Republicans FINALLY Strike Back At Democrats In Impeachment Inquiry, DEMAND Hunter Biden Testify
Republicans FINALLY Strike Back At Democrats In Impeachment Inquiry, DEMAND Hunter Biden Testify. In a letter sent by Republicans to Democrat Adam Schiff they outline their anger over the impeachment inquiry and list several people they want to testify.Notably, Republicans want Devon Archer and Hunter Biden to testify as to their knowledge of Burisma and the core of the Ukraine scandal. They also want the whistleblower and anyone the whistleblower talked to regarding the phone call Trump made.Democrats have the advantage though, Schiff can veto anyone of these 'suggestions.' Republicans do not have the right to call witnesses, only suggest them. This seems completely absurd but in the end Trump will be impeached and we all know it.Whether Senate GOP members move to convict Trump is another story and its possible in the senate trial the republicans call these witnesses forward anyway.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Republicans are finally striking back at Democrats in the impeachment inquiry, launching their first counter offensive, at least formally.
We all know the Republicans stormed into the skiff.
There was some yelling.
Some people couldn't testify.
Pizza was ordered.
Chick-fil-A was had.
But as far as procedure is concerned, this is an official request for certain witnesses, including Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.
Including the whistleblower himself, the people who spoke to the whistleblower, and even Alexander Chalupa, the woman who was accused of facilitating collusion between Ukrainian officials and the DNC to dig up dirt on Donald Trump.
There's a couple problems, though.
As far as I can tell, I think it's fair to say impeachment is tribal.
The left knows Trump is an evil orange man who is corrupt and was trying to dig up dirt on his political rival.
And the right knows Joe Biden is crooked and was colluding with Ukrainians to protect his son because his son was being investigated.
Now there's evidence to show that may be the case in Ukraine.
We don't know for sure, but it looks that way.
And it is true that Joe Biden is Trump's political rival.
But what is the appropriate response?
And what should happen in this?
Well, I'm not going to tell you whether Trump should or shouldn't be impeached.
I'll just tell you this.
He's going to be impeached.
The Democrats are going to impeach him.
They control the House.
That's where we're at.
But he probably won't be convicted.
So in the end, what's the point of all of this?
You know what gets worse?
I'm going to read you this letter, and we're going to look at why they want these people to testify, but I tell you this now.
I read some of the reporting on some of the latest testimony.
It's Russiagate.
I'm not kidding.
They are literally now re-litigating Russiagate, saying that Putin was targeting Trump since the 80s, and here we go again.
The testimony is absurd and insane, and it seems like we can't move on from this.
But at least the Republicans are doing something.
Something, right?
Let's read this letter.
Congress of the United States to the Honorable Adam Schiff.
Before we get started, however, make sure you go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
And of course, the best thing you can do is share this video and I will tell you why.
The other day, I got noticed that YouTube permanently, they force locked my video discussing the whistleblower.
Publicly available information is locked down.
I broke no rules, I did nothing wrong, I was reading publicly available mainstream news websites certified by a third party, and they locked me out.
The censorship is real, it's here, and Facebook is doing the same thing.
I don't know how long independent political commentators will be able to do this.
So if you think I'm doing a good job now, please consider sharing this video because it's very likely at some point they'll determine this retroactively broke the rules and they'll take this down too.
That's what's scary.
But let's read.
I'm not going to read everything.
I'll give you the gist, but I'll read some of it.
The letter says, in March 2019, prior to unilaterally initiating an impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives, Speaker Pelosi said that impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country.
Today, eight months after Speaker Pelosi's statement, there is bipartisan opposition in the House of Representatives to pursuing impeachment.
Undeterred, Speaker Pelosi and you now plan to move your one-sided and purely political impeachment inquiry, they put it in quotes, from behind closed doors to open hearings next week.
There's a longer paragraph about President Zelensky.
They say during the committee's last open hearing, you fabricated evidence out of thin air to portray President Trump's telephone conversation with President Zelensky in a sinister light.
During your closed-door proceedings, you offered no due process protections for the president.
You directed witnesses called by the Democrats not to answer Republican questions.
You withheld deposition transcripts from Republican members.
You selectively leaked cherry-picked information to paint misleading public narratives about your facts.
You misled the American people about your interactions with the whistleblower, earning you four Pinocchios from the Washington Post.
Your actions have greatly damaged the integrity of the Intelligence Committee and any legitimacy of your impeachment inquiry.
Americans see through this sham impeachment process despite the Democrats' efforts to retroactively legitimize it last week.
The resolution that Democrats passed last week over bipartisan opposition limits the rights of minority members beyond those prescribed in the House rules and prevents minority members from fully and fairly participating in the proceedings.
While in traditional hearings, the minority is permitted the ability to call a witness, the resolution only allows minority members to suggest a witness list and requires them to provide a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness.
Now, I'll stop there.
There's a little bit more.
But it shows you Schiff is not going to allow this.
But it also shows you it doesn't matter.
The Democrats know they're going to impeach.
The whistleblower's lawyer said two years ago the coup has started, and then he went on to talk about impeachment coming next.
That was years before any of this happened.
It's a foregone conclusion.
And it's terrifying, really, that our government has become purely tribal.
What happens next?
Well, so far the Republicans control the Senate, but I gotta say, you've had a lot of Democrat victories in these past couple of years.
2008, 2019, we just had an election.
Virginia, for instance, went full Democrat.
You had the suburbs turn on Trump and gave the House majority to Democrats.
If Donald Trump does sour with independents and moderates, or the negative press generated by the Democrats provides enough negative partisanship to push voter turnout, Yeah, Trump could lose.
Republican senators could lose.
And things are quite uncertain.
But I do have data to support.
It seems like things are still going in Trump's favor.
And I gotta say, it's kind of strange to me.
Look, I'll admit, all of this negative press about impeachment, the constant barrage, I would have assumed at some point people would just say, Trump has to go.
But I think something else is happening.
While there are a lot of people being activated by negative press and negative partisanship, I think a lot of people are tuning out and saying, I just don't care anymore.
And no matter how many times they say it, it doesn't seem to have an effect.
In the aggregate, Trump's approval rating rebounded recently.
That surprised me.
And support for impeachment is down four points in the aggregate.
This isn't going anywhere.
So I wonder, will this strategy play off?
I think it's possible.
And I think if you're a Trump supporter, you'd be a fool not to expect that this might actually work.
It was arrogance that cost the Democrats 2016.
Not entirely, but it was a factor.
And the same thing could happen to Trump.
The biggest mistake you can make?
Underestimating your opponents.
Now in the letter, They say they want Devin Archer, former board member of Burisma Holdings.
I won't read every justification because it's a lot of rehashing old details, but they mention that Devin Archer is a board member of Burisma Holdings, and they say, Multiple Democrat witnesses in closed-door testimony explained that Ukrainian energy company Burisma has a reputation in Ukraine for corruption.
Mr. Archer is Hunter Biden's long-term business partner and served as a board member of Burisma Holdings with Mr. Biden.
Mr. Archer's firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist the American public in understanding the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption, information that bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and deeply held skepticism of the country.
They go on to add Hunter Biden for similar reasons.
So let's play a quick game.
Let me ask you a question.
Hunter Biden and Devin Archer were on the board of Burisma Holdings, as was a former CIA director.
This is all public information.
Joe Biden and many others in the U.S.
Obama administration felt that Zlochevsky, the man who co-founded Burisma, was corrupt.
Strange, because I wonder, there's clearly a connection between Hunter Biden and Devin Archer, so there's a good argument.
Perhaps they would know what corruption was occurring around them, so perhaps it should testify.
But the question I have, and I raised in a video I made a couple days ago, is that after Joe Biden came in and got Shokin, the prosecutor, fired, the new prosecutor subsequently cleared Zlochevsky of all wrongdoing.
It's very strange then.
If everyone is claiming Burisma was tied to corruption, Joe Biden goes in and removes a prosecutor and the new one clears him of all wrongdoing, at the very least it seems that the US administration got an innocent man fired through a quid pro quo with Joe Biden.
At worst, it seems like there was corruption and Joe Biden intervened.
At least that's what a lot of Trump supporters believe.
I think that's the fair assessment if you ask me.
At the very least, then, the argument for why these people should testify makes sense.
We'll see if Schiff honors it.
They bring up Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee staffer.
They say during the 2016 election, Chalupa, a former DNC staffer and contractor, worked with a Ukraine embassy in D.C.
to try and get political dirt on then-candidate Trump's campaign.
She admitted to providing anti-Trump dirt to the DNC and Hillary Clinton, and to discussing such dirt to the Clinton campaign, and to discussing such dirt with then-Ukrainian Ambassador of the United States, Valerie Chely.
Given President Trump's documented belief the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election to oppose his candidacy, which forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to investigate the circumstances surrounding the election and any potential Ukrainian involvement, Miss Chalupa is a prime fact witness who can assist Congress and the American public in better understanding the facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.
They say David Hale, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Tim Morrison, former Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the National Security Council, to testify on the same panel as Alexander Vindman, assuming you request Vindman to testify, And Nellie Orr, former contractor for opposition research firm Fusion GPS.
They say Ambassador Kurt Volker, the anonymous whistleblower, whose second-hand complaint initiated the impeachment inquiry.
All individuals relied upon by the anonymous whistleblower in drafting his or her second-hand complaint.
But there's more.
Now that is the list.
It ends by being signed by Jim Jordan, Michael T. McCaul, Carolyn B. Maloney, Elliot Engel, But there's more.
Devin Nunes wants Adam Schiff to testify, and there's even an argument the whistleblower has forfeited all protections by speaking to Schiff's team before filing the official complaint.
And that's a fact.
And Schiff lied about it.
Well, Schiff said he didn't have contact with the whistleblower, and then later said, oh, I should have been more clear.
But no, it seems like he was at least misleading people.
Now, will Schiff agree to the demand that Schiff should testify?
I don't think so.
I don't think the Republicans are going to get a fair impeachment.
That's not going to happen.
But the impeachment, you have to understand, is kind of like a grand jury.
So a lot of Republicans have been angry about not having access to the testimony.
And I think it's fair for one reason.
Selective information was being leaked.
And the Republicans weren't the ones doing it.
Somebody who had access to the documents was putting out things that made Trump look bad and it generated bad press.
It turns out, Bill Taylor for instance, who was the star witness alleging quid pro quo, his source of information was the New York Times.
I know it's more complicated than that, but that's just one counter-argument made.
That when you get the full context released, finally, You can see.
You can see that it was just public information.
Now, here's the thing, though.
When that official statement, that small tidbit, circulates for a week or so, some people hear it and believe it before the full context can be presented.
Now here's where it gets interesting.
The Democrats ain't too happy.
Democrats warn against calling Bidens to testify.
It would be literally rolling a grenade down the Senate.
Trump's allies have urged Republicans to haul the Bidens to the Hill.
Not everyone thinks it's a good idea.
Yet, not everyone.
That means Democrats.
Democrats don't want the Bidens testifying.
Gee, I wonder why.
Well, let's read what the Daily Beast says.
They say.
Senate Democrats issued stark warnings on Wednesday that Republicans would severely damage the institution of Congress if they acquiesced to a push from Trump allies to haul former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter for testimony about their actions in Ukraine.
A top Biden ally, Senator Chris Coons, told the Daily Beast that calling the 2020 contender, who served for 35 years in the Senate and his son for testimony, would be literally rolling a grenade down the aisle of the Senate that would have lasting consequences on the upper chamber's ability to work together.
Saying, look, Joe Biden is well known, widely respected, and frankly beloved by many in the Senate on both sides of the aisle.
The impeachment process is already disruptive enough.
I think we should be approaching it with seriousness, not by entertaining conspiracy theories that are utterly unfounded.
And I think it would be a very unfortunate move.
That's a really interesting statement.
You know why?
It sounds an awful lot like Russiagate, when they wanted to drag the president himself to testify.
Well, Trump gave written answers, I believe.
It's been a bit.
But I gotta tell you, we are still in Russiagate.
Now, you may be saying, no, no, Tim, Ukrainegate's something different.
It's not.
Wait till you see the latest testimony.
I'm gonna show you.
It's Russiagate.
It hasn't stopped.
They're making the same allegations.
But before we do that, I want you to take a look at some of this.
MSNBC reports, as support for impeachment grows, Trump claims access to unseen polls.
Why, this story is from November 5th.
MSNBC reporting that support for impeachment is on the rise.
Surprising, considering that just a day later, support for impeachment slips four points from October poll.
Well, I'll tell you what.
If you watch MSNBC, you're being fed fake news.
I'm sorry.
The real clear politics average is down.
I believe it was a week or so, a couple weeks ago, I did a conversation with Sam Seder.
I thought it was lovely.
I think a lot of people hated it, but hey, what do you get when you get two people pitted against each other?
But Sam pointed out accurately that support for impeachment was at 52%.
It's now around 48.5, so it's down a little bit more than four points.
Or, I'm sorry, a little bit less than four points, but around there.
And that's the aggregate, not a single poll.
So I have to say, if you're reading MSNBC, you live in some wacky parallel reality.
And I've highlighted this several times.
Reuters wrote a story about a study that if you watch MSNBC, you likely believe the economy is bad.
If you watch Fox News, you think it's good.
In reality, the economy is good.
So here we can see there's a couple things to point out.
For one, Trump's support in the RealClearPolitics average, Trump approval rating, rebounded.
Now it's down from its highest point.
It went way down, but it spiked back up.
It is higher today than it was two years ago.
So I have to wonder, have people really tuned out from all of this?
I'll tell you what, man.
Based on my analytics, yes.
I've been looking at other political channels, and everybody is tired of this.
And I gotta admit, I know exactly when that breaking point happened.
I remember reading the news, waking up one day, and just seeing, there it was, impeachment, Ukraine, let's play Russiagate all over again, and I was ready to just get in my van and just drive off.
I was like, no, no, stop, not again, please.
And so I started not talking about this stuff for a little bit and then, you know, would wait a few days before coming back in.
You look at the mainstream cable channels and no matter what, they're squeezing everything they can, every possible last drop of impeachment news.
It is ridiculous.
I tell you what, people don't care.
It's a sad fact.
The fact that Joe Biden is the frontrunner proves that people don't care.
But you know what?
This is the Democrat Hail Mary.
It's all they have.
They're not going to allow these witnesses, maybe some of them.
They're going to say no to the Bidens.
That is uncalled for.
They're not related.
They are.
I think it makes sense, but they're not going to allow it.
And they're going to impeach anyway.
The Republicans, however, are probably hoping that some of this testimony can
help when it comes to the actual trial.
But when they go to the Senate, they can probably then call because the, because
the Republicans control the Senate, they can probably then call Hunter Biden and
whoever they want in the whistleblower and Schiff himself.
Maybe this might backfire horribly, because the Democrats, in their desperation to drum up negative press on Trump, have opened up a can of worms for which the Senate can respond in kind in a trial.
But we'll see.
I don't know the full rules.
But I now bring you to the more fun and infuriating story.
You see, we have these allegations of conspiracy theories, and they're saying, oh no, we're not going to allow these witnesses because it's a conspiracy theory.
All those things, right?
First, former Trump advisor testifies to Ukraine pressure campaign ties Mulvaney to quid pro quo.
There seemed to be an awful lot of people involved in, you know, basically turning a White House meeting into some kind of asset, Fiona Hill told Congress.
Fiona Hill and Vindman also claimed that investigative reporter John Solomon was on par with InfoWars.
Well, Vindman said it was false, and Fiona Hill compared it in some capacity, or somehow it got conflated with InfoWars, which is ridiculous.
I think it may have been CNN who did that.
Because John Solomon's published receipts, like the actual documents and sworn statements.
Yeah, Alex Jones talking about, you know, cell towers and mutant hybrids, that's completely off the rails.
But now I bring you to the best part.
Will I take Fiona Hill seriously?
I'm gonna have to go ahead and say no.
Because according to Inquisitor, Vladimir Putin began targeting Donald Trump when he was a businessman.
Russia expert Fiona Hill testifies.
Now, you may say, but Tim, Fiona Hill's a long-standing government actor.
She has tons of experience.
If anyone knows, she does.
That's true.
And guess what?
If Robert Mueller in three years could not prove collusion, in fact, essentially disproved it, the only thing he really proved was that Trump may have acted foolishly, and there's potential obstruction, depending on who you ask, no collusion.
Obstruction, arguable.
Because the right's going to say no and the left's going to say yes.
I'm not here to get involved in it.
I'm going to say this, okay?
I'm making an important point.
If Robert Mullen's three years of investigation with all of these tens of millions of dollars in resources could not prove there was a connection, and then you want to claim that Putin was targeting Trump, I'm sorry, man.
I know, I get it.
You can try and claim, like, what does this mean?
What does it mean when you testify that Putin was targeting Trump?
Well, they didn't work together, so what does targeting really mean?
It means that they want Trump to be a Russian asset.
It means they want Tulsi Gabbard to be a Russian asset.
It means we are still in Russiagate with the same people and the same tactics.
It's the same thing all over again.
They didn't get what they wanted out of Mueller because there was nothing there.
So they started digging, and they found this.
And the whistleblower's lawyer said the coup was started two years ago.
Over two- almost three years ago!
It was, uh, almost three years ago now.
Going on to say that CNN would play a role in impeachment.
And now these people are actively engaging in an impeachment inquiry?
Please, spare me.
You want to play the Russia game?
I'm sorry.
New Knowledge, that company that tracked the Russian bots that everyone quotes, even BuzzFeed says it's dubious, at best.
And the CEO was banned from Facebook for making fake Russian accounts.
It's just, I'm sorry.
It is the same people, the same tactics, and this is why you can count me out of your nonsense.
Now, I'll tell you what, though.
Listen.
I'm not a big Trump fan, and everybody knows it, okay?
But I'm also not a crazy person, and I just don't care.
I started thinking about it recently, and I was like, you know, what separates me from, say, these Trump derangement people?
And it's that I think as a mature adult, when Trump won, I went, wow, we lost, you know?
Hey, maybe next time.
I say this to myself all the time.
You can't win them all.
That's a fact.
You can't.
So when Trump got elected, I was like, eh, you know, you can't win them all.
Gotta be an adult.
You gotta figure out what to do next.
We gotta move on.
But these people, they can't let it go.
Conspiracy to conspiracy, Russia, all the insanity, all the insane nonsense.
They're smearing Tulsi Gabbard now?
It's just, they are foaming at the mouth crazy about Trump and everything he's doing.
And I'll tell you what, man.
I think there's some good things about what Trump has done, and I think Trump's done some bad things.
I talk about him a lot, you get it.
But the issue is, yeah, what?
So in 2024, you vote for somebody else.
Grow up!
It's insane to me that for the entirety of Donald Trump's presidency, they have been seeking impeachment.
I kid you not.
The Washington Post reported it was only 12 hours after inauguration, not even.
Several organizations announced they were seeking impeachment.
And they kept voting on it over and over and over again.
We can't go on this way.
This country can't function this way.
But you know what?
I'll tell you this.
Republicans, the politicians, they're weak.
Ineffective.
And I think even Trump supporters know it.
I've seen a lot of comments from Trump supporters saying that they consider themselves like Trump-publican or Trumpian.
Because the Republicans, they're very... There's too many politicians that are out for themselves, right?
So you have these old establishment Republicans.
They don't want to support Trump.
And they don't.
People were ragging on Lindsey Graham for a long time.
And I think Lindsey Graham falls in that camp.
The Democrats, however, successfully fended off the peasant revolt.
So they've circled the wagons around their establishment crony actors, and they're safe.
So they're working together.
That's their thing.
But Trump fractured the Republican, brought in populists, new people entering Congress and the Senate.
It's a different game.
So there are some people who are loyal to the American people and do
process and the rule of law.
And there are some people who just really, really, really, really don't like Trump.
Or I should say more importantly, there are people who just care about themselves.
So in the end, you have these Republicans, I'd be willing to bet without.
Without starting to name names, there are several Republicans who are waiting for the chance to flip on the President.
And if there was a secret vote held, a bunch of these Republicans would turn to the President in two seconds.
But we'll see what happens.
At least some Republicans are striking back, calling on these witnesses.
But I'll tell you what, man.
They're not gonna testify.
I mean, that would be crazy.
Like, seriously crazy if Hunter Biden had to go to Congress and testify and answer these questions.
That'd be nuts.
Or the whistleblower.
They're gonna say no.
I assure you, Schiff will say, absolutely not.
The whistleblower must be protected.
And that's why YouTube, Facebook, and all these platforms are censoring the name of the whistleblower.
The name's publicly available.
You can go on Google search, you can search for whistleblower's name, and it pops up in two seconds.
But guess what?
A couple days ago, I did a video.
Yesterday, last night, they blocked it.
They force-locked that video.
I can't say the name.
Welcome to the Nightmare Dystopia.
YouTube and Facebook are clearly acting to protect one side of this, and it is horrifying.
The next segment will be coming up at YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
6 p.m., thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all there.
YouTube has force-locked my video talking about the whistleblower and their work history and complaints and criticism from
those who believe it's a political hit job.
The whistleblower in question has worked with Biden. He has friends who now work with Adam Schiff,
and there are a lot of questions about what his relationship is with these anti-Trump personalities.
His lawyer, for instance, said the coup has started. So at this point, yes, it's become
newsworthy. But I'll tell you what, first, my post on Facebook where I got really angry was banned.
This is what you're seeing on the screen.
I'll describe it for those that are listening.
YouTube video was locked.
Even though the video's been up since, for what, over a week now, since the 31st, with nearly 300,000 views, it's still live on other platforms like Minds and Bitchute.
Hey, take it all down.
This is an attack on journalism.
This is journalism.
What I'm doing, okay, first of all, if I'm giving my opinion on something, fine, but I am breaking down facts and reporting on publicly available information.
What YouTube and Facebook are doing is nightmarishly dystopian, and I've warned over and over again.
First, they're going to ban conservatives for naughty words, but they will stop the journalism given the chance.
So let me break something down for you, and then it's not just me.
Matt Christensen was doing his podcast and YouTube took his video down in the exact same
way they forced it into private mode.
They're doing this because if they delete the video, people will say, why was the video
deleted?
They'll say video removed or unavailable.
Instead, they force it private and the video said this video, and then all that all people
will see is this video is private.
And so they'll assume we did it.
Nope.
And they did to Matt Christensen, and they've done it to other people.
Simply for mentioning the name?
Which I'm not going to say right now, because guess what?
That's right.
We are forced to adhere to insane rules that are anti-journalism, and now I have a choice.
See, if I published the name, because I had the image, this video would just get locked.
You'd never see it.
So I have to make a choice now.
Do I want to talk about the problem?
I do.
But I'll tell you what, man.
I'm not optimistic.
We've seen the waves of censorship.
We've seen the Donald Trump subreddit being quarantined is complete and total BS, and we all know it.
You don't gotta be a fan of their opinions, but they apparently locked the biggest forum for Trump supporters over threats of violence to police officers.
Are you kidding me?
That's ridiculous.
The Donald?
Threatening cops?
Go over to the Anarchism subreddit and you'll see posts every three comments.
Talking about weapons and how they're... They actually have... The far-left cyberbots have tags specifically referencing violence directed at police.
Like, they spray-painted on walls.
And the Donald's been quarantined for, what, months now?
We get it.
I talked about it before.
Coming into the 2020 election, we are going to see censorship to the extreme degree.
So let me break something down for you.
First, the New York Times published a story about the whistleblower.
They gave key details about the whistleblower's employment history.
A bunch of people said, we know who that is.
That perfectly describes this individual.
All of a sudden, then we started seeing conservative outlets write the story saying, this is the person, this is what people aren't being talked about.
And then we saw the Hill One of the Hill personalities talked about it.
RealClearPolitics officially wrote the story breaking down who this person was, and that's what I was commenting on.
RealClearPolitics, a high-profile mainstream organization cited by every major pundit because they do the polling aggregates, published a story saying, this is the name being floated.
And if that's the case, here are the criticisms about the whistleblower's political bias.
That's what I was doing.
So let me break it down.
I didn't out anybody.
In fact, even after people knew who this person was, I still said nothing.
It wasn't until it went mainstream that I said, okay, this needs to be talked about.
And not only that, on the 6th, Yashir Ali of New York Mag and Huffington Post confirmed on Twitter saying, three sources confirm this person is the whistleblower, and then went on to say, People might criticize me for this, but it's newsworthy.
Went on to delete the tweet.
I don't know why.
I reached out to him.
He hasn't responded.
Did I out anybody?
No, I didn't.
No, I did not.
I am simply commenting on publicly available information.
They did this to me before when Veritas leaked information on Pinterest.
YouTube deleted my video outright.
This was forced private mode.
My other video on Pinterest was outright deleted with no recourse.
This they said you can appeal.
I clicked appeal and they claimed I had misleading tags in the video.
No, no I didn't.
And when I appealed they just told me basically screw off.
So here's what you can see for those that are listening.
The first post is my video when RealClearPolitics released the name, Impeachment Exposed as a Political Hit Job.
Yes, I know, it's hyperbolic, it's my opinion.
That's what I believe.
This guy worked with Biden.
This guy is clearly biased.
We knew there were reports that he was siding with one political faction, and that was a concern.
And that's what it appears like.
It appears like this is a guy who has a personal stake in what's happening and it's not some, oh no, oh heavens me, I just found out about some wrongdoing.
No, apparently he worked with the woman who was accused of colluding with the Ukrainians.
So it's all tying together.
Now we're hearing testimony.
I tell you what, things are breaking down and getting scary.
New testimony from Fiona Hill.
John Solomon, investigative reporter, and the documents he released are conspiracy theories.
That's where they're going with it.
And I don't know what's going to happen, but you can see that things are getting hot.
Now you've got Oliver Darcy of CNN regurgitating the talking points from these witnesses saying that John Solomon, former investigative reporter from Washington Post and The Hill, is making up InfoWars-style conspiracies.
Sorry.
John Solomon brought receipts.
I don't just take his word for it.
He's publishing documents.
You haven't disproved any of that.
You want to claim Jones talking about cell towers and animal hybrids is on par with sworn affidavits and statements from Ukrainian MPs?
I'm sorry, we got a big problem here.
And the point I've made in all my videos is when it comes down to it, you've got to choose.
Do you trust the Ukrainian officials who are saying there's no wrongdoing?
Or do you trust the Ukrainian officials who are saying there is wrongdoing?
I'm not going to tell you who to trust.
I'm just saying both of these stories are out there and you can't claim one is more right than the other.
Now they are.
Why?
Well, it protects their interests.
So I'll tell you what.
I made a video giving my opinion.
This guy clearly has ties.
You know, you look at Matt Taibbi, you look at... I'll name Matt Taibbi because he's been more explicit about it.
But you look at these other left-wing journalists and they're pointing out these intelligence agencies keep doing the same thing.
It is Russiagate all over again.
There's now testimony claiming that Trump is an asset of Russia.
I kid you not!
We are back to square one three years ago.
And all I did was talk about it.
Banned.
So here's what I did, kind of in a defiant fit of rage.
I tweeted, Eric F-ing, and his name, go F yourself Facebook, go F yourself YouTube, shove your fascism up your A. And I got a notice from Facebook saying, your post goes against our community standards on coordinating harm and promoting crime.
No one else can see your post.
We have these standards to prevent and disrupt offline harm.
Okay, you know what?
I'll concede I was cussing.
Fine.
But it's not criminal.
You're allowed to swear on Facebook and arbitrarily tell somebody to put fascism up their A. Hey, wait a minute.
This is an anti-fascist post.
Are they banning anti-fascist content now?
After I clicked continue it said we don't allow people to facilitate or coordinate crime activity likely to cause harm to people, business or animals.
We do allow people to draw attention to harm they witness or experience.
We define harm as things like physical harm against people or animals, theft and vandalism, fraud and voting interference.
So does that mean that I could post this right now and say I have just witnessed voting interference by Facebook for blocking publicly available information and they wouldn't take it down?
I'd be willing to bet they would.
We'll see what happens.
What would you like to do?
Accept the decision?
Request review?
Well, I requested a review and they basically told me to go screw myself.
I mean, it's actually more of like a civil war in a sense.
I'm not saying legit.
I'm not being hyperbolic, saying like, here you have two factions within the government, one saying, who's this guy?
The other saying, protect this guy.
It's interesting.
I'm like, I understand there may be simple answers for it.
You know, Sierra almost said his name.
Not going to do it.
But what about the journalists?
What happened to journalists wanting to expose corruption?
Where are the journalists who want to inform the public about potential wrongdoing?
I tell you what, I went over to Reddit and I was looking at the comments where the story was posted in the news section saying that Facebook is going to ban people who named the whistleblower and the comments were all cheering for it.
Wow!
Is that how democracy dies?
To thunderous applause?
Yep.
It is.
There were some people saying the name's already public, you can't just ban the news.
And then the responses are, like robots, the only reason to name the individual is because people want to intimidate him or smear him.
No.
No, I'll tell you what.
I didn't want to name the individual.
But the individual is named.
It is now newsworthy.
I'm sorry, that's just how information works.
So for YouTube to take my video down when I was commenting on a high-profile publicly available story from a mainstream news website is mind-blowingly insane.
I tell you this man, on the same day, YouTube and Facebook just decided to start banning this content.
This video was up since October 31st, collecting around 300,000 views.
What was the point of locking it?
The video's already live on other websites.
People who wanted to see it have already seen it.
It's not even really getting views at this point.
And I already got, look, it's monetized.
So I made ad revenue off it.
Like, the whole thing was done.
I can only imagine that I mean, I can cite Hanlon's Razor, but is this on purpose?
Are they trying to Streisand effect this dude's name?
Are they trying to make sure this is the big story?
That journalists are getting shut down?
Well, I'll give you the latest update.
We got a story from the Washington Post.
Facebook and YouTube block spread of supposed whistleblowers' name and photo.
Twitter allows both.
I reached out to my YouTube partner manager and they're not, you know, what you've got to understand about YouTube is that it's not one person at YouTube with tentacles controlling everything.
These people I work with have no idea what's going on.
And so I reached out and said, hey, is this for real?
Like, are you seriously?
Because I've named the whistleblower in seven videos at this point because his name's public.
And I was making points about the various articles.
When I want to talk about what Donald Trump Jr.
did, the president's son did this.
Here's the tweet.
Uh-oh!
Guy's name's in it.
Are you kidding?
I can't talk about that?
It's the president's son.
He's got four million followers.
So I sent an email saying, is this legit?
That any mention of this publicly available information, I can't comment on it, I can't say it?
It's everywhere!
This is insane!
I didn't say it like that, but I was just like, please tell me this is a mistake.
Because, you know, according to CNN now, you're going to be banning all of my videos.
And they said, we're going to look into this ASAP and we're going to get back to you.
Now in Matt Christensen, I guess Matt doesn't have a YouTube partner, Manager.
He said they were just like, hey, we're gonna look into this.
Too bad.
You know, we don't know how long it'll take.
Sorry.
Because he used the official, like, Google Help feature.
I actually have a YouTube partner, Manager.
Don't tell me why.
I don't know.
There's also big news that YouTube announced they'll ban you if they find you not to be commercially viable.
Yeah.
So, Twitter's getting a lot of flack.
It's a really, really weird political environment.
I'll tell you what.
I don't necessarily need to read the Washington Post story for the most part.
They're calling it coordinating harm to report the news.
Let me put it this way.
I understand my post on Facebook was a bit angry and I was swearing.
And I said, shove fascism up your A. I don't think that could be taken as a literal threat to anybody because fascism is an intangible concept that can't be placed inside one's rectum.
But if they want to argue, saying something like that is off the rails and they banned me for it, okay, fine.
I will concede I was angry with that post.
I've made other posts, and other people have made posts, where it just says this content is not available right now if you try to link to the story.
If my other posts get banned, that's the more alarming precedent.
I will absolutely concede me cussing and saying, you know, fine, maybe that's why they took it down.
Totally accept that.
But I have other posts that I've put up recently.
So far nothing has happened.
If they Take these posts down.
You know, I think that's a step beyond... We're already over the line, okay?
Some other people have posted stories, and I've seen it, and the link to the story just says this content is not available.
If they take down my posts, addressing the controversy, addressing the censorship, that's when, you know, we've gone one step beyond.
And that's when... You know what?
No, I'll just say this.
We're entering 2020, okay?
Political season is here.
But Donald is quarantined for dubious reasons.
They're censoring publicly available information.
The biggest mistake the establishment ever made was allowing the peasants the ability to speak.
And we have now used that ability to challenge them.
And they are trying to shove that toothpaste back in the tube, but it's not gonna work.
They're trying to find every reason to shut me down.
They're deranking my content.
They are banning people outright with no strikes.
I think it's going to get substantially worse.
And I think we all know it.
Going into the next several months, you are going to see a rapid escalation.
Anything that is in any way not anti-Trump, deranked.
Now, I will admit, there are progressives getting deranked as well.
David Pakman, for instance, is in the same boat as me.
They're coming after him.
So we'll see.
I think in the end, they realized I'll put it this way.
I don't think it's necessarily a grand conspiracy.
I think YouTube realized they're at great risk of commercial inviability by allowing this kind of content.
So YouTube's in panic.
They've been smeared and attacked by political actors.
So they bend as quickly as possible.
And here we are.
The censorship is coming.
But you also have to recognize There are people at these companies who are biased.
The Gizmodo report tells us Facebook employees were overtly biased, so they censored conservative content.
The leaks from Project Veritas tell us the employees in the Google emails said they wanted to strip certain abilities from Ben Shapiro, Prager, and Jordan Peterson.
We know it's true.
We know that these people exist.
We know that ABC News shut down one of the biggest stories, probably of our generation.
They shut it down.
And guess what happened?
ABC News, when this information leaks to Veritas, contacts a different company and gets an innocent woman fired, claiming she had access to the footage.
Well, James O'Keefe has confirmed she was not the leaker.
And then the leaker published a statement through Veritas.
There is a full-on panic mode between those who work for these companies who are amoral and will do whatever they can to win.
And that's where we're at.
I'll see you all in the next segment on this channel at 1pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
Donald Trump was not the first celebrity president.
Ronald Reagan.
Was there an actor president before Reagan?
I don't know enough about history, so maybe I should.
But now we're gonna get President Kanye.
Because Kanye West, seemingly in all seriousness, announced he was running for president in 2024.
Now, I believe he floated the idea in the past, but here's the thing.
There's a reason why people never come out and just say, I'm going to run for president.
Because Kanye West is probably, he can't run for president now, okay?
As soon as you declare you're going to run for president, you enter in a whole bunch of crazy laws about what you can or can't do, who you can't take money from.
I don't know if there's a time frame for these laws, but I will say, The reason why when they're asking Joe Biden, are you going to run?
He's like, well, I'm thinking and we'll see.
I have an exploratory committee.
It's because if they want to go and raise money after you announce you can't.
There's a limit, right?
So here's what happens.
Hillary Clinton, for instance.
They say, are you gonna run?
Are you gonna run?
Are you gonna run?
And she says, oh, I don't know.
But before I tell you, let me go and do some high-profile speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 to $300,000 or whatever.
I'm being a bit... It's a bit of a hypothetical.
Like, something like that happened.
It's been a while since I read the news.
But that's the game.
No, no, no, I'm not running right now.
I'm just doing a series of lectures for major corporations who are paying me a million dollars a pop.
And then when you run, that's your personal money.
Well, Clinton was doing some other stuff.
I mean, the Clinton Foundation taking money while she was in the State Department, that's hilarious.
But let's read about president, potential president, Kanye West.
West makes the announcement about running for president in 2024, urges black Americans not to just, quote, vote Democrat.
The Daily Caller reports Kanye West says that he's definitely running for president in 2024, while at the same time, we know that's in the headline.
When I run for president in 2024, we're going to definitely, yo, what y'all laughing at?
Seriously, in the interview he says, when I run for president in 2024, people start laughing and he stops like, what are you laughing at?
We're laughing at President Kanye.
You know what, man?
I think Kanye's a cool dude, I gotta be honest.
I think, you know, him coming out, he's always been pretty Christian, that's my understanding, and now coming out and dedicating his career to what he believes in and speaking up and standing up for himself and pushing back, I got respect for that.
Because here's the thing, He came out once, and he was talking about, like early on when he got super political, he was talking about Candace Owens and Trump.
And then all of a sudden, there were some tweets where he was like, I don't want to be in this politics anymore, I'm out.
And it was probably because Kanye started getting the barrage of hate, and he was like, whoa.
But then something happened.
And Kanye was like, y'all can't tell me what to do.
I'm over this.
And he broke through that wall.
He passed through those flames.
Now, I'm not a religious person, but I think it takes guts in his industry to stand up for what he believes in.
And, hey man, it's America.
You can believe what you want.
It's really brave of Kanye.
And I'll put it this way.
There are so many people who work in Hollywood that are fake and plastic and just pretend to be activists.
They pretend to care about things and they don't.
So as much as I might disagree, With Kanye on a lot of issues, on religion for instance, I absolutely respect his willingness to be genuine, to resist the pressure, to fall in line and be one of these stock fake leftist celebrities.
Now there are people I know in Hollywood who are liberal but still call out the establishment.
I'm not saying it's about being a conservative somehow makes you opposed and principled.
I'm saying Kanye very well could have just played the game and said, I'm not going to say anything.
I'm out.
Leave me alone.
I just want to be rich.
No, Kanye came out, made a whole album dedicated to the gospel.
I was like, wow, dude, he's putting his career on the line for this.
That's principle.
I respect that.
He says, What y'all laughing at?
The 42-year-old rapper explained during his appearance at the Fast Company Innovation Festival in New York per Fox News in a piece published Friday.
When the audience laughed at his presidential hopes, the superstar rapper seemed to ignore them and continued, When I run for president in 2024, We would have created so many jobs that, in fact, I'm going to walk, he said.
What I'm saying is, when y'all read the headlines, Kanye's crazy, this and that, this and that.
It's like one in three African Americans are in jail, and all of the celebrities are in jail also because they can't say nothing, he added.
They've got no opinion.
They're so scared.
Bravo.
That's exactly it.
The only opinion these celebrities are allowed to have is the stock, run-of-the-mill opinion.
I'm not interested in any of that.
Alright?
I'm not going to play any stupid games.
I'm going to talk about what I think.
Guess what?
It just so happens that people like these journalists are confused as to who I am and what I believe because I don't play tribal games.
You know, I'm gonna say it like I see it, and I do my best to try and, you know, view the world through the lens of what I think is principled and correct.
That means Trump doing the G7 at his golf course?
I absolutely tweeted about that, called it out, and said, wrong move.
And when Trump came out and said, we're not gonna do it there, I said, good on you, Trump, that was the right thing to do, and credit where credit is due.
Because one of my core philosophies, be it someone on the left, or someone on the right, if they do bad, and then they do good, I praise the good.
Like Alyssa Milano, I think, I think, Off the top of my head.
She came out and she pushed back on, I think, some of the MeToo proponents who were accused of themselves.
And you see something like that, and I'm like, credit where it's due.
You do the right thing.
Right?
You get AOC and Elizabeth Warren calling out Big Tech.
Hey, credit where it's due.
I'm not going to play this tribal game where I'm like, how dare they?
Oh, now they want to call it back.
No, I'm like, hey, man, do it.
Call out Big Tech.
I'm sitting right here.
The more people I can get on my side, the better.
That's something I think is really important for everybody.
But what you see here in Hollywood, most of these people, I've met some celebrities when I was out in L.A.
I used to live in L.A.
and I've been there frequently and I'll tell you this, I met a few, I don't necessarily say like A-tier celebrities, no one like, you know, Chris Pratt or Chris Evans or, you know, Chris Pine.
I just named a bunch of Chris's for some reason.
No, but I've met some like, Famous actors.
Not the most famous, you know, not Tom Cruise.
But they will say, privately, that they believe X or Y, or they're pro-Trump.
And then publicly, they pretend to play this game.
Oh, how dare Trump say these things?
And it's like, dude, girl, it's fine.
But you know what the secret is?
They know that it's like a cult.
If they don't play the game, they lose their career.
So Kanye's got two things going for him.
For one, he apparently has a spine.
But I will admit, okay, number two, it's a lot easier to step up and say what you want when you got F.U.
money.
Kanye's not going anywhere.
Kanye is a superstar.
He wants to change his name to Christian Genius Billionaire or whatever.
I think it's funny.
They call him crazy, but he's right.
You know what's crazy to me?
You might think Kanye's dumb, okay?
You might think this is silly, he's never gonna be president.
But think about what's crazier, living on your knees, terrified to say what you really think, towing the line for the establishment, crossing your fingers that you can suckle on the teat of Hollywood, or standing up, living on your feet, and saying, no, I'm going to tell you what's real.
That's what I respect.
They say the gold digger hit maker.
Then referenced how much attention he got back in 2005 when he claimed that George W. Bush doesn't care about black people, following the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
He has recently walked back those comments.
West also explained during the same interview that black Americans should use their power and not just vote Democrat per page six.
Own your power, the rapper went on.
Your power is not to just vote Democrat for the rest of our lives.
That's not power.
I'm not going to tell anybody who they should or shouldn't vote for.
Kanye, as a member of the black community, certainly, you know, he's going to have his opinion.
But I do think, you know, one thing I've noticed that I find quite strange is how religious the black community is, but how they support the Democrats.
That, to me, is very strange because you have a lot of really disrespectful leftists.
Like, and this is what I'm talking about when it comes to tribalism.
You've got people on the left who claim to support religious freedom when they're pointing the finger at Islam, but then openly rag on Christians.
Because their mentality isn't based on supporting religion, it's based on, if you're the underdog, you must be correct, period.
The victim is always right.
The problem with that is, who is the victim at one point and why?
Why is it that, you know, you've got Christians in this country, they aren't the victims, and Muslims are, but Muslims elsewhere in the world are ignored, right?
So the problem is, They're operating on tribal, vague and nebulous terms.
It's like whatever the mass does.
Like the mob.
The mob will say, we've determined that WMXN, W-O-M-X-N is the right word to use.
Okay, but that could change tomorrow.
Whereas people with principle are going to say, this is why I do this.
This is why I say this.
This is what I believe.
So for me, I do believe in religious freedom.
I believe we can't allow discrimination against Muslims and we can't allow discrimination against Christians.
I don't care what your religion is, you have a right to practice your religion.
But that's not what we hear, you know, when it comes to the left.
The left is just, they'll claim to be for free speech only if they're talking about people on their side.
They'll claim to be for religion only if it's the smaller minority groups they perceive as oppressed.
But who is oppressed?
If you disagree with them, all of a sudden you've internalized misogyny.
You've internalized whiteness.
They make up a ridiculous phrase that means nothing to claim you are actually an oppressor.
Because they don't have principles.
It is a tribalist, cult-like group.
Not all of the left.
Kanye, you know, for a long time, Kanye was kind of a left-wing dude.
But you got Dave Chappelle, not a conservative, calling him out.
You got all these comedians, Louis CK, Ricky Gervais.
They're not conservatives.
And they call this out.
And for all of Bill Maher's faults, he calls out that craziness too.
So we gotta get rid of that stuff.
We have to allow people to speak up, speak out, say what they think.
Otherwise, man, You know what's funny is these leftists like saying, you know, so-and-so's a bootlicker.
Like, they like licking the boot of fascists.
It's like, dude, you're towing the line for the cultural establishment, the universities, the media institutions.
Basically, the only thing in government that doesn't tow that line is a select group of Republicans in the president.
Now I'll admit, Trump's got power.
Republicans have power.
But you've got all the Democrats.
You've got everyone in media.
You've got movies, Hollywood, sports, everything.
Marketing is lined up on your side.
And you're just vomiting up the exact same thing that everyone else says.
And you think you're not licking the boot?
Man, I'll tell you what.
You want to know what it means to not lick the boot?
Not licking the boot is when I say Trump was wrong to say he wanted to host the G7 at Doral.
But good on him for doing the right thing.
Not licking the boot is saying AOC is wrong about the Green New Deal, but good on her for calling out big tech surveillance.
Not licking the boot is saying what you really think.
And you know what?
Maybe I'm wrong sometimes.
But let's bring it back to Kanye, because I'm not trying to take away Kanye's thunder here.
That's the point.
That's what Kanye's doing.
Kanye was under the boot.
These Hollywood celebrities lived under a boot, where they were told, you can't say this, you'll lose your career.
It was an invisible force that they knew the crowd would turn on them.
And what happened when Kanye finally put on that hat and said, this is what I think?
They called him crazy.
They said he was mentally ill.
They said he was an embarrassment.
Kanye West.
Kanye West is like one of the most celebrated celebrities and all of this was happening to him because he spoke up and he faltered.
He was like, I don't want to be in this anymore.
And then finally said, you know what?
I'm stepping through that flame.
So I can disagree with him, but I'll tell you what.
If you are on your knees, with the boot pressing down on you, and you strive to stand up and throw that boot off your head, you have my respect.
Go do your thing.
Say what you think, say what you believe, so we can actually figure out what's going on in this world.
Instead, you have these people saying, submit.
That's what these fringe, identitarian leftists want.
It's not about oppression, because you've got a bunch of overwhelmingly white progressives telling you what to think, what to feel, telling people like Kanye who to vote for, and this is one of the things Candace Owens talks about.
And I don't think Candace Owens is perfect either.
I think some of her opinions are backwards.
She ragged on burning the flag.
No, sorry, free expression is free expression as far as I'm concerned.
So I'm like, burning the flag is a symbol of the freedom that flag represents.
Personally, I don't like it.
But I like the idea that someone else can give the middle finger to the president and burn a flag.
I'm like, hey man, it's America.
Just do it safely.
That's the bigger problem with flag burning.
It's like you're starting a fire, man.
But here's the thing.
Candace Owens, for all her faults and all her criticism, says she doesn't want to be told who she's supposed to vote for.
She's allowed her own opinions.
So why is it overwhelmingly white progressives who claim to be the ones fighting racism accusing Candace of being a white supremacist?
Because there's no principles there.
Because they want you to submit.
I'm not gonna do it.
I got no problem being like, hey Kanye, I disagree.
Let's go listen to some music and figure out how we can work together as Americans to make a better life for everybody.
Do I think Kanye would make a good president?
No, no, I really, really don't think he would.
I don't think Trump would make a good president.
But here's the thing.
That's my point about not living under a boot.
Listen, man.
I think when it comes to presidents, I think we can do better than Trump.
But I'll admit, I will concede where Trump has done well, right?
So you've got Baghdadi, that's historic, man.
That's credit.
You've got crossing the DMZ, also historic.
The idea that they're gonna try and make this guy go down in history as this corrupt, scandal-laden president, when Obama had Fast and Furious, for instance, when Obama had NDAA authorizations, indefinite detention provisions, you had You had a bunch of stuff under Obama, okay?
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the scandals go on and on and on, but where was the media?
But yeah, sure.
Obama had some historic moments, and so does Trump.
And that's crazy to me.
We got a great economy, okay?
He crossed into that DMZ.
That means a lot to me, for my family, and what that means going past, you know, my past with my Korean ancestors.
Give him praise when he did the right thing, right?
And Cenk Uygur said, if he keeps out of war with Iran, he'll be a better president than Bush.
Hey, man, I respect that.
That's what it's called when you don't live on a boot.
Live under a boot.
It means that I can say, yeah, Trump gets that one.
And I can also say, nah, I'm still not over that threshold where I think he's the right choice for president.
Listen, man, Trump may have been better than Hillary, and he may have been better than every other Republican, and he may have been better than every other Democrat, if that's your opinion, but it doesn't mean there's not someone else out there that's probably better.
I think that person is Tulsi or Yang.
And although I don't completely agree with all of their policies, I think they're slightly better than Trump.
And now that's policy-wise, right?
Because we've got the deficit boom, we've got troops being sent to Saudi Arabia, we've got, you know, Trump was supposed to pull troops out of Syria, it's not happening.
It's complicated.
Trump deserves credit when he does it right, and he deserves criticism when he does things I think are wrong.
But I'll tell you what, man.
This mentality, whatever it is that drives Kanye to stand up and say, what are you laughing at?
I'm running for president.
That's the mentality that we need more of.
People who are strong, independent thought leaders who push back and say, you can't tell me what to do.
Because I'll tell you what, a lot of the problems that we're seeing in the culture war stem from people being scared to speak up.
How many Democrats, Are bending over backwards to the fringe, fringe of the far left because they refuse to say anything because they're scared they will get cancelled.
Okay, fine.
Then you deserve Donald Trump, man.
Listen, Trump supporters like Trump.
You guys deserve Trump because that's what you wanted, that's what you voted for, that's who won.
The Democrats who refuse to speak up and allow these lunatics to go on stage and advocate for healthcare for non-citizens?
You deserve Trump, too.
Because you need to stand up and tell the crazy people, stop.
Okay?
This country is predominantly reasonable people.
But here's the thing.
Trump wins because there's an amount of people in this country Who don't live under a boot, who refuse to live under a boot, and when they were told to bend the knee to the outrage mob, they spoke up, and they got attacked for it.
Some people I know who supported Bernie spoke up about the problems of Hillary, got attacked for it, and said, they're gonna vote, they wouldn't vote for Trump.
Because you deserve it.
So here's the thing, man.
At the very least, I think, and this is probably true, most people probably get this, Part of what gets Trump elected is that defiant attitude of refusing to live under the boot.
They call you a bootlicker?
Yeah, no man.
People wearing Trump hats get attacked, they get called crazy, they get insulted, they get laughed at, right?
I'm not saying they have the worst lives in the world, I'm saying you cannot wear that hat and not accept that risk.
But there are people who put that hat on because they like the president and they get attacked for it and they get called all the worst names in the book.
They get told they can't wear them in school and things like that.
So if you really want to stand up for what you believe in, you defy the powers around you, the cult mentality, and those who try to stomp you down by doing what you feel is right, within the law, right?
Don't hurt anybody, speak your mind.
Kanye does that.
So there's the point, right?
He says, the power is when I talk to my lawyer, I put on my trench coat and said, we're moving these factories to America, and that's how it's going to be, and it's lovely.
Kanye's bringing his factories to the US, he's gonna bring jobs back.
This dude had an awakening that's really fascinating considering, like I was saying earlier, there's a lot of people, I think the overall majority of the political power in the black community is the church.
I was reading that in an article, so don't take my opinion for it.
I'm not going to act like I'm an expert.
But Kanye now, he was in this interview and he was talking about what the Democrats are proposing, you know, these things about how they should live their lives, how they should deal with pregnancy.
I'll be careful about how I phrase these things.
And I think he finally realized something.
You know, whatever it is that he believes and he sees, especially with his religion, was not aligning with the Democrats.
And too many people think they just have to do it.
So you know what?
I'm not gonna say you have to.
I'll tell you this, I'd say go vote for Tulsi because, you know, she goes on The View, she goes on Fox, she really does try to go on all these channels and speak to everybody.
And I think it's very obvious that Tulsi really does love this country.
And there's something really similar about, there's like a certain aspect of Tulsi and Trump that are similar.
It's probably the populism.
It's probably the, you know, resisting the powers and the influence, the corruption that wants to make all this money and play these crony games.
They accuse Trump of that, but I just, I just don't see it.
It's fine if you want to accuse Trump of being corrupt.
I disagree.
You can accuse Tulsi of being a Russian.
That's insane.
I disagree.
Trump was a billionaire.
He had a comfortable life.
He could have sat on an island for the rest of his life.
He didn't have to do any of this.
So I think Trump's doing it partly because Trump is... So let me end by saying this.
Most people who are famous are narcissists because these are the people who feel everyone should hear what they have to say or they know they're better and they can solve these problems.
And I think a big motivating factor for Trump is that it's maybe narcissism is a bit too much but It's there.
It's over-arrogance.
It's like Trump knows.
And hey, maybe you're a Trump supporter and you say, well, he's got a bunch of buildings with his name on it, maybe he does know.
Right, exactly.
And he ran for president and he won.
He certainly does know something.
Trump is the kind of guy who thinks he's right, he's right all the time, he knows how to fix it, and that's why he wants to be president.
It's like, this idea to me that he's doing it for money is insane.
Kind of like they're saying Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset.
No, dude.
Both of them are doing it because they've identified a problem they want to solve.
But I'll tell you one thing.
You know who, in my opinion, and I'm going to be bipartisan here, doesn't actually care?
You got Lindsey Graham.
You got Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell.
These people, to me, are the career politicians who are just like, I'm going to say whatever I have to say because think about what the Republicans were saying before Trump got elected.
They were ragging on him left and right.
He gets elected and they're like, yes, whatever you say, sir.
Exactly.
Okay.
Now I do think we're getting more principled people coming in the Republican Party as well as the Democrat side.
But you look at all these politicians, they're not driven by solving problems.
They're driven by, they love the idea of having the keys to the castle.
That's it.
Anyway, I'll wrap it up there.
Will Kanye get the keys to the castle in 2024?
I gotta say, man, It's possible!
Kanye is very famous, and he's speaking to conservatives now.
So you have to imagine, you know, one of the reasons I bet his album is doing so well, it's not just because it's Kanye.
Kanye's got his fan base, but what he did with Jesus is King spoke to a lot of people who never heard his music before.
Now you're gonna get a bunch of conservatives, Christians for the most part, who are like, This guy's a super huge celebrity who's preaching, who's speaking the gospel, who's praising Jesus.
I'm gonna listen to that.
He just, what, you know what?
Business genius, right?
But of course, Kanye's always been religious.
It's not like he's making it up.
He really is doing it.
And now he's captured his main core fan base and added new people.
Hey, that's unifying, right?
That'll be huge.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
I will see you all there.
Is the press the enemy of the people?
No, that's extremely hyperbolic.
The press is supposed to be the fourth estate protecting us from corruption.
Unfortunately, as we learned thanks to Project Veritas, in reality, many of the big news outlets will kill a story to protect the elites.
And that goes for everyone.
But let me tell you another bit of reality.
People don't like journalists.
Like, I'm sorry, man.
Okay?
Depending on your neighborhood, for sure.
But I got some tweets pulled up from this woman named Paige Poroso.
She was filming B-Roll.
This is kind of, it's filler, right?
It's not the main segment.
She was just getting some shots of this neighborhood.
And she was attacked by some woman who came up, yelled at her, and then hit her.
And that is wrong, and it shouldn't happen.
And journalists face this stuff a lot.
But I tell you this, man.
There are a lot of reasons why people do not like journalists.
And it's not just Donald Trump.
Now, Trump focuses on the fake news that they write this misleading information and they play this political game.
And I know it.
I've seen it.
Yep, they do it.
But there's something else.
Imagine you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood.
Imagine... Actually, let's do this.
Let's ignore the crime neighborhood.
Let's say your house is on fire.
Literally.
Not completely engulfed, but you're fighting to put those flames out.
All of a sudden, a bunch of people run into your home while you're splashing water, and they start just circling around you taking pictures and filming.
You get really angry.
What are you people doing?
Why are you filming this?
My house is on fire.
Not everybody gets angry.
Some people are like, yeah, yeah, yeah, stay out of my way.
But for a lot of people who live in these communities, these people come and take photos of you and they don't care that you're struggling.
And there's a mentality of, shouldn't you be helping?
You're not.
You're coming to make a spectacle out of our pain.
So no, Donald Trump is not creating this problem.
This problem has existed for a long time and that's why they call journalists, well one of the reasons, they call them vultures.
They swoop in and pick at the carcass of your home, of your family, of your friends, and they turn it into a show.
When the ABC News story leaked, and we saw Amy Roback saying, Oh man, I had the story.
You know what I heard?
I didn't hear a journalist saying, the good of the people was undermined.
I heard a journalist saying, that could have been me on the TV talking about my story.
That's what it's about.
So maybe I'm wrong.
I don't want to impugn the honor of Amy Roback, but let's do this.
I want to read you this story from this woman about how she was attacked.
And I want to talk about how people don't like journalists and why.
And I will stress, nobody should ever attack anybody for any reason.
But I want to explain this.
So let's read the story.
So she starts with a tweet showing the video.
You can actually see a woman come up and smack her in the face.
That's horrifying.
You should not do that.
She says that we're your neighbors.
We all call the same place home and work towards the same goals to make our community a better place.
But I think she probably doesn't realize, maybe she lives in this neighborhood, I don't know.
But people take their small, you know, neighborhoods very seriously.
She writes, She starts off by saying that she's a multimedia journalist.
She says, I interview, shoot, write, and edit every part of my story, and then run my own live shot at the end of the day.
I usually choose to embrace the challenge of working solo, but safety is an ongoing conversation in the MMJ world.
Usually, we're alone at crime scenes and wherever else a story might bring us.
I'd say a majority of MMJs are young women, and sadly, all of this makes us vulnerable.
Cue to the video.
She says, this woman verbally and then physically attacked me for just doing my job.
I tried to diffuse the situation by deleting the clips she might have been in.
She was walking on a public street.
But it was obvious, she, it was obviously, she hated me for just being in the neighborhood with a camera.
Mind you, I wasn't filming an actual crime scene.
I was just getting generic video of the street to use as filler.
What first started as hateful language toward me turned into a physical attack after I thought she had already left.
I'm okay, thankfully.
But I know the situation could have been worse.
Also, I'm thankful for my managers at WBTV who dropped everything to make sure I was okay, and then let me lay low at work as I was still in shock this even happened.
She says, uh, I'm not sure exactly the point of this post, other than to remind other journalists to be careful.
And for those outside the biz, your local journalists aren't the enemy.
We're your neighbors.
We all call the same place home, and we saw that statement from her already.
But I'll tell you this.
It's not about being enemies.
It's about being vultures.
And that's the sad reality.
Now, I will say, for one, This is very different from Antifa.
I cue all the leftists being like, what about when we say don't film us?
Hold on, hold your horses.
Yeah, Antifa hates you.
They hate journalists.
We get it.
They'll attack you.
Yep, you shouldn't.
Same as this woman who attacked this journalist.
She hates you.
She shouldn't attack you.
Period.
But let me tell you something.
First, I can empathize.
With this woman being angry.
I cannot with her attacking somebody.
You want to insult somebody fine.
You want to physically attack them?
No way!
Antifa is engaging in public protest in a newsworthy event and they are the actors who are newsworthy who are going out.
You have no right to stop a journalist from documenting your actions.
There's a big difference between protesters descending on a neighborhood And getting angry at journalists filming them because they're breaking the law.
And you going to someone else's neighborhood and the locals telling you enough.
Now sometimes there can be an overlap that I understand.
But here's the thing.
I understand how a lot of these people feel when you look at, say, Ferguson.
You know, these people were angry, and then all of a sudden, when these Ferguson riots erupted, you had journalists showing up to network.
I kid you not.
There were journalists there not filming or anything, and they were just like, I'm here networking.
Yeah, there's so many journalists here.
It's a great meeting opportunity.
Oh, there's CNN.
I'll go talk to them.
Hand them my business card.
It was business.
These people want the clicks, they want the views, they want the fame, they want the story.
They don't care about your community.
And the locals know that.
They know that when their, you know, neighbor's kid is gunned down in senseless violence, that the vultures who show up to take pictures just want that sensational view.
I'll give you another example.
There's a famous photo.
There's a photo of a young woman who lost her life.
But that's not what's famous.
What's famous is a different photo from a different angle where you can see the swarm of journalists surrounding this body taking pictures and the contrast between what life really looked like and the photo they took was dramatically different.
And it's why they don't like journalists.
Now, the journalists want to blame Trump.
They say, Trump's pushing this rhetoric that's getting us hurt, getting us in trouble.
Trump rags on you guys, and yeah, people boo and give you the middle finger, but please.
The struggle and the violence faced by journalists has more to do with the fact that people are not members of the community and they're coming in to film.
Now, let me stop right there.
I've done this.
I've parachuted into foreign countries.
I do not believe, even if you're angry that we're there, you have a right to attack us.
I can understand why you're angry.
In my opinion, I'll do my best to mitigate that.
You know, I'm not going to try and get in your face.
I don't film people without their permission.
I try to make sure I'm respectful, especially when you're in Chicago, because, man, you go to a Chicago neighborhood after a crime, and you better make sure you're being respectful to people.
But too many journalists play it like a game.
You're no different than a cog in a machine for someone working at a factory.
You're just another prop for them to use to get those clicks, to frame, to tell a story or a narrative that will sell.
Fox News did this thing once where they filmed the back end of a protest and then that's all they showed.
And you have to wonder why they would do that.
I can't accuse them, but I'll say this.
It made the protest look very, very small.
And so with the narrative they're getting across that no one really cares about this stuff, it was interesting they chose to film the back end with stragglers instead of the mass in the front.
It's another reason why people don't like journalism.
What I find really funny about the whole blaming of Trump for all of this is how, back in 2011, all these activists on the left didn't care for the press to the point where they created their own media.
It was notorious.
The Occupied Wall Street Journal, for instance.
They made their own newspaper.
I was given special credit for my work doing live streaming because we went around the mainstream media.
Now for some reason, many of these activists on the left defend the media.
And even stranger still, the intelligence agencies that don't like Trump.
So let me give you an honorable mention.
This is just weird.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald attacked by Brazilian columnist on air.
Glenn Greenwald is a journalist.
And he's not the kind of guy who goes on the ground like this woman does.
So the anger he faces is more in line with the political.
Like when people say Donald Trump is riling up this anger, I don't think we've actually seen people like Acosta or anybody else actually get hurt.
But the local journalists actually face serious risks, and people like Andy Ngo have been hurt.
So here's the point.
I wanted to highlight this because Glenn Greenwald gets up and gets in the guy's face and gets a swing at him.
And that's gutsy, to say the least.
Don't do this.
Don't let it get to this point.
We know that this woman got attacked.
We know that journalists got attacked.
We know Andy Ngo's been attacked by Antifa.
But this, a sit-down interview in a radio station, is where we gotta be really, really careful.
Now, they're speaking Portuguese, I don't know what the context is for the most part, but this dude did start the fight with Glenn.
We gotta make sure that doesn't happen here.
They wanna blame Trump for everything.
They wanna claim Trump is riling up all this fear-mongering of the press.
What's really happening?
Journalists on the ground covering Antifa are being attacked.
Local journalists are being attacked.
It's not coming from Trump and his supporters.
That's why it's very important Everybody say, like, you know, when it comes to this kind of reporting in politics, it cannot cross that line.
Not because of Trump, because it shouldn't cross the line with Antifa in the first place.
But this is where it's... Look, man, political journalism, people sitting in chairs talking about it, that's a step too far.
But let me give you the main point of this video, because I do want to make sure I keep this short.
Journalists have been attacked forever.
It'll happen today, it happened yesterday, it'll happen tomorrow.
Andy Ngo was attacked.
Do they come out and say, oh no, Antifa?
No, they don't.
They say Trump.
Trump's doing it.
But it's Antifa who's actually harming the journalists.
And it's local people getting into fights with journalists.
It's not Trump and his supporters.
But for some reason, and this is what's crazy to me, You'd think the journalists would rally around other journalists being attacked.
And now for the paradox.
This story about this woman being attacked in this clip, it's getting a lot of play because journalists are supporting her.
But there was not a unanimous, there was not unanimous support of Andy Ngo when he was attacked.
In fact, people smeared him and claimed he was provoking it.
That to me was insane.
You can see how the partisan nature of journalism today is changing things.
So anyway, long story short, Journalists get attacked, man.
People do not want you in their neighborhoods.
It's a fact, and it's existed well before Trump ever said anything.
And Antifa is actively attacking people.
So the media, for some reason, is running cover for those who would attack their own.
Don't ask me why, but it happens.
I'll leave it there.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
A Target shop is generating outrage because the anti-theft stickers are only appearing on darker shades of makeup.
Naturally, we saw the social justice crowd outraged, saying, what are you trying to imply about people of color?
The reality is, it's actually much simpler than that.
One person commented the reason the anti-theft stickers appear on only these specific colors of makeup, shades, is because a computer program likely assigned the highest risk items and said, this is where the stickers go.
So the people who are stealing the makeup that gets stolen the most is the darker colored makeup.
Now this presents a huge problem for the social justice activists.
There was no individual who was racist.
It was a computer calculating numbers.
What do you say to that?
I do have some responses to the racists who I think are awful people, but The narrative that they try to come up with, it doesn't make sense.
That an individual at the store was racist, the computers are racist.
Sorry, a computer is not racist.
The programmer, maybe.
Let's read this story and look at the outrage.
And then we'll talk about the real reason why this happened.
And I'll mention too, there was another story not too long ago.
About hair products.
And ethnic hair products were behind a locked case where, you know, white, you know, Anglo products were not.
And it was very, very similar outrage.
But what people don't realize is it's an algorithm that just determines what gets locked up.
There's no individual saying, we're going to lock this up.
No, it's the computer saying, here's our shrinkage risk.
You know, put these behind security.
Let's read.
I'm sick of the subliminal shade.
Angry Target shoppers say anti-theft stickers are only being placed on darker shades of makeup.
They say, Target is under fire after a picture was shared widely on social media showing only the darkest shades of ELF Cosmetics foundations marked with anti-theft stickers.
A Twitter user shared the since-deleted post earlier this week in a tweet aimed at the retail giant that garnered more than 16,000 retweets.
The photo showed rows of foundations ranging several skin tones, but four of the darker tones were covered in stickers reading, this item is electronically protected.
I know you can see it.
But I will stress, at least one of them is not that dark, and at least one of them that isn't marked is a little dark.
I think they're reaching for the most part.
But yes, it is three darker shades of makeup that are secured by this electronic system.
Any reason you only put these anti-theft devices on the darkest shades, the user wrote while tagging Target's Twitter account?
The user told DailyDot that they did not take the photo themselves, but saw it on Facebook and reposted it.
It is unclear where the Target store in question is located.
Since it reached Twitter, the photo has sparked an array of reactions with outrage taking the lead among users.
One user wrote on Thursday, I don't think they're implying anything.
I think it's an automatic system, and it's a fact that the dark skin shades are the only ones being stolen.
But there is a lot to break down before the racists jump all over this one.
We'll get to it.
One woman polled Walmart said she saw something similar on black hair products.
Right, see I was talking about this.
I'm about sick of targeting Walmart with a subliminal shade I peeped the anti-theft devices on only black hair products as well.
Let me just say something.
First, It's one location.
It's entirely possible.
The only reason they put electronic protection on darker shades is because the target is in a black and Latino community and white people aren't going to the store at all.
You see the problem here?
They first make the assumption it's racist.
Then you're going to find racists making the assumption that, ha, it proves that only this minority is committing crime.
No!
Technically, but no.
The racists... Listen, first, we don't know where this target is, and there's no photo of the Walmart.
If you're in a neighborhood with no white people, yeah, of course nobody's gonna take the white makeup.
That's the problem.
The problem I have is that when it comes to any argument with the far left and the far right, they immediately assume racism.
The left will say, you're being racist by doing this.
No, it's really simple.
Maybe it's just a target in a black neighborhood.
And so it's not an issue of them being stolen.
It's an issue of those are the ones that people like the other ones are never touched.
It's that simple, right?
Or it's another thing.
A computer program determined these are the ones being stolen most often.
And there's a lot of reasons why that could be.
You don't know what people are using these things for.
So you make an assumption, just on photograph, you're wrong.
And you'll get the fringe elements of the right, and just general racists, saying, aha, it proves something.
It proves nothing!
But people will see what they want to see.
The right will see this photo and say, wow, that proves it.
I shouldn't say the right or the left, I should say the fringe elements, to be fair.
Because I'll tell you what, a lot of regular, you know, leftists are probably just gonna not even notice this or say anything.
It's the craziest identitarian, you know, anti-racist, woke nonsense that freaks out over this, and the ultra-traditionalist racist types who look at this and see something that really doesn't matter.
You know what I see?
I see, for some reason or another, they experience shrinkage.
on these particular products. And a computer program has assigned them to be tracked.
We can get into the nitty gritty of actual social justice and say that minority communities tend to
be more impoverished due to a lack of access to historical wealth and marginalization and things
like that, which creates a backwards trend, producing more poverty in one area, which
results in more crime.
Or I can just say simply, it might just be a target in a black neighborhood.
I'm not gonna get into statistics about which race steals the most.
The point is, if you're in a neighborhood where the people only eat, you know, chocolate ice cream, don't be surprised if the chocolate ice cream is the one locked up, because that's the only one people want.
But everybody sees what they want to see.
Now that I've said that, let's read and see what other people said.
One user questioned the store's leadership in regards to such an alleged oversight.
They wrote, what the F?
I actually rarely see anti-theft stickers on makeup at all, let alone slapped on like that.
That does not look like an actual decision made by leadership.
I mean, dude, you want to be honest?
You can peel those things off, right?
Don't break the law.
Two women who reportedly worked at American Eagle pointed out that teenage girls tended to steal the most items in their experience.
And here's one.
LOL, I worked at AE2 and it was always the white girls who stole our stuff.
Okay!
Like I just said, American Eagle is not known for, like, it's not a powerful brand in ethnic communities.
It is your typical mall, you know, it's not like the most... Listen.
American Eagle is not associated with urban culture.
It's associated with suburban culture.
So, are you surprised that white girls were most likely to be stealing from your store?
They were probably the most likely to go to your store in the first place.
See, this is the thing, man.
In all things political, people make assumptions based on their confirmation bias instead of stopping and thinking about all of the factors.
So let's be real.
Is it possible that an element of why these are being stolen has to do with race?
Possible.
But I don't think it's a simple answer.
Is it possible that it has to do with these are products catering to a specific demographic in an area where that demographic is predominant?
Yes.
That seems like the bigger reason.
Let me say something.
If you shop at American... If you work at American Eagle, and you're only seeing white girls stealing, and then you see the stickers on the darker skin tone items, it seems to me like the issue is the demographic of your area.
So are there a lot of white women and Latino women in this area who are coming in for makeup?
If the answer is no, then it's most likely that what's bought and stolen will predominantly be these products.
And let me just tell you something.
Did you notice in this photo that one of the sections is... So you've actually got four, four, four, three, but one of the items with the sticker on it only has two.
You know what that means?
It seems the demand is a little bit higher.
Now I could push back and say, next to it you've got foundation with only one of each, but in terms of this specific brand, It looks like there might be more demand for this.
Like I said, man, everybody wants to take everything they can and turn it into some cause for their ideology.
And I sit here and I try and break down, full stop, what could cause this and why?
What's the simple solution?
And the simple solution is different neighborhoods, different demographics, different likelihood of purchasing and theft.
This person posted, Alright, I have a serious question here.
In all likelihood, a decision to place theft deterrent devices on items is not made by a human, but is generated by an inventory management software system.
Is that what he said?
They put anti-theft devices on items that get stolen the most.
So those shades are the ones getting stolen.
The other issue is, they believe that the store is trying to imply something by doing it.
As if, like, there's a racist manager laughing, being like, I'm gonna put the anti-theft ones on these for no reason!
Let's say they actually did manually choose to do that.
Yeah, they're probably looking at their list and saying, these are the ones that are getting stolen.
Let's put the anti-theft on this.
Well, maybe it's actually because that's the shades that are being stolen.
They put anti-theft devices on items that get stolen.
That's what getting stolen.
In an entirely different reaction to the viral photo, other users joked about e.l.f.' 's cheap prices and how stealing it was basically free.
Some e.l.f.
products are sold for as low as a dollar.
It's only e.l.f.
makeup.
It's basically free, a woman wrote.
Who's really out here stealing e.l.f.
cosmetics?
Now you gotta throw shade at the makeup company?
Come on!
People, you know, Jimmy Kimmel said this years ago, and it's a shame how far down the well, like how far he's fallen, but he said being outraged online is, for no reason, is like apparently the biggest hobby for people right now.
And this is what we get.
They're outraged about the photo.
They're outraged about the outrage.
They're outraged about the cosmetics themselves.
And then here I am, outraged that people don't understand why it happens.
It's just constant outrage.
So you know what, man?
I will say this.
Social justice outrage is often skin deep.
They don't think about what causes a problem, so they can't solve it.
Homelessness, for example, is not caused by someone having no money.
You know, I was thinking about something really... I was thinking about something funny once, because I saw... I saw like a... I can't remember what it was, but someone was fundraising for feeding the homeless.
And it was funny to me, because I've been homeless, I've been hungry, but not necessarily at the same time.
And so I was talking to someone, and they were like, they were trying to, they were taking donations to help feed the homeless, and I said, the homeless aren't hungry.
The homeless need homes.
And they were like, oh, but, you know, people who are outside, like, you know, we do a soup kitchen, and I'm like, why are you gonna assume that a homeless person is hungry?
They're not, you didn't call them foodless, people.
Right, so here's the issue.
Like, I worked as a director at a non-profit doing fundraising for this stuff, And they seem to think people who don't work in these industries can't tell you why the problem is happening because there's too much they don't know and they don't know what they don't know.
So they see a person sleeping outside and say, if only that person had a house.
No, dude.
That person might want to be homeless.
I kid you not.
They do.
They choose it.
That person might be unable to work due to mental illness.
You can't just do that.
It doesn't solve the problem.
In fact, some problems can't be solved.
But I thought this was a really good example of how the social justice outrage is incorrect.
They see this and they assume it was a racist who did it.
In reality, there are a million and one reasons why it could have happened.
And racism is not at the top of the list.
I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
I'll see you all.
I think I have one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you there.
In a new poll posted by Politico, majority expect Trump to win in 2020.
I agree with that.
And you want to know why?
We just saw Democrats sweep in Virginia, take the governorship in Kentucky.
They took the House in 2018.
It seems like the Democrats are doing really, really well.
And based on that data, wouldn't it stand to reason then that Trump is going to lose in 2020?
No.
All of that data proves Trump will win in 2020.
Okay, not proves, but lends itself to the idea that Trump will win.
Now, you may be saying, Tim, how does that make sense?
If the Democrats are winning all of these things, how could that possibly be good news for Trump?
It's simple.
See, the Democrats who won in Virginia and the Democrats who won in 2018 were mostly moderates.
Yes, those who are slightly to the left of center, not far left.
And look at the 2020 field.
Who do we have?
Well, maybe Biden, but I really don't think Biden's going to make it to the primary because the activists are those who are going to choose who will be the nominee in that case.
Take a look at The Economist numbers.
I show this poll all the time.
Or this study.
And they show that out of, I think, 79 primaries.
Out of 79 races.
Yeah, primaries.
I think it was only 7 or 8 far-left Democrats who actually won.
And they won in districts that were heavily blue.
But for the most part, the far-left failed.
It is repeated over and over again that centrists are winning.
And it makes sense, man.
Here's what I told people.
Democrats, you want to win in 2020.
You need someone who talks about the problems that Donald Trump is talking about, but without being crass about it.
Because here's the thing.
I get.
That some Trump supporters like Trump for talking this way.
Most people... Look, I tell this story.
I was going to Glenn Beck's show, right?
The Uber driver I had said he voted for Trump, he likes the president, but he just wishes he wasn't like... What's the right word for how Trump talks?
Trump is brash, boorish, and he kind of just says whatever he wants.
And it's off-putting to people.
So tell you what, you take someone like Trump advocating for these similar problems, border security, you know, free trade agreements, bringing back manufacturing, and you get rid of that character and replace it with someone who's actually got a spine?
I'm not saying Trump doesn't have a spine.
Trump's got a big spine.
It's weird.
I'm talking about the Democrats.
Trump certainly has a spine, too much so to where he talks in a way that's kind of off-putting to a lot of people.
If the Democrats really wanted to win, they'd find a candidate who was talking about the same problems that Trump brings up, but not so bombastically.
In the end, though, here's what you get.
The way Trump is was better than Clinton.
And the way Trump is now is still better than anything the Democrats have to offer.
And that's just it.
Check it out.
So look, you get it.
Majority expect Trump to win in 2020.
Here we go.
Centrist Democrats seize on state election wins to rail against Warren's agenda.
Yes, please.
You see, here I am, a more moderate left-leaning individual, and I'm looking at Trump, and as I've explained it over and over again, Donald Trump and the Republicans For the most part, are closer to the center than the left is.
We know it.
We've seen the data.
The Economist shows it.
The New York Times shows it.
And so what do you think's gonna happen for regular Democrats who are looking at Trump and like, man, you know, like, I can agree with a lot of what he's talking about, but I don't like his character.
I disagree on his more conservative approaches to, say, life and taxation, the deficit, etc.
They look to their left, and they're like, Where?
Where?
They're gone.
I can't see them.
They're so far left.
They're all the way down there yelling about giving health care to non-citizens.
This is why Trump wins.
The centrists win in these states because people want a more moderate policy.
And I'll tell you what, man, whether people want to admit it or not, there are a lot of people who don't like Trump for his character.
So I say character's important.
Character inspires people.
People vote based on their feelings, right?
So you might think that Trump is doing the right thing policy-wise.
The economy's great.
I'll give him that.
But recognize, if you cloned Trump and created a personality who didn't have, like, who wasn't as, you know, putting his name in the lights and talking about how he's the best and the greatest, you'd probably find someone that has massive bipartisan support.
Except for the far left, that I contend.
Those people are nuts, and that's the problem.
The centrists know, and the centrists win.
The Democrats who are winning are the people who are like, I'm not going to play the partisan game.
I want to get things done.
Not the people who are saying, let's give all your health care benefits to non-citizens.
Those people don't win.
AOC and the squad members, four people, Out of how many people ran in 2018, there were, what, 79 primaries.
Four prominent members of the squad.
Let's read a little bit of this story from The Hill.
They say a group of Senate Democrats are arguing that big wins in Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania this week show why the party needs to nominate a moderate instead of a progressive candidate such as Elizabeth Warren.
And let's be real.
Excuse me.
Elizabeth Warren is plastic.
She is fake.
She is Hillary Clinton who put on a Bernie Sanders mask to convince all of the progressives that she's the right person, but given the opportunity, she will go full swing establishment.
That's what she's all about.
These Democrats know that this week's victories in suburban areas that have traditionally voted Republican were scored by moderate candidates who ran as practical problem solvers and not as bold, big idea progressives in the mold of Warren or Sanders.
But guess what?
We don't have somebody running in that way for 2020.
So I tell you what, man.
The Democrats are trying to use negative partisanship to get Trump out.
They're hoping that people vote against Trump and not for the Democrat.
But you know what, man?
I'm not convinced right now.
I've seen some stuff.
Makes me think maybe, you know, maybe Trump can lose.
And I've said it, man.
If you're a Trump supporter and you underestimate the Democrats and their plan, their play with impeachment, you'd be sadly mistaken.
Don't make the same mistake Hillary did.
But I'll tell you what, don't be surprised when these suburban voters begrudgingly support Trump.
Because here's the thing, CNN went to a historically Democratic district, and guess what?
No surprise.
Locally, all voting Democrat.
Nationally, Donald Trump.
That's crazy, right?
How do you vote Republican?
Well, it's simple.
It's not crazy.
Some people are like, I don't understand how you could vote for Trump and then vote for Democrats.
It's simple.
The Democrats they vote for are regular Democrats.
They are people who think the woke SJW nonsense is crazy.
They are people who recognize what Trump is saying about border security and immigration and healthcare.
And that's why they vote for him.
And if you gave them a moderate Democrat option, they'd pick it.
But when you give them the far left, they don't.
So here's the thing.
At the local level, there are way more races, which means more opportunities for moderates to emerge.
But the other thing is, in Kentucky and Virginia, far left would never win because they're traditionally Republican as it is.
So some people, it seems, are upset with the way the Republican Party is going.
This could be the bad news for Trump.
So moderate Democrats were able to come in.
Now, I will say this, though.
Under Obama, we saw a similar inversion.
It seems like there's always a wave of people who are amped up in opposition, negative partisanship to the current president.
Whether or not Democrats can get enough of that to win stands to... We have to wait to see, right?
2020.
Couldn't get that one out for some reason.
But I think based on analytics, the Democrats are playing by a ridiculous long shot.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, Senate Democrats need to pick up three GOP-held seats and control of the White House to win back the majority they lost in 2014.
Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats to the Democrats' 47.
The key states that are targeting in 2020, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina, more closely resemble the battleground areas of Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania that swung Democratic on Tuesday than liberal hotbeds of California, Massachusetts, New York, which together have accounted for 48% of Warren's fundraising.
That's another big issue too.
People like AOC, she's raising money from these places.
The far left in hyper-centralized wealthy areas are being funded.
Far left in California, New York and Dallas and places like that are funding other far left candidates in districts they don't live.
So that's an anomaly.
When it comes to those local races, where you might only have a few hundred to a few thousand votes, the moderates are taking it.
They're taking it.
Senator Mark Warner, who is up for re-election next year, said the candidates who won ran on more moderate issues and emphasized a Virginia-centric platform.
He said he was not aware of any winners touting universal health coverage, for example.
That's a warning to the Democrats, man.
Not only are they advocating for universal health care, they're straight-up advocating for health care for non-citizens.
Tell me how that wins.
I'm scared, man.
I gotta admit.
Could that really, really win?
Don't get me wrong, I'm critical of Tulsi on a lot of the things she's proposed.
I just view Tulsi as someone who's willing to compromise, and that's important.
I think I'm more likely to align with her on a lot of issues.
I've always been on the left, I've always been, you know, more of a Democrat voter.
Even though I think I voted for Obama, and that's like the gist of it.
One time.
So I look at Tulsi as somebody who's willing to sit down with conservatives and have that conversation and willing to do similarly to what Obama did.
Not saying Obama was perfect, but he was.
Obama gave up on his hopes for universal health care.
He campaigned on it.
He won on it.
Couldn't get it done.
And that's what I want to make sure happens.
I don't want one of these crazy people to get in and say, I don't care what you think.
I'm not your president.
I do what I want.
No, we need a president who's going to say, here's what I want to accomplish, but I recognize I can't trample over the rights of others.
We've got to compromise.
That's, to me, what sounds good.
So interestingly, the last story, New Jersey of all places bucked the Democratic trend.
They say that Democrats won in Kentucky, took full control of Virginia, but an unlikely state, New Jersey, bucked those positive trends for the party.
Under the leadership of Democratic Governor Phil Murphy, an unabashed liberal who canvassed the state and appeared in $2 million worth of ads, they say, promoting his agenda, New Jersey Democrats lost at least three legislative seats despite massively outspending Republicans.
That, to me, is shocking.
New Jersey is deep blue.
They outspent Republicans.
They still lost.
Keep that in mind.
I don't know what that means.
But all the Democrats are cheering about their victories, ignoring the fact it was moderates who won.
Meanwhile, here in Jersey, Republicans actually won.
So you better pay attention, man.
Everybody's gonna highlight information that makes their side sound good, and you just don't know.
So in the end, the point is, once again, We can see the data.
Centrism wins.
Yeah, sorry.
Enlightened centrist here.
It works.
Compromise works.
You'll get the biggest base by saying, I'm here for you even if we disagree.
