Democrats Star Witness Marie Yovanovitch Accused Of PERJURY In Impeachment Inquiry
Democrats Star Witness Accused Of PERJURY In Impeachment Testimony. Star witness and former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch may have committed perjury according to a new report form Tucker Carlson and Fox news.According to several reports, an email obtained by Fox news showed that Yovanovitch responded to a democratic staffer after claiming under oath that she did not respond to the staffer.Questions about who met with Adam Schiff's team and other democrats before the official investigation into the whistleblower complaints as well as whether or not Yovanovitch lied are being raised, mostly by conservatives.Once again this all falls onto tribal lines with most of the left ignoring the story or assuming Fox news is lying.Meanwhile the left is currently questioning whether the real offense was Donald Trump JR tweeting out a publicly available news story with the whistleblowers name in it.As id for some reason that is what we should be focusing on, never mind that Obama was notorious for going after whistleblowers.Unfortunately for us I don't think the real issues will ever get the attention they deserve. One of these instances is objectively punishable and one is silly, but of course nothing is likely to happen.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
According to a new report from Fox News, one of the star witnesses brought forth by Democrats in the impeachment inquiry may have committed perjury.
The Daily Mail states, former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch used her personal email account to message Democrat staffer over a time-sensitive and delicate issue a month before the whistleblower complaint was made public.
Marie Yovanovitch testified under oath.
She had not replied to Laura Kerry.
Fox News says it seems like she was dishonest.
Lee Zeldin, who was questioning her at the time, says something similar.
But there are a couple points here.
For one, who was meeting with Adam Schiff and the Democrats beforehand?
Why were they doing it and how long was it going on?
It's possible it was all in the up-and-up.
They wanted to question her about things before moving forward, maybe make sure it was legit.
But the other issue is, will they hold Marie Yovanovitch to the same standards, say, Michael Flynn was held to?
He's facing penalties over lying to the FBI.
I know lying to the FBI and perjury are somewhat different, but it's both about lying in the course of an investigation, right?
Well, what do we see from Twitter today?
Is there an outrage over the statements made by Maria Ivanovich?
Yes, among conservatives.
But the left is mostly talking about whether or not Donald Trump Jr.
broke the law by tweeting a publicly available article with the name of the alleged whistleblower.
It seems that in the end, what I have to look forward to in my daily news gathering practice is Partisanship.
Of course the right will highlight this, and I do think it is important.
And of course the left is going to target Donald Trump Jr.
However, I've got bad news for everybody.
If these allegations are true, perjury, it's a crime.
Donald Trump Jr.
tweeting out a story?
Not a crime.
So this is the focus of today.
Who committed the crime?
Let's start with Marie Yovanovitch, because this one actually seems serious, and may actually undermine much of the impeachment inquiry.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's multiple ways you can give.
Physical option, PayPal option, cryptocurrency.
Of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
I don't have a big marketing budget.
The best way for me to continue doing the work that I do and grow my business is if you share this content because you think it's important.
If you don't think it's important, don't share it.
I don't deserve it anyway.
But if you do think I'm doing a good job, please consider sharing this video.
Let's read.
The Daily Mail reports.
The former U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine used her personal email account to message a Democratic staffer over a delicate issue a month before the whistleblower complaint was made public, according to Fox News.
Marie Yovanovitch testified under oath.
She had not replied to Democratic congressional staffer Laura Kerry.
Three-time ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who was abruptly recalled from Kiev in May, gave a closed-door deposition on October 11th to three congressional committees investigating whether there were grounds to impeach Trump.
She is a key witness in House Democrats' impeachment inquiry, which began on September 24th after a whistleblower's allegations that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate unsubstantiated corruption charges against Democratic political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Kerry's emails and Yovanovitch's reported replies will raise questions of who knew about the whistleblower complaint before it was made public and which Democrats were warned of its contents.
It will also lead to question on whether Yovanovitch committed perjury.
I want to stress the point from yesterday that the lawyer for the whistleblower tweeted years ago, the coup has started.
I'm not going to tell you what to think about this, but I think the context is important.
That years before the call was even made, this lawyer was calling for impeachment, was saying the coup had begun, and before the whistleblower complaint was made public, Democrats apparently, it seems, were having meetings about this.
And it's even been reported that the whistleblower met with Schiff's people before filing the complaint.
It calls into question the potential bias over what's actually happening.
Now, in my opinion, I think the Democrats are just throwing a Hail Mary to get any ground they can against Trump.
I'm not saying Trump is perfect.
I think Trump has a lot of things to be criticized over, like the G7 at Trump Doral was a huge mistake.
But of course, if I don't say that, they'll claim I'm carrying water for them.
No, let's be real.
As far as I can tell based on the evidence, this is a politically motivated impeachment.
Because they know they have no play in 2020, negative partisanship is what they are relying on.
Target Trump as a bad person to drum up voters to vote against him instead of voting for the Democrats.
But let's, let's, let's, I don't want to derail.
Let's, let's keep reading.
They say, Yovanovitch is said to have replied to Kerry regarding the time-sensitive issue two days after the whistleblower filed their complaint over Trump's infamous call with Ukrainian president.
That despite telling Republican rep Lee Zeldin, I alerted the State Department because I'm still an employee and so matters are generally handled through the State Department.
They say Yovanovitch added.
So she emailed me.
I alerted the State Department and, you know, asked them to handle the correspondence.
And she emailed me again and said, you know, who should I be in touch with?
I didn't respond to that email because I had already transferred everything to the State Department and I figured they would be in touch and they were.
But Fox News reports she did reply, writing, she would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you.
Zeldin told the network, I would highly suspect that this Democratic staffer's work was connected in some way to the whistleblower's effort, which has evolved into this impeachment charade.
We do know that the whistleblower was in contact with Adam Schiff's team before the whistleblower had even hired an attorney or filed a whistleblower complaint, even though Schiff had lied to the public, originally claiming that there was no contact.
Additionally, while the contents of the email from the staffer to Ambassador Yovanovitch clearly state what the conversation would be regarding, Yovanovitch, when I asked her specifically what the staffer was looking to speak about, did not provide these details.
I specifically asked her whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department.
It is greatly concerning that Ambassador Yovanovitch didn't answer my question as honestly as she would have, especially while under oath.
A Democratic House Foreign Affairs Committee spokesperson said the correspondence was to hear from an ambassador whose assignment was cut short under unusual circumstances.
They argue the outreach was part of a months-long effort that culminated in the September 9th launch of an investigation into these events.
Is it possible, then, that they were meeting to discuss the impeachment inquiry?
I guess that's what they're trying to figure out, and most signs point to yes.
Why, then, would she lie about it?
It's possible.
Maybe it just slipped her mind.
It was a slip of the tongue.
She didn't remember responding.
That's possible, right?
Well, it doesn't matter.
She swore under oath to a statement of fact.
So whether or not anything comes of that, we'll see.
But the big story that I see on Twitter amongst all of the blue-checky journalists is not about this potentially groundbreaking perjury case.
It's about the name of the whistleblower.
So I thought it's the perfect opportunity to segue into who committed the real crime.
Marie Yovanovitch?
Potentially misleading Congress and an impeachment inquiry under oath?
Or Donald Trump Jr., who tweeted out a publicly available article?
It's crazy to me that that's the mental gymnastics being played here.
Now you can argue, this is nothing, it's a nothing burger, and nothing will come of it, fine.
I honestly don't think anything will come of it.
But how they're trying to play it up like Donald Trump did anything wrong, let's do something real quick.
First, here's the publicly available article from October 30th that Donald Trump Jr.
tweeted out.
They include the name Eric Jaramella that is being floated as the whistleblower fits the bill.
It's the name that most people are referring to, I believe, when they're talking about whether or not they should say the name.
This is publicly available information.
Nobody revealed anything.
But what is happening now with The View and the people who are ignoring the Yovanovitch story is they're trying to conflate and stretch a law to make an argument that it's possibly illegal to say this person's name even though it's been public for weeks.
That's the game they're playing.
Well, first, we have Lee Zeldin, who tweeted, It appears Ambassador Yovanovitch did not accurately answer this question I asked her during her impeachment inquiry deposition under oath.
Nobody wants to say she committed a crime.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
There is no problem on The View when, I can't remember who said it, but they straight up said, Donald Trump Jr., you committed a crime.
Why is it the left has no problem saying, you committed a crime?
But when it comes to this story from Fox News, it appears she wasn't honest.
It seems as though she committed perjury.
Now listen, I would never accuse Donald Trump Jr.
of committing a crime.
And I will absolutely say she may have perjured herself.
She may have committed perjury.
That's the claim from Fox News.
These stories can change.
Who knows what'll happen.
But on The View, they said straight up.
On Twitter, all of these pundits are saying Donald Trump Jr.
straight up committed a crime.
Check this out.
Abby Huntsman clashes with Trump Jr.
over whistleblower on The View suggests he acted like a dictator.
In fact, I think one of the quotes from The View was, it is a crime to name the whistleblower.
Donald Trump Jr.
says, no, it's not.
And then the woman responds, my law degree says it is.
They are straight up saying Don Jr.
committed a federal crime, a violation of U.S.
code.
But the U.S.
code they're citing talks about threatening an individual to influence a congressional inquiry, not tweeting out publicly available information.
Well, let's read a little bit about their outrage.
Fox News says, The president's son had a contentious interview on The View.
I'm sure many of you saw it.
I did do a segment a bit about it yesterday.
They say on Tuesday he defended himself against criticisms over his decision to tweet the name of the whistleblower who reported his father's controversial call with President of Ukraine.
Co-host Abby Huntsman started the interview by suggesting Trump Jr.
was acting like a dictator by posting the whistleblower's name on social media.
The whole point of releasing a name is to intimidate someone.
Stretch number one.
To threaten someone, stretch number two.
And to scare other people from coming out, stretch number three.
That's something that dictators do.
That's not what America does.
That's not what we do.
Donald Trump Jr.
responded by claiming the whistleblower's name had already been mentioned by multiple media outlets.
I think the reality of the answer is the whistleblower's name was on a little website called the Drudge Report, which gets millions of views, or more.
Trump said, referring to the popular news aggregation site.
Co-host Sonny Hostin pushed back, arguing that it was different for him, as the president's son, to broadcast the name.
Why?
I mean, I'm a private citizen, putting this out there, Trump Jr.
said.
Jr.
was on the show to promote his new book, Triggered, how the left thrives on hate and wants to silence us.
The interview unraveled into chaos several times, when the group was talking over each other, prompting Whippy Goldberg to step in and break up the conversation.
Huntsman also accused Donald Trump Jr.
of hypocrisy in complaining about leakers while his father was willing to use information from WikiLeaks.
If you talk about hypocrisy, you seem fine with leaking information if it makes you and your father look good because WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, I think, is a cyber terrorist, right?
And I think a Russian puppet.
You were fine promoting his stuff.
Slow down there, The View, okay?
Now, there's an article from CNN asking whether or not it was a crime.
That's the big debate because of this The View segment.
But let me just stop and say, I actually can agree with some of the criticism.
They did champion WikiLeaks and the leaks of Democrat emails, and then lamented the leaking of their own private information, but that just seems normal to me.
Like, yeah, everybody cheers when they get an advantage on their opponent and then complains when it affects them.
I don't think they're special in that regard.
And I think they actually could take the high road and say, we don't want the leaks to happen.
Yeah, I know we did this.
Yes, people are like, I don't know.
I don't describe it right.
Donald Trump Jr.
of course is going to be happy when information comes out exposing corruption, and of course he's going to be mad when it affects him.
The bigger question though, outside of all of this ridiculousness, is the question of committing a crime to which CNN decided to publish an article today in response to what happened on The View, for the most part.
But the question has been circulating because people have been asking, even Rand Paul, They said, is it a crime?
They've accused it, straight up saying, it is a crime to do this.
It's not.
It's not a crime, okay?
I'm not a lawyer, but I will tell you this.
You can argue a crime fits the bill.
And if a judge approves of it, fine.
One thing I pointed out in, I believe it was on my second channel maybe, that disorderly conduct can sometimes act as a hate speech law.
So if you're outside yelling offensive things, they might arrest you and claim it's disorderly conduct, that you're disturbing the peace.
So sure, you do have the First Amendment, but there's always ways they can kind of conflate things.
That's what they're doing here.
Is it illegal to out the whistleblower?
Let's get to the specifics.
Coverage under U.S.
criminal code, they say.
And this is in reference to The View.
Trump Jr.
is not covered by the same protections as, say, his father, the president, or Rand Paul.
So Trump is protected because they believe criminal statutes don't apply to the president.
Rand Paul is protected because on the floor of Congress he has something, he's protected under the Speech and Debate Clause.
Trump Jr.
is not covered.
During Trump Jr.' 's appearance on The View, Sonny Hostin, one of the show's co-host and a lawyer, argued outing the whistleblower would be considered a federal crime under Section 1505 of Title 18 U.S.C.
Pursuant to this code, threats that impede or attempt to influence any congressional inquiry are punishable by fines or imprisonment up to five years.
If the whistleblower or their prosecutor successfully made the case that these threats to identify the whistleblower impacted the House impeachment inquiry, then Trump Jr.
could be charged accordingly, but full stop!
I will make sure we draw the distinction here because let me be real with you.
We had two big stories today that are somewhat related but kind of on different sides of the tribe.
I feel like I'm playing a video game with two factions and I'm trying to break down these stories, right?
The first instance is the right is targeting Marie Yovanovitch saying she may have committed perjury.
That's an objective offense, okay?
If you lied under oath, I'm sorry.
That's a crime.
What Trump Jr.
did, however, where the left is focused, is not and they're stretching it to an absurd degree.
But let me be clear.
We don't.
I'm not making a definitive statement about Marie Yovanovitch.
Nobody else wants to either.
And I'm also rejecting what they're saying about Trump.
So, you gotta be careful, okay?
I don't want to get sued here.
And of course, everyone's being careful.
But I will stress that point again.
The left has no problem saying, you committed a federal crime.
However, when it comes to Marie Yovanovitch, when you can clearly state, according to Fox News, you know, even Fox News says, it appears she was dishonest or something to that effect.
So here's the thing.
Is it threatening someone to name them?
They could probably argue that, okay?
But it's still an argument that I think is fairly weak.
We'll see what happens in the court.
I'm not a lawyer.
However, what we have here is something substantially different.
If somebody was given private information and no one knew the whistleblower's name and they said, I'm gonna release their name, that could potentially threaten or intimidate the whistleblower and make them go into hiding or pull out or cancel.
But what if the name is already publicly available?
What if all Donald Trump Jr.
did was tweet out a story from Real Clear Investigations?
Well, I don't see how you can argue that he committed a crime in that regard.
He's sharing a public story.
At this point, the name is public.
We are playing a weird game here.
Eric Charamella is the person accused of being the whistleblower.
Why is that so hard for anyone to say?
But for some reason, news outlets won't say it.
unidentified
Even though we all know the name, they won't say it.
All of these different outlets are running with it.
Of course, the left-wing sites don't want to name the whistleblower, even though it's public information.
To me, that's absurd.
Okay, the information's out there, right?
It's possible Charmella is not the whistleblower, however, so maybe that's where we're still at.
But to try and argue it was a crime, here's the more important thing.
They're also kind of admitting Charmella is the whistleblower.
Think about it.
They're saying that Donald Trump Jr.
committed a crime under Section 1505 by outing the whistleblower.
They said he posted the whistleblower's name.
Well, real clear, investigations doesn't say it's definitive.
They say this is the name being floated.
So why are they claiming that is the whistleblower?
Perhaps everybody's jumping the gun a bit too much or perhaps they know something we don't and Charmella literally is the whistleblower, right?
But let's read on, because they try, CNN says, hey, maybe there's another way, what Donald Trump Jr.
did, maybe there's another way it's a crime.
According to Statute 18 U.S.C.
1513, whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, For providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any federal offense shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.
Okay.
There's no retaliation.
There is no threat.
It is literally tweeting out publicly available information.
So let's take it one step further.
If Rand Paul, not on the floor of Congress, not under the Speech and Debate Clause, stated this name, did he commit a crime?
No.
The name's already public.
If I say the name, is it a crime?
Absolutely not!
I'm reading publicly available information.
That is absurd!
So, you're really stretching it if you want to now accuse Donald Trump Jr.
But oh, I love it!
Because they're not just accusing Trump Jr., they're blaming Russia!
I kid you not.
And here we are.
Thanks to Rand Paul, Russian media are naming the alleged whistleblower.
Outing the whistleblower is the most egregious, but certainly not the only example of Kremlin-funded media cheerleading the fight against impeachment.
They love their Trump.
And there it is.
Welcome to the Culture War.
A war between those who live in wacky, zany, rainbow skittle land, and those who are reading the news and know what's going on.
I'm being a bit facetious, but seriously?
Russia?
Russian media named- Sure, you can say Russian media, I could also say Japanese media named him.
Because the name is public.
Russia isn't the only country that's talking about news.
I'm sure the name Eric Charmel has appeared all over the internet in various countries.
But of course, they love their Russia narrative.
So here's what I'm gonna do.
I'm gonna throw you one more.
So here's a quote from CNN's Jake Tapper.
The Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists more than all other previous administrations combined.
Fact check says, true.
But it is nuanced.
See, what Jake Tapper was referring to is not official chain of command whistleblowers.
So it is different.
But I still think the point is apt.
Back in 2014, Jake Tapper was talking about individuals who had evidence of wrongdoing who, instead of going to their bosses and filing a complaint to be protected under the whistleblower statute, went to journalists instead.
That they were essentially leakers who some people view as whistleblowers.
However, You can argue they're not the same thing, but if we're going to be honest about blowing the whistle, like the ABC News employee who left for CBS and then got fired, assuming they're the whistleblower, is there a general colloquial difference between who you blow the whistle to and whether or not they should be protected?
For the sake of argument, let's say fine.
I'll give this one to you on the left.
You're talking about legal protections for those who follow the rules within their branch
of government and blow the whistle to their superiors.
They can't be fired or named by the IG and things like that.
Okay.
Then the issue really comes down to the double standard when it comes to leakers.
I don't believe Trump has used the Espionage Act.
At least, I haven't seen anything about it.
Maybe he did.
But Trump has fired people he's accused of leaking.
But the media says, you know, they mentioned about WikiLeaks and the double standard.
Why should Donald Trump face all of these leaks and do nothing about it?
If he did, you'd know they would claim that he was doing something wrong.
And when Trump does fire people, they say, oh no, he's dismantling government, oh heavens, how dare he?
But when Obama does it, nothing.
I asked someone a question about impeaching Donald Trump.
I said, do you think it would be an impeachable offense if Trump ordered a drone strike on a civilian cafe that killed an American 16-year-old?
Well, yeah.
Everybody says yes.
I think so.
Because American citizens have due process.
You can't do that.
Plus, a civilian cafe?
That's nuts.
I'm sure other people got hurt.
Yeah.
Yeah, Obama did that.
That's what Obama did to Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki.
Was Obama impeached over that?
Of course not, because that was in line with foreign policy.
So I'll tell you what I think this comes down to.
One, tribalism.
There are a lot of people on the left that aren't going to say anything about the Yovanovitch alleged perjury.
They're tweeting today about Donald Trump on The View.
It was a viral trend, saying that he, that Rand Paul and the Russians and, oh, leaving the name.
Okay.
That's what they're gonna talk about, tribalism.
The other thing I think this has to do with is...
Look, when Trump wanted to pull out of Syria, you saw bipartisan outrage.
Everybody was like, no, no, we must stay in the Middle East.
Yes.
So long as you're carrying out the decades-old foreign policy, everybody seems fine with it.
When Trump ordered a missile strike on Syria years ago, they said, Trump seems presidential.
I'll give you my personal opinion on what I think happens.
No, it's not a conspiracy theory.
No, I'm not saying I believe it to be true.
It's just an idea I had as to what's happening.
You see, we have intelligence departments that there's a foreign policy in place going back decades.
And this is why I think it makes sense.
When Vindman said that Trump was undermining or something bad about foreign policy, many people, including Matt Taibbi, said, doesn't the president set foreign policy?
Technically, yes.
What I think happens is, you know, Bush gets elected, and he's then presented all his classified information, where they say, here's what's happening overseas.
And Bush says, OK, then do what you think is right.
I'll follow through and we'll succeed.
Then Bush leaves, Obama gets elected.
Obama walks in and they say, Mr. President, here's what's happening in the Middle East.
I'm not saying it's a deep state.
I'm saying these are the files, the classified information, whether or not any employee stays or goes.
I'm just saying, here's what we've been working on at the CIA.
And Obama looks at it and says, I understand.
All right, let's let's carry on.
And yes, as long as he follows that general foreign policy decision, Middle Eastern presence, et cetera, everything's cool.
What do you think happened when Trump got elected and they sat him down and said, take a look at this information?
Trump was probably probably like, no, we ain't doing none of this.
This is bad.
We got to be about America.
And then all of a sudden, This long-standing, decades-old foreign policy machine that's carried on forever, from Bill Clinton to Bush, the regime change nonsense that so many people railed about, Trump comes in and now he's just, here's the way I described it.
There's an ivory tower, and the peasants let a bull loose, and he's rampaging through it, and I'm being hyperbolic, I know, I understand a lot of people, the economy's doing really great, I'm not saying he's destroying everything, but in the establishment, they're looking at this tower where they felt safe, where they had this long-standing policy, well Trump didn't want it, and Trump didn't want to do what they wanted to do, so they're mad at him.
So that's what the whistleblowers are saying.
That Trump was effectively undermining U.S.
foreign policy in Ukraine.
What policy?
Putting a CIA director on the board of a foreign gas company?
I understand Gazprom, Qatar Turkey Pipeline.
It's complicated.
But you know what?
At the end of the day, Trump's the president.
Should he be impeached because there was questions about the corruption of Joe Biden?
In my opinion, I think the answer is no.
The problem is it's been years of scandal after scandal, the same strategies from the intelligence agencies.
They don't like Trump.
The New York Times called it a deep state.
I thought that was so ridiculous.
This idea that there is a permanent government and everything is a step too far.
It's not that complicated.
There are just people who work there who say, hey man, I've been working on this for the past two years.
You get elected and now you're trying to undermine me.
Well, yeah, he's the president.
But you take all of these independent actors and it looks like a conspiracy.
It's a standalone complex.
And they pop up and they testify and they don't like the president.
And that's what's really happening.
So the New York Times can call it a deep state conspiracy or whatever they want, but that's really now kind of what it looks like.
At least according to the New York Times.
In the end, let me wrap this up.
The bigger question is not about all of this, it's just as simply, do you think there will be conversations from the left about the alleged perjury?
Do you think they will continue claiming Trump Jr.
broke the law?
We know exactly what's going to happen.
The right, of course, will say, look, they're going to agree with me, right?
Trump didn't break the law, Trump Jr.
He tweeted out a story.
And assuming this is true, it's perjury.
It's cut and dry.
The left will say, however, no, we know that Trump is trying to intimidate, to scare the whistleblower.
You know what's the craziest thing to me?
When people say Donald Trump was trying to get dirt on his political rival.
Are you kidding me?
You think Trump is scared of Joe Biden?
Come on, dude, the guy's raised no money, his Iowa state director is pathetic, hasn't even campaigned in the state in seven years.
No, I don't think Biden has any idea what he's doing.
And I think Trump is, I do not believe Trump is concerned at all about losing to Biden.
That's ridiculous.
Especially when all the analytics say Trump is poised to win.
But what they do need is an Orange Man bad narrative to become pervasive enough that negative partisanship drives historic voter turnout and then the Democrats narrowly win.
That's what I think they're doing.
I'll leave it there.
I'll see you all in the next segment at youtube.com slash TimCastNews, 6pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you next time.
Many people have argued, are universities communist?
Are they indoctrinating young people?
Well, it is true that a lot of people go to college and come out with crazy ideas that make no sense.
But you know what?
I'm not going to argue with people about indoctrination.
I'll just defer to, say, I don't know, a professor.
How about a Columbia professor who actually fled communism, resigning because he says the university is becoming communist?
And this is in relation to, they were trying to fill a faculty position, and they flat out said, no white men, which is, if he's in the United States, illegal!
So please, that's illegal, you should file a complaint about that.
But come on, man, I think it was Oxford who recently banned clapping?
Yeah, these places are going insane.
Please, stop sending your kids to these psycho factories, okay?
You go there, and they fill their heads with insane mumbo-jumbo.
That's just not real life.
You're not teaching your kids to be good at anything.
Man, I've got some... You know what?
Let's read the story, and then I'm gonna talk to you about college, okay?
And why you shouldn't go to college.
College is a mistake, for the most part.
I'll give some caveats.
A Romanian board academic says he recently left his tenured position at Columbia University because the Ivy League school is, quote, on its way toward full-blown communism, according to a Romanian TV interview translated by a Romanian-American immigrant.
Professor Andrei Serban, an award-winning director, complained about the increasing social justice demands he faced in the theater department in the interview, which aired on Romania's TVR1 October 26.
One prominent example he gave Pressure to admit a transgender applicant who auditioned as Juliet from Romeo and Juliet.
Andy Ionescu, a native Romanian speaker who immigrated to the United States in 1999, told the College Fix in a Twitter message that he translated the interview.
Okay.
Well, I certainly hope that that is sufficient sourcing, but I'm gonna have to stop right now and say, I don't think that's sufficient sourcing.
But for the sake of the discussion on colleges, I will finish reading the story, and because the college fix is rated credible by NewsGuard, however, I will say, I don't find that particularly convincing.
Let's read on.
He said it was likely the first time that Serbin made his resignation publicly known.
Columbia still lists Serbin as an active professor.
Media relations did not respond to an email from The Fix, and Serbin's department did not return a voicemail.
Serbin did not respond to an email.
The TV host expresses incredulity at multiple points in the interview, seemingly shocked that the American higher education system is headed toward communism.
Serbin fled from the ideology which ruled Romania for much of the 20th century.
Serban says in the interview that after a faculty member retired, the remaining professors in the department were called into a meeting to discuss a replacement.
It was at this meeting that the dean of the art school told them there are too many white professors, too many heterosexual men, and that it would be best to hire a minority or woman or a gay man.
Serban, who was the director of the hiring committee, says he was told that it could not be someone like him because he is a man that has been married a heterosexual man who has children.
The professor says that he then asked if they could choose a straight white male if the most qualified candidate happened to be so, and was promptly told that they could not.
I felt like I was living under communism again.
First of all, Colombia, like I said earlier, assuming that's the US, that's straight up illegal, dude.
You know, too many people take the path of least resistance in all walks of life.
If you see wrongdoing, if you're in a school and they say this, file a complaint.
It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex and race.
You can't do it.
Yet for some reason they're doing it.
No, you can't.
Now I know.
Harvard, I think it was, just basically won a lawsuit where they're legally allowed to discriminate because they're arguing it's not really discrimination to tell Asians you gotta score higher on a test.
And then they lump every Asian race into China.
It is the most insane racist nonsense.
But please, tell me how much you care about social justice.
Actually, and I'll stop and point this out too, because I've done it in several videos, BuzzFeed made a racist story that wasn't true, did no fact-checking, and literally ran a headline claiming two black men fought to the death over fried chicken.
So please, stop trying to convince me you actually care about this.
Democrats just swept Virginia when their governor was exposed in a blackface scandal.
One of the guys who got elected apparently was in jail for an underage Relationship.
So please, stop telling me you actually care about social justice.
We know you don't.
These are weak-willed, spineless people who are like, whatever the pitchforks... Look, there's a guy outside with a pitchfork.
He's yelling.
He doesn't do what he wants.
Pathetic.
Spineless.
Let's read on.
A second incident involving a male-to-female transgender student was the final impetus for Serbin to resign, according to the translated video.
While reviewing applicants to the theater school, the transgender student prepared Juliet's monologue from Romeo and Juliet.
Serbin says that he could not believe that this person could become Juliet.
After his colleagues expressed displeasure with him for stating as such, Serbin resigned, saying that he could not violate his principles.
According to his faculty bio, Sermon is an accomplished theater and opera producer who served as the director of the Romanian National Theater and won a Tony Award.
I'm gonna stop right now and say this.
College Fix, please.
You should have at least gotten two other independent sources to verify this.
I do not believe it.
I'm sorry.
I take my sourcing very seriously, but I'm going to read this anyway because I like ragging on colleges and institutions.
Not to push this idea that they're becoming communist.
I will say right now, I find this Questionable.
If all they have is one person who translated a video, yeah, I've seen 800,000 videos translated of, you know, of World War II Germany with various subtitles.
You know, I'm talking about the meme video.
So I'm not going to say this is factually accurate, and I want to make sure that's clear.
You guys should probably dig into this and see if it's true.
But I will say, It's a confirmation bias.
And the reason why this is probably going to get shared a lot and why people are going to talk about it is because we assume it will be true.
Those of us who have seen this, who have seen the banning of clapping, yes, they literally banned clapping.
Look at this.
Manchester Evening News.
Good morning Britain guest calls for clapping to be banned and replaced with jazz hands to be more inclusive.
So, we've heard this so many times.
This story seems very, very plausible.
But I want to make sure I heavily, heavily caveat the story with, that's not good enough for me.
But I want to talk about college.
And I want to talk about why you shouldn't go.
And I also want to talk about whether this is true or not.
We do know that universities are doing this.
We do know that businesses are doing this.
And so take it all with a grain of salt, but let's launch off this concept of how there are like no straight white men and all that.
First, I was told when I was younger, because I'm part Asian, I have to lie about being Asian.
Because they will discriminate against you.
One of the big problems I have with this ideology, and why I don't like the far-left's adopting of it, when it comes to policy, conservative policy, I'm like, eh, not so much.
When I look at the left, they're like, hey, we're a bunch of fringe weirdos who believe weird racist stuff.
The problem is, well, you know what?
Let's talk about college.
Let's not do the race stuff.
Let's talk about college.
First of all, there's no guarantee going to college is actually going to make you good at something.
There is this idea that when you go to college, you'll get out, you'll get a good salary.
Wrong!
All it did was make the lowest common denominator college.
And now you have a bunch of young people with useless degrees who didn't know why they went to school and they wasted their time and energy.
Worse still, is if they come out with these psychotic ideologies.
Now, I'm not... I don't want to play into that game where they say that there's like a conspiracy at the university, some people believe that the Russians came and... No, no, no, no.
It just spreads there.
Young people are angry, their professors, all the people who work at universities, not all of them, but many of them, hold these fringe insane views and, quite honestly, illegal practices, assuming the story's true, and then young people hear that and leave believing it.
Most importantly is social circles and tribes.
So here's what happens.
You're a regular kid.
You're going out and playing with your friends.
You're skateboarding.
You go to college.
All of a sudden now you're surrounded by older people who all believe these fringe insane things with no basis in reality.
It's kind of like going to church, only you live there.
It is cult.
It is cultish.
I remember telling one of my friends who was very lefty several years ago that the modern social justice crowd is cult-like.
And I was like, it's basically a cult where you must adhere to our rules.
They use social welcoming, like they make you feel good when you do the right thing.
They ostracize you.
It's very, very cult-like and very religious.
And I would say actually now it's more like a religion, a non-theistic religion.
But think about, they have priests, they have the speakers who preach the ideology on Twitter and gain followers and speak down to the masses, and they have sin, and they have outrage mobs, and it's very much a religion.
So when you tell your kid you're going to college, what you're doing is you're saying, I want you to go to church.
So if you are a secular atheist type, yeah, don't send your kids to college because they will come out with a freaky religion.
They, you know, you look at all these photos, and I'm not saying all of college is a cult.
You want to be a doctor, a lawyer, there are things you can go to college for.
I'm just saying you are more likely to see your kid start dressing strangely, adopting strange behaviors, shaving their heads, dressing in strange ways, as if they joined a cult.
When they get out, Their friends and their world are tied to this identity.
But not just that, most of them are laden with debt.
So what have you effectively done?
You've indoctrinated them to a psychotic worldview that makes no sense, and you've made them indentured servants.
So now they can't leave even if they want to, and their only recourse is Bernie Sanders and other far-left politicians who believe what they believe, who say, I'm just like you, join me!
And we will enter in a new era of socialism.
So whether or not these universities are communist isn't necessarily the point.
What happens is they have a tribal identity and they have debt.
They struggle to make money because college degrees are worthless, so they feel lied to.
The system was wrong.
They're told this great truth.
They're woke now.
They realized how the world actually is.
But they also have massive debt that they're desperate to get rid of.
Along comes these politicians, or people like them, who say, we believe the same insane things you do, because we are also woke, but also, we are going to take the resources from those who have produced to pay off your debt.
And they say, that makes sense.
It doesn't make sense.
It doesn't.
But I will say this.
I believe one of the most important things we can do is forgive interest on student loan debt.
So, you got people like Elizabeth Warren saying, forgive all student loan debt.
No, no, no, no, no.
We don't want to do that.
That's insane.
Okay?
You took out loans, you benefited, you got to pay the money back.
But, we should stop charging interest.
That way you can pay back what was given to you, maybe with interest on the rate of inflation, maybe, like, we need to figure out how to make it so they can pay off the debt without it growing exponentially.
And so I think forgiveness must involve, you've got to pay back the principal, but the interest I think we can just get rid of.
That way they still have to pay for their responsibility, but now there's a light at the end of the tunnel.
A lot of people I know who have student loan debt...
See that number pile up because they're not making money.
Lo and behold, I'm gonna rag on boomers, but the people who created the Millennials, they told us, you have to go to college.
And what did they end up doing?
They made angry, dejected, communist servants.
All these young people getting out of college have been indoctrinated, well I don't want to say that, I don't want to go that far, but they've been exposed to a lot of these ideas.
Some people come out of college and they ignore this.
I was at Berkeley and I interviewed students and these students at Berkeley were like, we can't stand the protesters because we're just trying to learn about science or whatever.
But this is spreading.
And it's spreading because it was a lie.
College was a lie.
I have a theory.
I'm gonna tell you my theory now about college and why I think it was a bad idea.
First, I'm a high school dropout.
I'm very successful.
There are many other high school dropouts who are successful.
There are many high school dropouts who are failures.
You can't... It is not dropping out of high school that determines whether you succeed or fail.
What happens is the people who are more likely to just walk in line and do what they're told are always going to be the people who walk in line and do what they're told.
You have some people who drop out of high school for bad reasons, but it's not dropping out of high school that causes them to fail.
Their failure causes them to drop out of high school.
There are some people who drop out of high school because they're smarter and want to be more successful and don't want to waste their time.
People like me, for instance.
I thought high school was a ridiculous waste of my time.
I was sitting there frustrated, bored, boring.
I built a computer when I was 9.
I was programming video games when I was 10 and 11.
I didn't want to sit in this room doing literally nothing.
I had access to the internet and I said, I don't want to be here.
Let's talk about college.
Here's my theory.
And this is my personal, anecdotal view of college.
When I was younger, I was told that people, by boomers, that people who went to college made so much money.
They said, man, the friends of mine, you know, my family members, they got a college degree and they're making six figures.
And I was working as a manager at, you know, McDonald's or something.
And I was getting only like $30,000, $20,000 a year or something, you know, adjusting for inflation.
And so, the idea was, you have all of these boomers, and they're working jobs, and they're working trades, and some are plumbers, and some are, you know, office managers, and then they look to their friends, and their friends are computer technicians, and their friends are petroleum engineers, and they're making all of this money, and these boomers who didn't get a degree think, the college degree is what did it.
Wrong!
Back then, nobody told you you had to go to college.
Nobody told you to do that, okay?
For the boomers, college was a choice and it was expensive, but they falsely correlated the college degree with success.
The inverse is true.
Those that were passionate about a career or a specialty decided to spend the money to go to college, and those who weren't got jobs, took on trades, and started working.
But the people who conflated college with money told their kids, everybody who goes to college makes money wrong.
It's the people who are passionate who make the money.
But they told a bunch of lazy, Spoiled kids, they snowplowed everything out in front of them so there were no obstacles, and then they said, now you go to college.
Trust me, it's worth it.
What happens when you take people with no passion, with no drive, saddle them with debt, drop them in a school, they're easily manipulated, they fall into these weird social justice tribes, now they're loaded with debt, they get out, they're angry, they're not making money, there's no passion, it doesn't work.
And that's what I think happened to millennials.
Now there are job postings saying, if you want to work for 12 bucks an hour, you need a bachelor's degree.
Let me tell you what.
I was a fundraising director for a non-profit.
And they said, college degree required.
And I got the job.
And I didn't have a high school diploma.
And you know how I did it?
I polled a Tommy Boy.
I was just thinking about this earlier.
Remember that movie, Tommy Boy?
It's Chris Farley and David Spade.
And they're talking to the guy to sell brake pads.
And the guy says, there's no guarantee on the box.
And then Chris Farley is like, chicken wings.
He remembers this moment where he figured out how to communicate with someone to sell them this idea.
And he says, you want me to take a dump in a box, market guaranteed, I'll do it.
But if you want a quality product your customers are going to appreciate, you buy from us.
And the guy goes, okay, I'll buy from you.
That's the point.
You need to communicate your idea effectively, you need to be passionate, and you need to know what you're talking about.
You are not entitled to a career, and a college degree will not get you that.
So here's what happens.
I was great at fundraising.
I'm an excellent communicator, you may have noticed.
And so I went to the boss and I said, listen, If you want a kid fresh out of college with no experience and a college degree, by all means, hire them.
You have my blessing.
But if you want someone who's going to be the best fundraising director you've ever hired, you go with the person with experience, and that's me.
Let me know what your decision is.
I appreciate your time.
And sure enough, they called back and said, yeah, we want to hire you.
Didn't need a degree, even though it was a job requirement.
It was a requi- not even a high school diploma.
But, but you know what?
I knew what I was talking about.
I had experience, and I sold it.
You take a bunch of these kids who sit around all day playing video games when they're young.
They do nothing.
You know, this is what I asked one of my friends.
What did you do when you were 12?
You want to figure out what you want to do with your life?
What were you doing when you were 12?
And invariably, people tell me, like, I was doing nothing.
Your parents gave you no passion and gave you no direction.
I'm sorry.
That's just the way it is.
I'll tell you what.
Go open a bar.
And most people who say that, they're like, wow, it would be fun to have a bar.
I'm like, that's right.
You can hang out with your friends all day.
You sell booze and people laugh.
Makes sense, right?
Think about what you were doing at 12 or 13, and you will probably find, not always, that there is something in there that you might like to do.
The problem is kids who were given no direction by their parents.
Their parents went to work, they put their kid in school.
So what did their kids do?
They went to school.
They did nothing.
They were told what to do.
They were crafted into perfect little drones.
For me, I was working on computers, I was skateboarding, and I was arguing.
I would read things online and then, you know, I'd argue.
And I talked a lot.
And so here I am.
But what happens then when you have a generation of kids whose parents just let them sit in front of the TV, even worse still, the next generation sitting in front of tablets, told them to do nothing, and then said, you must go to college.
You're going to get an army of young people with debt, with no direction, who feel lied to, and they're going to look to the establishment, the institutions, to feed them.
Because here's what happens.
These kids will go to college.
Their whole lives, from grade school through high school, up until the point where they're literally full-grown adults, 22 years old, they have been institutionalized.
They have had some authority figure telling them, this is what you must do, this is how you do it, and this is what you get in return.
They have no fundamental understanding about how wealth works because schools don't teach you how to even balance your checking account or pay a credit card or pay your taxes.
I was gonna say balance a checkbook, but I mean, you don't really do that anymore.
But they don't teach you how to track this stuff.
They don't teach you how to do any of the normal things you need to do to survive.
So you get nothing.
And then these kids come out of school, finally, they're now free into the world, and they're told, you shouldn't clap because clapping's offensive.
Yes, because the institution was scary.
What do you think is going to happen when they go outside and they hear a car backfire?
They're going to freak out.
So you know what they're going to say?
We want the government to ban speech.
We want the government to stop these things that hurt our little ears.
Because they were institutionalized.
You know what, man?
I do blame the boomer generation.
It's not all boomers, okay?
But the generation that raised millennials.
Gen Xers were very different.
They raised Gen Z, and Gen Z is very different.
But the boomers had the millennials for the most part, and millennials are dainty snowflakes with limited skills who are angry and want the government to take care of them.
That's why they want people like Bernie to come in and tax all of the wealth away from Bill Gates, and they think it's sustainable.
It literally doesn't make sense.
Okay?
If you tax all of Bill Gates' wealth away, forcing him to sell his shares, making him... Yeah, he'll still be a billionaire, technically, but you'll crash the stock.
They have no idea how this stuff works.
Congratulations.
Let's say you effectively got $100 billion.
How long will that last?
It wouldn't even pay for one year of Medicare for all.
And then what?
There's no mine left.
You strip-mined the wealthy, and there's nothing there to take anymore.
You disrupted the economy, and then you got rid of 2 million jobs to do it.
These people have no idea what they're talking about.
Life isn't fair, and life isn't easy.
And I'm not going to make this video any longer, but you get the point.
This is what we can see.
Whether or not this story is true, this is what you're turning your kids into when you send them to college.
They're gonna have no marketable skills, they will contribute nothing to society, but I assure you they will complain all night.
I'll see you all at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Alright, you know what?
The culture war is a battle between people who live in the real world and lunatics.
I'm just gonna, I'm gonna say it.
I know that's not really, it's hard to quantify what the left and the right is, but look at this!
How a new meme exposes the far-right roots of No Nut November.
Okay.
The people on the other side of the culture war, the authoritarian types, whatever you want to call them, it's not really left versus right, because you have many progressives, like the intellectual dark web, for instance, that are very pro-freedom.
However, because of Trump being anti-PC, you end up with a lot of people being more for Trump.
It's complicated.
It's really hard to quantify.
But I will tell you this.
This is insane.
This is it.
This is a new horizon of insanity.
We've crossed into the ocean.
We've seen now the veil lifted.
If you're seriously going to try and link No Nut November, which is a joke, I know some people take it seriously, I guess, but it's a joke, and you're gonna try and tie this to the far right?
Okay, that's it.
You know what, man?
These media companies, this is absolute psychosis.
But they know what they're doing.
It's for clicks.
They get it.
I tweeted something earlier from Jimmy Kimmel back in 2015.
He said the news companies don't care if the story is fake because the way they see it is they get two stories out of it.
The initial fake story goes, you know, they get traffic from it, and then they get traction from the update, if that's the case.
They make money no matter what.
The way I put it is, This story is so psychotic.
It doesn't matter if it's true or not.
Let's say the Rolling Stone puts this story out, it gets a million views, and then a day later they retract it and say, oops, guess what?
They still got paid.
The million views still sold ads.
They can apologize later.
That's a huge problem.
Seriously, dude?
And they put PewDiePie in this.
I kid you not, it never ends.
PewDiePie, you have, you have, there's nothing you can do.
You will always be far right.
Everything you do, always.
They have even found something as stupid as a joke about not, of no, not November.
Okay, there may be some more adult language.
I'll try and keep things toned down as I do, but for those that have kids listening, okay?
This is the month where you're supposed to abstain from self-pleasuring, okay?
But it is, for the most part, a gag.
At least that's my understanding.
I mean, I don't think I'm an expert on the meme, but I'm pretty sure it's a joke.
Right?
Nope.
No.
No.
Not according to Rolling Stone.
Rolling Stone is trying to claim that this is rooted in the alt-right, the far-right, the Proud Boys, and all of these other things that were just either ironic or stupid.
You know what, man?
So the Proud Boys, right?
Yeah, they have a rule where you're not supposed to wank it.
I don't know too much about how they go about their business or what they're involved in.
I know, you know, surface-level stuff about the Proud Boys, so... I assumed it was meant to be a joke.
I mean, the way Gavin McInnes and, you know, other people described the creation of the Proud Boys, the whole thing was kind of a gag.
And then, sure enough, it's become more serious, I guess.
But you're not supposed to.
This is what they're trying to say.
They're trying to say that No Nut November is basically tied to the far right.
Let's read.
On its surface, No Nut November is a fairly innocuous challenge.
While it may seem silly to abstain from masturbation for virtually no reason, some of the memes are pretty funny.
And a month of abstinence, whether it be from coitus or masturbation, certainly isn't going to kill anyone.
Yet, it would be naive to ignore that there's significant overlap between the anti-masturbation ideology behind NoFap and to agree.
No, not November.
No, not November.
And the far right, which has increasingly co-opted the movement.
Accompanied by descriptive text like, doesn't even know anything about politics, extremely aesthetic right arm, huge muscle, and has never heard of NoFap.
What's Semitic about it?
What are you talking... I don't, you know... To a hammer, everything looks like a nail, right?
It's been circulating on 4chan for the past year.
But Alex Hawkins, the vice president of the site xHamster, says he started seeing it in the replies of his company's Twitter feed back in September, when presidential candidate Andrew Yang tweeted about limiting access to Adult content.
You see, I have an automatic filter for these things because YouTube will shut my channel down, unfortunately.
At first, we didn't really know what it meant and thought it was funny, he tells Rolling Stone.
Then in late October, the Coomer resurfaced thanks to a Twitter campaign in which users vowed to change their avatars to the Coomer should they fail, known at November.
PewDiePie shouted out the campaign in a recent YouTube video, as did far-right YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson, who is perhaps best known for being one of the many extremist figures, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones, to be banned from Facebook.
No, not November and the Coomer meme represent a deeper meaning, he said in a tweet.
Porn is evil.
It literally rewires your brain and causes erectile dysfunction.
Take the pledge.
Don't be a Coomer.
You know what, man?
I just sell people.
I just do your thing.
Chill out.
To an extent, sure.
I think, you know, one of the reasons I kind of do like the Intellectual Dark Web a lot more than your standard fair of internet commentators is that there's a lot of doctors and scientists and sexual neuroscientists and, you know, take their word for it.
Not, you know, hey, look, Paul, you know, you do your thing, right?
You make your YouTube videos.
I'm going to defer to the scientists and all that.
And I get it.
I get it.
You might say the same thing.
I'm just gonna not talk about it.
I'll put it that way.
It's because it's a joke.
Who cares?
No Nut November.
It's a silly thing.
There's also No Shave November.
Where did that go?
But you know what, man?
The term has also been used in the context of OK Coomer, a play on OK Boomer meme, in response to tweets critical of No Nut November, or masturbation abstinence in general.
It's positioned as this epic battle between the weak beta masturbators and the strong alpha nofappers, says Hawkins.
Is anybody really taking it that seriously?
I just don't see it that way, right?
So anyway, I think you get the point, but check it out, it gets better.
They say, the implication is clear.
Masturbating is an urge that should be resisted at all costs.
David Lay, PhD, a clinical psychologist and therapist who studies porn and mental health, saw the meme after he tweeted his criticism of No Nut November, referring to it as a creepy little smorgasbord of insecurity-driven hate with anti-Semitism.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
A creepy little smorgasbord of insecurity-driven hate with anti-semitism, misogyny, and homophobia all rolled up into one.
I gotta clap for that, man.
You're able to take a stupid paintbrush picture and some mutterings on the internet and jam in it anti-semitism, misogyny, and homophobia?
What does not whacking have to do with any of this?
It's so insane!
They, of course, bring up the Proud Boys.
The Proud Boys, for instance, a far-right extremist group known for its propensity toward violence, has long advocated for its members to abstain from masturbation on the grounds that it boosts testosterone and makes them more appealing to women.
Indeed, founder Gavin McInnes gave a shout-out to NoFap in a 2015 article for the far-right publication Takis Magazine.
They're insane.
Pornhub points out they don't see any real dip in traffic at all in November.
It's probably because it's a joke and most people don't really take it that seriously.
I'm sure some people do.
This anti-semitism is often, what are they talking about?
What are they trying to say about Jewish people and whacking off?
Okay, I am confused.
This antisemitism is also often accompanied by healthy doses of homophobia and racism as well.
On these threads, you'll frequently see users deriding men who masturbate to heterosexual porn on the grounds that being aroused by- Oh, you know what, man?
They go into a forum, they find a handful of people saying stupid things, and they say, this proves it.
And they actually try claiming- You know what?
You know what?
We're gonna level it up one step.
Okay, so they want to rag on this stupid joke.
Fine, you're allowed to.
What if I told you that social media would actually ban specific uses of emojis?
Congratulations, we have graduated to a new era of stupid.
Facebook, Instagram ban on the sexual use of eggplant peach sweat drop emojis.
What?
How do you ban an interpretation?
How do you know if I'm using the peach?
Maybe it is?
Are people going to make ambiguous posts now on purpose so you have to choose between over-policing or under-policing?
So if you find yourself as a young person, let me use these stories to show you.
Adults have no idea what's going on.
See, when I was younger, there was a point where I could always ask my dad a question.
He had the answer to it.
But it's because I was young, and the questions were simple.
Why is the sky blue?
Well, it's because of particulates and other things in the atmosphere, and the light that's being bent, and the light that makes through tends to be blue, etc., etc.
Moisture and water and water droplets, vapor, etc.
And I'm sure I ruined that in some capacity, but you get the point.
There are some questions that most of us have a general understanding to, right?
You know, how do magnets work?
That's always been a big funny meme.
But eventually when I got older, and I had a more complicated question when I was, you know, 18 or 19, and all of a sudden it was like, I'm not an expert in that.
You know, you've got to take that question up with somebody who knows.
And all of a sudden I was like, whoa.
And then I got older, and I started working for companies, and I do a lot of research.
I read all the time, right?
So I would read something very specific about, say, how, like, a machine worked, and then I would talk to somebody, and they would have no idea.
And I'd think, if you work at this company, and you have no idea how, like, you work at a cafe, and you have no idea how espresso is made, or what the beans, like, you don't know anything about it.
The reality is adults know very little.
That's the fact.
You know, the kids you grew up with, imagine those kids, but take that kid and put him in charge of a factory.
Right?
They might have memorized a routine or some system, but there's no guarantee an adult has any idea what's going on more than anybody else.
And that's, I guess, kind of a scary thing.
But that's why you see in, you know, I'm surprised humanity has done as well as it did.
I'm impressed, humans.
Seeing this stuff, and I'm like, how is it that we haven't literally just destroyed everything by now?
I mean, maybe it's just timing.
Maybe we'll get to that point where we're gonna ban all symbols and everybody will have shaved heads wearing grey jumpsuits.
Emojis are forbidden because we don't know if the way you're using it might be offensive.
Check this out.
We've gone from, we're gonna ban you if you say a bad word, to, we're gonna ban you if you contextually use emoji in the wrong way.
Oh man, you know what?
This is why I built the van, right?
Got a van.
I'm ready, I'm ready for, I'm just gonna get in that van, I'm gonna go drive out to the woods, and I'm just gonna sit back and go fishing all day and say, you know what?
You take your You weirdos.
I think the big problem is media, though.
Media is shaping perspective, it's disseminating false information, it's twisting people, it's making things crazy.
As exemplified no better than this story from Rolling Stone.
How is No Nut November antisemitic?
Well, you can see they tried their hardest, and they squeezed it in somehow.
Yes, that's right.
No Nut November, a video by PewDiePie, that's all antisemitism, and okay, you know what?
Congratulations.
For me, I don't care.
I never cared about the joke, the meme, or whatever it is.
Some people, you wanna take it seriously?
I don't care either.
So, go ahead Rolling Stone.
You can go ahead and give this one to the far right.
Yeah.
But you see, here's what's gonna happen.
Here's the point I was making earlier.
A year from now, when they firmly establish that No Nut November was founded by the alt-right, and they will use this Rolling Stone story, which is psychotic, on Wikipedia, they'll look back a year and say PewDiePie promoted it.
That proves PewDiePie is an anti-Semite.
That proves, you know, all of these things about PewDiePie.
Even though the context was PewDiePie's video was before this article, in fact, precipitated it.
But nope!
Strip the context, reverse the flow of news, and a year from now, no one will know, they'll just say, we know the meme is anti-semitic, we know PewDiePie supported it, therefore PewDiePie is an anti-semite.
Context to be damned.
I'll see you all in the next video, youtube.com slash timcast at 4pm.
I hope you enjoy the world that we have all contributed to.
The name Eric Caramella is public information.
Real Clear Politics published a story saying that they believe, or at least the name being floated as to who the whistleblower is in the Ukraine-Trump-Biden scandal, they said they believe the name is Eric Caramella.
Everybody knows the name.
The name has been swimming around in the press forever.
But for some reason, nobody will say it.
It is the weirdest and freakiest thing.
It's almost like Voldemort.
Can't say the name, oh no.
Well, guess what?
Facebook will now ban... They're banning the use of the name!
I kid you not.
Welcome to the Nightmare Dystopia, where a man who is believed to be the whistleblower, who has ties to Joe Biden, who met with Adam Schiff's people before filing a complaint, who I think it would be very relevant if we understood the political motivations of the individual at this point, this individual is being protected by a massive, multinational, billion-dollar corporation who will shut you down if you say the name Eric Charmella.
Now, I'll be clear.
Assuming Eric isn't the whistleblower, I feel bad for the guy.
But so long as right now that's the story that's coming out, there's no protection for this.
What are they going to do?
Is YouTube going to ban all my videos now?
It's a publicly available news story.
The name was even presented two years ago.
We know who the guy is.
Well, Breitbart has had several stories removed.
I kid you not.
Facebook finally came out and issued a public statement.
Yup, you say the name Eric Charmella, we gonna ban you.
Facebook removes news reporting mention of alleged whistleblower's identity.
Facebook is removing any mention of the potential whistleblower's name and is cracking down against Facebook publishers that mention any allegation of the potential whistleblower's name, claiming they are violating Facebook's community standards and policies.
Well, seeing as I upload my videos to Facebook, and I have several stories about this, I wonder if they're going to delete my videos.
Would be interesting.
For one example, On Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart Post's reporting on the fact other respected news outlets have reported on the identity of the alleged whistleblower is Eric Charmella.
Okay, that's a weird sentence.
Yes, other people have reported the name.
Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on Facebook is now given a message that says, this content isn't available at the moment.
To be clear, Breitbart did not out the alleged whistleblower, but did provide additional relevant reporting around him.
He is, after all, a public figure, having served on the National Security Council.
Moreover, his name has been used in the Mueller report and Ambassador Bill Taylor's testimony.
Administrators of Breitbart News' Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening stating that Breitbart's page is at risk of being unpublished, but were not given any details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue.
Yesterday afternoon, however, in response to questions from Breitbart, a Facebook spokesman issued the following nightmarish dystopian statement which should remind all of you, your peasants, sitting beneath the ivory tower looking up at your lords above you.
Any mention of the potential whistleblower's name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content outing of witness, informant, or activist.
We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower's name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.
I would like to have a debate about Eric Chiarmella being the whistleblower or not.
Congratulations, public debate has happened.
Who determines?
Not Facebook.
So get on Fox News and say the name already.
That way we can end this nonsense.
It's an excuse and it's horrifying.
Breitbart News is currently the 68th most visited site in the US, according to Alexa.
And the 13th most engaged- Now my thing's gonna go off.
Alexa, stop.
Facebook publisher in the world, according to Newswhip.
Multiple other publishers have named the alleged whistleblower or reported on outlets naming him, including Heavy.com, The Washington Examiner, The Federalist, The Western Journal.
Sagar and Jetty, chief Washington correspondent for The Hill, also tweeted the alleged whistleblower's name.
Donald Trump Jr.
tweeted out the story with the dude's name, Eric Caramella.
Okay?
Facebook is running defense.
This is insane.
Radio hosts Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, Students for Trump co-chair Ryan Fournier, and former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka, best-selling author Dinesh D'Souza, One America news host Jack Posobiec, Townhall.com senior columnist Kurt Schlichter, are among the other public figures and major media personalities who have also named the alleged whistleblower.
Hey, hey!
Hey, no Tim Pool?
I talked about this guy when Real Clear Investigations published this story.
Thank you, Breitbart.
Who wrote this?
Allum wrote this, didn't he?
Allum.
Just kidding.
It isn't only conservatives reporting on Charmella.
New York Magazine and Huffington Post contributor Yashir Ali identified Charmella as the alleged whistleblower in a since-deleted tweet.
Oh, really?
Ali claimed to have confirmed the identity with three sources.
Whoa!
Is that true?
Facebook's requirement to revise its policy on Charmella appears to have already been met.
Other publishers that have named the alleged whistleblower on Facebook have reported that their posts have been taken down as well.
So here we have, what is this?
Donald Trump Jr.
tweeted, I love the outrage about me tweeting an article about the alleged whistleblower.
Also good to know you have other sources confirming.
Those thinking, I coordinated with the White House to tweet out a Breitbart article, haven't been watching my feed, much didn't happen, and links to this Yashir Ali.
Yashir's a good dude.
He's a good journalist.
And this person said, why did you delete this?
Yashar said, Charamella's name has been tweeted out by Trump supporters repeatedly in the past month.
But now, for the first time, the president's eldest son has tweeted out an article with his name.
Charamella, according to three sources, is indeed the whistleblower.
Are we done here?
Are we done?
Yashar Ali.
What is he?
New York Mag Huff Post?
Why did he delete this tweet?
Did he issue a retraction?
That's the question.
Are there any responses to this?
Because I did not know this.
I did not know that Yashar tweeted that.
Because if Yashar tweets it, I take that very seriously.
I trust Yashar Ali.
Now I wonder why he deleted this.
It's a big question.
But that brings me to the end cap for this segment.
Mark Zuckerberg.
Yeah, he wants to allow political ads.
I'm not going to police speech.
You see, Facebook is now censoring publicly available information that mainstream reporters are talking about for some reason.
That's weird.
Well, here you go.
October 17th.
Zuckerberg blasts Facebook rival TikTok for censorship in China, and he might be right.
No, he might not be right.
He's a hypocrite.
You see, they made me defend Mark Zuckerberg last week or whatever, or the week before, because he was saying, I'm going to allow political speech.
It's like, OK, Zuckerberg, you're right here.
But come on, the dude's not genuine.
The dude's interest is the Facebook empire, and that's it.
All right.
Facebook is now shutting down public speech on a public figure that was at one point confirmed by a mainstream journalist to be the whistleblower.
And Zuckerberg's gonna go at TikTok?
Come on, man.
You know what the biggest mistake the elites ever made was?
Social media.
Cat's out of the bag.
It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.
Sorry.
The peasants are allowed to speak now.
Uh-oh.
What are you gonna do about it?
Facebook?
You're gonna try and censor us having a conversation on a public figure that was named by several mainstream reporting outlets?
And public figures including the president's son?
We can't say Eric Charamella?
You're gonna delete this video?
Sorry, it's in the public debate.
Period.
I get around 37 to 40 million views per month, mind you.
I think it's fair to say that if I've talked about this guy's name on numerous occasions, people have heard the name Eric Charamella.
And don't take my word for it, because apparently at some point Yasir Ali confirmed it in a tweet.
He deleted it, maybe he was wrong, I don't know.
But the name is out there.
Okay?
This is nuts.
This is a warning to you.
Imagine the next president.
Here's the thing.
Imagine you get a president.
Democrats.
You don't like Trump.
A whistleblower comes out.
Imagine somebody comes out to prove wrongdoing and they don't let you talk about it.
Isn't that crazy?
Think about where this can go.
What if someone posts, Eric Caramella did the right thing calling out Donald Trump, etc.
Facebook deletes it.
You're not allowed to know anything about the guy?
You can't talk about it?
That's nightmarish.
Hey, you know what?
This is why I'm kind of in favor of regulating these platforms to a certain degree.
How can you allow Facebook to take down news stories, calling it a coordinated outing of a witness?
What?
I read you a news article, dude!
That's crazy.
And then Mark Zuckerberg has the nerve to blast Facebook rival TikTok for censorship?
TikTok.
You know what's funny?
There was an article in Politico and it said journalists should not be promoting a social media platform known for censorship.
It's like, are you talking about Facebook?
No, they're talking about China.
Look, man, I get it.
You want to rag on China, I'm right here with you.
But you want to talk about what's going on here in our own backyard?
We got serious problems.
Facebook, the censorship they're engaging in is obvious, nightmarish.
Man.
I know where we're headed, man.
And no matter how many times I say it, it seems like it doesn't matter.
I don't know what you do about it.
Don't care.
They really don't, you know?
And it's kind of like that first-they-came-for poem, you know?
Like, yeah.
Where we're heading is a future where there may be a whistleblower from a major corporation who says, I found out they were dumping chemicals, and Facebook says, any mention of this man will get you banned.
Welcome to China, bros.
That's where we're headed.
Think about, like I said, You've got a president you don't like, and you're advocating for censorship.
You've got a president you don't like, you're advocating for gun control.
You've got a major multinational corporation shutting down speech, and you are protecting them because they're a private business.
It's clear that these people are authoritarians who love the machine.
They are drones who march in single file lines, and it's terrifying.
It really is.
We used to be a country of individuals who made individual decisions, but we're slowly marching away from that.
They want to turn you into a cog in the machine and take away what makes you you.
I never signed up to join the Borg.
And you know what?
My lesson from watching Star Trek is that even though they say resistance is futile, Pretty sure the Federation has won for the most part.
I think the latest update is they basically have won.
I don't know what's going on with the Borg and the new update.
But just because you want to assimilate us, and you think resistance is futile, doesn't mean we'll bend the knee.
Sorry.
I'll go live in the woods before I ever, you know, fall into that trap.
But welcome to the nightmare.
It's only getting worse.
You thought it was going to end at hate speech?
Well, you were wrong.
It's now ending at literally saying a name in a news story.
Facebook is blocking news.
They're telling you you are not allowed to know what's happening in your own country.
I thought the nightmare dystopia would be more gray or more colorful.
One or the other, right?
I thought everything would be dark blue.
Nope.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
I have come to the conclusion that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are lying to people in order to sell snake oil.
That's the only thing I can really think of.
Because both Sanders and Warren are proposing this wealth tax.
Now, I will mention, I love how nobody ever names Sanders.
Like, they don't want to give him press.
It's Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax.
Okay, I'm pretty sure Bernie had the wealth tax first.
The wealth tax makes no sense.
But I'm pretty sure they're lying because Elizabeth Warren apparently put up this website to allow you to calculate how much money you will spend in taxes if you're a billionaire.
The only problem is it asks you your net worth, but then taxes you as though it's income.
Really strange how she does that, right?
I can't imagine that was an accident.
It would be like saying, like, what's your favorite... I can't think of a good analogy right now, but basically, You can't ask one question and then give an answer to a different question.
It makes no sense.
It's like, who's your favorite sports player?
And then it's like, it's supposed to respond to tell you what kind of sport you'd like and it tells you your favorite pizza.
It's just completely unrelated things.
That's a terrible analogy.
I'm sorry.
Bill Gates objects to Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax and she offers to explain.
The Democratic presidential candidate addressed Mr. Gates on Twitter after he questioned whether she'd even be willing to sit down with someone who has large amounts of money.
Well, in order to clarify, Elizabeth Warren unveils wealth tax calculator for confused billionaires.
Now, They had to program a calculator.
That says to me they understand completely that they're asking a question and giving you an answer to a different question.
It makes literally no sense.
They say the Massachusetts Senator exchanged tweets with Microsoft Bill Gates after he spoke out against the wealth tax.
Now Warren has revealed just how much he would pay under her wealth tax plan, and how much other well-known high-wealth figures would pay as well.
You see, what she's doing here, it's very clever.
She calls it her two cents tax.
It's two cents for every million dollars.
She's lying.
What they're doing, you've got to separate net worth from income, is they're actually proposing something like a thousand percent income tax or some psychotic number.
I kid you not.
Let's read.
Her website created a calculator for billionaires.
It's actually not, because I think the lowest number they tax-add is 50 million.
And features sections for various figures at the top income bracket.
Full stop!
Not income bracket!
Stop!
Do your work, journalists!
Net worth bracket.
Very different.
Seriously, go to Charles Schwab and talk to them about how investments work.
I have a house.
You get an appraiser who says, your house is worth $200,000.
That doesn't mean you can tax me on that.
Yeah, there are property taxes that I get.
But that means, you know there are people who lose their homes because they can't pay a property tax because of a tax assessment?
They don't understand this.
It's mind-blowing.
And maybe they don't teach this stuff in school on purpose so that snake oil salesmen like Elizabeth Warren can come in and be like, but they're billionaires!
Yes, in net worth.
What was it?
Epstein is a billionaire, right?
But his, I believe, his assets calculated death are like 500 million.
What does it mean to call someone a billionaire?
How much cash do they have?
What can you actually tax?
They are lying to you.
There is so much wrong.
You know what?
Let's do this.
Let's go straight to the calculator.
Are you a billionaire?
Let's say the answer is yes.
I am a billionaire.
I'm not a billionaire.
But let's say the answer is yes.
Now let's do this.
What is your net worth?
Okay.
How about this?
I start- It's hypothetical.
I started a company that produces a hardened glass that makes smartphones better.
We'll call it like a company that manufactures that transparent aluminum.
You hear about that?
It's cool stuff.
Okay.
The company started off in my garage with me tinkering.
I eventually started selling small samples to small companies.
I know it's kind of absurd to make such an intricate product, but bear with me.
Now, my company has grown.
Our net income every year, total revenue, not including expenses, is about a million bucks.
One million dollars.
And somebody says, that's a really great company.
So all of a sudden now, somebody says, you're making a million dollars, I want to invest in that company and buy a small piece.
They buy a small piece, making our net worth now 50 million dollars.
So let's do this.
50 1 2 3 1 2 3 let's see what happens if we make If the company is now a value valued at 50 million dollars due to an investment so basically how it would work is I have a company.
I agreed to sell a certain portion of it in exchange for a certain amount of equity, and then all of a sudden the net worth of that company goes up.
This doesn't necessarily mean when you file your taxes you're going to claim that's your net worth.
It's complicated.
But let's just, we'll use this as an example.
We'll go back and I'll give you a different example.
This example may not necessarily work for tax purposes for a lot of reasons, but this is how many billionaires calculate their wealth.
When a company gets investment, the value of the company goes up.
At $50 million?
Zero.
Okay.
Let's start over.
Are you a billionaire?
Yes.
Let's say I buy a series of properties for dirt.
Next.
Let's say I bought a series of properties.
My net worth right now, hypothetically, let's say it's $200,000.
But my company is making that, you know, a couple hundred grand every year.
So I buy some properties.
All of a sudden, there's a gold rush, oil is discovered, and a big oil company comes in and says, we need all of this land where all of your houses are.
All of a sudden, overnight, this acreage, this massive acreage is worth $1 billion.
Mind you, my income is still relatively low.
Well, they want me to pay $19 million next year.
The problem here is, just because the land may be worth that because of a massive demand, I know it's hard to calculate, doesn't mean you actually have the money.
So, to put it simply, Whenever I talk about this, it's Jeff Bezos.
He makes $87,000 a year.
He's a billionaire because of the net worth of his stock.
This is what Elizabeth Warren is proposing and it makes no sense.
Your wealth puts you in the top .002% of Americans.
Maybe the analogies I'm giving you are not that good, okay?
The land all of a sudden is worth a billion dollars.
It's probably crazy because a billion is a lot.
But here's the point.
See the stacks of money?
You've got a lot of money.
No, I don't.
I own a giant piece of land.
That's not money.
And guess what?
The only person who wants to buy it is a giant oil company.
So you're saying I have to sell my land now to the oil company so that I can take a billion dollars, pay the income tax, and then pay you 19 million dollars on top?
How does that make sense?
Forcing you to sell your land to a major corporation?
That's absurd!
It's a wealth tax on an individual, and they're conflating net worth with money.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Here's the best part.
It's not just about the wealth tax.
Why Medicare for All could come with a 42% national sales tax.
Basically, this guy over at Yahoo did the math.
And to break it down, they said, we gotta find money.
Not only that, Elizabeth Warren recently clarified for us.
Thank you, Warren.
She said that her Medicare for All plan at $52 trillion over 10 years would also cover illegal immigrants.
Wonderful!
I always wanted to just dish out all my money.
You know what, man?
Let me tell you some basic facts about wealth, labor, economy.
Let's say you live in a town of 100 people.
One of those people is a doctor.
I'm sorry, not everyone can go to the doctor, because the doctor only has so much time.
You need more doctors.
So along comes Billy Billionaire, and he says, I know, I will pay for the healthcare of all of the citizens of 100 person city.
And he says, cost be damned.
Anybody who wants to go see your one doctor, you can.
Unfortunately, one doctor can only see one or two patients per day for serious ailments.
Let's say you can see three per day.
Congratulations, you're on a wait list for a month.
There's a hundred people and only one doctor.
Not everybody gets to go to the doctor.
Now the doctor says, I can't work every single day, so I will see you in two months.
But guess what?
In those two months, one of the other people who already saw the doctor now needs to see the doctor again.
You see, the problem is the doctor has a choice.
And he says, I'm sorry.
I understand the money is good, but...
I can't handle this workload.
But however, the idea would then be this city would see new doctors coming in because they're like, ooh, I want to work here, the money's guaranteed.
The problem is, in our society, there's only so many doctors.
So let's say you made college tuition government funded.
You now have literally everyone wanting to go to college.
We don't have enough colleges.
We don't have enough room.
We don't have enough professors.
And no matter how much money you throw at it, you can't create more professors.
You can't create more doctors.
I'll tell you what, man.
I'll let you in on a big secret.
If you have a lot of money, a billion dollars, let's say you liquefy 10 million, 20, 30, 40 million.
You want to buy a big old yacht, okay?
The yacht has to exist.
So there are companies that will make a gigantic yacht, a huge 30-footer, I don't know, 30-footer small, isn't it?
I'm talking, no, 150, I don't know, how big yachts are, whatever.
It's a yacht with a yacht inside of it, a little boat.
You've got the money, the market exists, they create it because somebody wanted it.
However, let's say you're in New York City, And you want to get to Washington, D.C.
And you have hundreds of millions of dollars.
Do you know what the average person with a hundred million dollars would do to get from New York to DC?
They would call a car service and they would pay a couple hundred dollars.
They can't teleport.
Having money doesn't even guarantee you access to the car service because they'll call the service and say, sorry, we're booked up for the day.
It doesn't matter.
And you can say, I'll give you more money.
And they'll say, we can't.
We have no drivers.
How much money do I got to give for you to cancel on somebody?
I'm sorry, sir.
It's unavailable.
Now think about doctors.
It's possible the limousine service would say, you know what, we'll kick out this guy if you're going to pay us ten times as much money, we'll give you that job.
Sure.
Money can get you access if it exists.
Let's play the doctor game.
Let's say you say everybody gets healthcare, even non-citizens.
Do you know how many hospitals and how many doctors we would need?
We already have a shortage on doctors.
This is snake oil insanity.
Elizabeth Warren's calculator asks you what your net worth is.
Are you a billionaire?
Yes.
What's your net worth?
I own a big piece of land that just so happens to have oil on it.
It's worth a billion dollars.
And then they conflate it to cash.
Let's just do this.
I got a big old piece of land with a lot of money.
Nice try.
Thanks for trying to break our calculator.
It doesn't make sense.
And when you... I'll show you what they do.
Are you a billionaire?
No.
They say, okay, let's take a look at Jeff Bezos, where the majority of his wealth is in shares that is probably under company bylaws preventing him from selling them at any given point.
They take the net worth, his net worth of $112 billion.
Don't worry.
We're going to make you pay $6 billion.
He doesn't have $6 billion.
They're lying.
You know what, man?
We're never going to solve our problems.
So long as all politics is, is two snake oil salesmen twirling their mustache trying to convince you that their brand of snake oil is the one that's going to cure what ails you.
Not true.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
It's time for your Periodic Impeachment Isn't Doing Anything Update.
I got a couple stories for you.
The first, Trump's re-election support hits a high despite impeachment inquiry polls show.
You know what, man?
I was listening to Joe Rogan earlier, and his guest said something like, Trump's got that base that will never, never let him go.
And there are some people who are Trump cultists.
It's just like, you know what, man?
Trump is the best.
There are some people that are more Trump realists, like, hey man, Trump's pretty good.
I'll take what I can get.
He's not the best.
I think the Trump realists are the bulk of Trump supporters.
Actually, no, probably not.
But in terms of vocal Trump supporters, I'd say the actual cult-like individuals, there are probably not that many of them.
It'd be silly not to say that there are people who have a cult-like fascination with Trump.
Probably people who were fans of his before he even got elected.
Most people I know probably fall into the Trump realist bracket where they're like, the Democrats are crazy, I'll take what I can get.
Most people who voted for Trump, however, are probably regular Americans who are like, economy's good, I don't know, he's better than Hillary.
But Trump, in the Rogan interview, the guy said basically, you've got that base that's not gonna let him go for any reason.
No matter what you say, they're not gonna buy it, they're not gonna play that game.
Yup.
Even with impeachment, we can see his re-election support hits a high.
Let's read a little bit of this.
New York Post says he's Teflon Don. President Trump's outlook for re-election hasn't taken a
hit since the impeachment inquiry began, and it's even slightly improved according to a new Monmouth
University poll out Wednesday. 42% of registered voters say Trump should be re-elected in 2020,
the best response yet for the president since Monmouth started asking the question a year ago.
It's important not to read too much into differences with the margins of error.
You can't win!
that there is no significant change in the current results suggests that the opening
salvo of the House impeachment inquiry has had little impact on the overall 2020 dynamic.
Voter opinion remains baked in.
You can't win.
You can't win.
Now, I don't know, though.
I think the Orange Man bad narrative, the impeachment, you know, attack, it's not so
much about the polls.
It's about voter turnout.
That's the game they're playing.
They're just hoping enough people hate Trump that they will come out to vote against him.
It's crazy.
Because I've had people tell me that.
They've said, I don't care if they put up a ham sandwich.
I'd vote for it.
To me, that's nuts.
I wouldn't.
I'm not gonna vote for Trump anyway, but I mean, I wouldn't vote for a ham sandwich.
You know what I mean?
My opinion is, I vote on principle.
Okay?
If there's nobody there who represents me, I'm not gonna vote for him.
That's it.
I'll write myself in.
You want me to vote?
I'll vote for who I think would do the best job.
Probably me.
But in reality, I don't think I would do the best job.
So I'd end up voting for... I don't know, somebody I thought made the most sense, and if the Democrats don't have anybody, it's not gonna be a Democrat, and it's not gonna be Trump, so I don't care.
But there are people who actually want Trump to lose so much, they'd go and do it.
The Monmouth poll also found that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are perceived to be more electable now than they were in the summer.
Warren is tied with Biden at the top choice among Democratic primary voters, while Sanders is in third at 20%.
But let's be real.
Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask.
That's the way it's been told to me.
I think it's a good way to put it.
It doesn't mean that she's like... So people hear that and they get angry.
I'm like, no, listen.
Elizabeth Warren is in between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
But in my opinion, she's only pretending to be like Bernie Sanders.
Because she wants to be— She's the establishment, you know, plan B, because Bernie is taking over.
So they have an establishment player who's Warren, and she goes in and she acts like Bernie Sanders to get the votes.
But wait, there's more!
Support for impeachment slips four points from October in another poll!
You know what, man?
You can call him Teflon Don, or perhaps people just don't care.
Let me tell you a story.
There was once a large ivory tower in a small village, and the peasants never got to go into that tower.
They were assured that what was happening inside was always on the up-and-up.
Well, one day, the people were fed up.
It was only a few years after all of their homes were ravaged by a collapsing market, and they felt like they weren't being represented.
Along came a large peasant revolt led by a small, a small man of principle who's campaigned on many of these issues going back decades, a man named Bernie Sanders.
He may not be the smartest man, and many of the people in the town thought his ideas were bad, but he led that peasant revolt to those doors, and they banged on that door, and out popped Hillary Clinton's head, and she said, no!
And people, the criers in the town, started accusing Bernie and siding with the people in the ivory tower.
Well, unfortunately, Mr. Sanders and his peasant revolt failed.
At the same time, however, a bunch of other people were dragging a bull and bringing him towards the ivory tower where the establishment elites above looked out the window and laughed.
There's no way they're gonna get in with that bull!
And mocked and ridiculed it.
And all of the criers and everybody laughed and ridiculed it.
That bull will never get in.
Until he did.
And that bull has been rampaging through that ivory tower, thrashing about, kicking the walls, while that 42% who are diehard supporters of Trump, who will never let go, are sitting back and laughing, saying, this is what you get, establishment.
Because as Michael Moore put it, people were going to vote for Trump, and it would be the biggest F you to the establishment.
So here's what I see.
I understand that people who support the president see him doing a good job and helping the economy and things are really great.
And I can respect that.
The economy is doing really, really well.
Whether or not that was Trump, I think Trump gets credit for it.
Al-Baghdadi, Trump gets credit for it.
But I also do think that when it comes to the establishment, Trump is a bull rampaging up the stairs and kicking holes in the wall and, you know, headbutting people and they're flying through windows.
And for me, and what I see, I'm on the ground.
You know, one of these peasants who was always on the outside looking at that tower.
And I just hear noises and screams and I'm laughing like, man, you people have been sitting up in your Elysium ivory tower for so long, and now the bull has been unleashed to tear through your tower.
Don't care.
Not a fan of the bull, because I understand that some people think the bull smells bad.
Hey, but you know what?
The bull is one bull, right?
Eventually he gets tired, he leaves the tower, and he goes on about his business to go graze in the fields.
I think you understand the point I'm trying to make.
Why is it that Trump's re-election numbers have gone up in the Monmouth poll?
Why is it that support for impeachment is going down?
It's because there are many, many people who view Donald Trump as a bull sent into that tower to rampage through.
Listen.
I'm so confused as to why so many progressives just are adamant about getting rid of Trump.
It's like, hold on, hold on.
We vote him out, OK?
Here's what I think.
Come 2020, I'll likely vote for Yang or Tulsi.
They're not going to get the nomination, presumably.
We'll see what happens.
Tulsi impressively just qualified for November.
But I think we can all acknowledge that I understand the populist aspects of what Trump is doing and how he's an anti-establishment player.
He wants to bring back jobs.
I think his approach to it is something I wouldn't necessarily agree with, and I think character matters.
But I understand the Trump supporters.
I've talked to them.
I get why they support him.
And you can see that on the Tulsi side, you also have combat veteran, major in the National Guard, someone who really loves America.
So we disagree, and that's a good thing.
The Tulsi supporters and the Trump supporters, we're going to have that argument and we're going to talk about it.
But you know what's funny?
We actually can.
And that's the good thing.
And Tulsi is not one of these elites.
They do not like her.
And so even though you may disagree with her policy-wise, I think it's fair that we agree.
Both Trump and Tulsi love America.
My issues with Trump are not whether or not he loves this country, I think he does.
And I think he has a very, like, stern view of what needs to be done.
And the end result has been a good economy for a lot of things.
Foreign policy, Saudi Arabia, Syria, hey, we can have an argument about that.
But the fact is, Trump supporters and Tulsi supporters actually can.
So there's something good that comes out of this.
I see it like this.
Eventually, Trump leaves.
Trump supporters will be happy.
Maybe Trump Jr.
runs in 2023 and 2024.
That's been a big point brought up by a lot of people.
We'll see.
But the way I see it now is with the investigation into Biden, calling out the corruption, fighting the Democrats, the Republican establishment was trounced at the front gate.
He stormed in, barged through the door, and they all went flying.
Many of them left.
Many are retiring.
They don't want to be involved.
They call them Republicans in name only.
And in that wake, a new group from the ground have started coming in, people who actually care.
Now you can argue, some people say Trump, no, he's in it for money.
I don't buy it, sorry.
I do not believe that somebody who has a net worth of $4 billion is like, I'm going to take a job with no salary because it's going to make me money.
No, Trump's doing it for prestige.
But I think he's doing it because, listen, Trump is a narcissist, okay?
That may offend many Trump supporters, but the fact is, Trump thinks he knows how to fix these problems.
He is not driven, in my opinion, by trying to enrich himself at the presidency.
I see a man who says, I can see the problems, and I know how to fix them, and I must be the one to do it.
And that doesn't sit well with a lot of people in the U.S.
government.
A lot of people at these intelligence agencies who think they know better.
Trump does want to fix the country.
Trump does love the country.
I'm not saying that because he's a narcissist, he hates everybody.
No, no, no, no.
Trump is just so confident in himself, he must be the one to do it.
To me, that's his motivation.
You know what?
He won the election.
He won the confidence of the people.
And those in the ivory tower, they screwed up.
So be it.
Trump gets to be president.
Never been a big fan of him.
Okay?
The economy's doing pretty good.
I can respect that.
Okay, Baghdadi, I can respect it.
I'll tell you what, though.
Come 2025, the bull will leave the stairs and go about his business.
But the damage to the ivory tower will be permanent.
So for me, somebody who's always been on the outside looking at the establishment, seeing these crony, corrupt individuals enrich themselves, give their daughters jobs at MSNBC doing nothing, giving their sons jobs at gas companies in Ukraine where they don't speak the language, we know how the game is played.
So yeah, I don't really like Trump that much, but I'll tell you what, I'm gonna sit back sipping on my pina colada as that bull rampages through the ivory tower, and I'm gonna chuckle to myself, be like, it's so funny, you're all freaking out.
And I'm not gonna vote for the bull.
It wasn't my idea to unleash the bull.
I was with the other guy in the peasant revolt.
I was saying just let us in.
But now, you reap what you sow.
They refused to let the people in, so the bull crashed through the door.
And I'm laughing.
I'm like, yep, you had your chance.
You had your chance to bring in Bernie Sanders.
You wanted to cheat.
And there are a lot of other people down here on the ground who were in that peasant revolt with Bernie.
And when the bull came along, they said, OK, this is what we're going to do.
And that was the 12% to 18% of voters who went from Bernie to Trump.
So it's kind of a Bernie or Bust mentality, I guess.
Because I knew a lot of friends who were kind of like that.
Like, if it's Bernie, I'm in.
If not, I don't care.
And I was kind of in that position.
I'm very jaded on Bernie as of late, for sure.
I never really believed that all of Bernie's answers were correct, mind you.
I used to argue with my friends about it.
But the issue was honesty.
I saw the Democrats as a group of people who sought to enrich themselves, who say whatever they need to say, they flip-flop all the time, their positions make no sense.
And along comes Bernie Sanders, who is honest on the debate stage, saying, yes, we will raise your taxes.
Who has been consistent on his positions.
He's a person who really does say what he thinks he wants to do.
And I said, you know what?
I think some of his policies are too far for me.
But I think he's certainly honest.
And I'd rather have him than any one of these crony, corporate, corrupt individuals.
Like, we know what Biden did in Ukraine.
And the establishment is saying, no, it's a conspiracy.
Not sorry.
There's more than enough email.
We know, OK?
I'll put it this way.
We don't know.
But I think it's fair to say that there's enough corruption in the system that I'm over it.
So when the bull crashed through the door and started rampaging around, I sat back and I said, Yep.
As soon as that bull leaves, here's the thing.
There's a bunch of people cheering on the bull as he rampages through the road, like, yeah!
And I'm sitting back, I'm like, well, he's screwing up the ivory tower, but I'll tell you what.
Eventually he'll leave and then we'll all sit down for a conversation and figure out who should go in and take things back over.
And I'm fine with it because Trump in presidency for eight years isn't the end of the world.
While I certainly disagree with a lot of his positions, I wouldn't vote for him.
I think character matters.
And I disagree with foreign policy stuff that he's done.
I also think we've got deficit problems.
It's complicated.
But I'm not gonna fight.
Like, okay, dude, I get it.
Right?
Trump wins the election.
That's how it works.
We go back and forth with it.
But I'll tell you what.
If you don't like the establishment Democrats, if you don't like Hillary, if you don't like Biden, let the bull rampage, man!
I know it's a metaphor.
Trump's not actually destroying everything.
But he's going after these crony people.
He's angry about it.
I think Trump is mad.
They smeared him with the Russia stuff for three years.
So his motivation is, you screw me, I screw you back.
So now they're trying to impeach him.
I think Trump's, he could have done a little bit better tact-wise, strategy-wise.
But I'm just sitting back like, you know what, man?
Let the elites, the titans, duke it out.
Whatever.
And then when it comes 2020, I'll vote for who I want.
And if Trump gets re-elected, I'm not going to cry about it.
I'm not going to scream.
I'm going to be like, hey, you know what, man, four more years.
I'm not sweating.
I don't think the world is going to end.
But I'll end with one more thing.
These people who are crying about Trump are the same people, somewhat, who think the world is ending, anyway.
So I'm like, dude, if you think the world is ending in 10 years, what are you complaining about Trump for? Go play
video games.
Oh no, they think if they can get Trump out, they might stop the world from ending.
Dude, these people, it's not so much about whether or not they believe the world's gonna end no matter what, it's
that they actually think the world might end.
No, I'm sorry.
Eight years of Donald Trump is not the end of the world, okay?
If Trump really is a bad job, then people will vote him out.
The system has survived this way for hundreds of years.
Calm down!
In the end, though, I think you've got all these cronies, okay?
All these corporate, corrupt people.
They don't care about us.
They don't care about politics.
They care about getting the keys to the tower.
Well, now the bulls thrashing through it so your key is meaningless.
And this kind of exemplifies why I was saying that when it comes to Pelosi.
She's being challenged by a woman named Agatha Bacilar, who's a young, progressive, kind of far left.
And I said, I kind of would rather have her in Congress, because at least she's someone who cares about what she thinks about.
I know, I know.
We've seen some pretty messed up things coming from AOC, leadership-wise.
But I look at Nancy Pelosi as somebody who just wants the keys to the tower.
I look at people like Ocasio-Cortez and Agatha Bacilar as ideological actors.
Now I gotta admit, as much as I really disagree with it, and I really don't like AoC a lot, I don't feel that same way about someone like Agatha Basilar.
I think she's not as, I don't know, snooty as AoC is.
And so when I look at someone like Pelosi, who to me seems like a weird, slimy robot who just wants to sit in the tower to say she is, I don't think she cares about anybody.
Look at her district, it's a trash hole.
And then I look at this activist and I'm like, I disagree with you on a lot of things.
I like the anti-war stuff.
I'm confident if we had a mix of populist individuals in government, we would not have these massive wars overseas.
We'd have a much more take-care-of-business-at-home government.
But, you know, don't take my word for it.
These are just some of my thoughts I've been having.
