an actual prosecution, or to indict the individual?
I mean, maybe, but to me, it seems kind of odd.
And here's the other thing I want to point out.
A really big story I mentioned earlier, as to why I think all of this is a big sham.
Take a look at this snippet from a story about Vindman.
It says, While Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom had already testified, he was in a unique position.
Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English.
What is the New York Times telling us right now?
They're telling us that this colonel, Vindman, was giving advice to Ukrainian officials on how to deal with Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, who was investigating the origins of the 2016 Russia collusion narrative.
Should Giuliani have been doing this?
That's a whole other debate.
But why is an American colonel advising a foreign government about our president's lawyer?
I think is a very important question.
The New York Times reported this.
What makes this story particularly interesting is what happened next.
Jack Posobiec.
Controversial figure.
I'm not here to talk about him or his politics.
I'm here to talk about specifically his tweet and what the news is doing.
Posobiec tweeted that the New York Times is reporting Vindman was advising Ukraine on how to counter, I'm paraphrasing, counter Trump's foreign policy, you know, or the foreign policy of our president.
Something to that effect.
He referred to it as foreign policy.
The New York Times then wrote this, in a story titled, After Vindman's Testimony Went Public, Right-Wing Conspiracies Fired Up.
They say, Jack Posobiec, a well-known figure on the far-right media, tweeted the falsehood that Mr. Vindman had been advising the Ukrainian government on how to counter Mr. Trump's foreign policy goals.
Mr. Posobiec cited the New York Times as his source.
In fact, the Times reported no such thing.
Incredible.
Absolutely incredible.
They literally did.
Okay, maybe not literally.
And this is the problem with truth in media.
And this is ultimately why I end up on the side of thinking the impeachment is full of it.
They clearly stated that they were communicating in English, he was advising a foreign government, Ukraine, and that it was to deal with Mr. Giuliani.
We know what Giuliani was doing.
He was investigating the origins of 2016 and Russian collusion, and he was talking to the Ukrainians about that information.
So yes, that is a foreign policy goal of the president.
I can only surmise that the New York Times is playing a game with framing devices, saying, well, we didn't say specifically foreign policy goals, even though we know that's what Giuliani was doing, advancing some specific foreign policy goals of the president.
They've reframed it to call it a conspiracy, a right-wing conspiracy.
This is one of the biggest problems I think we have.
Media bias.
Everybody can see it.
It's happening right in front of our eyes.
How can this be that they say they didn't report it, but we read this and we're like, that's literally what they said.
They were communicating in English.
Because they can report it, and then as soon as it backfires, they can try and reframe.
This is gaslighting.
It's trying to tell you what you know isn't what you really know.
I hate the phrase, but hey.
I gotta show you a couple more things.
The most important part of how this is a sham.
Let's be real.
We all know this.
This story's from 2017.
It says the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.
January 20th, 2017.
Literally.
It was less than 24 hours before he got inaugurated.
What time was he inaugurated?
Was it before?
The point is, before the president even did anything, they were trying to impeach him.
These campaigns were launched.
And now I have this...
This very funny thread from Phil Kirpin, I'm not super familiar with who he is, but he says, Impeachment number 1, 58 Dems voted to advance impeachment for the high crime of dissing NFL anthem protests.
Number 2, 66 Dems voted to advance impeachment for the high crime of saying asshole countries.
Number 3, 95 Dems voted to advance impeachment for the high crime of insulting the squad.
And here we are, on number 4.
House refuses to vote on this one, but instead conducting it in secret in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, perhaps.
So this is from October 10th.
They have not formally voted as of today.
So I have a thought.
It looks like they didn't vote this time because they didn't think they would win.
For real.
Why is it that they voted every other time and failed, but this time decided, you know what, we don't need to vote?
Strange, right?
It's probably because Adam Schiff's strategy... It's probably because they knew it wouldn't work, but let me just be honest.
I think Adam Schiff's strategy was smart.
They needed to do these inquiries, leak stuff to the press, trigger a wave of bad news to spark people to finally support it so that moderates could finally get on board because they were at risk.
It all comes full circle.
All the puzzle pieces are there.
The memo from Democrats saying that impeachment is popular and you're more likely to win.
That was only possible because of the information that was coming out, because of the constant
stream of negative press accusing Trump of wrongdoing.
And what's interesting is the whole thing's been a game of telephone.
An anonymous source says X, the whistleblower.
Don't know who he is.
All of a sudden, everyone writes everything.
Then they write articles based off those opinion pieces.
Then opinion pieces become fact.
Finally enough people say impeachment.
The lie has become so big, it is now acceptable.
And moderates are safe to get on board.
And that's where we are.
But perhaps it will all backfire.
Perhaps it's all just bad news.
Because in the latest story on the Hill, polls show support for impeachment weaker in key battleground states.
And that's the final thought for this video.
I know many of you probably know this.
I think the whole thing's a sham.
I think the whole thing's a scam.
And the more information comes out, the more I feel that the Democrats are just... It's a Hail Mary.
It's a last-ditch effort.
It's all they have.
But why can't we live in a country where when you lose, you lose, And you fight to do better, to improve the lives of Americans, and vote out the guy you don't like.
Well, they can't do that.
Because things are going too well for Americans and they know it.
And it's the only thing they have.
Duplicitousness, deceit, deception, political operatives, the whole thing is filthy and disturbing.
You know what, man?
I don't know what's going to happen in 2020.
I don't know what's going to happen with the congressional seats.
All I know is I am sick to my stomach at the insanity.
And I wish these people would do their jobs.
That's it.
I'd much prefer to talk about policy issues and speech, not whether or not you think the orange man is bad.
When it comes down to it, You can find some people like Judge Napolitano on Fox News saying Trump did, you know, commit an impeachable offense.
But there are also former prosecutors appearing on Fox News and other channels saying it's not a crime.
Impeachable is debatable.
So what are we doing here?
To me, this is extremely absurd.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all next time.
Last night we learned that Twitter was going to ban political ads.
We are getting some clarity from Vijay Gade about what specifically that means.
And I'll break that down for you.
But I want to highlight something very important.
A move that won praise from Democrats and scorn from Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
I'm not going to pretend that Donald Trump is playing 4D chess.
He probably thinks it's a bad move.
But let me assure all of you, this, from Twitter, is possibly one of the greatest gifts they could give to the Donald Trump campaign.
Wow!
I am so unsurprised that the Democrats would be celebrating this move, which will cause them insurmountable problems moving into 2020.
And their Twitter is assuredly giving Trump one of the greatest possible gifts you could ever imagine.
Now you may be saying, but wait a minute.
A bunch of Trump supporters are right now complaining.
Donald Trump has raised record amounts of money, he's spending way more on digital ads, and then all of a sudden Twitter shuts down political ads?
Clearly, that is an attempt at shutting down Trump.
No!
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
And we'll read this, and I'll show you the proof, but can I just explain something very simple, which most of you already realize?
Donald Trump tweeted dot dot dot dot, and it got press coverage.
There we are.
I kid you not.
Donald Trump tweeted four periods, and it went viral, and there were stories written about it.
Donald Trump tweeted a joke picture of a dog, and it went viral.
Do you think Trump needs to buy press?
No.
It's why in 2016, he spent very little money, but got $5 billion worth of free earned press.
They can't stop.
Do you think Democrats can compete with that?
Nope.
Now, I'll break this all down, and I want to show you some tweets that are, oh, it's just so funny.
It's so funny.
Now, listen, this is not on Twitter, okay?
I actually, looking at what Twitter said the rules were about how they're going to ban ads, I find that respectable.
I think it's a bad business decision.
Political ads are going to be a huge sum of money.
It may not be the bulk of Twitter's advertisement, you know, revenue, but it's going to be large, and they're foregoing that.
Their stock apparently went down.
I can respect Twitter saying, you know what?
We're not going to do political ads.
But the Democrats are all clapping and cheering, and Trump is angry, but I'm like, dude, the Democrats are cheering as their ship is sinking.
You're gonna love these tweets I've got pulled up.
Let's read the story first.
However, before we get started, I have to do this.
Go to TimCast.com slash doneit if you want to support my work.
And more importantly, just share this video to help me keep doing what I do.
It's a fact now.
We've seen the leaked data.
There's a big expose.
We know about p-scores and throttling.
My channels are getting throttled.
It's the way it is.
News is contentious.
If you think these videos are important, the only way I can continue doing it is through word of mouth.
But let's read.
Twitter, Inc.
will ban political advertising on its platform next month.
The company's chief executive said on Wednesday a move that won praise from Democrats.
We've made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally, said Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in a statement.
We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.
And who earned the most in 2016?
Donald Trump!
So, um, the tag for this on Twitter was something like, in a rebuke to Facebook.
What they're trying to claim is that, you know, Facebook's been embroiled in this controversy because they said we will not police truth in political ads, and that's the right thing to do.
It is complicated, though.
I think Facebook's between a rock and a hard place.
Somebody ran an ad claiming conservatives supported the Green New Deal, like Lindsey Graham specifically, and Facebook took it down.
But here's the thing.
The challenge that Facebook didn't realize is that there's a difference between perspective and lies.
All right?
And that's the challenge.
Initially, this arose because Trump apparently ran an ad about Biden saying he was corrupt and he was, you know, doing these things in Ukraine.
That's contentious.
But not wrong, like not fake, okay?
Whether or not Joe Biden did something wrong, a lot of people are saying there's no evidence, it's a conspiracy theory.
Well, there are people claiming the opposite.
How do you determine what is true or not?
Facebook said, we don't know, we can't do that.
But to come out and blatantly lie and say the conservatives support the Green New Deal, well that's absurd and we know that's not true.
And Facebook takes that down.
Now here's the problem.
Facebook is going to stop, apparently, Based on this, if you make an ad that's ridiculous to the point of absurdity, they'll take it down.
Well, in that case, where's the line?
And that's the problem.
That's why I do think it was smart for Twitter to say, we're just not going to do it.
And I do have Vijay Gade saying, this is going to be everything.
Like, you can't even do non-profit advocacy.
This is huge.
I respect this.
I think it's nuts.
But let's read.
Analysts do not expect the ban.
This is interesting.
Which takes effect on November 22nd to significantly reduce Twitter's business.
Oh, okay, okay, I'm sorry.
They do not expect the ban to significantly reduce Twitter's business.
Its shares fell about 2% in after-hours trading.
Social media companies, including Twitter rival Facebook, face growing pressure to stop carrying ads that spread false information that could steer elections.
And who decides what's true and what isn't?
And this is the big challenge, right?
There's a huge story.
I want to say huge, but I tweeted about it.
The New York Times reported that Vindman, this intelligence guy who testified, that the Ukrainians sought advice from him on how to deal with Rudolf Giuliani.
They said, comma, though they typically spoke in English.
Okay, what was Giuliani doing in Ukraine and why would Ukrainians need advice on how to deal with him?
Is it perhaps because Giuliani was advancing foreign policy actions of Donald Trump?
Yes, that is fair to say.
Well, that's what Jack Posobiec did.
Jack tweeted, breaking, that, you know, Vindman was giving advice to a foreign government about how to, you know, deal with Trump's foreign policy.
Something to that effect.
And then he put, dash NYT.
That's true, right?
So we're in a framing issue here now.
Giuliani was pushing Trump's foreign policy actions because he wanted to.
It's true.
The New York Times then wrote a story saying, Jack Masovia claimed this, but the New York Times never said it.
All of a sudden now you have, you know, Oliver Darcy and CNN claiming Jack Masovia lied and made it up.
And you have these Twitter personalities being like, Jack made this up.
But then people are posting the screenshot from the New York Times article saying it literally says this.
And here is the big problem.
Framing.
What was Giuliani doing?
Trying to push a foreign policy action on behalf of Trump, as Trump's personal lawyer.
Jack Mosobik framed it that way, probably because he was trying to show the egregious, like in his perspective, it was egregious that this guy Vindman was advising a foreign government to counter our own president regardless.
The New York Times then takes it to say, we didn't specifically say foreign policy, we said Giuliani, therefore it's fake news.
Now, what do you do?
Who's correct?
Man, it's all about perspective and framing.
The fairest assessment is that Jack is correct, but was being hyperbolic to a degree.
I think what he was saying, I understood what Jack was trying to say by that.
But there's the problem.
If you ran that ad, should you ban it?
Man, I have no idea.
Now, if Jack tweeted something like, Donald Trump did a triple backflip off the roof of the White House, proving that he's the most physically fit, most people would think that's insane, and if you wanted to get rid of that and say it's not true, get rid of it.
I mean, in that regard, no one would believe it.
But, you know, if you had an outright and obvious lie that everyone knew was false, Okay, well then that makes sense.
So that's the main challenge here.
I don't know if I care to get into all this anyway, but that's a good example.
But let me do this.
Let me just jump ahead and show you... They talk about Biden.
Let me show you what Vijay got I said.
Will Oremus tweeted, how does Twitter decide what constitutes an issue ad?
Vijaya Gade, she's the woman who was on the Joe Rogan podcast with me, she said, hi, here's our current definition.
Ads that refer to an election or a candidate, that's obvious.
Ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance, such as climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, and taxes.
Whoa.
Whoa, full stop.
This sparked controversy.
Climate change?
Yup.
Advocacy groups cannot talk about climate change.
That's political.
Wow.
What about talking about, I don't know, video games and social justice?
Yeah, I guess those are political, too.
Political correctness?
That's political.
Today, everything is political.
This is big.
I mean, I can respect them going super broad with this, but healthcare?
Does that include, like, Planned Parenthood can't run ads anymore?
I'd imagine the answer is yes.
Immigration.
So what the NHR, what was it, the UNHRC, the UN Human Rights Commission, I think it's called, the refugee organization, they can't run ads anymore?
On the front, on the pinned tweet for Donald Trump is a political ad talking about what Donald Trump has done and making him look really good.
And it's got 28,000 retweets.
Okay.
I understand that Barack Obama and other political figures have many, many followers, similar amounts.
Yes, I get it.
But they don't have the Trump bump, just addiction that the media has.
So let's break this down.
It's 2020.
We're a few months away from the, uh, we're in the midst of the primary.
The Democrats are trying to stand out.
You can't run ads on Twitter.
And Twitter is where the political conversation takes place.
There's not a lot of people on Twitter relative to this country, but it's where the political commentators and journalists are having this debate in politics.
It's where people can really rise above and get press attention.
Like Tulsi Gabbard.
She tweeted in response to Hillary Clinton, and this sparked like a week of news, and it's still going on to this day.
Tulsi Gabbard is up four points to five percent in New Hampshire.
Twitter.
That started on Twitter.
Okay, now think about this.
Trump tweets a picture of a dog, and the media goes wild.
Posting photos, talking about it, they can't shut up.
Donald Trump tweets nothing but four periods.
The media goes wild.
People are retweeting, screenshotting, saying, what is Trump doing?
Oh man, Trump tweets a typo, ka-fee-fee, and it becomes his major trend, and jokes still run to this day.
They are obsessed with the man's Twitter account.
Now what do you think happens in the primary?
When Bernie says, I need to compete against Elizabeth Warren.
I need my ads to appear on Twitter.
They're not going to get earned press because nobody cares.
For the most part.
Like Tulsi Gabbard got earned press, but that was a bombastic.
And wow, that tweet.
I was laughing for like a half an hour.
The one about Hillary Clinton being the queen.
What did she say?
Rot personified?
Wow!
So, you think about what now is gonna have to happen.
Trump gets the press no matter what.
Okay?
Trump tweets a picture of a Photoshop dog and everybody goes crazy.
Alright, we get it.
Trump's gonna get press.
What about Democrats?
The only way they're gonna get press is if they go insane.
Because you can't pay for it anymore.
Trump doesn't need to pay for it.
He puts the ad, he pins it to his page, boom, there you go, 28,000 retweets.
What about the Democrats?
They're not getting this reach, and now they can't pay for it.
The only alternative is shock content.
And there it is.
The Democrats are going to have to go crazier and crazier, because as we know, what the Democrats are doing on the debate stage is pandering to woke Twitter.
That's why they're talking about giving health care to non-citizens.
Like, does any American on average really want that?
First of all, every single Republican would say no, and I would guarantee that the overwhelming majority of Democrats would also say no, but that tiny little sliver of woke Twitter is going to be like, yes.
And that's what the Democrats are pandering to.
Well, guess what?
In order to get that attention now, they can't pay for it.
They can't run ads.
How does Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden compete with Donald Trump?
Donald Trump gets pressed no matter what.
Well, they're going to have to say really crazy things.
They're going to have to start saying really offensive and really crazy things to shock people.
But guess what?
Every day they'll have to shock you more and more with crazier and crazier content.
Or, in the end, what really happens?
They just disappear.
And that's the end of it.
Tulsi Gabbard is up four points following this Hillary Clinton fiasco.
That's the power of having that shocking content, that tweet, that press attention.
She earned the press thanks to Hillary Clinton.
That's how you generate it.
What I will tell you right now.
Trump is controversial in the sense that no matter what he does, he's bad.
And the press loves it.
But this means all those Democrats are going to have to become the most divisive and controversial figures to stay in the press.
Because let's be real.
Go back to 2016.
How did Trump get so much press attention?
He said bombastic things.
What was his quote?
Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country until we can figure out what's going on.
It was something like that.
That's what he said, something like that, okay?
Google it, because I don't have the exact quote, and if I misquoted him, you know, it's not my intention, but he said things that were bombastic, that were, you know, very, very loud and boisterous and shocked people, and it worked.
It worked.
And we're entering that reality, and I think it's dangerous.
But Twitter, seemingly saying, we don't want to be involved anymore, is shutting down political ad buys.
Well, there you go.
Think about what this means for the midterms.
It's not just about 2020.
In the midterm elections, Trump will tweet something about a Republican in, I don't know, Kentucky, and be like, this Republican did X, Y, and Z, and the media's gonna be like, Trump now, standing behind so-and-so, and then Bernie is gonna be like, we like this Democrat over here, and they're gonna be like, that's nice, Bernie, but Trump gets us better ratings, so we're gonna talk about Trump more.
And guess what?
Those midterm Democrats, they can't buy ads.
So you have the highest profile, Donald Trump's the highest profile Twitter account as far as I'm concerned, period.
Like, nobody gets the press coverage he does.
He can just snap his fingers and get the media to cover whatever he wants.
Congratulations, Democrats.
You played yourself.
This is great for Trump.
Well, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
Let me just end by saying it's just so often that the Democrats cheer for their own demise.
They complain that Mark Zuckerberg had a secret meeting with conservatives like Ben Shapiro.
They push this conspiracy theory that Ben Shapiro is allowed to break the rules on Facebook.
And then they beg Mark Zuckerberg to police political content.
It's mind-numbingly backwards.
It's like they're cheering as they go down the drain.
And that's why I don't want to be on that sinking ship.
I'm like, your ship is sinking, dude, and you're cheering for it.
Like, I'm over here on the dock saying like, guys, come back over here.
Like, we're on solid ground, you know, we're cool.
And they're like, no, bigot, conservative.
And I'm like, dude, standing on land while you're in a sinking ship doesn't make me conservative.
Anyway, you get the point.
I'll see you all at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
We are witnessing the ongoing demise of woke rage-bait media.
From investors writing down complete losses, Disney claimed their 500 million vice, zero.
We're seeing layoffs, companies are being sold, and now this, from the New York Times.
Stick to sports?
No way!
Deadspin journalists quit en masse.
And I gotta say, I actually kinda respect this, okay?
It's a complicated story.
Deadspin is part of the Gawker properties.
They were sold to Univision.
Univision then sold them to a new company.
Now this company is trying to essentially change what they're doing, trying to restructure it.
The employees are getting angry, and one guy got fired.
Their acting editor-in-chief, I believe interim editor-in-chief, got fired because he doesn't want to just report on sports.
Now, it is complicated.
A lot of conservatives are saying, why is it that a sports website has staff that refuse to write sports?
Why would you complain?
Like, one analogy I heard was, imagine working in an ice cream shop and getting mad your boss told you to stop handing out your wrap mixtape.
And then they fire you because you wouldn't stop.
This is kind of different, though.
This is kind of different.
So there's a few things that I want to highlight.
Why I think, to an extent, well first let me say this, there's no good guys here, okay?
These companies are collapsing, people are freaking out, they're lucky the company exists in the first place, but I do think the journalists are in the right for the most part, for one.
If somebody at your work, a new boss, manager, whatever, says, I want you to do X and you don't want to do X, you quit!
It's that simple.
So they did the right thing.
If your boss wants you to write about sports and you don't want to, you leave.
And they all did.
There was a bunch of people who quit.
So this was yesterday, but there is more news apparently.
They lost some other veteran writer, Drew McGarry.
I don't know who these people are.
But I do, before we read this, I want to make one very, very important point by first asking a very, very important question.
Why is this news?
Seriously, why is this news?
Now, I understand why it's news to me.
I worked in the media industry.
This strikes close to home.
I'm a journalist and political commentator.
But why would anyone who reads the New York Times care about a microblog called Deadspin?
I know microblog might be a little hyperbolic, but they're not the biggest site in the world.
They're part of a network of sites that's been passed around by companies after the main company collapsed due to lawsuit.
This is proof that journalists are narcissists who only care about themselves.
Why Deadspin has been trending nationally in the U.S.
on more than one occasion following these stories.
Why?
Who cares?
It's not relevant to the greater context of our country and the people who read news.
But it shows you that journalists are only concerned about what affects them.
And they're going, my friends got fired, I'm gonna write about this.
I don't care!
Okay, now listen.
The reason I personally care, outside of like a general... When I say I don't care, I mean, as a general American, is this the most concern to you?
No!
What is Deadspin?
Who cares?
I don't get that much traffic.
For me, I work in journalism, okay?
I worked in the news industry, so this makes a lot... This is a big story.
But I want to break some things down.
There are a lot of conservatives saying that this is a case of, like, you know, like a guy in an ice cream shop, I think I mentioned that already, someone being told, like, hey, you work for a sports website, why aren't you writing sports?
They shouldn't get mad about that.
I disagree.
I actually think this, all the fault goes right onto the new owners, and I don't think the journalists are in the wrong here.
For one, they quit.
That was the right thing to do.
But I don't even think they were wrong to say they don't want to stick to sports.
In fact, dare I say it, The journalists at Deadspin should not be sticking to sports.
It's complicated.
Okay?
But trust me, I believe you'll agree with me when we get to the point.
You can hang on the woke rage bait all day and night.
You can think they're terrible at their jobs.
But when it comes to the core issue of should they stick to sports, the answer is no.
Because the new owners were trying to change the foundation of the company.
So the journalists then did the right thing by leaving, saying we don't want to be involved.
Welcome to real life.
So let me read the story.
And I want to walk through some more of these issues here.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several different ways you can do it, but the most important thing you can do is share this video, and this is probably the best reason why.
You're looking at the collapse of media.
These companies are failing, and the companies that aren't are big cable networks with tons of money.
In order for me to compete with them, I ask you to consider sharing my content to help me grow, because, you know, YouTube's deranking and throttling, you get the point.
Let's read this story, and then let's talk about what's happening in media.
On Monday, the journalists at the freewheeling website Deadspin were instructed by its owners to stick to sports.
On Tuesday, the site's interim editor-in-chief, Barry Picheski, was fired for refusing to obey that order.
On Wednesday, many longtime staff members quit in protest, hurling Deadspin into chaos.
Now let me just stop and say, Deadspin, along with all the other Gawker properties, have been in chaos for quite some time.
I'm not going to blame it on this.
At least eight Deadspin journalists announced their resignations on Twitter, casting doubt on the future of one of the most popular digital properties owned by GeoMedia six months after a private equity firm bought the company for an undisclosed price.
I'd be willing to bet it's a dollar.
I'm half-kidding.
Laura Wagner, a reporter who was among the six staff writers out of ten who quit in August.
Who quit?
What is this?
It's not even a sentence.
In August, Mrs. Wagner wrote a deeply reported and highly critical story for Deadspin on GeoMedia and its chief executive, Jim Spanfeller.
Joining her in saying that they had resigned were, I'm not going to read all these people, Firing Barry yesterday was a disgrace, Mr. Lay said in a text message, and the direction that management wants to take the site in is something I cannot get on board with.
Now, the first point.
It was not a disgrace to fire Barry.
It's called insubordination.
If you do not want to do the job they've tasked you with, then you will be fired.
So these people aren't quitting necessarily because the company wants them to stick to sports.
Right, I think it's fair to point that out.
They're more angry and saying, how dare you fire Barry?
No, listen.
At the end of the day, though, if you're leaving because you don't want to do it, that's the right thing to do.
But now I want to tell you, the conservatives are getting this one wrong.
Right?
There was one guy, like I mentioned, the wrap tape at the ice cream shop.
No, no, no, no.
Let me explain something to you.
Imagine you worked at a burger joint that also sold wrap mixtapes.
And you knew that if you got hired, you'd be doing a ton of wrap sales, and that wrap mixtapes actually tended to sell a lot better than burgers, though you didn't do it all the time.
Imagine then the company gets sold.
You work for this company specifically because you know it's a burger shop that mostly sells wrap mixtapes.
The new owners come in and say, we are no longer going to do wrap mixtapes.
If you're going to wrap, make sure it's about burgers and mostly focus on the burgers.
And then the manager who worked at this company before the new owners comes in says, I don't want to do that.
Listen.
The guys who bought Deadspin should have known they were not buying a sports website.
They were buying Woke Ragebait.
I don't like Woke Ragebait.
You know, Deadspin apparently is one of the companies that first wrote about Gamergate sparking, it was like the shot heard around the world basically, for the culture war.
So, you know, there's a lot to criticize them over.
You know, look, it's grifting, okay?
But let me just explain.
If a new owner comes into a shop and fundamentally misunderstands what these people are doing and tries to make them change, I don't blame the workers.
I blame the new management for not understanding what you bought.
Deadspin is now collapsing in Alexa rankings.
Check this out.
Since that woman resigned, we've seen their rankings collapse.
Their viewership is going down.
Well, it's not surprising.
They're down 555 ranks.
Yeah, you went to a shop that was known for one thing and tried to make it do something else.
Now, I get it.
You're the new owners, you want sports, and I can respect that.
But how dumb do you have to be to buy woke rage bait and then get shocked when the woke rage bait, you know, leftists don't want to write about politics?
I'm sorry.
Don't want to write about sports.
They do want to write about politics.
Right?
So that's the main issue.
While I don't like what they do, I think it's fair to point out, the owners should have seen this coming.
The other thing I want to point out, though...
Deadspin has a lot to be criticized for.
Deadspin is a home of grifting.
You want to talk about grifting?
They say I'm a grifter, which means I only pretend to be concerned about these things because it makes money.
They say Dave Rubin, they say Zuby, they say we're all grifters, right-wing grift, making money.
Dude, I say it all the time, Minecraft would make more money.
But you wanna know what grifting is?
Grifting is when your website is supposed to be about sports, but you know and freely admit politics makes more money.
One of the people at Deadspin wrote an article saying, we're the adults in the room because we recognize that politics makes the site grow and generates money.
And the owner is saying, dude, I don't care about growth and money, I care about generating a sports brand, and then we can go from there.
I love it.
Listen, they're grifters.
They know they're grifters.
It's what they do, and they can be criticized for it, but at least they quit.
That's the right thing.
Now, I will also point out, it is really annoying to hear these people think they know what's good for the company.
Dude, you write content about sports and woke rage bait.
What is good for the company is not in your purview.
The owners might understand they won't make as much money covering sports as they would on politics, but they also understand they already bought political websites.
So let's go back to the rat mixtape at the ice cream shop analogy.
The new owner comes in and says, the wrapped mixtapes are over there in the other building.
We want to keep all the ice cream here.
So they quit.
I still think there's no good guys here.
Quitting is still the right thing to do.
If I worked for a company and the new owners came in and said, we're going to do something different, I'd be like, not interested.
Goodbye.
And I'd leave.
And I've seen it happen.
So, so, so I can give them the respect for that.
But to, to, you know what?
I feel like I'm going to start beating a dead horse here.
The New York Times article basically goes on to start talking about irreverent journalists and all that.
So, long story short, these companies are on their way out.
Woke Rage Bait is over.
This is huge news.
We'll see how this affects politics.
The last thing I'll circle back on, the only reason the New York Times wrote about this is because journalists are narcissists.
That's what I said in the beginning.
They're narcissists and they're so concerned about Writing about themselves and their lives, and they want you to feel sorry for them.
Do I go around being like, guys, I need to tell you about what the cat did the other day.
Man, the cat peed in my room.
I'm furious.
Aw, man.
You'd be like, I don't care about that!
I'd be like, no, but you gotta understand the importance of this story to my life.
Deadspin collapsed, and it is relevant, much more so than a cat peeing in your room.
Fine, I get it.
By the way, the cat really did pee in my room.
It's really annoying.
Cats.
Anyway.
It's like, imagine if someone came to you, and you're hanging out playing video games, and they started talking about, I don't know, their kid's daycare or something, and what the teacher was saying.
You'd be like, that's crazy.
That's crazy.
And it's like, the joke is, by the second time someone says that crazy, wrap your story up, we're done, we don't care.
But this is a whole new level of narcissism.
So I've got two things.
This story, save it.
It's a good example.
You know why?
If you want to explain to people how the media loves writing about themselves and how they're narcissistic, show them this story.
You know why?
They'll say, I don't get it.
What's Deadspin?
Exactly.
What's Deadspin and why is it relevant to anyone outside of New York media?
Then show them the image of Trump with the dog.
The photoshopped image that I talked about earlier.
Because then people are going to be like, Why are the journalists talking about this?
And you say, listen, we can see two things here.
Journalists are not smart enough to understand simple concepts like a photoshopped image as a joke, and they also love talking about themselves.
That's who's reporting news!
You can see why this is insane because we don't know what deadspin is.
The average person is going to be like, I don't even know what deadspin is, dude.
I know what barstool sports is.
But what's deadspin?
That's what the average person will probably say to you.
They're also going to say, I could tell the dog in the photo was not real and it was a joke.
Yeah, but the journalists can't.
So what do you think happens then when they write about Syria or impeachment?
They're sitting there looking at a fake photo going, is this real?
I'm done.
I'll see you guys at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
Rep Katie Hill gave her final speech in Congress and she decried a double standard and cyber exploitation.
And while I will say, I will say, I am outraged that many of these publications put out these photos.
I understand they may have already existed, but there are many publications in conservative media that didn't publish the photos, but still talked about what was in them.
I understand we're talking about questionable ethics.
A lot of people have said the photos, it was right for them to show because it showed wrongdoing.
It's tough.
For me, I fall in the line of, you don't need to do that to tell people what's in it.
And there are many conservative sites that did that.
But let's stop for a second.
I'm not here to defend Katie Hill.
I can talk about ethics in media all day and night.
No, no, no, no.
Katie Hill.
There is no double standard.
This is not cyber exploitation.
For one, it was reported you published these photos.
Second, how is it a double standard when Anthony Weiner, I know it's not the same thing, but kind of?
He resigned!
And more importantly, you didn't have to resign, okay?
You chose to because what was to come next was worse.
You committed wrongdoing, you were under investigation, and I want to stress, This is not a story about poor Katie Hill's affair.
This is a story about an abusive relationship between a boss and a subordinate.
Where's the Me Too outrage here?
I'm sorry.
The media is saying, it's because men, oh, there's double standard women.
Go call Anthony Weiner.
I understand he got convicted of a whole other thing, but back in what, like 2011, he accidentally posted a link to his Private photo, and it resulted in a huge scandal, he had to leave.
Okay?
They're not the same thing, one for one, right?
But listen.
First, if you post photos of yourself, how are you gonna get mad that other people are sharing them?
Okay?
Second, if a dude had the same photos, they'd go viral too.
It's an absurd excuse.
That she did wrong, and we're going to read this, okay?
But I'm looking at, I'm watching her speech, and I must admit, I'm quite offended, okay?
Because the accusations against her are not that, I mean, hold on.
She wouldn't even talk about the accusations.
She was like, how dare they share those photos?
I must leave.
You're under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for breaking the rules.
But more importantly, check this out.
The accusations are that she was pressuring a subordinate who was scared.
In a text message from the female staffer involved in the thruple that was sent to Hill on June 3rd of this year, the female staffer says that she is terrified of pushing back against Hill or upsetting her because she sees how Hill treats Kenny.
What's the full text?
Context is important.
The text says, Babe, I had a really unpleasant realization yesterday, and it's this.
I am terrified of pushing back against you or upsetting you.
I have seen how you treat Kenny, and I think that if I cause any issues, even if I am very worried about how you are acting, that very quickly you will decide you don't want me in your life.
I hope I am wrong, but that's not really a good way for a partnership to be.
I hope you know that if I am telling you something, I know you don't want to hear it, because it's really important, and not just to make your life more difficult, and then it stops.
Okay.
This sounds to me like it could be emotional abuse.
Withholding affection?
This is a very common tactic.
Now, you want to question Red State?
Fine.
But this is the media that's being criticized.
The messages are considered legitimate.
Apparently, according to Katie Hiltz, her ex is leaking them.
Fine, fine, fine.
I didn't show the texts before, but we're at a point now where she's playing this game.
You know what she did wrong?
I'll tell you exactly what happened.
I have no problem saying, let's not go there in politics.
Let's ignore her private photos and let's stick to policy and move on.
But then she said, there are men who are Incredibly accused.
And I went, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
Full stop.
I'm not doing it.
Nope.
You said, you said a stupid buzzword that is triggering.
I'm joking, it's not triggering.
But it's fake.
She said fake.
She said nothing.
And I said, you want to play these games?
You want to talk about double standards?
Let's talk about you being in an emotionally abusive relationship with a subordinate in violation of house rules?
Me too moment.
Where's that?
If this was a dude, what would have happened?
Would the Atlantic be writing this story?
The Humiliation of Katie Hill offers a warning.
Ah, yes.
Please, please, Quinta Juricic, I'd like to see you go back and write, The Humiliation of Anthony Weiner offers a warning.
That if you post photos to the internet and someone finds them, it's not your fault.
Okay.
Let's read what she said.
From Deadline.
Rep.
Katie Hill blasted what she called a double standard as she resigned from her House seat following the publication of explicit photos on the right-wing site Red State.
It was also on Daily Mail, and according to, I believe, Red State, it was a wife-sharing thing on Reddit or something like that.
It could be wrong.
It could be wrong.
But the fact of the matter is, the photos, according to the Washington Examiner, were published by her.
Or I believe it was published with her consent.
The mistakes I made and the people I've hurt that led to this moment will haunt me for the rest of my life.
And I have to come to terms with that, she said in a speech on the floor of the house.
I have to come to terms with that.
She said that ever since the images first surfaced, she had barely left her bed.
Her appearance for the vote on an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump was the first time since then that she had left her apartment.
Hill faced an ethics investigation over allegations of inappropriate relations with one of her congressional staffers, something she denied, but she acknowledged having a relationship with a campaign staff member as she was running for office last year.
Hill was a favorite of Hollywood donors as Democrats sought to retake the House last year, and a number of entertainment figures showed up to canvas for her during the fall campaign, the cycle she had already raised $131,000 from showbiz sources, the most of any House incumbent seeking re-election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Hill said that she was resigning, even as other figures, namely Trump, have been credibly accused.
I hate that.
It means nothing.
She might as well have just said, just trash.
I cannot stand when they say credibly accused, because here's how I describe it on Twitter.
If you ever hear someone use the word credibly accused, just stop talking to them.
You know why?
Because it's proof that they got their opinions from, you know, the fall catalog of the Democrat buzzword list.
It proves that they get their opinions from, you know, they're in line.
To go to the media and say, please, hand me my opinion.
It's akin to arguing with a parrot.
Yes, the parrot can talk to you, but the parrot has no idea what these words mean.
Credibly accused means nothing.
You're either accused or you're not.
Now, I understand in law enforcement there is a concept of credible accusations.
This is not that.
Credible accusations result in investigation.
That's what credible is supposed to mean.
They've stuck that word in front of it for no reason.
Incredible accusations, incredulous accus- What's the point?
You were accused, okay.
Nothing was proven.
End of story.
That's the game she wants to play because instead of owning up to her mistakes, revealing that she's actually kind of a slimy person, she says, it's a double standard.
You know what, man?
Look, I got no problem defending her.
People should not be posting these photos in the media.
I get it.
But she is acting in such a slimy manner that I'm just like, no, no, no, no, no.
You're pressuring subordinates.
You're exerting... You know what?
Don't even take my word for it.
Do I have the Vox article?
I don't have it pulled up.
Vox wrote about this.
And they specifically said that subordinates are pressured into consenting.
So it seems like it's consent, but the staffers are scared.
And take a look at what this staffer said.
That you will cut... You don't want me in your life.
Listen.
That doesn't just mean their relationship would end.
She's saying, if I tell you this, and you decide you don't want me in your life, that means she doesn't work there anymore!
Get it?
Or it could mean that.
She's scared that if she speaks up, she's in this relationship, that to me sounds like an abusive relationship.
Abusive.
That sounds like a Me Too accusation.
So thank you, The Atlantic.
Women have been degraded on the internet for a long time.
Women have been degraded for a long time, period.
But it's like, guys have this way of guy talking, women have this way of women talking.
Men and women do different things.
I think in professional settings, you shouldn't do certain things.
And I certainly think that women do face a specific kind of harassment more than men.
It's a fact.
It's from Pew Research.
Sexual harassment is more prominent and stalking.
But overall, men get harassed a lot more.
I think it's unfair to call it a double standard.
There was one op-ed that talked about how, some woman on Twitter, nearly every woman takes nude photos.
And now they all must contend and fear retaliation.
But you always did.
That's literally why there are laws against posting revenge photos.
I can't say that word.
There's laws against it.
Because people did.
And it's typically dudes posting women.
So, I'm always confused by this.
Is it like this mentality among these women who take these photos that they have no responsibility over what these photos are?
Like, dude, if you create something that can be infinitely copied, and you send it, you realize they're holding that over you.
Like, you never know.
So they made it illegal.
And I can understand that.
Posting, you know, private information.
Fun.
It's an interesting law.
It's publishing photos without someone's consent.
But at what point does the responsibility fall on the individual not to do that?
And why is it mostly women?
Like, you know, here's the thing.
They say it's, you know, it's like women have to fear this.
Yeah, but isn't it guys who are sending nude pics to women that are made fun of?
Like, dude, the reality is humans do this.
Humans take pictures of themselves.
I'll tell you what, man.
If you take naked photos and they appear on the internet, Yeah, we can fault the person who committed the crime, but you do have responsibility into all things.
Let me just end by saying something.
I made my point.
Katie Hill was pressuring her staffer.
We get it.
It's a Me Too thing.
No one seems to care.
Everything is your fault.
Period.
End of story.
I don't want to hear it.
Have a nice day.
Okay, I'm being a bit...
I'm not being completely serious.
The point I'm making is, while we do want to blame the criminals, you know, and we hold them accountable for the crimes they commit, if you decide to carry a big sack with a dollar sign on it down a dark alley in the middle of the night and get robbed, I'm going to be like, dude, come on, man.
You do bear some responsibility.
And I'd like to say, oh, but it's victim blaming.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
No, we blame the criminal for committing the crime, because in many circumstances, say, like you drop your wallet, someone picks it up and returns it to you, because that's someone doing the right thing.
So we can easily say, yeah, the overwhelming majority of blame to go around, 99%, is on the person who committed the crime.
But at a certain point, if you're not responsible for yourself, like, I'm gonna go use this ATM and shout my PIN number and throw my debit card in the air and try and catch it.
It's like, if somebody takes that from you and now knows your PIN, like, I'm gonna blame you for it, okay?
There's varying degrees of responsibility.
The way I think you can, one of the safest things you can do is always assume everything is your fault, even though it's not.
Blame yourself to an extent.
They say, don't blame yourself for this.
No, no, hold on.
You know, when I was little, we had trains.
The train rails would come down, and if I was going to school, and I got stuck by a train, my dad would say, it's your fault.
And I'd say, no, it's not the train that came.
And he goes, you know the train can come.
You should have left early, so that even if a train did come, you'd make it to school on time.
Get it?
I'm like, that's a good point.
So, yeah, it wasn't necessarily my fault that a train came and we didn't have a train schedule because they're just cargo trains.
Like, yeah, okay, I did everything as normal, I left at the same time, and then I could have taken that precaution.
So it's not entirely my fault.
That's the point I'm trying to make, okay?
Whatever, I'm done.
You get the point.
Katie Hill, it's not a double standard.
This is just them, like, for some reason, Me Too doesn't apply to abusive bosses when it turns out it's a Democratic congresswoman.
You're either ignorant, not socialist, or not democratic.
I was very confused by this.
How?
How?
They're both socialists and they're mad at each other for supporting socialism?
What do you think Cuba is?
What these people don't seem to understand about socialism is that it's a fairy tale.
It's a faith.
It's not a real thing.
There are varying degrees of how economics can work.
But let me break down, before we get into the story, I'll make it very simple for you.
Why socialism doesn't work.
Money is a trade medium.
That's it.
It represents intrinsic value of nothing.
It's confidence that you can get something later.
In the olden days, the guy who made bread said, I need wheat.
If I'm going to make my bread.
And he would go to the farmer and say, I need some wheat.
And the farmer would say, in order to make the wheat, I need a tool, a scythe, to cut the wheat.
Well, the farmer said, unfortunately, I don't have that.
Too bad!
So then they'd have to go around this... You ever play Zelda, where you have to do that ridiculous trading thing?
It's so annoying.
Well, eventually, the concept of intrinsic value emerged, and currency came to be a placeholder for value.
So instead of me having to worry about finding this ridiculous path towards trading, I'd say, I don't got a scythe, but I do have one gold coin, which will get you a scythe from that fellow over there.
And he'd say, great, thanks for the gold coin.
Here's your wheat.
I'd go make my bread.
Money is just a trade medium.
Socialism, this idea that the people will own everything, makes no sense.
It's basically saying we want to create a world where there is no trade medium.
Let's make an analogy for this.
Let's say you are going to build a house, and the socialist says, we don't need central support columns.
That's capitalist thinking.
And you're like, actually, the central support column is just one small aspect that's not necessarily easy to find, because we build around it, that holds the thing up.
And they refuse.
Well, guess what?
The house doesn't exist.
Here's where it gets better.
AOC is essentially somebody who's living in a skyscraper and advocating for the removal of support columns, a trade medium.
Now we can put laws on how currency works, but the idea of trading currency has nothing to do with, you know, I understand there's a lot of people are going to argue saying like, Tim, you're confusing currency with socialism.
Listen, I understand that in many of these socialist places, they have currency, they have trade mediums, but talk to the socialists online, and listen to what they're claiming about, you can just go get healthcare, you can just go to school.
Or in my specific circumstance, when I was arguing with the Great Britain socialists, and they said, you would just walk to the car factory and get whatever material you wanted just by asking for it.
You're right, they're advocating for no money.
And the socialists I've talked to, it's a common theme.
Now it's possible to have socialism and have a trade medium because they do believe in what's called personal property but the whole thing kind of falls apart because where does personal property end and where does private property begin?
None of it makes sense and you're basically advocating for pulling out support columns from a house and it's going to collapse on you and it does every single time.
So the only way this works is if when a bunch of people rise up and say if you pull out those support columns we will revolt and then the communist or socialist leader says take them out!
They throw them out the back.
And then they say, now that the troublemakers are gone, we can rip down these support columns, then everything falls down on you.
Let's read the story and see exactly why the Cubans are mad, now that you've dealt with my anti-communism rant.
But I will say, I have a photo, apparently, of the socialists, the Cubans, arguing with Ocasio-Cortez.
I'm kidding, by the way.
For those that are listening, it's the Spider-Man meme.
They're both pointing at each other.
How are you going to be upset that AOC is supporting Cuba when you literally dealt with what socialism does and you think it's going to be better somewhere else?
Nine Cuban democratic socialists, let me interject, who learned nothing from Cuba, wrote a blistering
open letter condemning American democratic socialists, such as AOC, Rashida Tlaib, blasting
the Democratic Socialists of America, a group both women belong to, for their support of
Cuba's communist government.
The nine Cubans writing the letter stated that the American democratic socialists either
did not know the Cuban reality, or they are not socialist or democratic, calling them
poorly informed.
The blaze reported of the letter, in which the nine Cubans wrote, the support for Castroism
revealed in resolution 62 of the recent convention of the democratic socialists of the United
States, held in Atlanta, Georgia, can only be explained by two reasons.
Either the American Socialist Democrats do not know the Cuban reality, or they're not Socialist or Democratic.
Or more importantly, they are, and you haven't learned.
Let me flip this on you.
Perhaps.
AOC and CLABE know exactly what Cuba is and what they're doing.
Authoritarianism.
And they support it.
And you, who somehow managed to still be a democratic socialist after experiencing Castroism, for some reason defend it?
I think AOC's right on this one.
I gotta be honest.
Democratic socialism would absolutely support Cuban communism.
They do!
It's quite silly.
Be it resolved, the DSA formally declares itself in solidarity with the Cuban socialist struggle.
The DSA unequivocally condemns the economic blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States and its allies.
The American military presence in Guantanamo Bay And any sanctions and actions that would undermine the self-determination of the Cuban people.
Be it further resolved, the DSA will move to join the National Network on Cuba, an American progressive organization dedicated to opposing acts of imperialist aggression against the Republic of Cuba.
Be it finally resolved, within 30 days after passing, the DSA will submit its application for full membership to the National Network on Cuba, Stop muttering!
You are giving me anxiety!
to pursue full membership status.
Bravo, DSA.
They're for open borders.
They have that, remember that weird video where it was like, they say their names
and their pronouns and then everyone got really angry and the guy was like, stop muttering.
You are giving me anxiety.
And then someone else, well, I was like, don't use gendered language.
Well, is it a surprise to anybody, these people who are trying to dictate
what anyone else can do, or authoritarians who support Cuba?
Think about it.
At a convention, a guy says, can everyone stop chattering?
Then someone else said, don't say guys, don't use gendered pronouns.
That's what it's all about.
They want you to do, they want you to bend the knee.
So they look at Cuba and they say, wow, Cuba sure made people bend over backwards.
God, they love that authoritarianism, don't they?
The open letter continues its attack.
You have been in solidarity with a regime maintained by force of arms, murder, imprisonment, repression, and compulsory exile of the opponents, which has not held free and democratic elections for more than 60 years, which systematically violates massive and blatantly civil political... Okay, you know what?
Because what happens when people vote for self-interest?
It all comes crumbling down.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the far-right economic spectrum.
Communism or socialism is the far-left.
Neither can function properly.
And here come all of the libertarians being like, and ANCAP's, Tim, you're wrong.
Free market will work.
Okay, dude.
Okay, let's talk about market incentives.
Human dopamine triggering, environmental destruction, lying.
You can't have a complete free market and you can't have socialism.
I'm not saying we can't have a very free market.
That's why I said ANCAP, anarcho-capitalists.
Because in an anarcho-capitalist system, I mean, things get silly.
And monopolies form rapidly and you devolve into authoritarianism really, really quickly.
But you can have very light regulation with an overwhelmingly free market.
I actually lean towards a mixed economy, more closer to the middle.
But you've got to have some laws, some restrictions.
There's got to, you know, because a society can't function if you allow sociopaths to exploit and extract resources.
And to an extent we have that problem.
But we do have regulations, we do adapt, and we are solving for it.
It won't work forever.
On the far left, all the way at the end, you have socialism.
It doesn't work either.
You have no choice but to enforce this with guns.
And you can't allow elections because people will vote for dopamine.
They're not going to vote for their best interest, necessarily.
I shouldn't put it that way.
That was poorly framed.
What I mean to say is, they will vote for their best interests.
That's what I mean to say.
They won't vote for a collective, you know, long-term view of what they need to do.
They're going to think about, as individuals, what will make our lives better, and it's not being forced into this at gunpoint.
It's not eating crappy food.
It's not allowing you to exile people.
So let me reframe.
People always vote in their best interests.
That doesn't always mean it's the best thing for the community.
What this brings me to is why I believe mixed economy and more moderate policy makes the most sense.
We need to protect the collective, that is the United States, that is a bit nationalist, but we also need to recognize that competition helps.
So it is a complicated problem.
You cannot have nothing but competition and you cannot have nothing but cooperative systems.
It doesn't function.
If you want to force people to live a certain way without money or whatever, you got to do it gunpoint.
If you want to just let people trade whatever they want, eventually people start trading drugs, they do ridiculous things.
I mean, look, I can't get into it because YouTube, I'll get in trouble.
The point is, there's a decent mix.
You can have social democracy where you have like a 60-70% tax rate.
I think that's too much, but it does work.
It does function.
Some people eventually get angry.
They vote against it.
Things can't change.
You can also have a more libertarian type government with very light taxation or near no taxation and small regulations to make sure you prevent like a company from putting, I don't know, lead shavings in their drink that kills you and then no one can do anything about it.
There's got to be some laws and some regulations.
Now I know people on the far right libertarian economic spectrum will say like NAP and stuff.
Like yeah, I get it man, but listen.
I think a good mix is healthy.
The problem is, this is what you get when you have a bunch of young idealistic individuals who have no idea what it truly means to be socialist, and for some reason, you have socialists who are shocked that socialists would support socialism.
You know what?
Whatever.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Ilhan Omar refused to vote on sanctions against Turkey.
She also refused to recognize the Armenian genocide.
This had many people wondering, is she on the payroll of Erdogan?
In fact, Enes Kanter, I believe I'm pronouncing his name wrong, NBA star, said it seems like she's on the payroll of Erdogan.
Now we have this story.
One of Erdogan's biggest allies contributed to Ilhan Omar's campaign.
And there it is.
So they say.
I actually completely disagree with this narrative and I don't think this story is necessarily that important.
One of the most frustrating things to me when it comes to funding is the inversion of quid pro quo.
The idea being that Because he donated to her, she must be serving him.
It's actually much more simple than that.
She does things Turkey likes, therefore people who like Turkey give her money so she keeps doing it.
It's really annoying to me when people say that someone is on the payroll of the NRA, and that they're doing the NRA's bidding.
And I'm like, no, no, no, no, no.
You missed the point.
When somebody votes on laws that are beneficial to gun rights, then you're going to see gun rights organizations being like, let's keep supporting this person.
They're inverting it.
Inverted quid pro quo.
But let's read this story to be fair.
And I think I'll end up being critical.
But let's see what's really going on.
Because maybe there's something I'm missing here.
She is receiving money from this guy.
Maybe, maybe it is a quid pro quo.
The Daily Caller reports the co-chairman of a Turkish-American advocacy group with close ties to Ankara contributed $1,500 last month to the campaign for Rep.
Ilhan Omar, who was under fire this week over votes she cast supporting Turkish government positions, campaign finance records show.
Omar and the activist Halil Mutlu were also photographed together at an event for the Turkish-American Steering Committee, a U.S.-based non-profit that has for years waged public relations campaigns in support of Turkish government policies and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Yeah, no, it makes sense.
You know, here's the thing.
I announced a couple years ago I was gonna go investigate Sweden.
Paul Joseph Watson of InfoWars donated to that campaign.
They then tried claiming that I was on the payroll of InfoWars.
That's not true.
If you want to donate, you can.
It was a public donation form.
It was this whole big thing, and it's stupid.
It turns out, the answer is much more simple.
Is she getting paid to do things?
No.
She's friends with the guy, they agree with each other, so he gives her money and she does things he likes.
And I gotta admit, 1500 bucks, not that much money in the span of that campaign.
But let's redone.
They say, Mutlu, who Turkish media outlets have reported is Erdogan's cousin, is co-chairman of TASC, according to the group's website.
Found in 2015, TASC has orchestrated public relations push to cast doubt on whether the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against Armenians more than a century ago.
And this is where I completely agree with the criticism, and we get into the controversy.
AOC.
I'm sorry, not AOC.
Ilhan Omar.
Sorry, they're in the squad.
Photographed with a guy who denies the Armenian Genocide and Ilhan Omar refused to vote on a resolution recognizing it.
That is disgusting.
That is disgusting.
It bears repeating.
2015, they orchestrated PR push to cast doubt on the Armenian Genocide.
Now that might explain why Ilhan Omar didn't vote on recognizing it, because she doesn't think it happened.
I don't care about who's donating to her campaign, because she clearly is an Armenian genocide denier, and that's why they support her, not the other way around.
And that means she won't vote on these resolutions.
Will it pass anyway with broad bipartisan support?
The group has also held rallies outside the White House condemning Syrian Kurds as terrorists, a position held by the Turkish government.
Media reports show Mutlu, a physician based in Connecticut, has also led TASC protests outside the Pennsylvania home of Fethullah Gulen, an exiled Muslim cleric who Erdogan wants extradited back to Turkey.
Omar came under intense scrutiny Tuesday over two votes she cast on resolutions aimed at punishing Turkey over its incursion earlier this month against Syrian Kurds.
Omar was the only Democrat to vote against imposing sanctions against Turkey over airstrikes against the Syrian Kurds.
Was I against enough?
Who have worked with U.S.
forces to fight against ISIS.
The House voted 403 to 16 in favor of the measure.
No, no, I will stop and say 15 Republicans did vote against it as well.
So if you want to criticize people for not supporting it, there are Republicans in there too.
The bigger question though is that Ilhan Omar, in my opinion, is an overt anti-Semite and Armenian genocide denier.
I wouldn't be surprised if she denied some other particular genocides, because she seems to be a very fringe, conspiracy theorist-type individual, laden with scandals, forced to pay fines, campaign finance law violation.
For some reason, she doesn't resign.
Don't ask me.
I mean, I'll say this, she doesn't have to.
And neither did Katie Hill, who did, and then complained about it.
Your choice, dude.
The Minnesota progressive received the blowback for her defense of a neutral vote she cast on a resolution to recognize the Armenian genocide.
Yes, she voted present.
There were some other people who did as well.
The House overwhelmingly passed the resolution 405 to 11, with three lawmakers, including Omar, voting present.
In a statement after the vote, Omar asserted that the resolution was being used as a cudgel in a political fight against Turkey.
Which is a NATO ally of the U.S.
She also said that she was withholding judgment until an academic consensus had been formed.
Wait.
What does that mean?
There is an academic consensus.
However though, I think they may be, Daily Caller may be interpreting this wrong.
She said something about, I could be wrong too, I could be wrong.
But I thought she was saying something about an academic consensus on all genocide, including the Native Americans and stuff like that.
But I guess, sure.
Advocates for the resolution said that Omar's statement mirrors propaganda pushed by the Turkish government.
Essentially, this is a Turkish talking point she's throwing out.
No, no, no, no, stop.
I don't care for that.
This is a talking point of so-and-so.
It is annoying.
Argue what she's saying.
I don't care where it comes from.
I don't care whose idea it is.
Target the idea, please.
I don't care whose money she's taking, to an extent.
I don't care about who's talking about these things as well.
I care about the fact that she's an Armenian genocide denier.
I mean, she's seen in photographs with them and refuses to recognize it.
So I don't care about whose talking point it is.
She is lining up to carry Turkey's water on this.
Full stop, no.
I'm going to be very, very critical of this.
I cannot stand that.
You want to argue something, argue on principle.
I don't care whose water you think she's carrying.
lobbyists on the Turkish government payroll have fought for decades to prevent votes on any resolutions that refer to Armenian deaths as a genocide.
While the government has acknowledged that mass deaths occurred, Erdogan and other Turkish government officials use phrases like events of 1915.
Wow.
TASC has helped in that effort.
In 2015, the group launched a campaign called Let History Decide to counter Armenian group's push for a resolution.
On Monday, ahead of the House vote, TASC urged supporters through social media to contact their lawmakers to oppose the resolution.
Not gonna happen.
You know why?
Because we in America recognize historical events, and it's got broad bipartisan support.
But nice try.
You're allowed to speak.
I respect your attempt.
But I also think it's kind of gross.
But congratulations!
Hey, you got at least one ally on the Democrat side with Ilhan Omar.
Liberal pundits blasted Omar over her defense of the votes.
This is awful.
Liberal New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg tweeted in response to Omar's statement
The freshman Democrats have been one of President Donald Trump's harshest critics, especially on social justice
issues, and she's lying It is a game. They aren't serious. Please stop
She doesn't care about any of this stuff. She claims she's opposed opposed to sanctions, but she wants to sanction
Israel She's full of it. It is why is why is anyone defending her?
You know what Democrats you reap what you sow?
Congratulations. You've embraced an Armenian genocide denier.
What would you want us to say about it?
They say under Erdogan's watch Turkey has become the world's leading jailer of journalists
That's in large part thanks to Erdogan's crackdown on news outlets seen as favorable to Gulen, who operates a worldwide network of supporters as part of the Hizmet movement.
Erdogan has also acknowledged that an American pastor, Andrew Brunson, was held in Turkish prison for more than two years as a bargaining chip in hopes of gaining Gulen's extradition back to Turkey.
Turkish authorities arrested Brunson in October 2016 on charges that he had links to the Gulen movement and Kurdish separatists, both of which are considered terror groups by Turkey.
Wes Mitchell, a State Department official, called the charges laughable during an April 18, 2018 congressional hearing.
The Trump administration negotiated Brunson's release in October of 2018.
NBA player Enes Kanter, who was born in Turkey, as an outspoken critic of Erdogan, blasted Omar for being the only Democrat to vote against sanctions.
So we know this.
I don't want to rehash the videos.
I did this video yesterday.
Let me just end by saying, I wanted to talk about this, because I think it is unfair to make the story and frame this about, she took money from an Erdogan ally.
Don't care.
Literally don't.
She has ideas.
She has bad ones.
We can talk about her, and we don't need to make it seem like she's carrying water for anybody.
That's what they try and do.
That's what they try and do to me.
They try and do it to conservatives, their grifters, whatever.
No, no, no, no, no.
You want to accuse me, Zuby, Ruben, whoever, of having bad ideas?
You talk about our ideas.
But when you try to hide motives or quid pro quo, I'm not going to play that.
Because you do nothing to discredit the ideas.
It's an ad hominem.
Okay?
Erdogan gets this, I'm sorry, Ilhan Omar gets support from these people because she's an awful person who agrees with them.
That's it.
They donate to her campaign, not because she has to do anything, but because they know she will do it anyway.
And they want her to win.
That's how it works.
People don't get hired by companies because the company is bribing them to do something.
People get hired because they do it already.
These media companies aren't forcing people to make social justice content.
They're hiring social justice activists who then go and make the content.
