Project Veritas "Epstein Cover Up" Is Being COVERED UP By Media, They REFUSE To Admit The Scandal
Project Veritas "Epstein Cover Up" Is Being COVERED UP By Media, They REFUSE To Admit The Scandal. Following a groundbreaking story from Project Veritas and James O'Keefe many news outlets ran the story. The Washington Post called the new Veritas leak "airtight."But while many outlets in the mainstream did cover it cable TV news was unaccountably absent.These networks for the most part had little to no coverage at all about the expose on Epstein. ABC News explicitly said they would not discuss the controversy.Instead what we can expect moving forward is more lies and smears from fake news about James O'Keefe.This story proves just why Project Veritas gets smeared so often. The media does not want to be held accountable and they certainly don't want to challenge the establishment. They are part of the establishment.It doesn't matter if you're far left, progressive, republican, conservative. From Bernie Sanders Supporters to Trump supporters, everyone recognizes the seriousness and importance of the latest Veritas leak. Yet for some reason mainstream media refused to cover the groundbreaking story.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yesterday morning, James O'Keefe and Project Veritas released a groundbreaking and viral story, quite possibly the biggest story of the year so far, that ABC News had an interview, had photographs, had corroborating witnesses.
They had the Jeffrey Epstein story three years ago.
The video shows a frustrated and candid moment where ABC News anchor Amy Roback talks about everything they had.
She even said, We had everything.
Now, ABC News issued a statement that, in my opinion, is wholly inadequate, for one.
They say, oh, we couldn't corroborate the details, we've never stopped investigating.
Well, the details have been corroborated now.
Why hasn't ABC News published that interview they've been sitting on for three-plus years?
It also doesn't address statements made by Amy Roback, where she says the official story about how Epstein's life ended was, she doesn't believe it.
I have to be careful about how I talk about this.
They addressed nothing.
They gave a generic statement.
And they didn't address the fact that Amy said we had everything.
And on Clinton as well.
Now, some people have brought up a very important point.
Three years ago, that was the election.
Perhaps bad news about Clinton could have hurt Hillary's chances.
Maybe that's what they were thinking.
I don't know.
But as we can see now, Fox News reports mainstream media largely ignores ABC Epstein scandal.
CNN scant coverage is lampooned.
Washington Post.
was forced to acknowledge.
I shouldn't say forced, but I have to, because they've disparaged James O'Keefe in the past, that they were surprised this video published by Veritas itself was newsworthy.
And they didn't expect it.
But also, it was airtight.
And many people started asking the question, why is it that it was Project Veritas of all organizations that had to release this footage?
Well, here's what you need to do.
You need to go on YouTube and look up old daily show footage with Jon Stewart as he discussed what James O'Keefe had been doing.
Jon Stewart did not smear or belittle James O'Keefe.
He made silly jokes, referring to him as the Ashton Kutcher of conservatives.
But when it came to the substance of James O'Keefe's exposés, Jon Stewart criticized ACORN and NPR.
It seemed like Jon was rather fair today.
James O'Keefe is smeared and lied about relentlessly to the point where he's actually won several lawsuits.
What we've learned, and what we're seeing now with this cover-up, and I've got a bunch of stories to show you, the media does not want to be held accountable.
Even if it comes to Epstein, they will fight tooth and nail to make sure that no one knows they get this wrong, but more importantly, that they are more interested in protecting powerful elites than speaking truth to power.
They had every opportunity to tell the story, and only when they were finally forced to, because Epstein was being arrested and was jailed, only when they were forced to did these stories come out.
But I ask you, ABC, first, we'll read the story, and Fox News brings up a lot of really interesting points.
The first question I have, before we challenge all the other outlets, why hasn't ABC News aired the interview By now, right?
Epstein's story, for the most part, kind of faded away for a while.
They could have published in August when NPR was asking about it.
They certainly could have corroborated all of those details, and certainly after the man was no longer alive, they had much less to worry about.
They could have easily told this story.
More importantly, when it comes to news, if you have a story that big, you can always enter with a disclaimer that either this is not, you know, confirmed by multiple sources, or That the estate has denied it, or that lawyers have told us the story is not true.
However, according to witnesses, here's what they've claimed.
There are ways to report a story of this magnitude.
They did not do it, and they didn't even do it yet.
That says to me, the media wanted to cover this up.
They could have told the story we all know now.
But now what we're seeing, in my opinion, is the media, they want to cover up what is being called a cover up itself.
As exemplified by all of these outlets refusing to talk about it.
Let's take a look at what Fox News has to say.
And this is mind-blowing to me that I'm going to Fox News for this story because no one else is doing it.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's multiple ways you can give, but the most important thing you can do is share this video.
As I stated yesterday, man, this story is being swept under the rug, and don't take my word for it.
I've got some actual journalists challenging the fact that ABC News refuses to acknowledge this.
There is widespread, left and right, that this story is being swept under the rug.
That means there's great risk to talking about it.
If you think I'm doing a good job, and you think this story is important, please consider sharing the video.
Before we get into a credible journalist statement challenging... I'm not saying that Fox News is not credible.
I'm saying we've got a journalist who's well-respected and works for Huffington Post who's challenging this.
And even the Washington Post has written about it.
Yet there are still organizations refusing to acknowledge that they are carrying water, they are covering up for powerful elites.
Let's read this story.
Fox News reports.
Mainstream media outlets have largely ignored the Project Veritas bombshell that ABC News killed a story that would have exposed the now-deceased Jeffrey Epstein three years ago, with some having themselves been recently embarrassed by Project Veritas, and others still smarting from their own alleged MeToo cover-ups.
Think about it.
How they tried to cover up Lauer.
How they tried to cover up Weinstein.
The other issue, the more important issue is, even though the Washington Post has had their spat with Veritas, they wrote about it, acknowledging it was airtight, newsworthy.
Credit where credit is due.
I respect that.
Fox News found no coverage on CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, or NBC News from noon through midnight Eastern on Tuesday while the story was lighting up social media.
During that same time, Fox News covered the scandal on five different programs, including its entire primetime lineup.
Even the Daily Beast, which is a left-leaning, you know, is very pro-Clinton.
That's my understanding.
Even they covered it.
And what was mind-blowing to me is that they covered it and did not smear Veritas.
Typically, what they'll do when a Veritas story comes out is they'll accuse James of all of the worst things in the book, extreme smears, lies, misrepresentations.
In this instance, they just said a right-wing group.
That's it.
I think it's fair to criticize Veritas for being biased, but that's fine.
I think everybody has a bias, and I think it's fair to criticize people when they do.
But to act like he's not, that Veritas did not actually expose corruption when they published these videos, it's absurd.
They try and claim that Veritas deceptively edits or lies, but they're doing basically what many other news organizations do.
In fact, there's another prominent UK organization that did basically the same thing recently.
Now, I could be getting the details wrong, but I believe that had something to do with opposing Brexit.
It made Brexit look bad.
So all of a sudden, this undercover secret filming is okay.
But not when James O'Keefe does it.
But let's be real.
What we're seeing now, nobody covering the story, it says to me, look, James O'Keefe uncovered two big stories.
The first is about Epstein.
We get it.
But more importantly, now with this cover-up and the way they've smeared James O'Keefe, we're learning these media companies will not tell the truth.
They're lying.
We heard what she said in a private moment.
Amy Roback said, we had everything.
And when caught, they say, Oh, um, we couldn't corroborate the details.
That's strange.
I'm pretty sure she said we had everything.
I'm pretty sure she said we had photographs.
Come on.
They didn't have photographs of Kavanaugh.
We had corroborating witnesses.
There were no corroborating witnesses in the Kavanaugh case.
In fact, the witnesses denied knowledge of it.
So ABC News, no.
What we're seeing here is exactly why they smear Project Veritas.
Is James O'Keefe and Veritas perfect?
No, of course not!
Is every story they do the biggest bombshell in the world?
No, of course not!
Sometimes they're quite small.
But they smear James, and I will tell you, watching the work he's done, the fact that he's publishing this and calling it the media, this is why they don't like him.
They don't want to talk about it.
CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC News, they don't want to talk about it.
They don't want to admit they do wrong.
Because when you talk about this cover-up, it brings up the other ones.
Matt Lauer.
It brings up Weinstein.
And at least I can give credits to Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes for calling out their own network over the Ronan Farrow issue.
Look, we can complain about the bad opinions.
of these personalities, but that was very principled of them to challenge their own
network and that is respectable.
Tucker Carlson says stuff about this too.
He's not going to rag on Rachel Maddow for her opinion, so she has bad opinions.
But when you, you know, so in this instance, you have news organizations refusing to cover
the story.
I'm not going to speak as to why now MSNBC's personalities did not cover the story, but
I have to say this, the video got, I think 3.5 million views on Twitter within 12 hours.
It got 2 million views, roughly, within 12 hours.
It was possibly one of the fastest viral videos in history.
I don't know for sure, but I know that getting 7 or 8 million views in 12 hours is massive.
Here's the important takeaway, though.
Fox News, they make their point.
Check this out.
James O'Keefe says, well Brian Stelter of CNN, you were forced to cover it.
But you didn't have the balls to mention Project Veritas by name.
You labeled us an activist group. FYI, there are more network insiders.
One day you will be face to face. Their heads will be held high, yours in shame.
And here's what Brian Stelter said. He said, in a video obtained, Vox's Jane Kostin reports,
in a video obtained by a right wing pro-Trump activist group, ABC's Amy Roback complains
to a producer off air that she had convinced one of Epstein's victims,
Virginia Roberts, to speak on the record about the allegations against Epstein.
In another newsletter, they mentioned that it was CNN saying, it was mostly the right-wing commentators that were upset.
Apparently, Brian and his crew don't know how to do journalism.
One of the points I made earlier today was that I took the YouTube video from James O'Keefe and I searched for it on Reddit.
And you know what I found?
I found the Bernie Sanders subreddit, the Donald Trump subreddit, the Libertarian subreddit.
It is not just on the right.
The left doesn't like the establishment.
And the joke going around is that it's not even a joke, it's serious.
Nobody believes the official story about what they're claiming that happened to Epstein.
And the fact that ABC News spiked this story, so did several others like I cover on yesterday's video.
Nobody believes it, left or right, to claim it as a right-wing talking point.
No, it's because you ignored it.
Because the media is biased towards the left and they don't want to accept responsibility for protecting the elites.
Could it be?
As simple as a story that implicated Clinton would hurt her election chances, so three years ago ABC News said we're not going to cover it.
I don't know why they spiked the story, but I think it's fair to say that their reason is absolutely false.
That they can run footage from Kentucky.
Nobody fact-checked that?
That was up to your standards?
It was from a show in Kentucky, they claimed it was Middle East, and it wasn't.
I gotta be careful how I talk about this because this is the kind of issue that gets these videos, you know, shut down on YouTube.
But check this out.
As I mentioned earlier, a respected journalist, a HuffPost contributor, New York magazine, Yashir Ali is widely respected, left and right, because he's a good dude.
He tells it like it is, and once again, here is Yashir Ali telling it like it is.
You can tell that he's a big fan of elephants.
I don't blame him.
He makes good points, but I digress.
He said, ABC News dealt with a firestorm after Project Veritas published the video of A. Robach talking about her Epstein story in a hot mic moment.
But ABC News tells me they don't plan to cover the controversy and will also not be addressing it on air.
First, I will point out that Jasher was able to mention Project Veritas without adding a caveat or a smear, without saying it's a right-wing activist group.
No, he just said Project Veritas.
It's that simple.
And that's why people respect Jasher, among other reasons.
He says, too, it's rather extraordinary that the news division of one of the three broadcast networks is not going to address a major controversy involving a huge story by either having someone read a statement on-air, but more importantly, with having one of its reporters cover it as a story.
Not giving NBC News any credit for this, because it's what they should have done, but they covered the allegations in Ronan Farrow's book via digital stories and in on-air segments.
It appears that ABC News is trying to sweep this controversy under the rug by refusing to address this matter on air and by declining to cover it as a news story.
They have not denied the legitimacy of the video.
That is one of the most important points.
They have not denied the legitimacy of the video.
In fact, Amy Roback said it was a personal moment of frustration.
I have a question for you.
They said, we didn't air the story because we didn't have the details.
Here's my question.
In the end of that video, Amy Robeck says... She essentially... I gotta be careful here.
I do not want to get this video shot down.
She essentially says, do I believe the official report of what happened to Epstein?
She says, no.
And then when asked about the more conspiratorial view, she says, do I believe it?
A hundred percent.
I knew.
She goes, the moment they came out, I knew.
There's a meme going around, and I can't say, I can't say it, because of the nature of this video, I do not want to give an excuse to YouTube to strike this video down.
And it's, you know, I gotta stress this point.
I've had people message me saying, Tim, you can't self-censor this way.
I just had a video, completely blocked.
So how about that?
No video, or I do my best to share as much information as I can.
I can't tell you what the right thing to do is, I can understand the frustration, but I want to make sure we all know what these companies are doing.
Why won't they cover it?
CNN, MSNBC, CBS, why not?
Well, I got a couple more points to make.
You are to stand down.
Ronan Farrow's producer on how NBC killed its Weinstein story.
Farrow also mentioned that Hillary Clinton's people tried to stop him or were concerned.
I gotta be careful about how I describe this.
And it was described by BuzzFeed as power protecting power.
I believe that was a quote.
Yeah.
They tried to protect the powerful elites even though they do wrong.
It's crazy, isn't it?
I'll make a few more points here.
Mike Cernovich apologized to Eric Wempel of the Washington Post, and I felt like this was very important to include because it shows you how someone like Cernovich, for all his faults, smeared relentlessly in the media, almost immediately apologizes and retracts his claim that the Washington Post did not cover the story.
On Project Veritas, he says I would like to officially issue an apology and retraction, as Eric Wempel did indeed report about Epstein cover-up.
I didn't see his story.
The error is mine alone.
This is the difference between mainstream media, corporate media, and independent personalities.
Mike was wrong.
He got called out.
He had to apologize immediately.
You can hate Mike.
You can criticize him all you want.
I'm not here to talk about his character, for the most part.
Like, you know, his politics.
I'm here to talk about the fact that he immediately apologized.
What about ABC News?
What did they do?
They deflected, even though we have video of Amy Roback saying all these things.
They deflect from it.
And now, as we're seeing from Yasher, it seems like their goal is to sweep this under the rug.
You want to know what's the craziest thing to me about all this?
That I had to go to Fox News, of all places, to get the story.
Now, obviously, I follow Project Veritas.
So, when I saw the tweets going out, they were going to launch this story, I was immediately interested.
Even the Washington Post story, as much as they did give credit to Veritas over the Epstein story, they claimed his CNN story was, I'm trying to remember it.
That's the quote they said.
Something like, did it have an impact?
I'm trying to remember.
As if it didn't.
And that's crazy to me.
The Veritas video on CNN showed the president of the company intervening, but more importantly, believing that fact-based news from Politico was a conspiracy theory.
That informs their whole network.
You can see how the bias in media operates, but at least Wemple did do the story and praised Veritas, saying, this one is airtight.
The Daily Beast as well.
Many outlets did cover this.
But why is it only Fox News when it comes to the major cable channels?
Why is it only Fox News?
Well, I've got a story I want to share with you that I think is particularly humorous.
I've shared it several times because it's quite possibly the greatest example of the problems we're facing right now in media.
Reuters reported, October 24th.
Watch Fox News?
You likely think the U.S.
economy is great.
MSNBC viewers?
Not so much.
Interesting.
How could somebody who watches Fox News think the economy is good, but someone who watches MSNBC think it's not good?
Well, I did a simple Google search.
I asked the question, is the economy good?
Well, here's the Washington Post.
The economy is in good shape, but two big clouds hang over it.
Here are the economic issues that will define the year.
They say the economy is perhaps the president's best hope.
The Trump campaign clearly thinks it has a good economic yada yada.
We've seen from forecast models for Trump, the economy is good.
Trump says the economy is greatest.
Powell says it's in a good place.
Both are wrong.
So maybe a little negative there.
Trump's economy is working for minorities.
The Atlantic claims the tax cuts didn't work.
Why more air traffic is good for our city's economy has nothing to do with anything.
I did a Google search because I didn't want to pull up one source and just claim everyone thinks everything is great.
For the most part, even the BBC says the economy, it's good.
Not the greatest, it's good.
So why then would MSNBC viewers think the economy was bad?
Well, we can now see exactly how this plays out.
Because if you watch Fox News, you know about the cover-up.
You know about ABC News spiking the story.
I don't want to necessarily say cover-up, you know, because that implies so much, so I'll make sure I make that caveat now, even though it doesn't matter because I understand how The media likes to cut things out of context.
But if you watch Fox News, you would be correct in assuming the economy is good.
Is it the greatest?
No, I don't know.
Some people say it's not so great, some people say it's great, but most forecast models, most news, it's good.
Okay, so Fox News is more in line with the average view of what's going on.
Moody's Analytics, the economy is good.
You're gonna know the truth if you watch Fox News.
If you watch MSNBC, you probably didn't hear about this.
You did not hear that ABC News tried to cover this up.
You also don't know the economy is good or you think it's bad.
That's fake news.
You're not getting the truth.
I'm not going to pretend like Fox News isn't a biased outlet.
Fox News certainly has their opinion hosts.
Their daytime news coverage tends to be fine.
But take a look at CNN.
CNN, exposed by Veritas, actually believed that fact-based reporting from Politico was a conspiracy theory.
If you watch these networks, you have a skewed view of reality.
And so herein lies the big problem.
Why is the left entrenched in fake news?
Because the media is in it for the money, they're in it for the political power, and they don't care about anything else.
While Fox News also has played games in the past with their opinion people, look, I don't care what your bias is, all of these networks play similar games where it's like during the Obama years they'll complain about Obama, during the Trump years they'll defend Trump.
It's a double standard across the board.
But you know what?
I'm not going to complain about the past.
I want to talk to you about what's happening today.
I can criticize Fox for the things they've done in the past.
Bill O'Reilly saying, sun goes up, sun goes down, you can't explain it, or whatever it is he said.
You can.
But Fox News today is going to share with you information that is relevant and true.
And ABC News will cover up the story for years.
CNN, MSNBC, etc.
will barely touch it if they would at all.
CNN will reference Vox's reporting on it, not the actual story from Veritas.
So let me make one thing clear and wrap this up.
The media wants to cover up the cover-up.
For whatever reason.
But I think it's simple.
They don't want to be held accountable.
They want to keep making money.
They want to push their narrative and worldview.
And they don't want you to challenge those in power.
They are establishment players.
And they defend the establishment.
And now here's the important part.
Think about every smear you've heard about Project Veritas.
And go prove it.
If you think Project Veritas is lying, then I want you to go and search for evidence they have.
The problem is, when Veritas challenges these big institutions, even going back ten years or so, it was in the nine years, to the Jon Stewart Daily Show videos, there's an interview with O'Keefe where they mention, actually no, I believe this may have been ABC, or it may have actually been ABC, they say that Veritas views the media as a liberal establishment.
Yep.
So what do you think happens then when O'Keefe challenges them?
But I'll leave you with one more important point.
If James O'Keefe is exposing CNN and Facebook and Google, and you want to claim these institutions are not biased, how could you then assert that James O'Keefe is a conservative for targeting these institutions?
You see the logic here?
I understand there's a lot of reasons why you might call him a conservative, but just because he's challenging powerful institutions doesn't make him a conservative, does it?
Unless you're conceding that he's targeting these organizations because they're left-leaning.
Now you can say he thinks they're left-leaning, but come on.
He goes after big powerful institutions like Google, Facebook, CNN, ABC News, and then they smear him or ignore the story outright, CNN barely wanting to cover it.
Yes, because these organizations are biased towards the left, and whether on purpose or just through their perspective and the people they are, they help propel a left-wing narrative.
Well, listen, at the end of the day, left and right are concerned about the Epstein story.
But the establishment left, at least that's where they're at right now, because Trump wiped out the establishment Republicans, The establishment left is holding on for dear life.
And they will do everything to make sure this story doesn't make it.
So I'll leave it there.
The media covering up the cover-up.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
And I will see you all there.
Elizabeth Warren was shocked, outraged, that Facebook would not be fact-checking political ads.
The left, in a collective screech, said, Mark Zuckerberg, what are you doing?
You're going to take the money and run.
You're going to let Donald Trump lie.
Well, being the bigger man, Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, announced, we're just going to get rid of political ads altogether.
And then we saw the collective cheering from the left and people like Elizabeth Warren saying, Twitter is going to do the right thing, showing you who's boss, Facebook, because they got a moral compass.
Well, that's what they felt in the first place, and then they realized what it really meant.
Elizabeth Warren slams Twitter for a policy that bans ads from groups fighting climate change.
Uh-oh!
Perhaps they... How many times does it have to happen?
And they don't realize, when you police speech, they police your speech.
They actually thought.
They think to themselves, we're right.
The facts are on our side.
Therefore, if we ban, you know, hate speech and lies, only we will get to speak because the other, they're the villains, right?
Sorry.
Banning political speech, and ads I should say, banning political ads, it means everybody.
It means you.
So this is really funny because I think I talked about this before.
The rules as they were proposed would make it so that you can't run an ad about climate change, about healthcare, Planned Parenthood for instance.
We don't know what these solidified rules are going to look like.
I can say one thing though.
Elizabeth Warren is not only a hypocrite, being angry now that her side would be censored, but she's also extremely ignorant.
First of all, did you not see this coming?
Man, it's mind-blowing to me that I can say this over and over again.
First they come for, then they come for.
You know that poem, right?
First they're gonna ban conservatives for their naughty words, and then they're going to start getting rid of you because you challenged the establishment.
Jack Dorsey's new rules on banning political ads is a disaster.
It protects the establishment, it protects the incumbent.
If you are already in office, you have an opportunity to hold press conferences, and you can leverage the power of office to get your name out.
What if you're challenging the incumbent and no one knows who you are?
You need these platforms to reach people.
Banning political ads protects the establishment.
Do you know who else is in the establishment?
Fossil fuel companies.
Hey, was that so hard to understand?
Guess what?
If you want people to campaign for a political cause, like changing the laws that would impact fossil fuel companies or regulation, those are political ads!
You know what's not a political ad?
An ad for gas!
If ExxonMobil wants to buy an advertisement and say, go to your local Exxon station for premium gasoline to drive your car, not political.
Not at all.
So these companies can run ads that aren't political, that are consumer standard marketing, and your political activism, that you wanted banned, is out.
Now I will add, Elizabeth Warren, it's fake news.
This is not actually what's going to be happening.
It's complicated.
But I will say Jack Dorsey's plan makes no sense.
It's not just his plan.
I think Jack's an alright dude.
I'm not trying to be mean to him.
I did that thing with Rogan.
Let me just put a disclaimer.
When I met Jack Dorsey, he was a very nice guy.
I think he's genuinely interested in doing the right thing.
I don't think he's evil.
But I think there's just so much they don't get.
You cannot ban political ads.
It is impossible.
And Warren should have realized this will be substantially worse for you.
Worse for you.
Because, think about it.
Planned Parenthood ad?
Can you do an ad for that?
That's political.
Government funding?
All of that's political.
So it will obviously affect conservatives as well.
But here's the thing.
Who controls Twitter like a puppet master, dangling his little strings down?
Donald Trump!
Donald Trump could tweet anything he wants about anything and it's going to go viral.
The news is going to carry it.
They're obsessed.
But now you can't.
Now your activists can't.
And you cheered for this!
Okay.
We get it.
Here's the story.
Here's what she tweeted.
Twitter's new ad policy will allow fossil fuel companies to buy ads defending themselves
and spreading misleading info, but won't allow organizations fighting the climate crisis
to buy ads holding these companies accountable.
We need accountability.
It turns out, if you're a giant corporation with millions to spend misleading people on
your record of accelerating the climate crisis, that's exactly what you can and probably will
Oh no!
Oh no!
You cheered for this, and now, oops, it backfired.
I'm tired of being right about this, you know?
They call me a conservative because I said, hey, you realize this is gonna backfire really bad.
Because if Exxon wants to take out an ad saying, we're ExxonMobil and we are going to be spending money, you know, investing in green technology or whatever.
Yep.
Yeah, they can do that.
And then if you want to make an ad saying climate change is a serious problem and we must elect or vote Green New Deal, politics can't do that.
No, but I will say, though, Jack Dorsey has come out and said, that's not exactly what's happening.
The rules aren't, you know, officially in place yet.
Calm down.
And we're taking this feedback into play.
But what's the alternative?
You're going to flip the script, Jack?
Are you going to make it so that fossil fuel companies can't buy ads, but climate change activists can?
You cannot police advertisements like this.
It doesn't work.
So let's do this.
Elizabeth Warren was responding to this tweet.
Emily Atkin from New Republic says, under Twitter's new ad rules, environmental groups can't pay to spread pro-climate change policy messages.
But Exxon can pay to spread tweets claiming a widespread political conspiracy against it and touting its pro-climate credentials.
The problem here is, I think they're looking at existing ads.
Okay, the political ad ban on Twitter has not started yet, and the rules have not been finalized.
I could be wrong, but it seems.
What they've done is they've found existing ads and said, but I thought advertisements were banned.
Not yet.
So the ads are running now, they won't run later.
Calm down.
But of course, now they're starting to freak out realizing, oh no!
They announced they're gonna ban our political message?
Aw, too bad.
Did you not see this coming?
Apparently not.
Here's what one person tweeted.
In response to Elizabeth Warren, this guy Adam Mosseri, I don't know who he is, he said, this is one of the key issues many miss about banning political ads on any platform.
You can't ban these ads without significantly inhibiting the ability of activists, labor groups, and organizers to make their cases too.
Jack responded, that's not exactly right, Adam.
We gave ourselves until the 15th to make sure we are addressing concerns like this thoughtfully more before then.
I can respect that, but what's the alternative?
Jack, are you proposing that you will allow activists, labor groups, and organizers to post ads, but not those, you know, not companies?
Like, how will this work, right?
It's impossible.
It's impossible!
Stop!
Stop trying to police speech, okay?
Because I'll tell you what's going to happen.
You get one climate change activist and Jack says, okay, fine.
We're going to allow climate change activists to buy ads.
Okay.
What about climate change activists who are on the inverse of that?
Are you going to allow them to counter back?
Oh, congratulations!
You've created a PAC system for Twitter advertisements.
Now the politicians themselves can't buy the ads if they talk about the politician.
unidentified
But then anybody can just, like, I'll tell you what.
What if you made an ad that said, support the Green New Deal?
Is that political?
I'd say yes.
It's not telling you to vote for anybody.
Okay, you can't talk about the Green New Deal.
Can I say, we need to come together as a community to support a plan where we can all agree on pooling our resources for green investment technology?
Like, where's the line?
Where's the line?
I know you might say, I can't define it, but I know what it is when I see it.
You're not going to be able to pull it off, because I'll tell you what, If Jack comes out and says, Warren, you're incorrect.
That's not really how it works.
We're going to make sure activists have their say.
Well, then you're not banning political ads at all because the left and the right have their political activists.
So what are you really doing?
I'll tell you what they're doing.
They made a preemptive PR announcement to set themselves apart from Facebook because Mark Zuckerberg Shockingly, and I hate, I don't want to defend the guy, but you know, credit where it's due, said they wouldn't police political ads.
In response to that, the left was furious.
And this all stems, so let me walk you back and talk about the bigger problem here.
It's that political advertisements are arguably true or false, depending on your perspective.
It's really opinion-based.
You can't really fact check a lot of these things to an extreme degree.
It's hard to know for sure, especially when you have media companies with bias.
So this all comes down to this ad that Donald Trump took out, I think it was Trump, about Joe Biden being corrupt.
We have more and more evidence coming out that suggests that may actually be the case.
I don't want to get into all the details, but suffice to say, one of the principal arguments from the left About Joe Biden not being corrupt, is that the reason he wanted the prosecutor removed, the quid pro quo, where Joe Biden said, if you want a billion dollars, fire this guy, was because the prosecutor was not investigating corruption.
But as it turns out, after this prosecutor was fired, no charges were ever brought against the owner of Burisma.
So what's the argument then?
Joe Biden didn't do anything.
Was the guy innocent?
Did he get a prosecutor fired because the guy turned out to be innocent?
It makes no sense.
Anyway, I digress.
It's a complicated story.
I'd have to walk through a ton of evidence and stuff, which I'm researching.
But anyway, I'll put it this way.
The ad was bought, and the left said, Trump's lying.
Biden is not corrupt.
That's a conspiracy theory.
And Facebook was put in this difficult position where they're like, I understand you like Biden, and you think this is a lie, but we're not going to go and fact check this.
Trump's allowed to have his opinion and make his case.
So then somebody else, some other Democratic group, bought ads on Facebook where they claimed Republicans were supporting the Green New Deal, and Facebook took it down.
Hypocrisy, they said.
See, you're banning us?
No.
One's objectively and obviously and absurdly false.
We know Republicans aren't supporting Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal.
But whether or not Joe Biden is corrupt is actually debated in public.
So Mark Zuckerberg's between a rock and a hard place.
And his response?
You buy a political ad, we're not getting anywhere near it.
I think what Twitter wanted to do was, let's capitalize on this, and set ourselves apart by saying, you know what, we're gonna ban all political ads.
And they really didn't think about it.
Well now, once again, you know what's really funny about this?
I understand that, you know, Trump did say something about it, and Trump supporters were angry.
It was just great, great, all of this is great news for Trump, okay?
First of all, For those on the right who are the predominant supporters of free speech, open inquiry, etc.
And it's a fact.
I hate to say it, but it's true.
AllSides.com, which tracks bias and sort of maps out left versus right, shows that free speech is a conservative issue.
But you have the conservatives saying, yes, free speech, and the left consistently saying no to it.
Ban political ads, woohoo, we're happy, uh-oh, now we're getting banned.
Why does it always happen like this?
It's like, I think Glenn Greenwald said this, if there is any group of people who have shown a complete inability to learn more than any other group, it's liberals advocating for censorship.
Because they don't seem to realize you're first on the chopping block, man.
All you little Repscallian revolutionaries who upset the establishment.
Let me tell you something.
They hate Bernie Sanders.
They hate Bernie Sanders, and we all know it.
Okay, even now, with Bernie being as popular as he is, the media downplays him, they ignore him.
I get it.
I feel for you.
I was a big fan of Bernie for a while.
And I think the media coverage of him today is still abysmal.
Now, I'm critical of him for a lot of reasons, but we know the establishment hates him.
So guess what?
When you celebrate this censorship, you know who the first person getting deranked and getting their ads banned will be?
It's gonna be Bernie Sanders!
Okay, so what's gonna happen is, Elizabeth Warren, basically described by many of my friends as Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask, Okay.
She's going to have technicalities.
Her ads will get posted and Twitter's going to be like, well, the thing about Warren's ad, and then Bernie, his campaign's going to be like, okay, we'll do something similar.
Oh no, Bernie, that one was political.
You see the thing about your ad, this is why you can't have these rules.
This is why the constitution is very specific.
Well, I wish it was a bit more specific, but they say free speech.
Free press.
And this is why, even to this degree, I am not an absolutist.
I think incitement and things like that, I think there is a threshold where we say that's not expression.
But when it comes to you saying, I want to express myself even if I'm wrong, what are we going to do?
Are we going to employ the ministry of truth to determine who is or isn't allowed to make a political ad?
That makes literally no sense.
You can't do it.
You can't do it.
Because people lie, and there's different perspectives.
Someone might say it's objectively wrong to have the death penalty.
And someone else will say it's objectively wrong to not have the death penalty.
Who's right?
No, it really comes down to world perspectives.
And there are people who will tell you some things are true and they're not true.
What do you do about it?
Honestly, I don't know.
I read the news every day, I try to figure out where reality actually is, and in reality, it's actually complicated.
So, I do think it's funny when you have someone like, some intellectual dark web types have said, you know, we have to agree there is an objective reality.
Well, I'll tell you this.
There is an objective reality, but it fades away at a certain point.
So, an easy way to explain this is, if I told you I have a rock, I am going to throw the rock with all of my might at that standard window.
What would happen?
99% of people would probably agree, well, the window will probably break.
There's a chance the window doesn't break.
Maybe you miss.
Maybe the rock bounces off the glass because the glass was stronger.
Maybe the rock's too small, whatever.
But the point is, you throw a rock at a window, it's gonna break, right?
That's like a thing we get.
That's objective reality.
But when you get into politics, objective reality becomes extremely complicated and hard to figure out.
You have people saying that minimum wage will increase the standard of living and solve all the problems, while others say, no, it'll cost us jobs, it'll accelerate automation.
Who's right?
Well, the left is telling us that they're objectively correct, and the right is telling us they're objectively correct.
And I'm sitting in the middle being like, I see both of your points, But we really can't predict that many variables.
That's what it really comes down to.
Yes, the left, you're correct.
Certain elements of the minimum wage will work, particularly imports.
The cost of a computer made overseas will not change, and now more people who work at McDonald's will have better access to better technology that we import to this country, but local costs will go up and jobs might be lost.
That may result in those low-income workers now having zero dollars.
It's really, really difficult to figure out which one will be the one that actually happens.
So we're all trying to make predictions.
Hey, I think A plus B equals C and someone else says X plus Y equals Z, and then you buy an ad advocating both.
Now we have the two scenarios.
Facebook saying, we're going to stay out of this one.
You're trying to make grand predictions.
You're giving your opinion.
And Twitter saying, we're going to get rid of all of it!
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
Big media companies are going to push, for the most part, a left-wing message.
But Donald Trump is the one who commands Twitter.
So you're getting rid of your ability to challenge the incumbents in the establishment.
And, yeah, the establishment loves it.
Thank you, woke leftists, for supporting the establishment to the detriment of people like Bernie Sanders.
Elizabeth Warren, she's not paying attention.
I have no idea what she was thinking.
It's, you know, I'm gonna wrap it up here, I'll say this.
If there is any group of people, okay, I believe this is a Glenn Greenwald quote, I could be getting it wrong, but hey, it's a great quote, so if I'm attributing it incorrectly, you know, Glenn gets free credit.
If there's any group of people that has shown an inability to learn more than any other group, it's the left advocating for censorship.
Because it just keeps happening!
They ban you!
Sorry, you can't talk about climate change anymore.
Surprise, surprise!
Who would have thought?
When you said to massive, multinational, billion-dollar corporations, I want you to police speech, they would police yours!
Well, this is the world we have to look forward to because these people can't learn.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up at 1pm at youtube.com slash timcastnews, which is this channel, and I will see you all then.
Here's the scenario that everyone fears.
You're rushed to the hospital with some mortal wound.
And upon arriving, they determine that you are a bigot.
Maybe they saw something on social media, or for some reason, they've determined that you are racist, sexist, or making gestures of the sort, and so they deny you treatment.
I think that's what people are assuming when they hear the story.
The Breitbart headline says, National Health Service to deny treatment for racist or sexist
language, gestures, or behavior.
The story's kind of morphed a little bit, and I'm seeing people talk about it,
so I think it's good to tone things down, okay?
The reality is, I won't bear the lead on you guys, the National Health Service, a particular trust, it's a particular department, I suppose, is basically saying if you're abusive towards their staff, they will give you a warning, and if you continue to be abusive towards their staff, they will not treat you.
That, to me, sounds totally, totally reasonable, but there is nuance in the discussion.
As Breitbart brings up, there was an instance where a biological female requested a female practitioner and was presented with a trans woman who is not female, and then things can get kind of murky.
The fear then becomes, if someone comes in, you say, I would like a female doctor, and they give you a trans woman, and you say, I'm sorry, I would prefer a female, is that abuse?
The question is, where's the line?
I think it's a fair point to be made.
When I was reading the story, I kind of got Well, it's an interesting idea.
Imagine all hospitals being run by the government, and having these government rules, and you being denied service if there's no competition, if there's nowhere else to go.
Well, you're in trouble.
But let's read this, and let's talk about the nuance, because I gotta admit, this is a Breitbart story.
They're not wrong, but I think it's fair to point out, I've got the actual website pulled up, Man, let's be real.
You can't walk up to somebody at the hospital and start screaming profanities or insults or generally being racist and making gestures and things like that.
I'll tell you what, man.
If I was a doctor... Actually, no.
I mean, if I was a doctor, I'd probably treat you no matter what.
Like, if I saw somebody on the ground and they were bleeding out, I know first aid.
And so, if they started saying a bunch of really offensive things, I'd probably still try and help them.
But I think that's true for most doctors as well.
They might say, you know, you're being mean, but they reserve the right to warn you.
So if you have a minor complaint or injury or something, and you're, you know, your life's not in danger, and you start saying a bunch of rude and offensive and abusive things, man, I'll tell you to take, there's the door!
Don't let it hit your butt on the way out.
Let's read the story.
So this is from Breitbart, and they say, A National Health Service trust has announced that it will withdraw treatment from patients it deems to be racist or sexist.
Full stop.
No, not true.
Technically true.
It's if you're abusing the staff, they'll first give you a warning and it's like a yellow card and then a red card.
Now this could lead to exploitation and it could lead to, you know, it could be a potential slippery slope.
But we'll read this and then I'll show you what they actually say.
The North Bristol NHS Trust announced that patients will be subject to a sports-style disciplinary yellow card, and then final red card, in which treatment would be withdrawn as soon as is safe, on its official website.
The policy would cover not just threatening and offensive language, but also racist and sexist language, gestures or behaviour.
More generally, as well as malicious allegations.
A rather troubling caveat, given the NHS has in the past been entangled in large-scale malpractice scandals, which hospitals and staff have initially denied.
They say, quote, We have staff from many different backgrounds from all over the world, and we pride ourselves on our commitment to equality, which is a fundamental value of the NHS, commented Andrea Young, Chief Executive for North Bristol NHS Trust.
We're sending a strong signal that any racism or discrimination is completely unacceptable.
We want staff to challenge and report it, and we want everyone to know that it will have consequences.
How low the bar for deeming behavior discriminatory and sufficiently offensive to withdraw treatment is not spelled out in explicit terms.
But I don't think that necessarily means we need to be alarmist about it.
I will also add, it's in the UK, we have a private system and we also have a constitution.
So I'm not sure If we did have government, if we were using a national health service, pretty sure you could say racist things and they couldn't do anything about it because we have the First Amendment.
There's a line though, right?
So we have free speech.
If you go out into the street and start yelling offensive things, the cops probably won't do anything.
But if you start yelling them directly at a person over and over again and they tell you to stop and you don't, you might get disorderly conduct.
You might actually get assault, depending on the area you're in.
So yes, if you go to somebody and start yelling something like, the moon is made of cheese, it's an innocuous statement.
But if you're yelling it at someone and you won't stop and you won't leave them alone, the cops will tell you to leave, otherwise you can get charged with disorderly conduct.
So think about a hospital in the US.
This is why, you know, I'll put it this way.
The UK is lost.
I'm being hyperbolic here, but man, after the Dankula stuff, it's like, I don't know how Ricky Gervais exists.
He's made some very offensive jokes recently.
And now, the bigger concern here is, how snowflakey will these doctors be?
So actually, let me read, we'll go through the rules.
I want to walk this back a little bit, because they do say it's about abuse.
But I do think it's fair to point out how snowflakey the UK is, and they actually arrested a dude because he made a silly YouTube video, okay?
So take that into consideration when you read this, and the context then becomes a little more worrying.
But again, I'm trying to be a little tepid here.
They say, in late 2017, an NHS patient who requested a female nurse to carry out a cervical smear complained when the hospital sent a person with an obviously male appearance.
Clothes, cropped hair, a male facial appearance and voice, large number of tattoos and facial stubble who insisted, my gender is not male, I'm a transsexual.
It is not clear whether the patient could have fallen foul of the British policy had it been in place and the nurse had chosen to take offense.
And nor is it clear how far the trust's assurance is.
I really don't... I want to be reasonable and say...
I don't think.
Well, actually, that was a complicated story, and I think it actually did get kind of hectic.
So I'll stop right there.
We'll just keep reading.
They say, it's not clear how far the trust's assurance is that we'll only withdraw treatment once clinically safe extend, and if patients could, for example, be denied diagnostic procedures or so-called routine operations such as hip replacements, for which many patients have to wait eight months or more.
So they say they don't know, nor is it clear how far the trust assurances will withdraw treatment and if patients could, for example, be denied diagnostic procedures.
To what extent is safety is the question?
I'll make sure it's clear here.
One of the big challenges with the modern social justice push is that they're not just changing the definition of racism or, like, white privilege, they're changing the definition of safety.
They're calling words violence.
So if you say something that someone gets offended by and you don't realize it, could they then be like, that's a warning, don't talk again?
And then are you forced to just zip it and do nothing and hope they treat you?
Or you might get some salty social justice authoritarian who tells you, I have the power, do as I say or else.
British state authorities have previously proved somewhat overzealous in their enforcement of political correctness, with foster parents caring for three, quote, not-indigenous white British children, having them taken away by Labour-run Rotherham Borough Council in 2012 because they were members of UKIP.
Whoa!
Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services Joyce Thacker said she was concerned that UKIP was opposed to mass migration and the active promotion of multiculturalism, meaning UKIP members could not meet the British children's cultural and ethnic needs.
That's ridiculous.
Another NHS trust for the area, the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, has previously been criticized for ordering the removal of the British flag from security staff stab vests after someone complained the country's national banner was offensive.
And therein lies the big problem.
To what degree will they take action if what they're saying is offensive?
So here we have it.
ntb.nhs.uk.
North Bristol NHS Trust.
They say North Bristol hands red card to racism.
North Bristol NHS Trust has today launched a red card to racism campaign to protect all staff from any discrimination.
Following a national trend, staff have reported that incidents of racism on wards have increased over the past year, so the hospital will be enforcing its zero tolerance policy against abusive behavior.
Now here's what I want to say, right?
I think it's fair, I think it's fair, to say, well hold on, hold on, they're talking about if you're abusing the staff.
And I gotta be honest, if you're, I can understand if you're having like a psychotic break or some kind of like panic attack and you're dying and you start saying a bunch of crazy things.
I think most doctors would still treat you.
But if we're talking about people who are coming for routine checkups or non-life-threatening procedures, and they decide to start spewing racism at a staff member, I tell you what, man, like I said earlier, I'll walk- if I was- if- look, if you come to my place of business and disrespect me in any way, Get out!
I'm not gonna provide you with service.
I'm here to do a job.
We don't got to be friends, but we do have to cooperate, right?
I need you to show me your arm so I can reset the bone because your arm is broken.
You want to start spewing racist, sexist, whatever?
Dude, respect.
Be respectful, okay?
You got people here trying to help you.
But the issue then becomes where I actually am more concerned is what defines abuse.
The bigger problem I think the context should have been included in these articles from these right-wing sites.
Look, man, on the surface, this is fine.
Like, seriously, you can't go into an American hospital and start shouting racist things at somebody.
They'll kick you out!
The problem here is how delicate and dainty the UK has become, and that's what, to me, is more worrisome.
Are they going to call it abuse if you use a word that you didn't really like?
If you don't say Latinx, are they going to get mad, right?
And who determines what is or isn't offensive?
As we know, most of these, like, SJW types are white, privileged, college-educated young people who are offended on behalf of somebody else.
So what happens if... I'll play this game.
This is why I think this actually does warrant a little bit of concern.
Remember that woman who posted rap lyrics and she got arrested and charged in the UK?
I know we all know the story of Dankula, but a woman posted rap lyrics.
What if someone, say, is black and they use the n-word in a culturally normal way that we experience, like in music, like they say the word?
Could a doctor who's not black be offended and say that's racist and deny treatment to that person?
In the US, we got a First Amendment.
I don't think we have to worry about something like that for the most part.
But it is true that you can be arrested or kicked out for a lot of reasons.
The bigger concern, I'll wrap this up here to reiterate for the third time now.
Is the UK just too dainty?
Are they too delicate and afraid, and they're going to call literally anything abuse?
If you get a doctor you're uncomfortable with and say, I'd prefer a different doctor, they say, why is that?
Is it because he's white and you're not?
Or you're white and he's not?
Are they going to conflate things?
Are they going to find racism?
This is the challenge.
There are a lot of things that I think we want to implement.
However, the slippery slope exists.
And it's not so much about like a slippery slope, this idea that it gets faster and faster.
It's about you're walking in a direction where things could actually start getting really, really bad.
This is why I'm not surprised when Republicans say don't even give an inch.
And it's unfortunate.
You know, I want to see Here's what I see.
Hey, we could stand to do some left-wing type things, like a public option in our country, but the left is screeching for the most insane things possible, so the right over there is like, we're not budging, because we know if we give an inch, they'll take a mile.
And I can't blame them.
They're right.
You give an inch, they take a mile.
You know, we have social justice, and then all of a sudden it becomes this weird authoritarian insanity.
So now you see this, and I say, on the surface, well, yeah, don't be racist.
Like, look, man, it is not your right to say racist things in a hospital when someone's trying to treat you.
I know it's complicated.
I believe in the U.S.
it might actually be a right to an extent.
Like, you can insult a doctor, and actually, no, in the U.S.
I mean, so, Our hospitals are mostly private.
I think if we had a publicly funded hospital, you could probably say whatever you want, so long as you're not crossing that line into disorderly conduct.
But it really, really is complicated.
There's no, like, there's no perfect line where we can see.
Now, for the most part, I don't want to act like the left does and says, like, there's no line, it's nuanced.
No, no, no, we know where incitement lies.
We know where racism is an opinion versus a threat.
However, we do have disorderly conduct.
And that's typically what they'll take you out for.
So if you're in a hospital and you're disruptive in some capacity, it might be endangering the safety of others.
I don't think calling someone an insult would do that, but I think, listen, I'll tell you one thing, man.
You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to need a doctor and then insult that doctor.
Because I'll tell you what, if I was getting my car fixed and I started insulting and degrading the mechanic, don't be surprised if your car gets fixed and might have some problems.
Like, look, you're trusting something of yours to somebody else.
Give them the respect.
You don't got to be friends, but you can cooperate, right?
Now imagine you've got someone working on your actual body.
I would want to make sure that individual is as comfortable as possible.
I want to make sure that individual is going to do a really, really good job because, well, to be honest, I've grown quite fond of living.
And I'd like that to remain the case.
That being said, hey man, when I'm at the doctor, I'm like, yeah, you do, like, I trust you, you know what I mean?
Doctors are not always right.
Some doctors might get overly offensive, overly offended, and it's hard to know, right?
So I can understand the concern here, but I'll wrap this up.
On the surface, nothing to worry about.
But for those of us that have been paying attention to the news, I think you might actually have something to worry about, and this is the big, big problem.
How do you actually codify rules saying, don't abuse our staff?
That includes racism, with all these stories about how absurd it's become with police going to people's houses because of social media posts.
Like, the UK is in a really, really weird place, and I gotta say, man, You take the context of Dan Kill and others, combine it with this, and this does seem kind of bad.
But I don't know.
I don't live in the UK, and I'm grateful for it, because we have constitutional rights here, and they don't.
Too bad.
But we're heading in that direction.
Hopefully we don't go too far.
Let me know what you think.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all.
Oh, no, I'm sorry.
YouTube.com slash TimCast at 4 p.m., and I will see you there.
Facing several lawsuits for blocking people on Twitter, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has caved and unblocked at least one individual, Dov Hickand, who I believe, I may be pronouncing your name wrong, but this individual sued AOC for blocking him on Twitter.
Recently, due to a lawsuit against Trump, it was determined public officials cannot block people on Twitter.
Such a weird and specific ruling, but it basically functions like this.
When you tweet, you're creating a space for people to comment.
By blocking someone, you are preventing their free speech.
Because you're an elected official, you can't do it.
The ruling first hit Trump, but was then pointed to AOC.
She was supposed to testify yesterday, but because she gave in and unblocked Dove, she has now avoided that.
That's my understanding.
So here's what I want to do.
There's still a lot more to this story.
Joey Salads, for one, is still suing her, as well as some other individuals who she has blocked.
I don't know who is suing, but I know Joey is.
We'll see what happens, but she does have many more people blocked, and I believe this is a way for her to bypass the court case, which would have forced her to unblock everyone.
So while she's lost the battle, the war is still on.
The story from Axios.
AOC settles lawsuit and apologizes for blocking Critic on Twitter.
They report, AOC apologized for blocking the Twitter account of a former Brooklyn assemblyman as she agreed to settle a First Amendment lawsuit, the New York Times reports.
Why it matters?
Per the New York Daily News, Ocasio-Cortez was scheduled to testify in Brooklyn federal court Tuesday in the case brought by Dove Hickand in July, days after a federal appeals court made a landmark ruling that President Trump violated the Constitution in blocking critics on Twitter.
I would like to stress, I assure you, The Founding Fathers never expected this.
They have no idea that this is where we would end up.
I'm not saying they're right or wrong.
I'm just saying, could you imagine the Founding Fathers being like, freedom of speech shall not be infringed.
And then the government being and thinking, and this goes for electronic near speed of light communication services and microblogging platforms that you will not be about to block people.
Probably never saw this coming.
But this is why I think the First Amendment in the Constitution is so great.
Because we apply it as technology advances, and we make it make sense.
Now, I think this ruling is kind of weird for the most part, because Twitter is a private company.
But, you know what, far be it from me, we'll leave this one to the courts, because they've apparently upheld it over and over again.
Let's continue.
The ruling set a precedent that any elected official from a local mayor to the president who blocks a constituent on Twitter, no, no, no, no, not just a constituent, Could be found guilty of violating that constituent's First Amendment rights.
I believe that's actually wrong, but let's read it.
This is AOC's announcement.
I have reconsidered my decision to block Dove Hicken from my Twitter account.
Mr. Hicken has a First Amendment right to express his views and should not be blocked for them.
In retrospect, it was wrong and improper and does not reflect the values I cherish.
I sincerely apologize for blocking Mr. Hicken.
Now, I could be wrong, but I think this means an elected official can't block literally anybody.
Because what does it matter if you live in the area or not, if you're a constituent or not?
We're American citizens.
American citizens have a First Amendment right that people acting as an employee or representative of the government can't... Actually, let me stop.
Let me stop.
Put it this way.
Imagine if a local police force from a town, you know, from three towns over came to your house and shut down your protest.
They can't do that.
So this is interesting, because I'd imagine AOC can't block any of these people.
What he's saying, Hicken said on Twitter, the outcome was a great victory, not only for me, but for citizens and free speech everywhere.
They go on to say, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in August that she had blocked fewer than 20 Twitter accounts for ongoing harassment.
That's a lie.
She blocked people for tweeting at her that she was wrong.
Like, Joey Salads was not harassing Ocasio-Cortez.
Joey Salads, you don't gotta like the guy.
I always say this about people because I know invariably the left is gonna be like, Tim's defending Joey!
He was arguing with AOC, who is in Congress, and she blocked him for it.
That's not harassment, okay?
Politicians saying you're wrong is not harassing you.
Well, Joey's not a politician yet, but he's running to be one.
They say, YouTuber and New York 11 Republican congressional candidate Joey Saladino tweeted in July that he had also filed a suit against the freshman lawmaker after she blocked him.
He tweeted on Monday, Hopefully this means she must unblock me as well.
Unfortunately for me, I had several lawyers who had to drop out of my lawsuit due to the extreme controversial nature.
Now here's the thing.
She won't have to do anything.
I'm curious as to why the suit ended.
And I guess because Mr. Hickand doesn't have jurisdiction beyond his own account.
By settling with him, she actually protected her ability to block other people, sort of.
I'm actually really disgusted by this.
And this is one of the biggest criticisms I'll give to AOC.
Look, you can talk about policy all day and night.
I can argue that the Green New Deal makes no sense and all that stuff.
That's fine, though.
Okay?
We're talking about policy issues.
We're going to end up with disagreements.
This is an issue where AOC is defying a court precedent.
Period.
She is in violation of the Constitution by blocking Joey Salads and others.
She is violating the First Amendment rights as per the courts, and this is a cheap shot to get around what she would have to do, which would be unblocking everybody else.
So check this out.
Here's the tweet from Dove.
He says, Today was a great victory not only for me but for citizens and free speech everywhere.
However, the fight against antisemitism and its apologists continues and we need your help to achieve more such victories.
He goes on to ask people to donate.
In this, He expresses... I know it'd be better if I could play the whole thing, but it's YouTube.
He basically says that when AOC compared the border and the detention centers to World War II Germany, it was greatly offensive.
And it's an apology, essentially.
I guess that's what he's kind of implying.
I don't want to, you know, quote him.
But it's kind of a defense for, you know what, you can't compare what happened in World War II Germany to what's happening on the border.
It is just absolutely ridiculous to compare people willfully coming to the US, knowing this place exists, and having half the country complain about it, versus what Germany did, okay?
There's just no comparison, right?
So I completely agree with him, and I believe AOC was wrong for doing what she did, and that's why she blocked him, apparently.
But he does go on to say, I want to add that we're still waiting for AOC to do the right thing and unblock the others she's blocked, especially journalists, Liz Wheeler, Real Saavedra, and the Hairy Cherry, among others.
There can be no double standard.
Bravo.
I completely agree.
Don't care about left.
Don't care about right.
That's not the point.
Trump has to unblock people.
I heard that it's hard to know which source is going to be right.
I've heard Trump hasn't unblocked everybody.
I've heard he hasn't unblocked everybody.
But Trump needs to unblock everybody.
You want to take it up with the courts?
You do.
Okay?
But for the time being, the precedent is set.
Unblock people.
You're public officials, and you're accountable to the people.
And if someone wants to tell you you're dumb, they're allowed to.
It's what makes America great.
You know what I really, really love about this country?
Is that I can walk up to AOC or Trump, and I can give them the middle finger.
Technically.
You can't get in the face of somebody.
They have security details.
But I can tell them to go screw themselves.
There you go.
You can't arrest me.
America's great, isn't it?
Because there are countries where you can.
So, no.
I understand Twitter.
It's silly.
But you cannot block me.
I have a right to tell you whatever I want.
Granted, it's a little hyperbolic.
You can't incite.
We know the rules.
There are limits to expression.
But this is what AC is complaining about.
Because I'll tell you what.
Technically, based on her view of harassment, people actually do have a right.
So let's make one thing clear.
Legal harassment is very different from what she calls harassment.
If she's complaining that Joey Salads tweets at her, you know, let's do a hypothetical.
Let's say somebody tweets at AOC 24 times per day, just every hour, saying you're the stupidest person on the planet.
Guess what?
Too bad!
You're a politician, and Americans are allowed to tell you that to your face.
You can't stand the heat?
Get out of the kitchen.
That goes for Trump or anybody else.
I love this country.
I get to tell you to go screw it.
It's amazing, isn't it?
So when they play this game, it's particularly offensive to me.
Look.
This is a victory in one aspect.
But by not going to court, she's not testifying, and that would have been huge.
Because you would have had them say, why are you blocking these people when you know you can't?
So she is in violation of the Constitution.
I'll do one last quick shout-out, too, to a story that I thought was hilarious.
Check this one out.
The trouble with TikTok.
Journalists should not be promoting a platform with a documented history of political censorship.
Is this a joke?
You know, when I first saw this story from Politico, I actually thought it was kind of a joke because Facebook straight up said they're banning people based on their politics.
That's a fact.
We all kind of shrug for the most part because we know who they're targeting, but when it comes to expression, I believe we should be allowed to have expression.
So let's put it this way.
Tying this together.
What are you complaining about TikTok for?
I know they got a problem with censorship, but so does literally everybody else.
I get it though, they're Chinese.
Think about it this way.
Let's say there's a public forum created by Donald Trump, a physical space.
And everybody shows up, but then Trump says, no, not you, you have to leave.
And the courts say, Trump, you can't do that.
American citizens have a right to a public forum.
But then the groundskeeper, the people who own the property say, we'll kick you out, don't worry.
Don't worry, Trump, we got you and they kick you out.
That's acceptable?
That is absurd to me.
Okay?
So be it AOC or anyone else, Twitter should not have the right to shut you down.
If that's the argument they're making, then a private company superseding precedent and free speech rights?
But think about if Trump decided to only do every event on private space and then guaranteed that no one could ever come and engage in any way.
Now, I get it.
That idea actually is how it is.
Trump can go to a private building and not allow you in, and they will say it's a private building.
The issue is the protesters who show up to these places and protest demand their right to do it.
So you can't simultaneously try and go to Trump's private event and yell and then try and defend, you know, AOC or anybody else from blocking people on Twitter or demand that Twitter have access to this.
It's kind of a double standard.
But I guess The main difference comes from a small private event that happens for only an hour, and Twitter, which is literally like town square.
I guess it'd be more akin to if the only available space was controlled by a private entity, and that's when regulation comes in to break up the monopoly of it.
So I think, I think they're hypocrites.
And I think on, you know, where I'm looking at it, it's an issue of, like, where's the red line?
If somebody wants to have a private venue event, like, okay, you can't come in.
But if someone wants to use literally the only platform for microblogging communication, well, now we've got a serious problem because of the monopoly power of it.
In which case, perhaps then we say, you, you cannot, you know, do this.
But I don't know.
I don't know.
You see the complicated issue and the nuance here, and that's why I think, you know, we'll talk about it a lot.
And I'll also add that in public spaces and a lot of events, the protesters show up anyway, so.
But I don't know.
Let me know what you think.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Nobody really predicted this.
Everybody thought the Covington Catholic suit wasn't going to go anywhere.
And then when it got dismissed, for the most part, everyone kind of said, yep.
But then a judge reinstated at least three of the claims.
And a lot of people still don't know this.
So here's the story right now.
Covington Catholic student's defamation suit against Warren is dismissed.
I believe there are two people, notably Elizabeth Warren, who is being freed from her defamation suit.
And it's kind of surprising to me.
It's because she's a politician, that she's protected and can defame people.
Wow.
You're gonna have to explain that one to me, I don't know.
Well, here's the funny thing.
I saw this story on Reddit, and I clicked the comments, and the comments from everybody were like, we all knew the suit wouldn't go anywhere, insulting the kids, believing the fake news, because apparently these people don't read the news, just the headlines, so they didn't know that the whole story was, like, fake for the beginning, but they still don't know that the Covington lawsuit is back on.
So we'll do a quick refresher on that, because I got a story from last week.
But first, let's read about Elizabeth Warren and how she managed to escape accountability for defaming these kids.
Fox News reports.
A Kentucky judge has dropped presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren from a libel lawsuit filed by eight Covington Catholic high school students on the grounds of sovereign immunity.
The lawsuit, filed in August, named Warren, along with a New Mexico congresswoman and ten other public figures, claiming they made, excuse me, Defamatory comments about the students following their January encounter with Native Americans in Washington, D.C.
Only Warren and Rep.
Deborah Helland, a Democrat from New Mexico, were dismissed from the suit.
Sovereign immunity extends to agencies of the United States or federal officers acting in their official capacities.
The decision by the District Judge William O. Bertelsman read, Now, the segment I just did before this was about AOC losing her legal battle.
She settled, she caved, she won the battle, but the war is still on.
This is a very effective way to prevent AOC from having to unblock other people on Twitter.
Here's the thing.
Both Ocasio-Cortez and Donald Trump have argued that because their Twitter accounts are their personal accounts, they can block whoever they want.
But the courts disagree.
The courts have said these accounts are representing you, and you speaking politics is your politician.
End of story.
So your personal account?
Yeah, that's part of your governmental duties.
While many people were angry that Donald Trump was forced to unblock people, and many people were angry that so was AOC, it's a weird ruling, I gotta admit.
This also extends an interesting protection to Donald Trump, even.
Presumably.
I don't know if this sovereign immunity extends to Trump, but it says to agencies of the United States or federal officers in their official capacities.
So Trump is a federal officer, isn't he?
I mean, he's an agent of the United States.
I'd imagine he's the president.
Does that mean that Donald Trump can accuse anybody of anything and you can't sue him?
That would be really weird.
But that's what we're seeing right now about Warren.
Warren defamed these kids.
And she gets to.
Because even if she's using a personal account, it's already been determined that is in her official capacity as an agent of the federal government.
Let's read a little bit more.
Actually, before we do, I gotta give a shout-out.
TimCast.com slash doneit if you'd like to support my work.
PayPal option, crypto option, physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is just, as per usual, share this video.
As you know, YouTube de-ranks.
You get the picture.
If you really want to help me out, you can share the video so I can continue doing the work that I do.
But let's get back to the story.
They say, Sovereign immunity is the doctrine that the U.S.
government or those acting on its behalf may not be sued without its consent.
That sounds crazy, but yep.
Warren had tweeted that the Native American man at the center of the overblown run-in had endured hateful taunts.
Halland, one of the first Native American women elected to Congress, tweeted about the man being harassed and mocked by a group of MAGA hat-wearing teens.
A viral clip picked up by mainstream media outlets gave the impression that Covington Catholic student Nick Sandman, wearing a red MAGA hat at the time, and his classmates were taunting and mocking an elderly Native American man following the March for Life rally.
We know the context.
The full video footage later revealed that the Covington Catholic students were harassed by a group of black Hebrew Israelites before Nathan Phillips, the Native American man, and other Native American activists approached the students.
And I gotta say, it is one of the most infuriating things that this guy got in the face of these kids.
You know, all that righteous indignation they had?
And the reality was, it was Nathan Phillips who started it all?
Who got in this kid's face, was minding his own business?
He walked up to them.
He invaded their space.
And they smeared the kids?
Dude... They don't care about justice, man.
They just want to win.
The court concludes that the challenged statements by Warren and Halland, whether one agrees with them or finds them objectionable, are communications intended to convey the politicians' views on matters of public interest to their constituents.
As such, the statements were made within the scope of defendants' employment as elected representatives.
Does that mean Donald Trump can accuse somebody of the most insane and egregious thing and you can't do anything about it?
Apparently so.
Bertelsmann did not exercise jurisdiction over the other 10 defendants in the suit, including CNN's Anna Navarro, Kathy Griffin, ABC News' Matthew Dowd, Reza Aslan, Adam Edelin, Princeton History professor Kevin M. Cruz, Sean King, Mother Jones editor-in-chief Clara Jeffrey, and Rewire News editor Jody Jacobson.
The case will continue in Kenton County Circuit Court where it was filed.
Sandman has separately filed a defamation suit for $250 million against the Washington Post.
A federal judge in Kentucky dismissed the case in July, but reopened it on October 28th, based on an amended complaint filed by Sandman's legal team.
So let me tell you where we are right now.
The lawsuits are still on.
Okay?
Very little has changed.
The Washington Post was initially dismissed.
They brought it back because they amended.
But that's normal.
I think a lot of people were surprised it happened.
But basically, they said, here, we're going to sue for all these things, and the judge went through it and said, you can't revise this.
Here's the scope.
The lawyers then said, we're going to pick these three and move forward.
So we have a statement from last week, but I think the context is important, considering Warren is now being, you know, let go.
Attorney for Covington Catholic Teen reacts to judge reopening lawsuit against WAPO.
I'm going to skip a lot of the contextual stuff we already get, and I want to get straight to the statement here.
They say, appearing on Fox and Friends with host Ainsley Earhart, McMurtry said that when this case was initially dismissed by Bertelsmann, they had not provided all of the evidence that showed what Phillips had done on the mall that day.
McMurtry said they believe the video evidence shows that Nathan Phillips presented a false factual narrative when he described what happened, and the judge was persuaded by the additional video evidence.
So it's not just that the initial suit was dismissed, It's that maybe they jumped the gun.
Maybe the lawyers, for whatever reason, didn't put all the evidence forward.
Or maybe it's their intent to drag this out.
Because I'll tell you, there is a legal strategy of burying people in paperwork for a long period of time to force them to shell out money.
You force them to lose.
It's quite possible all they really want is an apology.
Look at it this way.
You tell somebody we're going to sue you, and we're not going to stop, and you're going to have to respond to these suits and the paperwork, and you're going to have to hire a lawyer to deal with it.
That's going to be very expensive.
This is why some people make the mistake of settling, but it's really challenging.
You know, if you're a high-profile individual, you might have to settle.
These news outlets will not, because their credibility is on the line.
However, if they get dragged through the coals, it might become overbearing and expensive.
I will say, though, if anybody's got money in this, it's going to be the major media companies.
I don't think that Sandman is going to have nearly as much money, so we'll see what happens.
They say.
The judge ruled that an amended complaint submitted by Salmon's attorneys alleged in greater detail than the original complaint that Phillips deliberately lied concerning the events at issue, and that Phillips had an unsavory reputation, which, for the defendant's negligence or malice, would have alerted defendant to this fact.
Yup.
It was only a day.
Not even—it was like, what, a day afterwards.
We found out the dude lied about being a Vietnam vet, and then all the media companies were like, well, well, hold on.
He was of Vietnam era.
That's what he said.
Nope.
Somebody found the footage of him saying he was a Vietnam vet.
He lied.
He's a liar.
He started the problem.
And because the news media doesn't do their job, now you get this.
So you know what, man?
This lawsuit, I hope, I hope these kids win.
Because someone needs to send a message to these companies.
You can't just lie about people.
They're so lazy.
You know what it is?
They've gotten away with it for so long, they're shocked now that any of these peasants circling their ivory tower would dare challenge them.
But we're allowed to insult and smear whoever we want!
What are these potato sack wearing individuals with pitchforks doing outside my tower?
Yeah, they're angry.
And perhaps if the news companies are put on notice that you will be sued when you lie and don't do your job, maybe they'll start doing their job again.
If there is no repercussion from media outlets who lie, then they have no incentive to tell the truth.
And we need them.
They're the fourth estate.
They're supposed to be speaking truth to power, but they are not.
Instead of talking about, I don't know, Epstein?
What do they talk about?
A bunch of kids in hats on the stairs of the Lincoln Memorial.
Who cares?
Do your job.
And if you don't, you get sued.
So I hope something comes of this that's positive, that forces these media companies to do their due diligence, to fact check, and not rush out the gate to print a story that turns out to be false.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
It's a story, shrouded in absurdity, that a man and another man fought over a Popeye's chicken sandwich, and one of those men is now dead.
But guess what?
The story is probably fake.
It is an embellishment meant to drive clicks.
Thank you, BuzzFeed.
A man was stabbed to death in a fight over a Popeye's chicken sandwich.
No.
Wrong.
Not true.
At least that's my opinion, but I've got evidence to back that up.
Witness statements, perhaps.
Police said the altercation began when one of the men cut the other in line.
First, I will read you the BuzzFeed news story, and then I will show you another story that contradicts these claims because somebody did actual journalism.
What did BuzzFeed do?
Listen, I'm not here to impugn the honor of every article ever written by BuzzFeed.
But BuzzFeed apparently just took a police statement and said, we're done.
The police have told us everything we need to know, and now we have this story.
You may be asking yourself, why is Tim doing a story about a Popeye's chicken sandwich thing?
This is stupid.
Because it's not about Popeye's chicken sandwich.
It's about how the media plays these games.
And it's an example of the work I have to do every day to bring you, to the best of my abilities, factual information.
So let me tell you the premise.
BuzzFeed reports a story.
I find the article, I read it, and I say, Whoa!
Someone died over a chicken sandwich?
That's crazy!
Let me fact check this.
Ah, it's fake news.
And then I don't use it.
When you watch my videos, you will see me talk about an article or cite an article.
On this channel, I don't usually do too much of the background legwork.
I'll find a story, if it's a reputable source, I'll roll with it.
On my main channel, however, everything is much more, you know, diligent.
Like, what's the word?
I guess, steadfast.
I'm very, very adamant about making sure if I find a story, I find several sources confirming those results and it's still not guaranteed.
This is an example of when I find a story and then counter that narrative.
But because the story is so sensational, I thought it'd be fun to debunk.
They say, a Maryland man is dead after a dispute over Popeye's chicken sandwiches led to a fatal stabbing Monday night, police said.
The altercation at the Oxon Hill location began when one of the men cut the other man in line to buy the sandwich.
Prince George's County Police Department spokesperson, Jennifer Donilon, said at a press conference.
And that's all they needed, right?
The police said at a press conference, hey look, if the government says it, it's true.
What happened to journalism?
What happened to BuzzFeed being lefty and being like, we don't just trust the police statement?
Oh, but in this instance?
The two men continued the argument outside the restaurant, fighting in the street until one stabbed the other.
Our homicide detectives are hard at work on this one, but we have been able to determine preliminarily that this is related to the release of the sandwich here at this restaurant.
The victim, a local 28-year-old man, was declared dead at a nearby hospital.
So let's stop for a second.
The police didn't say they were fighting over a sandwich.
Why did BuzzFeed News run the headline?
Because BuzzFeed Lo- Listen.
When this headline travels around, everyone's going to be talking about this viral story, and they're going to laugh and be like, wow, people are crazy.
And then you read it.
Nowhere did they say they were fighting over a sandwich.
What the police said was that it was preliminarily, they said it's preliminary, but this was related to the release of a sandwich.
Could it be that, I don't know, because of the release of the sandwich, a guy was going to meet up with another guy at the location and they weren't going to get the sandwich?
The sandwich has nothing to do with it.
It's just two guys who got into a fight and one guy died.
Nothing else is relevant here.
They were not fighting over a sandwich.
There was no sandwich, and no one ordered any food.
BuzzFeed is using this headline to manipulate you into clicking it to drive traffic, and here's the thing.
In this instance, it's obvious.
This is why I use these examples.
You're sitting here looking at the story saying, oh yeah, hey, wait, the cops didn't say that, but they titled the headline that way?
Okay, that's not true.
Well, it drives clicks.
And then on Twitter and Facebook, people see the headline, don't read the story, and think they got the information they needed.
A suspect has not yet been arrested, and police are asking that witnesses who were at the Popeye's location at the time of the stabbing get in touch if they have any information.
They are also urging the suspect to come forward to police.
For you to get that angry over anything, for that type of anger to develop into this type of violence, is a very sad and tragic day, said Donnellan.
And that person needs to turn themselves in.
Since Popeyes released its chicken sandwich in August, the menu item has been met with chaotic fanaticism.
Locations across the country quickly sold out, and by the end of its first month, the company announced it was temporarily pulling it from menus because it couldn't keep up with demand.
The sandwich returned to stores on Sunday, once again prompting extremely long lines of people trying to get one before they run out.
A spokesperson for Popeyes said, "...safety of our guests and team is always a priority for us."
Whatever happened in Maryland last night is a tragedy, and we are saddened to hear about the senseless act of violence.
Our thoughts are with the victim's family and friends.
We, along with the franchisee, are fully cooperating with local authorities and actively working to gather more information.
I bring you now to the more in-depth story, and I gotta say I'm surprised.
It's the Daily Mail who's giving us the bigger picture of what really happened, and guess what?
Friends and family of the man who died said it was not over a chicken sandwich.
They just happened to have been at a Popeyes.
They refused, however, to explain what the fight was really about.
So let me break this down for you.
Some guy got into an argument and the other guy stabbed him.
It happens a lot in this country.
It's tragic.
It's sad.
I feel for the family.
And I'm even more, I'm even angrier by this because now, check this out.
The dude posted a thing on Facebook, apparently, where he said... I got the image here.
Somewhere.
This guy, Daryl Smith.
RIP Lil Cuz KD.
F'd up they trying to get publicity out of this S. My cousin ain't die over no chicken sandwich.
F'd up.
Too many loses to where I don't know who's next.
I'm from Chicago, man.
And that's why I get really bothered by this.
They played this story out.
They were fighting over a chicken sandwich from their snooty ivory tower.
When in reality, this kind of violence plagues a lot of neighborhoods, man.
It plagued neighborhoods like mine.
No, they're not fighting over a chicken sandwich.
That's disgusting.
But it gets clicks.
It's an embellishment.
It's a sensational story.
The police said it was related to the release of the sandwich.
Does that mean that, I don't know, maybe the dude's girlfriend was like, let's go get a sandwich, and he was like, nah, I'll get a five piece.
The other guy showed up, caught him in line, they got into a fight.
Fight turned deadly.
This kind of stuff happens a lot, dude.
I was in Chicago and I did a night crawling.
Like, me and some other journalists went out night crawling.
It's where you go and chase the police scanners.
And I saw a lot of sad stories.
There was one story where One incident we came upon where somebody was upset at a drug dealer and fired randomly into a building, killing people who lived in an apartment upstairs, had nothing to do with it.
That was one of the stories.
Another guy who was mistaken for somebody else.
These things happen, okay?
This story was made... You know what's really funny?
You know, let me throw a brick through the window right now.
When does the news media care to talk about the violence plaguing minority communities?
Do they talk about it when, in Chicago, gun violence wreaks havoc on my neighborhood and other neighborhoods?
When people would run into buildings and businesses where I live with guns and shoot out- lean out the door and fire guns at each other?
Or when a fight broke out at high school and people- and someone hit a gun and drew the gun and everyone had run screaming?
I love it.
I love how BuzzFeed covers those stories.
But you know what they do?
When it's a chicken sandwich story angle, then they're gonna talk about the violence.
You know what, man?
I'm just gonna say it.
BuzzFeed is being racist.
Let's play the game, shall we?
Did BuzzFeed cover any of the violence affecting minority communities in Chicago in the past week or so?
Oh no!
But when you got a story about two black dudes fighting over a chicken sandwich, that's when you do the news?
This is disgusting.
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
This is when they cover the violence.
This is when they cover the violence that when I was growing up in Chicago, this is the kind of stuff we deal with.
And now you've got this dude's family saying they weren't fighting over a chicken sandwich, man, but that's the funny story that BuzzFeed gets to report, isn't it?
These people are hypocrites and they're disgusting.
I'm just imagining these upper class, these privileged elites in New York City laughing over the idea that these guys were fighting over a chicken sandwich.
And they have the nerve to call us racists?
This is the only time you cover this.
I grew up in a disaffected, ignored part of my city.
They didn't care about us.
We had bullet holes in the hot dog stand.
They had to put bulletproof glass in.
That's the neighborhood I get to grow up in.
And did they ever come down to us and say, we want to help you out?
Only when they wanted our votes.
Did the news media ever come?
No.
Everybody knows they do this.
And now you got this guy who died tragically over an altercation.
I know that BuzzFeed is gloating and laughing about all the clicks they're going to get from claiming two black dudes fought over a chicken sandwich.
Look, man.
The family said that wasn't true.
The police never said this.
And that's the narrative they want to push, and they want to accuse everybody else of being the racists.
This is disgusting.
You know what, man?
There's nothing I hate more than the establishment elites and how they pander down to the poor people, throwing breadcrumbs out their window, saying, this is what you get.
You don't get a voice.
So you know what I'll say, man?
Social media has done incredible things to allow people who never got to speak up before to be allowed to speak up now.
And I can understand the complaints that many of these people have about hate speech, but too bad.
You get to speak now.
Welcome to the party, okay?
That also means other people get to speak too, and sometimes you'll fight.
But I tell you what, man.
BuzzFeed, they're not the worst, but they're absolutely on one side of this battle.
And they had the nerve to take a story about senseless violence and turn it into a story about two black dudes fighting over a chicken sandwich.
I want you to stop and think about that.
I want you to stop and think about BuzzFeed turning the story... That's what they wanted to do.
And it was the Daily Mail, typically called conservative, that actually told us that wasn't true, man.
He ain't die over no chicken sandwich.
You know, when I worked for these companies, I got to see the privilege.
These kids work for these media companies, and the only reason it's these upper-class kids, it's because you can't afford to live in New York City on these low wages, on these low salaries.
Their parents pay their bills.
They come from families that can afford to do this, and they crap all over the poor people who know these people can't fight back.
Oh, they want to pretend like they're on the side of, you know, Of justice.
They're not.
I know they're not.
I've experienced oppression.
I've had cops break into my house, violate my rights, and it's not these upper-class, snooty, wealthy, venture capitalist digital media companies that ever did anything for us.
And this is what you can expect.
They will laugh in your face, making this story about some dude who lost his life about a fight over a chicken sandwich.
