Leaked Emails EXPOSE Impeachment And Joe Biden, Trump May Have RIGHT About Corruption The Whole Time
Leaked Emails EXPOSE Impeachment And Joe Biden, Facts Seem To Back Up Trump's Claim About Corruption. In emails leaked by Jon Solomon, it appears that Burisma tried intervening to stop the corruption investigation against it. According to the emails this happened just around one month before Joe Biden offered a quid pro quo to Ukraine in order to get their top prosecutor fired.Strangely, after the new prosecutor stepped in he cleared Burisma's owner of any wrong doing. This lends itself to Trump's claim about Joe Biden and corruption. The timeline backs up the president.If this version of events is true that means the basis of impeachment is a lie. But impeachment being a scam may be obvious already.More than two years ago Mark Zaid, the whistleblower's attorney, said the "coup has started" and went on to push for impeachment. This was over two years before the Ukraine phone call about Biden.All relevant information at this point seems to back up the president, that impeachment is a scam for partisan reasons to cause him harm going into 2020.Democrats are playing a dangerous game but perhaps it is all they have to defeat Trump. The far left push has soured many voters and they are placing their bets on negative partisanship.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts, calling for impeachment two years before the Ukraine call ever happened.
And we had this whistleblower's attorney saying that a coup against the president has begun.
He will be impeached.
He goes on to say CNN will be involved.
But I tell you this now, the evidence showing that Trump is right and impeachment is a scam is not this.
Emails recently published by John Solomon, investigative reporter, show that Joe Biden was probably acting to protect his and his family's interests in stopping a corruption investigation into Burisma.
The story is very complicated, but it's at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.
The claim is that Donald Trump was trying to dig up dirt on Biden to help him politically.
I do not believe that makes sense.
Joe Biden is raising relatively no money.
His Iowa director doesn't live in Iowa and hasn't campaigned there in years.
Joe Biden is not a serious contender, and he is laden with gaffes.
Now, he is leading in the polls, but I do not believe Trump is threatened by Joe Biden.
So why would Donald Trump Ask Ukraine for an investigation, probably because he is angry that he was investigated for three years and accused of being an asset of the Russians.
And it was all not true.
So Trump went to Ukraine and said, I want an investigation into this impeachment is predicated upon the fact that that was for political gain.
But what if I told you the timeline and evidence we have right now?
It provides circumstantial evidence, at least in my opinion, probable cause that Joe Biden intervened in a corruption investigation to protect his personal interests.
In emails published by John Solomon, it appears that people acting at the behest of Burisma were asking the State Department essentially to stop digging into the corruption.
Sure enough, a month later, the prosecutor who claimed he was investigating this was fired.
Now the left claims that no, no, no, the prosecutor was fired for not investigating corruption.
That's actually what Sam Cedar told me.
And that's what many on the left have contended.
If that's true, then perhaps Trump was really trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.
However, looking at the timeline, At the end of the year, or potentially almost a year later, after Biden supposedly removed this prosecutor for not investigating, the prosecutor's assets were released because they didn't have any evidence of wrongdoing, and the charges were all dropped.
If it were true, wouldn't the new prosecutor have indicted this person they claim was accused of corruption?
It was only after Trump got elected did the investigation into that individual start.
I tell you this, on the surface, they claim that Joe Biden did a quid pro quo with Ukraine to weed out corruption.
The timeline doesn't add up.
The inverse does.
That Donald Trump did a quid pro quo with Ukraine to weed out corruption.
Now, they argue whether or not there was or wasn't quid pro quo, and I don't want to get into all that stuff.
All I can say is, whether or not there was or there wasn't, you're accusing Trump of doing the same thing that Trump is accusing Biden of doing, but the evidence that we now have, and I'll show you, the story from John Solomon.
It actually lines up perfectly with Trump's version of events, not the Democrats and not the left.
And if this, if it is true that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden were corrupt and Trump was trying to weed that out, whether it was for benevolent nationalist reasons or because Trump was personally slighted by Russiagate, Trump's version of events line up more with reality.
I believe that Joe Biden, in my opinion, based on the timeline of events, the emails released, the transcripts we have, I believe that we are leaning substantially more towards Joe Biden did wrong.
And for some reason, the media isn't talking about this.
It seems like they're either just terrible at their jobs or actively covering it up.
No, I'm a proponent of Hanlon's Razor.
I believe that the New York Times is just incompetent.
So let me show you some things.
Before we get started, because this is a contentious story, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
The best thing you can do is share this video, because I'm going to read you transcripts, and I'm going to show you the hard evidence.
Hopefully, hopefully this story doesn't get shut down by YouTube.
First, the whistleblower was intending to go after Trump since 2017.
I'm not saying that implies a conspiracy, but he was clearly biased.
They're not seeing the full picture, or they just don't care that Biden is corrupt.
And what do we get from pundit fact, a branch of politifact?
This, to me, is the craziest thing.
Mark Levin said that the whistleblower hired left-wing lawyers, left-wing firms, Soros involved in funding one of them.
Now, I don't know about the Soros stuff, but PunditFact says it's mostly false.
Mostly false?
That the people hired by the whistleblower are leftists?
How is that false?
Are they liberals?
Their determination?
Mostly false, even though they say, one of the lawyers donated $100 to Biden and worked as an intern for Schumer and Clinton almost 20 years ago.
None of the lawyers are registered Democrats.
Who cares if they're registered Democrats?
The guy tweeted two years ago, two years before the Ukraine phone call happened.
He was stating that a coup had started.
Their intention is clear.
They hate the president.
They're not right-wing, are they?
He donated to Biden.
No one's saying that they're hardcore socialists, but yeah, apparently they're left-wing.
Now, if you want to dispute the Soros funding thing, fine.
But to say mostly false when we see the statements made by these individuals, to me, is just misleading.
Absolutely misleading.
But let me now show you where we're at.
Debunking four viral rumors about the Bidens in Ukraine as lawmakers examine whether President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate the Biden family, here are some of the most prominent falsehoods that have spread online and an explanation of what really happened.
I believe the story is incorrect.
I believe the evidence we have now is going to prove that Trump is actually right.
At least on the surface, it warrants an investigation based on what Trump... Let me try and make sure I say this carefully.
Trump is chasing after the evidence.
Some of it is based on internet rumor, but some of it seems to be correct.
Check this out.
The New York Times reports, why was Ukraine's top prosecutor fired?
The allegation at the heart of the controversy is that while Mr. Biden was vice president, he pushed to have Ukraine's top prosecutor removed for investigating a company connected to Mr. Biden's son, Hunter, Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma.
Videos pushing this theory began appearing on Twitter in late September and early October, and have been viewed tens of millions of times.
Mr. Trump's campaign also asserted the claims in ads on Facebook.
Vice President Biden was overseeing American policy toward Ukraine at the time, and he did push for the removal of the country's top prosecutor, who was seen as corrupt or ineffectual by the U.S.
and Western European governments.
But there is no evidence he did so to benefit Hunter Biden or the oligarch who owns Burisma.
That's not true?
There actually is.
Is there overwhelming definitive proof?
That's a whole other argument.
But there is evidence that perhaps this was intended to protect his interests.
They say that Hunter Biden joined Burisma.
We know all this stuff.
A year later, Viktor Shokin became Ukraine's prosecutor general, a job similar to the attorney general in the United States.
He vowed to keep investigating Burisma amid an international push to root out corruption in Ukraine.
But the investigation went dormant under Mr. Shokin.
In the fall of 2015, Joe Biden joined the chorus of Western officials calling for Mr. Shokin's ouster.
The next March—remember this date—Mr.
Shokin was fired.
A subsequent prosecutor cleared Mr. Zlochevsky.
Interesting.
So Tchaikovsky was cleared?
Why fire Shokin?
Did they falsely accuse Tchaikovsky of wrongdoing and he didn't do anything wrong?
They froze his assets and then released them.
If the argument is that he wasn't investigating corruption, we got to stop right there.
They didn't find any.
And it's only after Trump got elected in 2018 that the investigation reopened.
They closed it.
Strange, isn't it?
They claim he was corrupt.
They find nothing.
But Shoken argues he was fired in a sworn affidavit because Joe Biden personally was trying to intervene.
Take a look at the new groundbreaking report.
It's from a couple days ago, actually.
But I thought it was important to wait a little bit and bring all of these things together, because I'll show you the timeline.
Hunter Biden's Ukraine gas firm pressed Obama administration to end corruption allegations memos show.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist.
I believe he used to work for The Washington Post.
He worked for The Hill for a while, and they have tried everything to get rid of him.
But you know what?
As far as I can tell, he's a journalist, same as anybody else.
But you know what?
He brought receipts.
Take a look at this email.
It reads, per our conversation, Kara Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with U.S.
Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma, Ukrainian energy company, of corruption.
She noted that two high-profile U.S.
citizens are affiliated with the company, including Hunter Biden as a board member.
Tramontano would like to talk with U.S.
Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S.
came to the determination that the company is corrupt.
According to Tramontano, there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered.
Would appreciate any background you may have been able to provide on the issue and suggested TPs for U.S.
Novelli's meeting.
February 24th, 2016.
The month before the prosecutor got fired, where Joe Biden said, if you want the billion dollars, fire the guy.
An email was sent saying, we're not corrupt, stop investigating.
Okay, I'm being hyperbolic.
They said, we'd like to present.
There's been no counter evidence.
How did you determine this?
Hunter Biden's involved.
And a month later?
A month later.
So when did Joe Biden go to them and say quid pro quo?
Was it before this email or was it in March?
How soon after Joe Biden said, you gotta fire this guy or you get the aid?
Well, my understanding, I could be wrong, so fact check man this one, is that the quid pro quo from Joe Biden happened very, very quickly.
So it's very likely it happened after the email was sent.
But let's read what John Solomon reports.
Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son's company for corruption, newly released memos show.
They say a U.S.
rep for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
I filed that suit this summer with the help of the public interest law firm the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
Just three weeks before Burisma's overture to state, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S.
presidential election.
Hunter Biden's name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S.
officials trying to arrange the meeting.
The subject line for the email exchange read simply, Burisma.
Taking this into consideration, the premise of impeachment is false.
Joe Biden is being implicated in this.
If it's true, if Solomon is correct, there was a raid three weeks prior Well, then the corruption investigation was escalating.
If it's true that Joe Biden wanted this guy fired because he wasn't investigating, why was he cleared of all charges?
At the very least, we can say, Western governments and Joe Biden froze the assets of an innocent individual and fired a prosecutor over an innocent individual.
To me, that makes very little sense, especially considering the investigation into him has been reopened, and my understanding is that he fled to Morocco.
We'll get through this and try to break this down.
Sounds to me like the CIA director, former CIA director, I believe it is, who's on the board of Burisma.
The Americans and Joe Biden's son on the board of Burisma were in need of special protections.
I do not believe Donald Trump was shocked at the blatant corruption within the Biden family.
I think Trump was personally slighted by Russiagate.
He knew about it, and he said, find it out.
My personal opinion on Trump's motivation is that it was personal.
It was revenge.
What does it mean he's wrong?
It sounds like Trump was absolutely correct.
I don't care if his motivations were to spite Joe Biden.
That doesn't matter.
What matters is, it sounds like according to this timeline, They did try to protect the Bidens and their interests in this company and stop a corruption investigation, which means Trump's call for investigating them is perfectly sound, and the impeachment inquiry is being spearheaded at least by one lawyer who is calling for a coup.
The whole thing, in my opinion, is a scam, especially based on this evidence.
Don't take my word for it, though.
I always bring the receipts.
I showed you the email, okay?
This is an email published through a FOIA from John Solomon.
You can smear Solomon all you want.
You can call it a conspiracy theory.
I'm not saying anything's definitive.
I'm just saying we're tracking the story down, and it seems like Joe Biden is corrupt.
But we'll see.
As I said, there's no definitive proof, just strong circumstantial evidence pointing in a certain direction, which I believe warrants some kind of investigation.
Oh, hey.
Donald Trump was trying to get that investigation.
You want to do three years of Russiagate over a conspiracy theory?
Fine.
We entertained it.
I did.
I didn't call while it was going on.
I said, you know, maybe we'll find something.
I think now it's time to do the same thing for the Bidens.
I want to make sure I highlight this as well.
This is a sworn statement from Shokin, saying, When Poroshenko asked me to resign, the way that he put it to me was that he was making it for the good of the country, and that I should agree.
Also, as an act of patriotism, I agreed to tender my resignation on this basis.
After my dismissal, Joe Biden made a public statement, saying, even bragging, that he had me fired.
This is when it became clear that the real reason for my dismissal was my actions regarding Inbarisma and Biden's personal interest in the company, which was demonstrated by the following.
It was Biden's order and wish that I'd be removed from office, not Poroshenko.
The reason was because it was precisely the state officials from the U.S.
administration of Obama, and Joe Biden in particular, who were telling the heads of Ukraine law enforcement how to investigate and whom to investigate, including members of the Yanukovych regime team.
I was not complying with their will, so I had to be removed from office.
It was not Poroshenko being patriotic.
It was Poroshenko submitting to the demands of state officials from the U.S.
administration of Obama for reasons of political economy.
And the personal interests of the US Vice President Biden, among others.
He goes on in this sworn statement.
He talks about how he was being pressured to drop the investigation and that it existed.
So I tell you this.
If your argument, again, is that he was fired because he wasn't investigating, why were no charges turned up?
Was Biden wrong?
Did Biden get an innocent man fired from his job and leverage U.S.
aid to do it?
That's bad enough, isn't it?
I bring you now to the timeline.
Let's zoom in here so you can read this better.
This is Mykola Zlochevsky.
He's the founder of Burisma.
They say in 2002 he co-founded the largest independent oil and natural gas company, Burisma Holdings.
They go on to say investigations.
First, at the end of 2014, Zelensky fled Ukraine amid allegations of unlawful self-enrichment and allegations of funds during his tenure in public office.
At the end of 2016, the Central Criminal Court in London released $23 million that were blocked on his accounts.
The serious fraud office stated the funds were released due to inadequate evidence at the end of 2016.
Shoken was fired, they claim, because he wasn't investigating corruption.
He was cleared of all charges.
Perhaps it was because he was innocent the whole time.
They froze his assets.
Or perhaps it's because Joe Biden was protecting his interests.
And once Trump got in office, the investigation reopened.
Think about it for a second.
If this guy was corrupt, as the left is claiming, right?
That's their argument.
That he wasn't, that Shokin was not investigating corruption, they believed he was corrupt.
Okay.
Well, they cleared him of all charges.
What's your argument now?
That Donald Trump wants an investigation back into him?
Why oppose that?
You thought he was corrupt in the first place.
Why stop when the investigation starts again?
Unless the only reason they stopped the investigation, unless the only reason they fired Shoken was because they didn't want the corruption investigation to happen.
They say he returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after investigations into his Burisma holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.
But...
They say that recordings were released in April of 2018 that implicated him in graft.
On June 15, 2018, after Solomon Yensky, District Court in Kiev, had annulled the ruling of the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office to close a criminal proceeding against him, Zalewski was accused of having illegally issued... It's complicated.
He's reportedly now living in Monaco.
Apparently, they annulled the closure of the case It seems like Ukraine is now investigating corruption again.
So let's think about this.
If Donald Trump wants this guy investigated, and the left said, yes, he was corrupt, okay, then they agree, right?
They agree that he should be investigated?
How strange.
The timeline doesn't add up.
But you know what timeline does add up?
That an email was sent to the State Department, just about a month, a few weeks, before Shokin was fired, complaining about the corruption probe.
John Sondland reports that just a few weeks prior, they raided a home, which sends a signal the corruption probe was escalating.
Joe Biden then intervenes with a quid pro quo.
If you want the billion dollars in aid, fire the prosecutor.
The prosecutor signs a sworn statement saying he was fired because he was investigating a company and Joe Biden's son was involved and it was his personal interests.
And then the left's argument.
That he was fired because he wasn't investigating.
I ask you then, why was he cleared of all charges?
Why was his money released?
But let's be honest.
Perhaps it was because Joe Biden was wrong.
The Western governments were all wrong.
They wanted this guy investigated, they were incorrect, they falsely accused him of corruption, cost him his job.
Should the US government be intervening in Ukraine, getting a prosecutor fired when he did nothing wrong?
That's strange, isn't it?
At the very least, we can see that the US foreign policy, in my opinion, was corrupt.
To get an innocent man fired, over what?
A conspiracy theory?
Let's be honest.
Basing everything off... Hold on, let me step back, right?
They're saying Trump is investigating a conspiracy theory.
Quite literally the same thing they have done.
Unfortunately for them, the timeline lines up better with Trump.
Joe Biden believed Shokin was not doing his job.
He was ineffectual.
He was corrupt or at least ineffectual.
That Zlochevsky was corrupt.
He must be, he must be released because he's not, he's not tracking this corruption.
They were wrong.
Was it a conspiracy theory then that they were wrong?
Or is it the simple solution?
That Joe Biden had personal interests in this company and was protecting it.
His son worked there.
And now this guy is living in, Zlochevsky, is out.
In my opinion.
All of this, the impeachment hearing, it's fake news.
But I'll do you one better.
Take a look at this.
This is a transcript released from the star witness Bill Taylor, whose opening letter said there was quid pro quo.
Turns out, his source, reading the New York Times, I kid you not, This guy has no direct knowledge of what happened.
Let me read you some of this transcript, and I will push back because there is a statement out from Sondland, but let's push back.
He's asked.
This is the only reference in your opening statement to Biden other than your one reference to the July 25th call.
And this isn't firsthand.
It's not secondhand.
It's not thirdhand.
But if I understand this correctly, you're telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?
Not even third-hand.
That's correct.
Is it possible that somewhere in that chain of events that the president spoke to President Zelensky about Burisma?
Probably assume President Trump spoke to Ambassador Sondland about Burisma?
Taylor says, I don't know.
Mr. Zeldin says, yeah.
It's just, it's hard when we, I mean, it's one thing if you have first-hand information, but a lot of what you're saying in your opening statements is not first-hand information.
That's one example.
And it happens to be the only reference at all in your opening statement to Joe Biden.
You testified that the goal requesting investigations into the 2016 election in Burisma was to influence the U.S.
election.
Is that correct?
Taylor then says, I'm sorry, but then he's asked again, I don't think so.
He's asked to tell us what your position is.
What was the goal of requesting investigations into 2016 election and Burisma?
Taylor says, as I understand it, from one of the, maybe the article in the New York Times about Mr. Giuliani's interest in Burisma, in that article, he describes, And I think he quotes Giuliani at some length.
That article indicates that Giuliani was interested in getting some information on Vice President Biden that would be useful to Giuliani's client.
I think that's what he says.
He says he's got one client and he's useful to the client.
Zeldin then asks, and that it's your inference that Giuliani's goal would be the president.
Taylor responds, yes.
Zeldin says, and your source is the New York Times.
Yes.
Do you have any other source that the president's goal in making this request was anything other than the New York Times?
Ambassador Taylor responds, I have not talked to the president.
I have no other information from what the president was thinking.
Full stop.
And there it is.
The grand statement from great patriot Bill Taylor is that he read the New York Times and that's where he came to the conclusion this is what it was all about.
That's it.
He knows no more than you or I. But they're claiming he's a star witness.
And this is why the Republicans were angry that selective leaks were coming out.
And they didn't have access to the documents.
They say Republicans were sitting in on it.
Yes, and they were talking about this.
It was selective.
It turns out this interview is rather nonsense.
In fact, they go on to ask, is it possible that Trump was actually interested in the origins of 2016?
He says, you inferred based off what the New York Times told you that Giuliani was thinking, which inferred what the president was thinking.
I'm asking you to answer a question that, is it possible that the request to investigate the 2016 election was for a reason other than influence in the 2020 election?
Is that possible?
And Taylor says, I don't know if it's possible.
I'll tell you what, man.
The whole thing's a sham.
The whole thing's a scam.
It seems like Joe Biden's corrupt.
The whistleblower's lawyer has been planning, he's wanted a coup at least for two years, saying the coup has started, the impeachment will follow, etc, etc.
This guy is clearly... I don't know if it's possible.
Of course it's possible!
The request for an investigation could be for a million reasons.
Is it possible?
I don't know.
What do you mean you don't know?
You read a New York Times article and made an assumption about what the president wanted, but you don't think it's possible Trump was investigating the Russiagate origins?
Trump can be wrong.
You know, he thinks CrowdStrike could be a conspiracy.
Fine.
But Joe Biden, there's some dirt under there.
And we know it.
They've called the Bidens for a long time now.
It's mind-numbing to me.
It really is.
But it would not be fair if I didn't mention this.
Sondland updates impeachment testimony describing Ukraine quid pro quo.
They say Gordon Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials that military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations Trump wanted.
They wanted an announcement, is what I believe Sondland is saying.
Quid pro quo!
The Ukrainians, he said this, I said that resumption of US aid would likely not occur
until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for
many weeks.
Mr. Sondland said in the new statement, which was made public by the House committees leading
the inquiry, along with a transcript of his original testimony.
Quid pro quo.
What a silly, silly phrase.
Trump in the call did not offer a quid pro quo.
The question now is whether or not there was implied quid pro quo in the back channels and why Trump was operating a back channel.
Let me tell you this.
Why did Trump have Giuliani going through these motions?
Because he trusts him.
And because there are people leaking all of this information.
That just seems like an obvious answer.
The simple solution tends to be correct.
Not that Trump was trying to secretly need it.
Why would Trump need help winning 2020 when Moody's, when all of his analytics say he's going to win?
The story doesn't add up.
The Joe Biden corruption adds up a little bit and should be investigated.
Emails complaining to the State Department the month before Shokin was fired.
So you know what?
Here's what I think.
Donald Trump probably wanted some kind of quid pro quo.
Was it officially announced in the transcripts?
I don't think so.
I'm making that assumption based on some of these reports.
I think what Trump wanted was Ukraine, apparently Zelensky, campaigned on investigating corruption and restarting these investigations, and Trump wanted it to happen.
Trump thought Biden was corrupt.
We all saw the video of him saying, if you want a billion dollars, fire the prosecutor, who was investigating his son's company.
You can argue it's all fake news, but we've got sworn statements, we've got leaked emails, investigative journalists, and I don't care if the New York Times or anybody else wants to report it.
We all saw what happened.
With ABC News and the leaked video from Project Veritas.
We know what they do.
We know how they do it.
So no, I won't take their word for it.
They protect powerful special interests.
That's what they do.
I've seen it firsthand.
And in this story here, Not a fan of Trump.
I think Trump had a personal vendetta.
I can't blame him.
Three years of Russiagate?
And I think he wanted revenge.
But I think the facts were on his side in this regard.
So his motivations aren't as relevant as to whether or not he was trying to weed out corruption.
If Joe Biden is allowed to quid pro quo Ukraine because he wanted them to investigate corruption, why isn't Trump?
That's the problem I have.
Either they're both guilty or they're both innocent.
Pick one.
They did the same thing.
The problem?
Donald Trump's son doesn't work for Burisma.
Okay?
Now they argue.
Ah, yes, but he's running against Joe Biden.
Don't care.
Joe Biden running for the presidency does not make him immune to investigations for potential corruption.
Sorry.
You can't just announce you're running for president and then complain when someone tries to investigate you for doing something illegal.
I'll leave it there.
In my opinion, the whole thing's a scam.
The whole thing's a sham.
And I open with the bias to show you that.
I know it's complicated.
But I'll stick around for any developments and we'll see what happens.
Let me say one last thing.
Does any of this mean that Trump is doing a good job of defending himself?
Of course not.
The wishy-washy back and forth, there was no quid pro quo, there was, but it's not impeachable, oh come on.
I can criticize Trump all day and night.
It looks like he's got disloyal members, he's got scared babies, he's got people who hate him.
There's a lot of problems.
Trump's strategy is not perfect, he's vulnerable, and he's made mistakes.
Period.
But when you line up the facts, the emails, the statements, it seems like they're more likely on his side.
Is he operating Properly?
Strategically?
In my opinion, not particularly.
The phone call he made to Ukraine was inappropriate, and it was bad for him across the board.
He didn't need to make it.
If all of this was already going on through these back channels, then he was fine to carry on what he's doing.
But I'll end by saying this.
If these stories and these emails and these transcripts are all true, it means that we have corrupt people working in government who would protect their families, protect their private interests, freeze the assets of an innocent man.
That's what they claimed.
An innocent man at $23 million frozen.
He was cleared of all charges with the new prosecutor that Biden wanted.
All of these problems.
It needs to be called out.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6pm.
I will see you all there.
Barometer of despair.
Birth rate falls as millennials fear climate apocalypse.
That's right.
Ocasio-Cortez recently cried.
I think she was crying.
She cries a lot.
About how she didn't know if she could have kids.
Because the world may be ending.
Okay.
Well, the world is not ending.
Everybody calm down.
And you should probably have kids.
I'm not saying you should have a million kids.
But I think it's absurd to say we're not gonna have kids because we think the world is ending.
I think you've lost the plot.
Now here's the important point.
I made a video recently talking about how in 2006 we noticed a trend that liberals were not having kids nearly as much as conservatives.
Today, 13 years after that research, we can now see that Generation Z, who are between, what, like 13 and 19, or 19 and younger, we can see that they are slightly more conservative.
So I want to go over some of these details, but I want to do something else.
What I said in the last video is basically like, hey, here's how we got to this point.
I want to look to the future and what we can expect because the important thing that people don't realize and we'll read the story.
Millennials not having kids.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No, it's liberals not having kids.
It is the left not having kids.
Religious and conservative folks are certainly having kids.
In fact, the people I know in my life who have kids and who don't, it's kind of funny.
They're either religious and not very political or they're conservative.
I know only a few liberals that I grew up with my friends who actually had kids.
What do you think that means for the future?
It's not even about fearing the world is going to end, but this exacerbates the problem.
The leftist worldview that climate change is just eradicating everything and we have 12 years to live, it's extreme.
It's not reality, okay?
I believe climate change is a serious problem.
I've gone over the data.
I've looked at trusted meteorologists who have even You know, pushed back on AOC's outrageous claims.
Fact of the matter is, climate change is a problem.
I think, you know, we need to do better to invest in green technologies.
But no, the world is not ending.
Calm down.
Not only that, the world will get on fine without humans.
The issue is that we have an abundance of a specific kind of technology.
And yes, carbon emissions are a problem, and we need technology to start reducing that.
Guess what?
We've been doing it!
You know the ozone layer problem?
Yeah, well guess what?
The ozone layer is healing itself too.
Humans are resourceful.
And even if we encounter serious problems because of climate change, it doesn't mean we're not going to solve the problem.
This is a really pessimistic worldview, and it's going to produce a very, very different future than these people think of, the way I described it.
In the last video.
Ocasio-Cortez made this painting animation of a future in which they get the Green New Deal and everyone's happy and there's young people who are going to run for Congress and AOCs in their 50s and I'm like, that's not the future.
No, the future is a bunch of conservative kids and you will be the odd one out who doesn't fit society because you're not having kids.
They don't seem to understand this.
Let's read the story, though, and then I want to talk more about this.
She worked as a nanny before embarking on a career in technology, and she considers herself a nurturing person.
Now 34, she long assumed she would become a parent.
But as she looks around at her life in Nashville, where she lives, and the nation and the world, she has found herself wondering, do I want to have a kid who I hand this world off to?
I do!
I certainly do.
My problem is not about thinking the world's gonna end.
I'm 33 and don't have kids because I'm a workaholic, okay?
I work every day non-stop.
That's my problem.
I need to work through that.
But no, it is what it is.
Rather than... Excuse me.
Rather than visions of raising up children, educating and guiding them, Polowitz's thoughts, nightmares, she says, are of having to protect that child in a world devastated by the climate disaster.
Let me just point something out to you.
You know, I believe climate change is a serious problem.
I believe carbon emissions contributed to it.
I defer to the scientists.
I don't think they're always right.
I don't think consensus is science.
I think there are decent arguments from many people that they think the whole thing is a blunt proportion.
But I defer to, look, the experts, man.
I'm not a scientist.
I'm not going to tell a panel of scientists that they're right or wrong for political reasons.
I'm just going to say, you know what, man?
I think it makes sense.
You got everybody driving cars.
You got China, India pumping out more coal than ever.
And it has an impact.
It does.
I just think that humans are resourceful and we'll figure this one out.
But look to Miami, right?
This is one of the best arguments I've seen as to why the world isn't ending.
And I know a lot of people use this argument to claim it's not real.
No, no, no.
Hold on.
Okay.
Some dude was arguing against climate change and this video went viral.
And mostly among conservatives, where he said, if climate change was real, why would all of these people be investing in beachfront Miami property?
Miami Beach.
Miami's supposed to be sinking, right?
If that were the case, who would invest there?
And why is it then, when these real estate companies are seeking funding from banks, they don't have to put a warning, I forgot what it's called, on the prospectus, saying like, this property will be underwater in 10 years.
They don't.
So the argument then is, either there's no regulation to prevent this, they're gonna get a quick buck before the place sinks, Or it's not gonna sink!
I'd be really... Look, man.
I always look to the money changers.
You know, when you want to predict an election, do you look to the pollsters who are trying to sway your opinion, or do you look to Vegas, who just wants a quick buck?
For the most part, I'm gonna go with Vegas.
Because people don't like to lose money.
You know, money talks.
You can play all the opinion polls, and we argue all day.
I'm so sick of polls, man.
They go back and forth, and I'm just getting tired of it.
But I'll tell you what.
There's no politics in green, okay?
When those people want to make money, they're not going to give you the BS because they don't want to lose.
Could you imagine if somebody in Vegas gave odds that they knew were unfavorable to them and they would lose a ton of money because they wanted to convince you that, say, Hillary would win?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
No, they want the money, okay?
So when you look at these big investment companies investing in beachfront property, I'm going to have to go ahead and say the people who know better, the people who have money and don't want to lose it, Yeah, I think the world is not going to end, okay?
Not only that, come on, saying the world's gonna end is absolutely nuts.
They say she is not the only one.
Ask a millennial ages 23 to 38 and you will find the doubts.
The U.S.
birth rate is currently at its lowest in 32 years, with 2018 being the fourth consecutive year of decline.
Usually births increase at times of economic stability, so these latest numbers have led demographers to wonder what else is on prospective parents' minds.
Well, a couple things.
The left, in 2006, it was noticed.
Check this out.
ABC News, the political fertility gap.
Liberals, it is said, have a baby problem.
They don't have enough of them compared to conservatives.
2006, August 23rd, this is Jake Tapper.
He's reporting this.
I believe that is the Jake Tapper in 06.
Here's the thing.
Liberals don't have babies for a lot of reasons.
For one, liberals are more likely to abort their babies.
Simple math.
You take two families.
Liberals are more likely to support choice.
Conservatives are more likely to support life.
That means conservatives are going to have a baby.
Okay?
Even if it means adoption.
Liberals, liberal women, are more likely to be progressive in the workplace, meaning they're going to be 34 and working and thinking, why didn't I have kids yet, like the story says.
Conservatives, more likely to be traditional, you're going to have a lot more women saying it's time to have a family.
And there are many high-profile conservative women Who have, like, who have done that?
Some personalities have kind of disappeared because they want to have a family.
And they're young.
And then you get these woke progressive feminists on Twitter mocking them, saying, you know, you know, I made a video about wanting a wife who wanted to have a family, and all of the woke women on Twitter were like, what a loser, oh my god, is that what he really thinks?
And it's like, dude, I get it.
You don't.
Chill.
You want to be on Twitter and 34 with no kids and family?
Hey man, do your thing.
I don't think... Whatever makes you happy, man.
I'm gonna do what makes me happy.
But think about the future in this case.
If we were looking at a Generation Z that looks a lot like Millennials.
This is the interesting thing.
They say they look a lot like millennials, and that's true.
But look at every generation, you know, before it.
There was a big shift towards a more progressive left-leaning viewpoint.
Well, that's all gone.
So you take in all these factors the left is prone to, and they all add up.
When we look at the birth rate and we say, wow, the birth rate is so low, what they're not getting is that if you separate liberals from conservatives, the conservative birth rate might still be low because in 2006 it was just barely at replacement, which is two kids per family.
It was like 204 for 100 parents, I think.
So, is that right?
Yeah.
It was just .04 above replacement, but liberals were below replacement.
And that was back in 2006, okay?
And that was probably due to feminism.
I am not dragging feminism, okay?
I am pointing out feminism likely resulted in less babies for liberals, because women were more likely to go to school and get jobs.
Conservative women were more likely to go to church and have babies.
And now you have more conservative... So think about it.
That bell curve is falling down.
I think the future will end up being substantially more conservative, save one caveat.
Immigration.
I don't think it's a conspiracy.
A lot of people, particularly the alt-right, think there's this great conspiracy to bring in non-white people or something.
That's ridiculous.
I think liberals tend to be very open borders-y.
Not completely, not all of them, but many of them.
Leftists for sure, the DSA and stuff like that.
And so the only thing that in my opinion will change, that will preserve the left, is that foreign-born people tend to be more left-wing.
But think about the reason why that is.
You come from a very poor country.
I'm not saying every immigrant is from a poor country, but you come from a poor country.
You come to the U.S.
and California, for instance, says you can come here illegally and we won't work with federal authorities.
They say we will provide you government-funded health care from our citizens up until the age of 26.
That's what they've done so far.
And now you've got the Democratic 2020 contenders saying health care for non-citizens, you know, whether or not you pay or you don't.
It's a human right.
Well, you're gonna get a lot of poor people coming in and saying, sign me up for free stuff.
Whereas those who were born in the US and in more rural areas where you have to be self-sufficient are going to be more like, no, you take care of yourself.
So let's read a little bit more.
The birth rate is a barometer of despair.
Dowell Myers who studies this data at UC, University of Southern California concluded when the latest numbers were released earlier this year.
Not a whole lot of things are going good and that's haunting young people.
On the list of not good things, they say the climate crisis with its specter of droughts, famines, fires and floods is near the top.
A poll by Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation in September found 68% of respondents ages 18 to 29 say they are afraid of the effects of climate change, and 63% of teen respondents believe future generations will be harmed a great deal.
It is a fear that was expressed by freshman congresswoman and Green New Deal author AOC, Ocasio-Cortez, earlier this year during an Instagram livestream.
There's scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult.
And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, is it okay to still have children?
Oh no!
Are we the most privileged and elite society in the history of humanity who literally went to the moon?
Now things are gonna get a little bit worse.
Aww, is that so bad?
Dude, these are people.
AOC has a luxury apartment in DC.
It's my understanding, I could be wrong, but she gets like a luxury apartment.
I don't know if it's just rumors or nonsense, but she got a really, really nice building, okay?
She lives in the most comfort with her Kobe beef organic burgers and her beyond... Like, we are so privileged, we literally make fake meat.
Okay, I love the idea of being vegan because being vegan is something you can only do in a wealthy country.
Most people need meat for B vitamins, iron, and protein, and they don't have the luxury of not eating meat.
It's a very first world thing.
Heavens!
Oh no, it's gonna be harder for our kids.
Seriously, how much harder?
And are we gonna survive?
I'll tell you what.
A hundred years ago, it was substantially harder, okay?
You'd be like, oh, my arm got cut, I guess I'll die.
That's- that was life, okay?
There was a- there was a- I was reading some his- some history about, uh, like, uh, I think I was reading about the Civil War.
I can't remember what story it was, but it was one guy who got shot in the arm, and he died!
It's like, dude!
You can get shot multiple times in the chest and survive these days.
No, I get it, I get it.
You know, even back then, you might survive.
But it was an infection.
He got hit in the arm, and the infection killed him.
It's like, gotta cut your arm off!
It's like, oh, it was too high, we couldn't do it.
I don't know the exact story.
But just think about this view they have, where they have no context for how life used to be for humans.
Man, I tell you what.
Go live in the woods, And complain about how hard things are going to be for your kids.
It is mind-blowing to me, okay?
Now look, nobody's obligated to have kids.
But what's really crazy...
To me.
I think there's like a fundamental gap in understanding between liberals, moderates, and conservatives.
And this is why Jonathan Haidt's research, you know, it showed, this was a while ago too, it was like six, seven years ago, moderates and conservatives can predict liberal behavior, but liberals can't predict the inverse.
They also show that moderates and conservatives use five moral foundations, where liberals use two.
Libertarians use one.
Freedom.
Go figure.
Moderates and conservatives have a bigger picture view.
I think when you actually experience the world and go somewhere like the Brazilian favelas or Egypt or some other countries, you're like, man, we got it good.
I can't imagine.
Now, I will say, I think climate change is a problem.
I'll say it.
And it's going to negatively impact other countries.
But how?
How you could be the privileged elite of the most advanced, comfortable, and wealthy civilization in the history of the world, and be like, oh no, life is too hard to have kids.
It's like, dude, they didn't have air conditioning 100 years ago, and now you can't live without it.
You know, I could be wrong about this because I lived in Miami for a bit, but they apparently have a statue to the guy who invented air conditioning in Miami.
Okay?
I don't know.
Fact check me on that one.
I could be wrong.
But apparently they really love the guy who invented air conditioning.
Good for him!
I'm a big fan as well.
I love my air conditioning.
Okay?
But people didn't used to have that.
I think back to like life in the 1800s when it was like, oh, it's going to be 100 degrees today.
Better just sit sweaty and grimy, unable to take a shower because we don't have plumbing.
And now you're like, life is gonna get so bad for everyone.
It's like, you know what, man?
This worldview you have is spoiled beyond belief.
You know what I do?
Okay, so let's just think to what the future is gonna look like.
All of these whiny, terrified, shaking-in-their-boots individuals aren't having babies.
Okay.
It may mean the population will shrink.
But I'll tell you what.
That, you know, 5 o'clock shadow, 40-year-old dude chopping lumber in his 5-acre property, his neighbor's a mile down the road, and he's gotta supply his own heat, he's got kids, and those kids have to do chores to survive?
I'm pretty sure they're not super concerned, for the most part.
I'm pretty sure they're gonna carry on with their life and be like, what do you mean?
You gotta work to survive.
So the point is, you take these rural folk, who actually have to strive for things, I'm pretty sure they're not going to care.
So I have an interesting thought about all this, right?
I was in New York, living in New York for a while.
I thought about those bridges.
Man, they got a lot of bridges.
They got the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge, the Williamsburg Bridge, the Queensborough Bridge.
They got the Washington Bridge.
They got, what's the other one?
Man, I'm forgetting some of the bridges.
They got the tunnels.
They got the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel.
They got the Holland Tunnel.
They got the Lincoln Tunnel.
Man, they got a lot of tunnels!
But guess what?
For these urban liberals, it is and always has been.
That's their worldview.
One day, I walked into New York and there was a bridge before me.
And I could walk across the river.
They don't seem to realize there was a period where there was no bridge.
And if you were on Manhattan, it's like, gotta take a ferry.
You literally gotta take a boat to get to Brooklyn.
Now we have train tunnels.
The infrastructure is all there.
What do you think that does to someone's frame of mind?
The people who live in cities, and they tend to be very liberal, have this view that The bridge just is.
Think about... It's crazy to me how you can't see this, right?
I've been to places... Oh, there's the Bayonne Bridge, because I lived down there for a while.
I remember I was at a skate park.
There's a skate park in South Bayonne.
It's on the Jersey side.
And literally just across the river is another skate park.
And I'm standing there on the shore, thinking to myself, it's literally like... What is it?
You know, I don't know, a couple hundred yards.
A couple hundred yards in front of me, and I can't get to that skate park.
If only there was a bridge.
Well, above me is a towering Bayonne Bridge, but it's so big, you gotta go a couple miles down, loop around, and it's actually several miles to get to.
But I thought about, like, wow.
Think about any other part of the world or country where there's no bridge, and there's no way across.
And people take that for granted.
So here's the point.
These millennials, The reason they're not having kids, for the most part, it's nothing to do with climate change.
They're just so spoiled.
They've reached a point where it's like a bubble bursting.
They're like, oh no, life might actually be difficult because of the way life is.
And their responses just stop.
That's crazy to me.
And I know a lot of people who are very progressive who have like vowed not to have kids because, I don't know, it's just so nuts when you think about it.
Here's what really, really gets me.
And why I think it's really important to have kids.
For one, We all stand on the shoulders of giants.
Everything you've learned and accomplished, you pass on to your kids.
And we don't always do a good job.
Not every parent is a good parent.
Not every kid has been raised properly and learned from their ancestors and those who came before them.
But that's what we should strive to do.
And that's why we live in a world where that bridge just is.
You go to New York, I'm like, there's a bridge there.
Yeah, it's because a society grows great when people plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit beneath.
Sit in, right?
That's the old proverb.
So at some point, somebody said, we need a bridge.
And now here we are, lucky, that someone before us built a bridge that we don't have to even think about it.
That's what gets me.
So that's why I think, you know, you should have kids, you know?
We made this world.
We made it nice.
We invented these things so that human life can progress.
So that we can conquer the stars.
And just, I don't know what the goal is.
I just know that we're moving in a direction.
And I'd love to see a Star Trek-like world where we have interstellar ships and lightspeed travel and all that stuff.
And so, hey, there's a pie in the sky, right?
There's a goal we have.
There's a light at the end of the tunnel.
Maybe it's not perfect.
Maybe it's not possible.
Maybe they'll never be what we want it to be, but that's the plan, right?
For billions of years, your ancestors have successfully reproduced.
If you don't have kids, you will be the first organism in your ancestral line to not reproduce.
Think about that.
That's crazy, isn't it?
And all of these people are saying, life might be hard.
Yeah, life's hard for rabbits, dude.
Rabbits are always shaken and terrified someone's going to eat them.
And these people are doomsayers who are terrified the world is ending.
But you know what?
They're not going to have kids.
And you know what that means?
In 50 years, I'm not going to have to hear from them anymore.
Okay?
I mean, I'll hear from them.
I'll be old with them.
Millennials are all crazy.
Not all of them, but enough of them.
And there's going to be a younger generation, and they're going to say, hey, hey, Mr. Poole.
Is it true that, like, when you were doing journalism, like, back in the day, people thought the world was gonna end?
And I'm gonna be like, yup!
Well, I'll tell you what, the reason why you don't know anybody who thinks that anymore is because I never had kids.
So the only people who had kids were the people who thought life was fine.
And all those young people, you know, my 40 years, my younger, are gonna be like, man, that's crazy.
Those people were dumb.
But you know what?
Hey, maybe the world ends.
I have no idea.
I don't think it's gonna end.
I think those people are nuts.
But I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
The world, the future is going to be more conservative.
And the data shows us.
We can look to the past, 2006.
We can look to the data today about how Gen Z is slightly more conservative on some issues.
They're still very progressive.
But think about what's going to happen now when these millennials don't have kids.
Who will propagate their ideas and their worldview?
Nobody.
It's gonna revert back.
You've reached that point where the bubble has burst.
And those that don't, they view the world as the apocalypse is coming, and they think having kids is wrong, and they're working too much.
You know, what it really comes down to is whether you agree with it or not, a traditional lifestyle persists simply because of math.
Because they believe in having kids, so they will.
This was predicted in 2006.
Again, in 2006 they said liberals aren't having kids, conservatives are, and now the data shows it.
Even though Gen Z is particularly progressive, and slightly progressive on some issues, I want to make sure I make this clear.
At least in my opinion.
The reason why Gen Z is slightly more approving of Trump is slightly more conservative on some issues.
It's not because Gen Z has an enlightenment.
It's because there are more conservatives in Gen Z. I could be wrong about that.
Maybe it really is YouTube.
Maybe it really is social media.
But I'll tell you what.
If 13 years ago they said, hey liberals, you're not having kids, the future is going to be conservative.
And now here we are with the first generation.
Look at this.
Silent boomer, Gen X, millennial, invert.
Silent generation likes Trump.
Boomers, they don't.
Gen X doesn't.
Millennials really don't.
But Gen Z likes Trump a little bit more.
It's reversing.
It might not.
Who knows?
But for now, I'm gonna tell you this.
Warning to liberals.
Your ideas will not exist if you don't have kids.
There it is.
You can be mad about it all day and night.
You're gonna be an 80-year-old voting, being like, if only we had kids to propagate our ideas and make the world as we saw it.
But we didn't.
And therefore, the people who will end up taking over the world, who inherit the world, are going to be more conservative.
I'll see you all at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
A couple days ago, Project Veritas published a groundbreaking story that ABC News had spiked the story on Jeffrey Epstein years ago, and they had an ABC News anchor speaking candidly in leaked footage the other day.
We learned that ABC News believed they found the individual that accessed the footage.
Though they can't definitively say this is Veritas's source, they believe they found the person.
Well, take a look at this headline.
CBS News fires staffer who had access to leaked Amy Roback audio.
You may be asking yourself, what does a CBS staffer have to do with ABC News?
Well, as far as we can tell right now, it seems that this person who worked for CBS News at one point had worked for ABC, may have leaked the footage or provided it to someone else, who then provided it to Veritas, we don't know, but they've been fired.
It seems like ABC went to CBS and got someone fired from a job from a company they didn't work at for a policy violation that has nothing to do with their company.
Hold on a second.
Why is CBS News firing a staffer because of an ABC News allegation?
We don't know if this person leaked the footage.
All we know is they accessed it.
Can CBS News fire a person for this?
Media is corrupt.
I'll just leave it at that.
Media companies, in my opinion, are corrupt.
We learned it, first, from how they smear Project Veritas.
But that's a small story.
It happens to the best of us.
They lie, they cheat, and they steal.
And when Veritas comes out with stories they don't like, they say the worst things about them.
Well, then Veritas published this story showing ABC News would rather protect a terrifying and awful individual like Epstein, they would rather protect him than actually do some journalism.
They were worried.
They weren't going to get to interview Will and Kate.
Oh, the palace was upset.
That's right.
Protecting their bottom line was more important.
But now we can see CBS News in cahoots.
CBS News, a totally different company, fired one of their employees because a different company claimed that individual may have violated their policies.
Can you prove they leaked it?
Apparently they can't.
And so the news is being very careful about it.
So I can only say, we believe this was the source for Veritas now losing their job.
But again, I ask you, Why would CBS News fire a person for violating the company policies of a different company?
Unless they're in cahoots.
They're corrupt.
They're bought and paid for.
I'm being hyperbolic.
I'm not alleging a grand conspiracy, but come on!
CBS firing somebody for what ABC News claims?
B.S.
Let's read the story from page six.
CBS News has fired a female staffer believed to have had access to the tape of Amy Roback raging against ABC News.
Page 6 understands.
Hold on.
Was she not allowed to access the footage at all?
Can you prove she's the one who actually leaked the footage?
Why are you firing her for it?
Well, I guess what they've determined is if she's the only one who accessed the footage, then whether she gave it to Veritas or anybody else, that's their allegation.
They say we report on Wednesday that ABC News chiefs discovered a former employee could be behind the leak of the damning footage of Roback slamming the network for shelving her interview with Epstein, with Epstein's victim, Virginia Roberts.
Sources told Page Six that a former staffer had access to the footage of Roback as she aired her frustrations over a hot mic.
And that employee was now believed to be working at CBS.
A TV source told us later on Wednesday that the woman was let go from CBS after ABC execs alerted the rival network.
ABC sources confirmed to us that they'd informed counterparts at CBS about the staffer as a courtesy.
Right.
Media companies are more interested in firing the source who is speaking truth to power.
Think about that for a second.
This potential leaker, we don't know for sure, this woman, was fired because she did real journalism, taking a great risk to reveal that ABC News was protecting Epstein.
Oh, they claim.
They claim.
Oh, we just couldn't corroborate the evidence.
We know it's not true.
We know they're lying.
Because they had photographs.
Unless Amy Roback was lying to her staff, to her co-workers.
No, but they said they had photos.
They had the interview.
Virginia Roberts confirmed the interview existed.
Why wouldn't the media air it?
So when this individual, who is now fired, Actually wanted to speak truth to power.
She got punished for it.
What does that mean?
Can you expect ABC News, CBS, or any of these other companies to actually do journalism?
The real journalism that is supposed to challenge the power?
No, of course not!
They exist as a shield for powerful elites like Epstein.
That's what they do.
Now, if you're on the outside, you're anti-establishment, oh, they will tear you to shreds, no matter how much money or wealth you have.
It's a big club and you ain't in it.
Apparently Trump isn't either.
They say, as we reported, it is not known whether the woman leaked the tape, which was recorded in July, to the website Project Veritas or may have showed it to others who passed it on.
It's entirely possible.
They say it was recorded in July.
Perhaps she was looking at the footage in July and filmed it on her phone, because it does look like the footage was filmed on a phone, and then shared it with a friend, had nothing to do with it, was like, whoa, you gotta see this, and then it went far and wide, went viral.
I don't think that's the case, though.
I think if she had the footage and inadvertently, you know, leaked it, like she was showing a friend or something, it would have gone viral very, very quickly.
Somebody went to Veritas.
Somebody said, I can give you this.
So, who knows?
A CBS spokesperson declined to comment on the matter.
An ABC source had told us earlier Wednesday that the network was considering its options, but added that it was more difficult because the person no longer works there, but if they did, the leak would be a fireable offense.
An ABC rep commented, we take violations of company policy very seriously, and we're pursuing all avenues to determine the source of the leak now.
If they recorded this while working for ABC, they're a whistleblower.
That's plain and simple.
It's really funny.
A lot of people are saying, so now fire the whistleblower in this instance, but not the Trump.
No, you can't.
The media can't talk about the Trump whistleblower.
It's because the media is protecting the establishment.
And that doesn't include Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.
They do not like Bernie.
And that's why I make the joke that Warren is basically Clinton in a Bernie mask.
But you can see how they operate.
Why did CBS News fire her?
Well, I think it's fair to say, if you found out that you had an employee with questionable loyalties, you might want to get rid of them.
But they're journalists, right?
Or at least they work for the company that's supposed to produce journalism.
Wouldn't you say, hey, this is important news, we should report on it?
What kind of news outlet kills a story this big and then calls on another company to turn, well, to inform them of the individual and then
the company fires them.
Aren't journalists supposed to speak truth to power?
Ah, unless it's the establishment.
And here you can see ABC and CBS, they're in alignment.
You know, we don't want someone revealing our special interests.
They say, an ABC rep commented, we take violations of company policy very seriously
and we're pursuing all avenues to determine the source of the leak.
In the leaked footage, Roback says, I can't pronounce that now, I'm sorry, Joffrey, who claims she was forced to engage in adult acts with Prince Andrew by Epstein, told me everything, but that ABC would not put the interview on the air.
The network said the report didn't meet its standards.
And on Tuesday, a top ABC producer told NPR, we would never run away from that.
We would never kill a story about Prince Andrew.
That's what's ridiculous on its face.
That's a great story.
So if we could do that story, we would have done it.
No!
No!
Listen, man.
Who are you going to believe?
Are you going to believe the crafty PR statement of, we strive to do great journalism?
Or the exasperated anchor saying, we had all of this.
We had photographs.
We had everything.
We had Clinton.
We had Clinton.
Uh-oh, there it is.
Of course!
He's telling the truth!
We don't care about Prince Andrew!
We care about Clinton!
And this story would have come out, what, just before the election three years ago?
Perhaps.
Maybe that's why they didn't want to play the game.
Because they said, ooh, that might help Donald Trump.
So here's the thing.
The media hates Trump.
You can talk about, you know, billionaires and wealth and all that, but Trump's always been an outsider.
And he's sort of tolerated.
He's powerful.
He's wealthy.
But the establishment, the cronies, the corporatists, they do not like Donald Trump.
So when Donald Trump started running in the Republican Party, they got mad.
And they laughed, and they mocked, and they ridiculed, and they said, you can't beat us, and then Trump did.
And now they're still angry.
These media companies, whether they actually support the politics of these individuals or not, are clearly Tribal.
I think this is the important thing to point out in all this.
It's not about conspiracies.
It's not about somebody twirling their mustache and being like, how dare you cross my cabal?
It's simple.
These establishment types are tribalists.
They love the system.
They love the status quo.
And there doesn't need to be any coordination or conspiracy for this kind of thing to happen.
That's why I don't like conspiracy theories.
It's like, dude, the answer is much more simple than that.
CBS was like, don't worry ABC, we're friends, we'll get rid of this person.
That person who got fired will probably never work for our company again.
One of these news companies.
Because they offended the delicate sensibilities of the tribalists, right?
So if you're a wealthy political elite, your friends, I mean, look, Stephanopoulos was at a party with Epstein.
Katie Couric, these people hang out together.
Oh, you can't offend your friends, right?
That's all it really is.
These wealthy people know each other, and so they act in their best interests to protect their wealth and their power.
Donald Trump is wealthy.
But he's not part of the establishment elites, the ivory tower that runs media.
So, you know, I mean, look, they liked him when he made money on NBC.
They liked him when he was a celebrity who was just some rich, silly guy.
But now this group of friends who work for big media companies and have friends in politics, they act in the best interest of their friends.
And we know that they hang out together.
So there it is.
CBS will fire you for something you did at ABC months ago.
How does that make sense?
Unless they're friends.
They all know each other.
Politicians behind the scenes, they all know each other.
That's all it is.
It's a big club and you ain't in it.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TeamCast.
I will see you all there.
More and more, I believe that Donald Trump and his family really do care about this country.
I do not think they're evil.
I think they have personal interests.
I don't think they're perfect, but I think they do care.
I believe that their intentions are, for the most part, honest.
Nobody's perfect.
The reason I'm saying this is because recently on The View, The View couldn't even say his name.
Okay, Whoopi Goldberg on The View couldn't even say his name.
You even hear Joy Behar say, don't say his name.
What?
They wanted to have Don Jr.
on the show.
They couldn't say his name.
But here's the thing.
I'm not here to defend Donald Trump Jr.
and the president.
I'm here to defend Tulsi Gabbard.
Because Tulsi was on The View, and they called her a useful idiot, doubling down on the Russian asset thing.
These stories are coming out around the same time.
And so you know what I think?
I think if you're being smeared by the establishment, you're probably doing something right.
Is everything Tulsi advocates for and does correct?
Of course not.
I don't agree with all of her positions, and I've criticized her on a lot, especially her stance on nuclear energy.
Not perfect.
Is Donald Trump Jr.
or Donald Trump perfect?
No!
I criticize them more!
Well, mostly Donald Trump.
Trump Jr., I mean, I don't really talk about him for the most part.
But he's in the show, he's making his case, he's talking about what he thinks and how he feels, and he gets dragged over it.
And so when I watch Tulsi Gabbard get smeared and lied about, and she's someone I actually support and actually like as a candidate, I'm like, hey, you're lying!
Calling Tulsi a useful idiot is ridiculous.
They call me that too.
That offends me.
Now, me being offended means very little.
I'm not going to tell The View not to talk about it.
But then I watched this latest outburst with Donald Trump Jr.
And I'm kinda like, yep, yep, I get it.
And this is why I think Trump supporters understand the Tulsi predicament and Tulsi supporters understand the Trump predicament.
It's like a populist left thing.
The establishment doesn't like us.
It doesn't matter if you're for Trump or against Trump.
It doesn't matter if you're for Tulsi or against Tulsi.
If you're on one of their sides, you're getting the same treatment from the establishment.
They're gonna call you a stooge, an idiot, all that stuff.
Now, when I saw this story about Tulsi, I said, yeah, yeah, yeah, what else is new?
Okay?
They had her on the air.
She got to make her point.
I respect it.
Donald Trump Jr., look at this!
Spars with ABC's The View, even here.
Over impeachment Epstein cover-up on ABC.
And apparently, are they gonna block me now?
Apparently the big thing is that Joy Behar dressed up on Halloween as an African woman.
And when Don Jr.
calls it out, they just tell him he's wrong, he's lying, it's not blackface.
Even Jezebel wrote about this.
So let's read the story.
Are they gonna allow me?
Donald Trump Jr.
spars with ABC's The View hosts on whistleblower's name impeachment Epstein cover-up.
They accused him of committing a crime.
That's the big takeaway.
I understand the cultural thing is the African-American concept, but they accused him of committing a crime, not because he said the name.
Eric Charamello, by the way.
Because he retweeted an article about it.
How insane is that?
And no, it's not a crime.
That's nuts.
So let's read this story.
And I opened that way to make the point, okay?
Bernie's not popular, but Bernie has towed enough of the establishment line, and they kind of back away.
They're not super hard against him, but Tulsi?
Man, that's nuts.
Let's read from Real Clear Politics.
Donald Trump Jr.
and his girlfriend, former Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle, debated the hosts of ABC's The View Thursday afternoon, where he defended his father against impeachment charges, defended his decision to tweet the name of the Ukraine whistleblower, and blasted the ABC network for getting CBS to fire the person who leaked a hot mic video of a reporter saying they spiked the Jeffrey Epstein story three years ago.
I applaud that to Donald Trump Jr.
First of all, let's go through this.
ABC cover-up?
Yep.
Lay on the criticism, man.
Then you have the name of the whistleblower?
Already public.
What are you complaining about?
These arguments have nothing to do with substance.
You know, it's like Donald Trump Jr.
can come out and say, you shouldn't have covered that, you should have aired that story.
What's there to argue about?
They shouldn't have.
Who is defending?
For some reason, CNN and these big media companies refuse to talk about it.
That's not a political position.
Let's not kid ourselves.
ABC right now is chasing down a whistleblower about all of the Epstein stuff because these stories were killed.
So if we're going to have a conversation about the outrage of whistleblowers, you worked with CBS to out the whistleblower.
They fired the CBS.
CBS fired a female staffer they believe who had accessed the footage, presumably because they think this woman leaked the information.
Yeah, they care about whistleblowers, right?
I get it, man.
A federal whistleblower has some protections from the chain of command and CBS firing a staff, but come on, the collusion?
I think the reality of the answer is the whistleblower's name was on a little website called the Drudge Report a couple days ago.
It was in RealClearPolitics.
I literally quote tweeted an article that had the guy's name in the title of the article.
Trump Jr.
said about his decision to tweet the whistleblower's name, I wish the outrage would be equal.
I mean, there was no outrage when, you know, my family got an exploding letter of, you know, white powder substance in it.
Yep.
It's amazing, right?
That the media is all hush-hush.
Oh, we can't say the name.
Everybody knows the name.
It is a game to these people, okay?
They're playing a game.
We all know the name of the whistleblower.
That's been alleged.
I gotta be careful.
Eric Ciaramella.
It's been all over the media.
All over.
Not the big main channels.
The same channels who killed the Epstein story.
The same channels who keep assuring us Joe Biden did nothing wrong in Ukraine.
Oh, you think I believe that?
Come on.
The State Department gets an email saying, stop investing in corruption.
Just before a raid happens, they fire the prosecutor and the dude's cleared of all charges?
You think I believe- Listen, let me break this down for you.
Tarias, for those who didn't see my main video.
State Department emails, according to John Solomon, are sent saying, hey, why are you investigating our company in February?
Joe Biden goes to Ukraine and says, if you want a billion dollars, fire the prosecutor.
They claim it's because the prosecutor wasn't investigating corruption, but then the new prosecutor clears the guy of all wrongdoing and they release his money.
Oh, please, dude.
Oh, please.
They let the guy go.
The guy who ran Burisma.
It was only after Trump got elected.
So they want to play these games.
I don't trust the media.
We learned this.
When ABC refused to tell the Epstein story, Veritas hit... I don't even want to call it a home run, because that ball is in orbit, okay?
They smacked that ball so hard out of the field, it's circling the globe.
We learned.
When it comes to powerful elites, like Joe Biden, worse still, Epstein, they'll cover for him.
You're protecting a guy in the CIA and creating outrage, but when your family gets something, and that's a big part of the book, he explained, it's not a level playing field in terms of outrage.
We live in an outrage culture.
Hey, Brian Stelter said the same thing.
We do.
Everybody's outraged all the time.
Co-host Meghan McCain confronted Trump Jr.
saying he and his father have hurt a lot of people.
But let me stop you right there.
Because when I heard this line of questioning, I was like, yeah man, I get that he's hurt a lot of people, but like in what capacity?
Donald Trump Jr.
and Trump haven't physically walked up to anybody and like twisted their arm.
I mean, people have tried to attack them.
But you want to talk about hurting them in an economic, in a familial sense, in a less tangible sense?
Yes.
Everyone all the time hurts somebody.
In fact, my video right now is hurting somebody.
What are we supposed to do about it, okay?
I always tell people, no matter what you do, you will help someone, and you will hurt someone.
If you advocate for, hey, we're going to solve climate change with green energy, yeah, there are people who work for fossil fuel companies who will lose their jobs.
Hey, we want Medicare for all, we're going to help everybody, and two million people will lose their jobs.
I'm not saying you're intentionally hurting people, but it happens.
Well, Don Jr., being classy, I guess I'll call it, that he's, none of that makes him happy, but he thinks
their intention is to do right.
And that's fair.
The problem is, you know what I'm seeing right now?
I don't think it's always been this way.
Trump Jr. says that Republicans haven't fought back for decades.
I do not believe that's true.
Absolutely not.
I believe that today, the authoritarians on the left, they're not cool, they're weird
squares and they're instituting authoritarian policies because they've gained traction in
major cultural institutions and now Republicans are too pathetic to do anything about it.
I don't mean the individual voters, not you guys, you Republicans who are watching.
No, I think you guys are going online, I think you're raising a stink, I think you're sharing videos, and that's respectable.
You're voting, you're doing what you can.
The same is true for, you know, regular Democrats as well.
The people who go out and vote.
Nothing against the regular voters who are calling for what they want.
But I gotta say, man, you look at the game being played by the Democrats with impeachment, and you look to what the Republicans are doing, and I'm like, Republicans are sitting on their hands.
You know why?
The Democrats are establishment and willing to sacrifice everything to get what they want.
Republicans are fair-weather politicians.
You know, people like Lindsey Graham, it's like, oh, can't be too sure.
Like, hey, if I actually researched the evidence on Ukraine impeachment, it sounds like Trump's actually right.
Are his motivations pure?
In my opinion, no.
But his motivations aren't relevant, for the most part, because in the end, it turns out, yeah, Biden's probably corrupt.
That's what the evidence shows.
You'd think any one of these Republicans, and they're good ones.
I'm not saying they're all bad.
And they're good Democrats, too.
I have to say, I know it's stupid to say, but there are going to be people being like, oh, not all Democrats, not all Republicans.
Here's the point is, the Republicans right now, they control the Senate.
I mean, they controlled the House before 2018.
They got nothing.
What did they do?
And now here we are.
They've been planning the coup.
They've been planning the impeachment.
That's what they called it.
The guy called it a coup.
And what are Republicans doing about it?
So Don says they haven't fought back for decades.
Nah, they're just not fighting back now.
They don't got your back.
Let's be real, okay?
I do not believe the majority of Republicans have Donald Trump's back.
They don't like the guy.
Meghan McCain points out on The View that character is important.
I completely agree.
I think Trump is too much of a showman.
And so because of that, he's boorish.
But more importantly, I believe Donald Trump would do everything in his power to win over the left, But they've sacrificed him already.
I really believe that.
I believe that when Trump got elected, if the media and leftists were like, let's give Trump a chance, Trump would have been the most moderate bipartisan president we've ever seen.
When I look at Trump, he's a populist.
I think his intention is to maximize love for himself.
You look at his name on buildings, he's a celebrity, he's on TV shows.
He wants people to like him.
That's his whole thing.
Here's the problem.
The Trump bump was gold.
They knew that they were going to get ratings, so they drive a stake through it.
And no matter what Trump says, he's wrong.
So Trump, screw it.
I don't care.
I'll take what I can get.
Trump wants to maximize his base.
And he's willing to compromise to do it, because what he really cares about, in my opinion, He cares about having the most amount of people like and respect him.
That's my view of Trump.
It doesn't mean he doesn't care about the country.
I think he does care about America.
He's talked about it a lot.
He's done a lot of famous things like helping rebuild New York and all that stuff and bring back parades.
But I think Trump's motivations are Well, I do believe the Trump family cares about America.
Let's be real.
But I think the left lost their opportunity to actually win over.
Trump was willing.
You know, what was it like?
Something happened a while ago.
I gotta keep this short.
Something happened a while ago where Trump was proposing like a bipartisan gun control legislation and the conservatives and the NRA were freaking out.
Yeah.
The left could have gained some traction, but they didn't want to.
They wanted to burn it all down.
So Trump said, look, if you're not going to play ball, I'm not going to play ball with you either.
And so he says to his base, you're what I got.
Let's do it.
Let's roll.
So anyway.
The main point of this video is just... I'll say a couple more things and wrap up.
Don Jr.
came off fairly classy, I guess, and the accusations, they wouldn't say his name.
It's absurd.
But I feel for you, man, because this just happened with Tulsi Gabbard.
So I'll say this.
Be it a Trump supporter, I disagree with a lot of these... I disagree on a lot of policy positions that Republicans have.
I think Trump's got bad character.
I think it's fair to point out.
Trump Jr.' 's a different story.
I think he did a pretty good job.
But I get it.
I understand the populist message.
I understand the goal, the helping America.
And Tulsi Gabbard is very, very similar, but just on the other end of that political debate.
And so in the end, like I've said before, Tulsi Gabbard debating with Donald Trump is going to be about the people.
It's going to be about the country.
It's going to be about stopping this wasteful spending overseas and doing what we can to make America better.
The difference between the two?
Tulsi doesn't like Trump and his foreign policy, and I think Trump is playing to the office.
I think the office controls you for the most part.
But I think domestically, Trump's got a more conservative, moderate-right position on a lot of these policies.
Tulsi's got a more progressive view on them.
But in the end, I think they both love America.
There you go.
Whatever.
They're both getting smeared by the view.
That's the point.
If you're smeared by the view, okay, good.
Stick around, I've got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
These media companies like to be very preachy.
They like to tell us how there are moral superiors atop their glorious ivory tower in New York City looking down at all the peasants who are living in their squalor with their bigoted views.
But as it turns out, the Washington Post has their own wage gap.
And the Washington Post Guild has released the numbers showing that, uh-oh, white men get paid most of the money.
Naturally, the Washington Post is furious.
Saying, how dare you release this!
It's not true!
Aww.
The Washington Post, who believes, you know, they're the bastions of morality.
Not everyone there, but for the most part, Washington Post has published fake news before, and they get to do whatever they want because democracy dies in darkness.
But they have a wage gap of their own.
And now their staff are upset about it.
And this is the main point I want to get.
We'll read the story, but the reason I'm covering this particular story, You know, the other day, BuzzFeed wrote a headline insinuating that two black men fought to the death over fried chicken.
It was one of the most obnoxious and racist fake stories I've ever seen published, because the story is not true.
And what bothers me is that these media companies pretend to be arbiters of morality, and in reality, they are just as awful as anybody else.
Why did BuzzFeed write that headline?
Did you know that in Chicago, last weekend, four people died?
BuzzFeed didn't write about that.
BuzzFeed wrote a fake story about two black men fighting to the death for fried chicken.
It never happened.
What really happened was that two guys got into an argument.
One guy stabbed him and ran off.
It just so happened to have been at a Popeyes.
That's about it.
They weren't fighting over chicken.
No transactions were made.
And this is what we get.
This is the media we have.
So it's funny to me.
ABC News can squash, can kill this major story, but they can hunt down that whistleblower and fire him in two seconds.
The media is dirty.
They're corrupt.
And this is just another example.
So let's read the news and rag on media once again.
Daily Wire reports the loudest voices pushing the gender wage gap myth often fail to adhere to their own standards.
The latest example comes from the Washington Post, which, other than some decent fact checks on the subject of Glenn Kessler, continues to insist the pay gap is real and due to discrimination against women.
They say, Excuse me.
A report from the Post's union, however, shows that the legacy media outlet has its own gender wage gap problem and race wage gap.
The report found that the median pay for women working at the Post is $91,816.
While the median pay for men is $109,928.
Oh man, that's like, what, 10-20%?
The median pay for hourly employees puts women ahead, with women making $30.77 per hour while men make just $25.84 per hour.
The union or guild then broke down the median salaries of post employees by gender and race.
And they were higher than the median salary of white women.
So here's the meat and potatoes.
They can rag all day and night on Donald Trump and his supporters and the bigots and all of that stuff, and then when it comes down to it, they're just as bad or worse.
And I gotta stress that BuzzFeed article, man.
It really, really made me angry.
BuzzFeed has a choice.
They can report any story they want.
So they took a story about two guys who got into an argument, one guy died, and they said, let's make it a fight about fried chicken.
Why?
That's what I ask.
Why?
What about a story about two black men fighting for fried chicken is worth publishing on BuzzFeed?
Because this kind of senseless violence happens all the time in Baltimore, in Chicago, in Detroit, and they never write about it.
So why now, BuzzFeed?
And this brings me back to this point.
I'm sorry if I'm derailing.
It's just, what we can see is complete hypocrisy from these media companies.
Deadspin, right?
So you saw what happened with Deadspin when all the employees walked out and their media issued a statement saying, they just don't want us speaking truth to power.
Oh, please.
You guys don't speak truth to power.
You complain about Orange Man.
What are you doing?
You wrote an article about some kids in Washington DC standing around doing nothing with all of the moral outrage as if the world was ending.
But this is exactly what it is.
You know, I'm not going to name the company because I don't want to get sued, but there's one major leftist digital publication that was run by, like, right-wing, you know, anarcho-capitalist dudes who published far-left social justice pro-Bernie stuff because it made them money.
It's called Grifting.
Look at Deadspin.
Deadspin says, we're a sports website, but we should be able to write about politics because it gets better clicks.
That's called Grifting, dude!
Grifting!
When you're a sports website but you write about politics because you know you'll make money doing it.
So let me wrap it all back up here to the Washington Post.
Why do they write about the perils of the wage gap and racism and all that other stuff?
They're not the worst offender, mind you.
They do it because it gets clicks.
They do it because it's pandering to their audience, but they don't practice what they preach.
They say the report also found That merit raises at the company seem to favor white male journalists.
Uh-oh.
White employees receive 75.7% of all merit-based pay raises, while men received 51.7% of them, meaning near parity among the sexes.
The report that performance evaluation scores allegedly favored white employees.
Employees of the Post are rated on a scale of 1 to 5, and the report found that 85% of those employees who received a score of 4 or higher were white.
The report found that 37% of those given a score lower than 3 were employees of color, meaning 63% of those receiving low scores were also white.
Post-employees are 64.4% white.
Complicated data!
But can I offer up a few criticisms?
If you employ people based on their race and not their skills, would you be at all surprised when you see this?
First, the country is predominantly white.
What is it, around like 67%?
And that's dropping, mostly because liberals don't have kids.
But if you're in a company and you say, we have a list of 100 people.
We need to hire 50.
And the top are white because of white privilege or because historical wealth and they went to better schools.
And you say, we're not going to choose these.
We're going to go down until we find someone of the appropriate race.
More importantly, If a 13% of this country is black, that means you might actually see the same breakdown of skill across the board, but because there are more white people, at the top you'll only see a few black, hispanic, asian, whatever, right?
Well, if you want equity, that means for every white person you gotta have a black person or an asian person, okay?
Not national level statistics.
So then you start going down in skill level to find, you know, people who aren't as good at what they do.
Don't be surprised if they then don't get merit-based raises.
Now, when it comes to men versus women, we can see it's basically the same.
There's no real difference for the most part between men and women getting merit-based raises.
There you go.
Hey, that proves something, right?
I think the problem is a lot of these companies, while they're hypocrites, that's the main point I want to make.
But a lot of these companies It's the hypocrisy.
That's the point.
What I want to say is, internally, they recognize that these systems have bad outcomes.
But they write whatever they think they've got to write because it makes them money.
And that's why you end up with this skewed system.
They say the Post Guild claims that disparity persists even when controlling for age and job description.
But there are numerous other factors that can lead to the gap, such as experience and negotiating ability.
It is amusing to see a company like the Post, which is so committed to painting women as victims of mass discrimination, grapple with its own discrimination claims.
The same has happened to lawmakers who push the gender wage gap.
It's kind of like, uh, remember all those Republicans who were anti-gay and then turned out to be gay?
Like, what's up with that?
It doesn't happen anymore!
President Barack Obama and his administration were one of the most persistent purveyors of the wage gap myth.
A report of the Obama White House found the median salary for men was higher than the median salary for women.
The Obama administration countered by pointing out the discrepancy was due to more men at top-level positions, but highlighted the fact the administration was hiring more women to junior positions in an effort to enact change.
What people don't realize about the wage gap Is that it's mostly generational.
Baby boomer women are less likely to have gone to college than baby boomer men.
So yes, when you factor in all the boomers you'll see a big disparity.
Gen X women went to college more.
Millennial women are more likely to go to college.
Okay, I tell you what.
What we're going to end up seeing in the next generation is an inversion of the wage gap.
And I mean median salaries.
Now, it is possible that risk pays better.
So, you know, guys work on oil rigs.
Women don't want to do that, so they don't.
Or working in sewers.
And that pays well.
Or, like, crime scene cleanup.
But I think, with all the men in college, what we'll likely end up seeing is an inversion.
Because what they don't take into consideration when it comes to the wage gap is age.
Age is a big factor.
Your generation, what society was like, and your skill level.
If most people in college today are women, what do you think it's going to look like in 10 years when these people are taking over industry?
I will make one important point, however.
I know a lot of people who are very successful and wealthy and they didn't go to college.
In fact, you can look at, I don't know, Mark Zuckerberg, dropout.
Bill Gates, dropout.
Who else we got?
Rob Dyrdek, okay?
Hosts MTV show.
Different line of work.
Successful, high school dropout.
Me?
High school dropout.
And I'll tell you what, man.
If these people are spending their time in college, and other people are starting their own businesses, I think we're going to have an interesting future where women are going to be heavily in debt relative to men.
And men are going to be able to travel around and do whatever they want, but women won't be able to.
So here's what we need to do.
I'll wrap this one up.
Take a look at everything happening now, and we need to think about what happens next.
Majority of people in college are women.
That means the majority of college debt is held by women.
And that means you're going to have a future where women are massively in debt and men aren't.
But it used to be the other way around.
Men going to college, you know, were in debt, but the women weren't going to college, so they weren't.
It's inverting.
Anyway.
The main point of this video is that the Washington Post is being slammed by their own employees for having a wage gap.
Aww.
Well, you reap what you sow, Washington Post.
You can't claim that this is problems and then the Washington Post issued a statement saying this is not true, you're lying.
Sorry.
These are the people you hired.
Congratulations.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
You're probably familiar with the James Younger case.
This is a very contentious story, where a young boy was being told by his mother that he was trans.
That's the argument from the father.
The mother contends that he was trans.
The mother had the predominant custody, meaning she was making this child, James, go to school as Luna.
Recently, there was a big outrage, a big outcry, and conservatives got involved, and a judge ruled for split conservatorship.
Like, split custody, I guess.
I don't know how it works.
But they will not be allowed to transition James without the father's permission.
And the father believes that James is not trans.
Well, guess what?
Lo and behold, seven-year-old defies mom, who says he's transgender and decides to attend school as a boy.
And there he is, smiling, wearing regular boy's clothes.
Now, hold on, you say.
Hold on, let me stop.
People on the left are going to argue that the dad is just making him do this.
Do you think that's fair?
That he's really trans but he has to conform because the dad is making him!
Isn't the same argument in the other direction valid as well?
That he's only dressing up like Luna because the mom is making him?
There's no- Listen.
You're gonna have, in my opinion, to default to biological sex.
The kid- It's a kid.
He doesn't know anything about gender.
He hasn't gone through puberty.
He doesn't understand any of this.
What did Blair White say?
She said trans kids are like vegan cats.
You know who's making the decision.
It's a point.
I'm gonna get in trouble for that.
Whatever, man.
The point is the parents are making the kid do it.
That's what I'm saying about this.
You want to argue that this kid is actually a transgender female?
Transgender and wants to be female?
Uh, okay.
Well, then you're claiming the dad is making the kid not do that.
And the people on the right are claiming the mom is making him do it.
So no matter what you get, you end up with the parents are making the decisions here.
That's it.
But you know what?
The parents probably should be.
The kids should not be.
And that's where it really breaks down for me.
The dad may be making the decision for the kid, but probably should.
And the mom is claiming the kid does what he wants.
In fact, in court transcripts, the judge asked something about, does he get to not take a shower?
It was a woman.
The female judge was like, if he doesn't want to take a shower, does he not have to?
Or do you tell him he has to?
Let's read the story.
They say, The Save James Facebook group, which is reportedly run by friends of the family on Monday, posted photos of James and his twin brother Jude Younger purportedly on their way to school and a day earlier to church.
Both of the brothers are dressed as boys.
This is what it looks like when James gets to choose, the caption reads.
James and Jude proud to be men.
It says update.
Jeff emailed the principal today and James and Jude's teachers had reported that there was zero stress or disruptions in the classroom today.
Just another day in school.
Prayers answered.
They say Alan Eccles, who helps manage the Save James Facebook page, told LifeSite News, We determined to get louder and now have thousands who will hold those Senators and Representatives accountable during the next election.
We the people are fed up with the attacks on children by the transgender agenda.
James' parents have been waging a years-long legal custody battle with James' gender identity seemingly at stake.
The mother, Ann Georgilis, has insisted that James is transgender and has overseen his transition to female.
Georgilis enrolled James in school under the name Luna, and staff treat him as female, including allowing him to use the girl's restroom.
However, the father, Jeffrey, has accused Georgilis' ex-wife of manipulating James into presenting as a girl when he is not, in fact, transgender.
Quote, I'm the only authority figure in his life that tells him the truth.
That he's actually a boy, Younger said on a Christian podcast in 2015.
They're asking me to affirm a delusion.
An update to the Save James Facebook post says, Jeff emailed the principal today and James and Jude's teacher had reported that there was zero stress or disruptions in the classroom today.
Just another day in school.
Prayers answered.
On October 21st, a Texas jury denied Younger's request for sole guardianship.
Okay, so now we get this.
We're at the point where we understand, right?
There's more news.
It's not over yet.
They say that Cook said, Georgilis has not tried to surgically or chemically transition the child in her ruling, and the Texan has reported that the mother's lawyers say she does not plan to give James hormone blockers at the time.
But no one has stated that she would not be open to using them when James begins puberty, which would begin around age 11, And this brings us to the bigger news.
The mother is outraged.
And she wants the judge to recuse herself.
Mom of boy caught up in gender transition court case demands judge step down.
because she had posted a news article about it.
And this brings us to the bigger news.
The mother is outraged and she wants the judge to recuse herself.
Mom of boy caught up in gender transition court case demands judge step down.
Because when you lose, it's your only option.
James Younger's mother demanded Tuesday that the judge who delivered a ruling in her son's case
step down over social media comments the judge made.
Dallas judge Kim Cooks ruled on October 24th.
You know what?
I'm going to stop real quick.
I think it was Ann Coulter, if it's not, forgive me, but some conservative posted a photo of the judge and said, here's all you need to know.
And I just want to stop right quick.
I don't understand what that was supposed to mean.
Like, it was a picture of the judge, and I really don't get, what am I supposed to learn from seeing a picture of the judge?
In my opinion, I think they were making a presumably racist point about the judge being a black woman.
But I don't understand what else they've been trying to infer.
So I don't want to imply racism, unless there was something overt said, but I'm curious as to what that was supposed to mean.
Like, here's a picture of the judge.
That's all I need to know.
Well, the judge sided, technically, with the dad.
Protecting the kid.
Okay?
I can't stand.
Okay.
I want to make sure I'm careful.
I don't want to imply racism where there was none, because I don't want to be one of these, you know, I try to be level-headed.
In my opinion, if the attempt was to paint a picture about the woman in a racist light, I think this is an excellent point to be made, that you are wrong.
And that anybody who saw this judge, a black woman, as siding with the mother for racial reasons was just proven wrong because the judge made the right decision.
A fair decision, I should say.
Joint conservatorship.
So isn't that the right thing the judge should have done?
You see I'm on the left and racism triggers me?
Cooks ruled that Jeff Younger and Mother Ann Georgilis will have joint guardianship over their son and issued gag orders on both of them, preventing them from speaking to media.
Georgilis is demanding Cooks step down after Cooks shared a Facebook post regarding the case.
Cooks shared a story from the Dallas Morning News in late October clarifying, the governor nor any legislator had any influence on the court's decision.
Oh, please, is that a stretch?
The judge asserting their independence from other branches of the government is grounds for recusal?
Nice try.
Not gonna happen.
The judge did the right thing.
In fact, I will say, Kim Cooks, I respect you.
You've made a sound judicial decision.
Joint guardianship, I think, is fair.
And the fact that they could not pressure you to do this, and you want to assert your authority and independence?
Bravo.
Good job.
I think everybody should be glad to hear that this is a fair ruling.
Because I'll tell you what, you might have a lot of people saying, no, they should have given all to the father.
Or no, they should give it all to the mother.
Yeah, well, you know what?
You've got two parents, both saying two different things, and I believe, without, I haven't seen all the evidence, so I don't know necessarily, I believe it's fair to say, look, listen, yes, some kids are trans.
But the dad may be right on this one.
And perhaps based on distance, it's better to not have that decision be made.
Or it's better to defer to, you know, stopping that transition.
Because what this means now is, if they're going to transition the kid, they have to agree.
Which means the father's not going to.
Excuse me.
Now there is part of the ruling that a court arbiter of some sort will make a determination based on the evidence if they can't come to an agreement.
But the judge effectively said, OK, we're going to break this one in half.
And there you go.
And that's why Georgilis, the woman, wants her recused.
Because she lost.
So good job, judge.
Good job.
You made the right, it's the right decision in my opinion.
They say, the judge even commented on the case, a pending matter in her court, on her Facebook page and in doing so invited ex parte communication about it.
Please dude, just... I get it man, lawyers are supposed to do this, right?
The post refers to Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott's October 23rd announcement of an investigation into James Younger's case following conservative outrage on Twitter.
Abbott tweeted that the Texas Attorney General's Office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services are looking into details of Younger's case.
Younger had said his son is happy being a boy and does not desire to be a girl.
James Younger's pediatrician mother, Georgilis, as well as counselors and therapists who testified on her behalf, told the court the seven-year-old is transgender and had expressed to each of them that he wished he were a girl.
But here's the problem.
There's video that the father published from when James was like three years old of him saying he was a girl.
I tell you what, man.
If you're a parent and you're telling these kids things that aren't true, they believe Santa Claus is real.
They believe the Easter Bunny is real.
And they'll believe you because they don't know what a girl is.
They say Abbott's office did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.
So, this story's not over.
I'll put it that way.
I'll probably get in trouble for this video, but you know what, man?
I'm just getting sick and tired of the absurdity and the insanity.
This is a kid.
The kid's not gone through puberty yet.
The kid doesn't know.
And desistance rates are really high, and most kids who claim to be trans desist around or after puberty.
In which case, the father is likely correct on this.
But you know what?
I still think it was fair that the judge gave joint guardianship.
Meaning, it's possible.
Absolutely.
And the mom should have her say, just like any other parent.
And there you go.
But to now call for the judge to be recused, to recuse herself, because she asserted her independence on the court?
That's called being a sore loser.
So the story's not over, because I assure you, she's gonna go full speed.
I feel bad for this kid, man.
I can only imagine the horrifying nightmare that this is gonna turn into.
And I'm sure he's already really confused about everything.
His dad very clearly wants him to be a regular kid.
