Formal Complaint Filed Against Trump Whistleblower Over Potential "Illicit Donations"
Formal ICIG Complaint Filed Against Trump Whistleblower Over "Illicit Donations." A New ICIG complaint from a new whistleblower alleges that the Trump Ukraine Whistleblower may be soliciting illicit donations through go fund me. In September is seems that a group associated with the whistleblower started raising money generating over $227,000 so far. The first concern is that as an active intelligence community member they cannot accept gifts and secondly that many of the gifts may becoming from foreign individuals or agents.This calls into question the motives of those seeking to undermine or call out Trump. If this person is currently employed why would they need to raise money through a public fundraiser?This comes at a time that Nikki Haley says Trump top staff tried to recruit her to "resist" the president.We can now see that many people do not respect the results of the 2016 election. Even if Trump is the worst president we ever have he was elected and can choose how to run his branch of government. The alternative is worse, unelected officials subverting the will of the people and based on their personal opinions seeking to contravene Trump's foreign policy.In the instance of the new ICIG complaint it could be worse. People seek to profit off the political anger with public fundraisers. Right now the president of the US is facing impeachment over this whistleblower's complaint. It is more important than ever to know who he is, his relationship with Democrats, and why he is raising hundreds of thousands of dollars off his complaint.As soon as he decided to publicly raise money we should have known who he was.They may be disrupting our country for personal profit.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A new ICIG complaint alleges that the Trump Ukraine whistleblower may be soliciting illicit donations indirectly through a GoFundMe.
So far, they've raised $227,000.
But there are concerns that as a member of the intelligence community, they can't be accepting these gifts.
but also that foreign individuals or foreign agents may be contributing financially to
the whistleblower.
This calls into question the motivations of those coming out and claiming the president
has done wrong.
Not only do we see financial incentives, but there are individuals who are claiming that
they know better than the president.
They disagree with his foreign policy, so they are coming out and complaining about it, or trying to resist.
This comes in the backdrop of Nikki Haley saying that senior Trump officials tried to get her to resist the President.
This is scary, because Trump may be a bad president, but he was elected.
So these people who are now trying to subvert the president, either for political reasons or monetary reasons, should not be deciding for the rest of us what the country should or shouldn't be doing.
Even if Trump is doing wrong, it's one or two terms, and then someone else comes in.
But to hear these stories now, it's kind of alarming.
Let's start with the story about the ICIG complaint and then move into other motivations as to why people are resisting or obstructing a duly elected president.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do is share this video.
I struggle to compete with these big major news channels, especially when YouTube is demonetizing and deranking our content, putting restrictions on what we can or can't say.
Yes.
I can't tell you who this whistleblower is.
There are questions now that they may be seeking to financially benefit off of this complaint, and I can't tell you who they are.
We believe we know who the whistleblower is.
They may have political and now monetary incentives, but YouTube won't allow me to say that name.
So if you think this subject matter is important and you want to help me continue to grow and produce videos like this, please consider sharing the video.
But let's start reading about the complaint and see exactly what's going on.
Fox News reports, a newly filed complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General alleges the whistleblower whose allegations touched off the impeachment inquiry may have violated federal law by indirectly soliciting more than a quarter million dollars from mostly anonymous sources via GoFundMe.
The complaint, which was filed last week and obtained by Fox News, alleged the donations from roughly 6,000 individuals clearly constitute gifts to a current intelligence official that may be restricted because of the employee's official position pursuant to a statute, a federal statute.
We'll just call it that.
I'm not going to read you the numbers.
They say to date they've raised over $227,000.
Here's my first question.
Why does the whistleblower, who is a current official, meaning they are receiving money from the government, why do they need a GoFundMe?
Now, in the instance of Christine Blasey Ford, she raised upwards of $800 or so thousand dollars, and even people on the left were concerned about it.
But the issue here was, well, she didn't start the GoFundMe, right?
It was other people who set it up, and they wanted to support her.
Did she really need the money?
Well, you might argue it was external and not her fault.
In this instance, however, it seems that this individual is raising money through the whistleblower's own attorney.
The whistleblower's attorney have called the GoFundMe a way to help support the intelligence community whistleblower to raise funds.
And the GoFundMe page itself states, A U.S.
intelligence officer needs your help in the form of a crowdfunding effort to support the whistleblower's lawyers.
The fundraising page claims the donations will only be accepted from U.S.
citizens, but the majority of the GoFundMe donors to the whistleblower's campaign were not named.
And legal experts have told Fox News that the ICIG likely would need to subpoena the website to obtain more information.
Now let's get down to who is raising this money.
My client believes that the federal employee you are protecting and their attorneys apparently have strategically weaponized their alleged whistleblowing activities into a very lucrative money-making enterprise using a charity incorporated under a different name than the trade name it is using for fundraising purposes.
Which would appear to my client to be clear abuse of the federal employee's authority and access to classified information.
That's what the new whistleblower's attorney said.
The paragraph was a reference to Whistleblower Aid, which is known as Values United, co-founded by whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid.
Values United Tax Documents show it paid $258,000 for advertising and consulting services to West End Strategy team, whose founder Matt Dorf was quoted on the group's website saying he influences progressive politics, skillfully shifting the conversation to achieve the goals of West End Strategy clients.
We are requesting you investigate whether criminal statutes or regulations have been violated by the federal employee you are protecting when they reportedly requested an investigation into a matter they had no direct personal knowledge of and an account of which they were able to obtain sizable gifts from unknown persons because of their official duty.
Full stop.
It sounds like.
An individual currently working in the intelligence community is fundraising off of a complaint for which they had no direct knowledge of.
This now brings us to the motivations of other individuals.
Is it possible that someone like Vindman leaked to this now whistleblower, the Trump Ukraine whistleblower, because they didn't like Trump's foreign policy and this individual is now financially benefiting off of it?
We can see that this may even have links to progressive marketing groups.
But I want to show you now some testimony from Colonel Vindman.
Calling into question the motivations of all of these individuals and whether or not it has anything to do with actually seeking out wrongdoing and calling out those who are breaking the rules or just personal, political or financial motives.
In this testimony, it says, We have Mr. Ratcliffe.
Colonel, thanks for being here.
I wanted to start with your statement, your opening statement that you submitted on the record, and ask you about the paragraph that a number of members have already covered.
But I want to make sure that I clarify.
On page five, I guess, that starts with election call.
And I'm going to ask you about the last paragraph that starts, I was concerned by the call.
Before I do, did you write the statement?
Vindman replies, yes.
Ratcliffe asks, so these are your words?
Vindman replies, yes.
Radcliffe asks if Vindman wants to change anything, which Vindman says no.
So here's the question Radcliffe asks.
In here, in the paragraph before you referenced that, the transcript is in the public record.
We are all aware of what was said.
I was concerned by the call.
I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S.
citizen.
You said, I did not think it was proper.
They then go on to argue about semantics, which I don't think are rather important.
Volkov then intervenes and says he answered the question, move on.
Ratcliffe says, you did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S.
citizen.
You used the word demand.
It was not proper to demand.
Where in the transcript do you believe that the president made a demand to investigate a U.S.
citizen?
There are two major points we can see here.
Because Vindman states that Nowhere.
He says it has to do with, quote, the power disparity between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine is vast, end quote.
He's basically saying that because Trump said, hey, could you look into this?
It is an implied demand because in his opinion, the power disparity is vast.
Therefore, it certainly would be a demand.
No.
Vindman's opinion is irrelevant.
It's also irrelevant whether or not he thinks it was wrong for Trump to do this.
Some people argue, there have been some stories, asking whether or not Vindman was one of the intelligence officials who leaked information to the Trump Ukraine whistleblower, who now is financially profiting off of his complaint, even though he is still a member of the intelligence community and presumably still making money.
I ask, why should we allow Vindman to dictate what the president does or doesn't do?
We may have the worst president in history in Donald Trump, but it doesn't matter.
He was elected.
The alternative to this, to a bad president, is substantially worse.
Unelected officials who are giving us their opinions and saying, based on that opinion, they are complaining about what the president is doing.
I'm sorry, we didn't elect you.
You do not get to determine what the president, you know, whether his policy and his plans are right or wrong.
If there's a clear violation of the law, that I understand.
But what you need to get is that there are other members of the intelligence community who know what Trump was doing, who did not complain about it, who did not think was wrong, and did not leak to this other whistleblower, who did not have first-hand knowledge, who got the details mostly wrong, and has now raised $227,000 through their lawyer from this.
I call into question all of their motivations.
So listen.
Maybe Vindman is correct.
Maybe Trump did something wrong.
You can argue all of that.
But now we can see that the problem runs deep.
I don't care if you call it a deep state.
I don't care to play any games.
The fact of the matter is, this is a fact.
Nikki Haley says Kelly Tillerson tried to get her to resist Trump to, quote, save the country.
Haley said the man, quote, confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren't being insubordinate.
They were trying to save the country.
You know what?
Maybe.
But I don't care.
You do not get to decide what is best for the country or the American people.
The person who is elected does.
This is a country where we are a constitutional republic with democratic institutions.
We democratically elect representatives to go and make decisions.
And if the people chose Trump, then so be it.
You—a lieutenant colonel should not have the right to subvert the will of the president, who was elected by the people, nor the people— Well, look, Trump chose a lot of these people.
That's his own fault.
But I can say, we should not be hearing this.
Now, Rex Tillerson has pushed back, claiming that it's not true, it's not true.
But I have to wonder why Nikki Haley would just come out and say this.
Apparently, she wrote it in a book, she was asked about it, and she said, absolutely, it's true.
Now, Rex Tillerson denies this.
He denies her claims that he sought to undermine Trump's agenda.
At the very least now, we can see that there are many people who believe that their opinion of what Trump is doing subverts the will of the people and those who elected the president, and they will leak information.
And many, many people have.
And we can see, yes, there is a financial incentive.
Going back to Christine Blasey Ford, OK?
If you want to argue that she wasn't intentionally doing this and the whistleblower wasn't doing it, I've got to stop you.
As soon as Christine Bozzi Ford raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, the trend was set.
We now know that if you do this, if you call yourself a resistor, you will get money and praise and attention.
Look at Anthony Scaramucci.
How many days did he work for the president?
10 days?
And now he's one of the biggest never-Trumpers, anti-Trumpers going on TV complaining about the president?
Yes, the lucrative grift is being anti-Trump.
You can complain about the president based on information you did not have, and you will raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though you're still getting a paycheck.
How amazing is that?
Well, in response to – let me read you what Rex Tillerson says, because he does deny this, and I think it's important you get a balanced view, to the best of my abilities.
Tillerson, a former ExxonMobil chief executive, told media outlets on Monday that during his tenure as America's top diplomat, quote, at no time did I, nor to my direct knowledge did anyone else serving along with me, take any actions to undermine the president.
Once the president made a decision, we at the State Department undertook our best efforts to implement that decision.
Tillerson said, according to the Washington Post, adding that Ambassador Haley was rarely a participant in my many meetings.
The denial came after reports emerged that Haley, in her new book, said that Tillerson worked with former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly to combat Trump's decisions, and that Haley rebuffed their efforts to join the cause.
Kelly and Tillerson confided in me.
Okay, so we read that part already from the other story.
It was their decisions, not the president's, that were in the best interest of America, they said.
The president didn't know what he was doing, she wrote.
Tillerson went so far as to tell Haley that if he didn't resist Trump's decisions, people would die.
To undermine a president is really a very dangerous thing, she wrote.
And it goes against the Constitution, and it goes against what the American people want, and it was offensive.
The alleged exchange adds another juicy twist to the acrimonious relationship between Trump and Tillerson, a pairing that ended in March 2018 when the president fired Tillerson via Twitter.
The diplomat, while still serving, reportedly called Trump a moron.
Trump then challenged Tillerson to an IQ test.
Tillerson, after being let go, said Trump was an undisciplined leader who doesn't like to read.
Trump responded by calling Tillerson lazy as hell and dumb as a rock.
Okay, okay, listen.
Trump has made many, many bad decisions, in my opinion, notably with who he surrounds himself with.
Nikki Haley, on one hand, seems to have done the right thing.
Rush Limbaugh, I believe it was Rush Limbaugh, claimed she should have told the president it was happening, and apparently Nikki Haley did.
I understand.
Trump may make rapid decisions, sporadic decisions, he may change his mind, and he may not make sense sometimes.
You know what?
I'm not a big Trump supporter.
I'm not going to pretend that literally everything Trump is doing is 4-D chess.
You may find that as a moderate, sometimes I question whether or not Trump's decisions are strategic.
The left takes the view that literally everything Trump does was an unfortunate accident that just benefited Trump.
I think that's absurd.
I think Trump gaffes.
I think Trump makes mistakes, certainly with who he's surrounded himself by.
But I also think sometimes Trump and his team are very clever in how they address problems.
Trump recently at an event said he was building a wall around Colorado.
He should have admitted it was a mistake, and it came out really weird when he said it was a joke or something like that.
I don't know.
A lot of people that are diehard Trump supporters try to claim it's the opposite.
That everything Trump does is a game of 4D chess and that this is all part of a bigger plan.
No, no, no.
There are many people who are disrupting and subverting the president.
And I think Nikki Haley's statements show this is the case.
From subordinate staff who have no right disrupting the president, to Trump's own personal aides and senior staffers who are insulting him.
That's on him.
These aren't holdovers, right?
To people who even financially benefit from this, Trump's got a lot of people trying to hold him down.
And that means Trump is going to make rapid, sporadic decisions, particularly with removing people, securing certain information, and this is likely due to not knowing who he can trust.
Nikki Haley responded saying that she did.
Haley addressed questions raised by Limbaugh and others during a Fox News appearance.
Hannity, what has gotten a lot of people's attention is the conversation about an hour.
Rex Tillerson, General Kelly, and I guess tell that story and out of it, I was wondering, why did you not feel or did you at any point feel a need to tell the president?
Hey, this is what these guys are doing, Hannity asked.
Well, I did ask the President.
I did tell the President.
And I mean, keep in mind, Sean, this is one page out of 250 pages of the book.
But I did tell the President, and I did tell the National Security Advisor, H.R.
McMaster.
And there were others that knew of my concerns in the process.
And let's keep in mind, I mean, what I've said is this wasn't that these guys thought this was a rogue president.
This was that these guys disagreed with his policy.
They disagreed with us getting out of the Paris Climate Agreement.
They disagreed with us getting out of the Iran deal.
They disagreed with us moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
So when the president was charting a different course and really giving us a strong hand for America and for our friends, they just thought that he was going on in the wrong direction.
And so when they sat me down that day, they were attempting to tell me that if I would work with them, they were trying to save America and keep people from dying.
But we saw when the embassy moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the sky is still up there.
It didn't fall, and we didn't see casualties.
What we saw was a courageous moment by the president that many presidents had tried before that was very successful.
And it acknowledged a fact, which Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
The main point, and why I read this, is that we can see there are many people who do not believe we as Americans have a right to choose who our president is.
I didn't vote for Trump, but I certainly respect the fact that we have a system, that people play by certain rules, and we must have confidence in that system.
They said over and over again that it would be Trump.
It would be Trump who would refuse to accept the results of that election.
And now we know it's not just Democrats.
It's even people Trump appointed.
So that one's on Trump.
Trump's choices for certain jobs backfired in his face.
So sure, the guy does not deserve credit for making bad choices.
But you know what?
You'd assume many of these people would take the job and be loyal to their boss.
You ever work for a company and you got a boss who seems like a moron?
Well, you quit.
You don't subvert the company and try and wrestle control of the steering wheel from the driver, lest everyone crash.
The people who are losing confidence in our system are not Trump and the Republicans.
These are people who have gained confidence by the fact that Trump was elected.
But if these people can make money, can, in their opinion, subvert the policy of the president, or even come out and try and directly resist him, well then what's the point of an election?
Am I going to elect, say, someone like Tulsi Gabbard, and then you have tons of officials saying that her policy, pulling us out of the Middle East, is a bad idea?
That's what people don't get.
First, they come for.
That's how it works.
I complained over and over again about the censorship of conservatives.
Now they've censored me.
YouTube took down one of my videos discussing the whistleblower.
Facebook suspended me for several hours for reporting on the whistleblower.
And that's why I oppose censorship.
What do you think happens if we allow rogue actors to disrupt a duly elected president, even if he is the worst?
It means the next time, when your president is elected, the same thing will happen.
The system will collapse.
Let's say Bernie Sanders gets elected, and he wants to implement a bunch of far-left policies.
And a bunch of conservative actors in government say, Bernie is destroying our country!
And so they subvert him.
That means democracy is gone.
I understand we're a constitutional republic, but it means we will no longer have democratic institutions.
It means people are losing confidence in the system, and it will fall apart.
It'll cease to exist.
Because I'll tell you this.
What we're facing right now is hardcore tribalism.
People who believe it doesn't matter if Trump was elected.
They should shut him down.
And how does the media respond?
Nikki Haley's real disclosure.
Concerns about Trump's dangerousness went right to the top.
Okay.
At what point do we accept we have a bad pilot?
Or, do we accept that people are seeking to subvert the pilot we chose?
And that's a real tribal divider.
I happen to fall on the side of, let Trump run his course.
And then we'll elect somebody else, and we'll move on.
He will not be in office permanently.
However, from the Washington Post analysis by Aaron Blake, they seem to think it is the duty of, and the New York Times when they talk about the deep state, it is the duty of unelected officials to subvert those that we elect to office because we don't like them.
I'll tell you what, Trump's not a politician.
Never was.
He is now.
He ran for office and he won.
So Trump doesn't play the games you want to play.
He doesn't operate in the system you want to operate in.
And that's one of the reasons people elected him.
To drain the swamp.
To change things.
Well, look, Trump deserves some of the criticism over the people he chose who have subverted him directly.
But it is not the duty of unelected officials to disrupt our constitutional system.
But this is what we get.
This is where we're going to end up.
The media is absolutely coming after Nikki Haley for saying this.
New Yorker writing, Nikki Haley embodies what's wrong with the Republican Party.
Why?
Because she pointed out that Trump did things that people didn't like?
As she pointed out in that quote, they said people were going to die.
Trump moved the embassy.
The sky didn't fall.
The world is still here and people will carry on.
People complained that Obama was the end of this country and he was the worst.
And now he's moved on and Trump is in.
We cannot function as a country if these people on the left refuse to accept that we have a democratic system.
So where do you think that leaves us?
An individual with no first-hand knowledge blowing the whistle and being wrong about it, but getting rewarded with hundreds of thousands of dollars.
What does that mean?
And they maybe broke the law!
And this may have been planned from the get-go because they influence progressive politics skillfully.
That's where some of the money is going.
It's all falling apart if you ask me.
I don't trust this whistleblower.
We need to know who this person is and why they're doing this.
And I'll tell you what, this new whistleblower, same thing.
I'm tired of the political games.
Our country is at stake.
There's an impeachment going on.
And it may be motivated by those who know they're going to make money off it.
Those who think they have a right, a duty, to subvert a duly elected president.
But if that's the case, if Trump is removed, it says one thing.
Look, I get it.
If you have a president who's destroying everything and committing overt criminal activity, by all means, blow the whistle.
What Trump did on the phone call with Joe Biden isn't there.
There's no bipartisan support.
The only bipartisan support we've seen so far is a couple Democrats rejecting impeachment.
We can clearly see it's a partisan effort from those who do not like the president, don't want him to be president, disagree with what he's doing, but it's not their opinion, I'm sorry, it's not their right to tell us who should or shouldn't be running this country.
It is the right of the people to vote.
But now we can see that people on the left, these whistleblowers, these government agents, they don't care.
They think their opinion is better.
Of course Trump might not know how foreign policy works.
What if Ocasio-Cortez got elected?
You think she knows how any of this stuff functions?
So what, are we going to have a bunch of government actors come in and stop her from doing whatever she wants?
If she's elected, she's elected, right?
That's where we're headed.
I mean, that's where we are.
We're there now.
The president was elected, and since the beginning of his presidency, they have sought to undermine him and reject the results of the 2016 election.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all next time.
From the BBC, Sweden's 100 explosions this year, what's going on?
Man, boy, I don't know.
You know what's funny?
There are a lot of people online who start to notice something and start talking about it.
Journalists, for some reason, are behind the hive.
Now, it makes sense.
And by hive, I mean the internet culture, people, you know, the swarm, the wasp, whatever you want to call it.
Everybody's collecting information, sharing it.
Sometimes the hive gets things wrong.
But let me assure you, a decentralized network of individuals who are seeing trends and trying to identify
them, often, not always, but often will find a story before the
individual.
So what ends up happening is, you have these top-down news organizations.
They see a story, they don't investigate, they can't see the bigger picture, and so they simply say, fake news, conspiracy theory.
Donald Trump said two years ago, last night in Sweden, And the outrage was palpable.
He had watched a segment on Fox News from, I believe, Ami Horowitz, talking about the problems Sweden has been facing.
Now again, I always try to make sure this is clear.
Sweden is facing unique crimes, an escalation of them, and in the past couple years it seems to be escalating even more.
To the point now where the BBC is finally going, what's going on in Sweden?
Oh, wow.
You know, look, there are a lot of fringe, you know, far-right individual types and conspiracy theorists who will look too deep and they'll put out conspiracy stuff.
That's true.
The problem is, if somebody notices something on the internet, and they say, hey, I read this story about all of these explosions in Sweden, what's happening?
The first reaction from these journalists is to go, what do you know, plebe?
We know what's going on better than you.
You believe conspiracies.
No, it's simply, it starts with an individual taking notice and saying, what's happening?
Please tell me what's going on.
And the journalists call you a liar, a far-right conspiracy theorist, and all other nonsense.
And then people lose trust in media.
Well now, two years later, the BBC is going, duh, what's happening in Sweden?
Okay, I'm being a bit mean here.
But come on, seriously?
I was reporting on this two years ago, and even I was late to the party.
A bunch of people have been talking about it.
Trump brought it up at, I believe it was a rally.
I went, and we found that even before getting there, there were grenade attacks in this country.
A grenade attack!
Like, listen.
You want to talk about how there's not nearly as much violent crime in Sweden compared to the United States?
Sure, but these are grenade attacks.
That's a bit unique, right?
So let's read this story from the BBC.
And if you do hear banging, forgive me, we're building a studio, but let's ignore the sounds.
When three explosions took place in one night across different parts of Stockholm last month, it came as a shock to residents.
There had been blasts in other city suburbs, but never on their doorstep.
Swedish police are dealing with unprecedented levels of attacks, targeting city center locations too.
The bomb squad was called to deal with 97 explosions in the first nine months of this year.
I grew up here, and you feel like that environment gets violated, says Joel22.
The front door of his apartment block in the central Stockholm neighborhood of Sodermom was blown out, and windows were shattered along the street.
Okay, let me ask you a question.
Which would you prefer?
Let's say you live in a city, you know, a bigger city or a small suburban town that's kind of dying out because there's no jobs and there's theft and burglary.
You're walking home one day and someone comes up to you and says, give me your money.
And you're like, ah, and you give them your money and they run off.
Or every so often a house in your town has their door blown off and windows shattered by grenades.
Pick one.
Look.
The point I'm trying to make is, in the United States we have a lot more crime than Sweden does.
But Sweden is facing weird warfare level crimes.
I don't know if they're going to mention this, but there was a story I read that said, no other non-war region in the world has this many bomb attacks.
So what is happening if not some kind of war?
Look man, Chicago's got gun violence.
That's gang violence.
This is gang violence too, but I gotta admit, I don't know what's worse.
You know, I'm not talking about the level because Chicago's got a ton of gun violence.
I'm saying like, if you had to choose between one guy with a gun and one guy with a grenade, which would you pick?
I admit, I think they're both bad.
The gun could be targeted, but the grenade's gonna have a lot of collateral damage.
I kind of feel like explosives are worse.
So take your pick, right?
I think the issue here is that we really want to get to is, The left seems to conflate the amount of crime with the severity of the crime, and that's basically the point I'm trying to make.
So you want to talk about Sweden's level of crime, we can say it's lower than the US, but you've got to talk about the severity.
So the amount of crime is down, but the severity is substantially higher.
They say the category of crime was not even logged prior to 2017.
Then, in 2018, there were 162 explosions.
In the past two months alone, the bomb squad have been called to almost 30.
Bangers, improvised explosives, and hand grenades are behind most of the blasts, says Linda H. Stroth, head of intelligence at Sweden's National Operations Department.
The attacks are usually carried out by criminal gangs to scare rival groups or their close friends or family.
This is a serious situation, but most people shouldn't be worried because they are not going to be affected.
Man, that is wrong.
That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I grew up in Chicago, man.
In Chicago, the gangs would attack you if they thought you were part of a different gang.
I mean, they don't know.
If you're wearing the wrong colors, they might attack you.
That's just the way of life in Chicago.
And there's collateral damage, too.
Sometimes, a gang fight breaks out, and there's people that, you know, people get caught in the crossfire.
It happens.
So you wanna say, don't worry!
You're not gonna be affected, it's just the gangs.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's kinda true in Chicago, too.
Uh, no, though.
Do you really wanna live in a neighborhood where you're walking down the street and all of a sudden people start shooting at each other and you have to go run and hide?
Nah, man.
How about Sweden, where someone might blow your door off with a bomb because someone else lives in the building?
Sweden, you got problems, man.
Teams have been sent... And the other thing, too, is apparently, like, Denmark has started instituting... Look at this!
Danish PM vows to tighten Swedish border controls.
The problem in Sweden is to an extent now where Denmark is like, we're gonna tighten up our security.
People should be allowed to freely cross that border because they need help.
Why would Denmark want to tighten borders?
Wait a minute.
Is Denmark actually suggesting that Sweden isn't sending their best?
That when people come from Malmö into Copenhagen, they're not sending... I'm kidding.
But you get the point, right?
Denmark is recognizing there's a crime problem occurring across the way in Sweden.
It's not the worst levels of crime in the world, but it's substantial enough that they're going to start tightening their border controls.
And meanwhile, you have these democratic socialists saying, this is who we want to emulate.
We are!
Congratulations!
Trump wants a border barrier because of the levels of crime happening in Mexico.
We just had a family lose their lives in some, you know, gangland-style event.
And so Trump says border security build the wall.
Now, I get it.
The wall is very different from border controls.
But you have the Democrats on stage saying they want to decriminalize the crossings.
Meanwhile, Denmark, of all places, is tightening their border security.
So if you want to emulate Denmark, Because you like the social democracy, the welfare state system they have?
Okay, that means Norway and Denmark take it very seriously.
Sweden on the other hand... Sweden, I don't even know what you're doing.
I don't even know what's going on.
It's very new in Sweden.
Really?
And we are looking for knowledge around the world, says Matt Lovning.
It's not happening in Denmark.
I mean, it is.
It actually started pouring into Copenhagen, but it's coming from Sweden.
Not happening in Norway.
So, it's really simple, man.
You gotta look at what you did versus what other countries did, and you can probably find that point, the point at which you guys diverted from your path.
And guess what?
Denmark has border controls.
Sweden is much more lax, but they do, they do.
Sweden brought in a bunch of migrants, refugees, and it did result in an increase in crime.
So, it's a complicated problem, right?
What the left will do is they'll say, crime is low in Sweden.
But what they're not telling you is that crime is up.
Yes, crime is low in Sweden, it is.
But it's up.
These explosions, unprecedented, they're up.
So imagine, here's the way I explain it in 2017.
Imagine you live in a town with no crime and then one day somebody gets killed.
Just one person.
And you get angry and you say, what's happening in our town?
Why did this person get killed?
And then along comes someone from New York City and goes, oh, it's only one person.
There's no crime.
You know how many people were killed in New York?
How many people were killed in Chicago?
And you're like, dude, We're smaller than you.
We don't have this crime.
So we shouldn't just accept it because you have more.
But this is what I found, right?
People in the U.S.
are used to a certain level of death and murder that Swedes aren't.
So when the Swedish people saw 10 murders in one year in Malmo, I think it was like 13, they were like, what's happening to our city?
This is insane, 13 murders.
And people in the U.S.
were going, oh please, your crime rate's lower than ours.
At the same time, you had the inverse.
You had conservatives and right-wing individuals who imagined that the crime level in Sweden being up was greater.
So everything was based on the perspective of the people from where they lived.
So people who live in America on the left were poo-pooing it saying no no no there's
barely any crime right the the the lethal violence rate is so much lower it's a tenth of the U.S.
everything's fine and the Swedes are like no it's going up the conservatives were hearing crime is is
exponentially expanding and then they thought about where they lived and it it felt to them like you know
it's hard to explain but I think you get People base their view of what's happening in Sweden based on where they live and what they think is normal, not what the people in Sweden experience.
But we can put all this aside, put all this aside, and we can just talk about the fact that this is unique in countries that pretty much don't have a war or don't have a long history of terror, he says.
Where are the explosions?
Most attacks have taken place in low-income, vulnerable suburbs in the biggest cities, Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmo.
Mama had three blasts in just over 24 hours at the start of this month.
That's amazing.
I'll say this, Paul Joseph Watson, you're two years too soon.
Almost three years now, that's crazy.
But more affluent places are now being targeted too.
An explosion in the residential northern Stockholm suburb of Bromma last month destroyed the entrance to a block of flats, blew out windows and damaged cars.
Yeah, and it's getting worse.
A 20-year-old passerby was treated in a hospital when a bomb targeted a grocery shop in the historic university city of Lund.
And 25 people were hurt when a block of flats was targeted in the central town of Linköping.
Sodermom is a former working-class area that has become increasingly gentrified.
Vintage boutiques and vegan delicatessens break up grids of mustard- and terracotta-painted apartment blocks.
The building targeted is opposite a park and close to a school.
Quote, Immediately afterwards, when police closed off the street and I walked with my two kids to preschool, I got really scared, says Malin Bradshaw, who lives a few doors down.
No arrests have been made, and police will not comment on potential motives.
If it was targeted, then to be honest, it makes us feel safer, because then the attack was not aimed to harm the public.
Are you—seriously, man?
That's crazy.
I mean, I get it, I get it, right?
To an extent, it is fair to say, okay, they're not targeting us, but dude, you have bomb attacks in your town, right by your preschool!
Like, it's time to get alarmed now, okay?
But the police are saying, no, no, no, it's fine, they're not targeting you.
Dude, do you, like, you know what, man?
Someone's going to plant a bomb, and your kid's going to be walking past, and you're going to be like, but they weren't targeting us, how could this have happened?
Yeah.
I don't know, I don't know what to tell you, man.
They say, they go on and talk about Sweden's criminal gangs and all that stuff.
Sweden has, their policies have failed substantially.
And I'll make this important point, too.
Because I know a lot of people on the right will want to say, ha, Sweden is proof.
It's like, well, hold on.
In terms of social democracy, welfare systems, Norway and Denmark are very, very similar.
I think Finland is too.
But they're not experiencing the problems because it's not so much about can you tax people and then pay for universal healthcare or college.
That's irrelevant.
And this is the big issue, right?
There's a reason why I liked Bernie Sanders in 2016, and the reason I don't like him today has a lot to do with I think he's pandering and not being honest.
But the issue is the left-wing identitarianism.
Progressive policy, social democracy, government programs, these things can work.
You can create a more so egalitarian society.
It's possible.
It's complicated, and it works in smaller, more homogenized communities, but it's possible.
What ends up happening, though, is in the United States, these left-wing identitarians, they conflate the two.
They've become one and the same, for whatever reason.
And the same is true for Sweden.
So these ultra-woke progressive types are like, we're going to bring in all of these very, very poor people and not take care of them.
And what happens when you take a bunch of poor people and put them in the same place?
You create a ghetto.
Ghettos are swathes of poverty, and poverty breeds crime for a variety of reasons.
That's a fact.
Sweden failed on their refugee and immigration policy.
You can absolutely help refugees, you can absolutely help immigrants, and we can see that Denmark and Norway don't have these problems.
So you want to talk about left-wing policy and progressive policy?
Minimum wages and college and healthcare and public options or Medicare for all, whatever, has nothing to do with open borders.
The problem is, in Sweden we can see what happens when the ultra-woke progressive types are one and the same.
You want to come to the U.S.?
Like, actually, Bernie Sanders has been interesting.
The only problem is I think he's pandering.
Okay?
Bernie Sanders wasn't pushing this uber woke stuff for a long time.
He defended the white working class for a long time.
He called for border securities.
But now he's adopting the ultra woke insanity.
Because he wants to win.
I have no respect for that.
None whatsoever.
Bernie, if you want to talk about Medicare for All, we can talk about the price, we can figure out what makes sense, but I don't think you're going to pull it off because it would destroy the economy, it would destroy a lot of jobs, two million jobs, but I think there's a conversation to be had about How we can reappropriate war funds into schools and reform schools, reform the education system, how we can deal with student loan debt, the student loan debt crisis.
None of those things have anything to do with bringing in refugees, you know, and white privilege or any of that.
But Bernie started adopting a lot of this BS.
I don't want to get into US politics.
The point I wanted to make with this video, and I'll wrap this up, is that two years ago, okay, look at this, did Swedish media hush it up?
Another important layer to the story is how it has been covered by Swedish media.
After last month's trio of attacks in Stockholm, public broadcaster SVT was accused of a leftist cover-up for leaving the story out of a main evening news program.
I think that they have not done a good job.
Yeah, yup, uh-huh, we get it, we get it.
When I went there, I had all these leftists screaming at me, saying, don't do this.
Former people I used to work with telling me, don't report this story.
And now, even the BBC is putting quotes up from people who say, I feel like they're trying to shrink the news.
Christian Christiansen.
Heck of a name.
A journalism professor at Stockholm University was himself surprised that some programs paid little attention to the explosions, but feels there were extensive coverage in the big newspapers and on local news programs.
The problem is that Sweden is used symbolically as proof of problems with immigration.
Proof of problems with leftist policies, unfairly in many cases.
And that's fair, it's true, they are used this way.
It is unfair in many cases, but it is absolutely fair in many other cases.
So full stop.
I went to that country, I talked to people, and even leftists explained, Sweden screwed this up.
And that's why Denmark is tightening its border security.
When I was there, two years ago, almost three years ago, Denmark and Sweden had tighter border security.
Because it used to be you could just go.
You'd hop on a train, you'd go from Copenhagen to Malmö.
Now they're like, IDs, passports, because it's gotten bad.
A recent study by polling company Countar Sifo found that law and order was the most covered news topic on Swedish TV and radio and on social media.
Police say they are trying to track down the perpetrators, but only one in ten of such crimes in 2018 has led to a conviction.
The head of the National Operations Department has promised greater coordination with security police.
But in Södermalm, resident Anders Herdenstam says there has to be a greater focus on integration.
I am not afraid for where I live.
I am more concerned when it comes to developments in Sweden nationally.
And that's the big point.
The mistakes that Sweden made was integration.
This idea that you can just bring people in and then do nothing and walk away.
And they created ghettos, slums, which bred crime and poverty.
And now this is what you get.
So, absolutely, you can bring in migrants and refugees.
And absolutely, they can bolster the economy with new demand and paying new taxes.
But guess what?
This is why you need border control.
So let me tell you my position.
On U.S.
border security, border barriers, etc.
I love how they're like, Tim agrees with conservatives on immigration issues.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on!
When you open the door, okay, and say, everybody come on in no matter where you're from, we're gonna settle you, and you put them all into a ghetto, you are not helping them, and you are actually hurting them, damaging the community, and you are hurting the rest of the country.
But guess what?
Look at the countries where they do bring in refugees, but they strategically place them.
They make sure they are maximizing the benefit they can give, not just to those refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers, but to the country itself.
Sweden is the perfect example of why we need ICE, Immigration Control, Border Patrol, etc.
Now, are there other instances where ICE has done wrong?
Of course!
Nobody's perfect.
People commit crimes no matter where they work.
And sometimes we have bad things happen with ICE.
Some facilities probably gotta get upgraded, probably are really horrifying.
We have a massive influx from the migrant caravans.
Yeah.
Times are tough.
And nobody is perfect.
And we gotta make sure we do our best to remain vigilant in the face of corruption.
If there is anyone in any law enforcement, be it police, ICE, CBP, the feds, no matter where they are, we wanna weed out the corruption.
But I tell you this.
If we don't control immigration, people naturally form enclaves.
This is the problem of Sweden.
When the refugees and the migrants came in 20 years ago, Sweden said, do your thing.
Here, you can all go here.
And so all of these people lived in this place where they never integrated.
They were poor.
They couldn't get resources.
They couldn't find jobs.
Swedes are very racist.
And so these people ended up forming their own private community, essentially.
Not necessarily private, but like internal community, where they don't view the outside community as part of them.
They view them as separate.
That cannot work.
But if you stop and say, you can come here, but you are going to live in this town, you are going to live in this town, then people can integrate, get access to resources, and you prevent the formation of ghettos.
So I'll tell you what my position is.
We look at Sweden and we say, even though Sweden is small, it's hard to know how that will translate to the United States because the U.S.
is very, very large.
It's possible you can settle people in small or unincorporated areas.
I still think it breeds problems.
The point is, when you look to countries like Sweden, you say, okay, we had a test case.
Not a perfect one-to-one ratio, the same is true for healthcare or anything else, but it shows that on a certain scale, we can see problems, we can see solutions.
Let's use what we've learned from watching Sweden and make sure that when refugees and migrants come to the US, they stop at the border, they apply legally, because then we can make sure we don't put them in ghettos and condemn them to generations of suffering and gangland-style bomb attacks.
Because I'll tell you what, I assure you, the criminal gangs are a product of poverty and failed integration policy.
It was a government not caring about these people.
And I assure you, most of the people in these communities do not like the bomb attacks.
So do you want this problem to persist?
No, you don't.
Nobody does.
In which case, when they come to the border, we say, name, please, we're going to do this methodically, it's going to be through a system, it's got to be legal, and we can't take everybody.
Otherwise, you create this.
Amazing that it used to be the Democrats' position, but sure, whatever.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
I will see you all then.
They're shutting down the power.
There's fires sweeping the state.
Businesses have been shut down due to the rampant homelessness problem.
There's a rampant homelessness problem.
Dirt, filth, disease.
The return of bubonic plague, medieval diseases, typhus outbreaks.
California, what is going on?
They can't seem to solve the homelessness crisis.
And we got San Francisco, which is one of the wealthiest places in the country, riddled with human waste.
And that brings me to today's story.
Manhunt is on after two homeless men were struck with an arrow in a San Francisco Bay Park by an archer on a purple bicycle.
Okay.
What is happening to California?
Now, I get it, man.
You can't just highlight one weird story and be like, the world is ending.
But I want to talk a bit about what's, you know, look, I can say it a million times, California's facing all these ridiculous problems.
We've got a couple stories now in this vein.
And I also want to highlight the weird obsession of the left on things that are probably not relevant.
Because while stories like this happen, we have a couple other stories.
A new district attorney who wants to decriminalize certain activities like homelessness.
And there's an argument around this.
There is.
Do we really want to put people in jail for being homeless or being poor?
The problem is, Man, your state is kind of falling apart, okay?
How do you remove a homeless person who's sleeping in front of a store, destroying the economy of this place?
I understand, not one homeless person is doing this, but when you have a street full of homeless people, yes, the law is there so you can tell them to leave.
I don't like the idea of punishing people because they're poor.
I actually think we should do something to solve it.
And that brings me to the next point.
California won't!
Okay, I'll tell you what, man.
If you have a Democratic supermajority, you should have no problem steamrolling through policies that actually solve the problem, right?
They haven't done it.
They've actually rejected a lot of these proposals, and they don't offer up real solutions.
They try to sweep it under the rug.
You see what New York State is doing?
Shipping homeless people to other states.
So what happens then?
California says, we're going to decriminalize this behavior.
You're going to get more of it, dude.
You're not solving any of these problems.
But I'll tell you what, man.
I can rant about California all the time and say something is wrong with your state when you've got human waste everywhere, mass fires, which I understand is not your fault, power outages.
You've got a guy on a purple bicycle firing an arrow at homeless people.
Okay, I think the homelessness problem is getting pretty bad.
Something's gotta be done about it.
So I know that I can turn to the progressives, especially the California progressives, to come up with a real solution, right?
No.
Because you know what they're complaining about right now?
Look at this story.
A passenger was waiting to board a Bay Area Rapid Transit train, was stopped by a transit agency police officer, detained, and cited for eating a sandwich.
Okay, let's stop for a second here.
First, is this really what law enforcement is focused on?
Okay?
I'm going to stop right here.
I'll agree with the left to a certain extent.
You're really going to jam some dude up for eating a sandwich.
Can't you do something about the other problems, California?
I'll tell you what, man.
Too much of the bureaucracy in California is concerned about the path of least resistance.
It's too difficult to solve the problem of homelessness and drug abuse and businesses failing and house prices and all of these things negatively impacting the state.
It's too difficult.
I'll tell you what's easy, though.
Stopping a dude eating a sandwich.
Amen.
At least then I can show my quota forms or whatever.
Look at all the people I've stopped and cited.
But I will stop there and say, while I certainly think, based on what's happening, like a homeless guy on a bike firing an arrow at homeless people, you got other things to worry about, law enforcement.
Okay?
But hold on.
This story should not be on Twitter.
NBC should not be writing about it, but they are because progressives made the video go viral.
So first, let's be fair.
This cop is a transit cop.
It's specifically his job to enforce laws on transit.
I'm not going to blame this cop because he isn't going around cleaning up poop or stopping homeless people from pooping, okay?
Not his job.
There are other police and government agencies that are supposed to deal with that kind of stuff.
His job, keeping these train platforms neat and orderly.
Here's the thing.
You got a guy who was shot with a bow and arrow.
I think that's more newsworthy.
In Chicago, you have people losing their lives to violence all day every day.
Nobody complains.
Nobody talks about it.
But you know what they talk about?
People eating sandwiches.
We recently had a story from BuzzFeed.
And it wasn't just BuzzFeed.
A lot of people wrote about it.
Claiming two black men fought to the death over fried chicken.
It's just not true.
It was not the story.
It was that two guys got into a fight, one guy stabbed the other guy, and it just so happened to have been at a Popeyes when the new sandwich was coming out.
But they couldn't resist!
The story they wanted to push was the one that was, you know, the offensive, embellished headline.
It's not true.
It's not what happened.
Why is this story going viral?
Everybody's outraged.
How dare you stop a man for eating a sandwich?
Dude, the guy got detained.
He got a ticket.
Why is that news?
It happens all the time.
And when I said this, here come the progressives saying, oh, perhaps you're okay with the authoritarian state stopping someone from eating sandwiches.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Hold on.
Okay, hold on.
There's a reason why we passed a law to make it so you can't eat on trains.
It doesn't necessarily mean we should jam somebody up over eating a sandwich.
The cops would have probably been like, hey, my friend, can you put the sandwich away?
And the guy probably would have been like, alright.
That would have been the end of it.
Okay, so I do think it's stupid.
But you gotta understand.
It's a petty offense.
It's not a big deal.
When a cop says, hey, you got an idea, you can't be eating sandwiches here.
You say, yup, yeah, you can't be eating sandwiches.
The dude didn't go to prison.
The dude wasn't beaten.
It was just some dude who was angry that he was getting a ticket.
Guess what?
Most jurisdictions, most metros, make it illegal.
Okay?
Petty offense.
You get a ticket, don't eat on the train.
You know why?
Have you ever been on a train when people are eating?
It is awful.
I'll tell you what, it is awful.
And so here's what happens.
At some point, you've got a problem with food, and the people come together and say, we want to pass this law.
Our elected representatives want to say you can't do it.
This is what they're mad about.
Meanwhile, in the state, you've got DA candidates, this is going back a couple weeks, saying, we will not prosecute cases involving quality of life crimes, such as public camping, offering or soliciting adult activities, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, should not and will not be prosecuted.
Many of these crimes are still being prosecuted.
We have a long way to go to decriminalize poverty and homelessness.
You see, You have a problem with people doing their business in the streets.
So you literally have one of the candidates, I think they may have gotten elected, I'm not sure, saying, we're going to decriminalize more of that.
You know what, man?
There's a problem with the left in terms of the battles they choose.
And I think that may be one of the big differences between conservatives and Democrats and moderates to an extent.
I always wondered why it was that the writing that took place around Black Lives Matter was around questionable stories, right?
You had Michael Brown, and it was a debate over whether his hands were up or not, and people were saying, no, you're right, no, you're wrong, and I'm like, this is not a clear-cut case.
It's gonna make for a very, very divisive issue.
But then you had that other dude who was legally permitted to be owning a gun.
And a cop, you know, pulled him over, and he did everything right.
He says, yes, officer, I have a gun.
And the guy says, don't move, and just, boom, shoots him.
Or what about the guy who was told to get his ID, and when he goes to reach for it, the cop shoots him?
There are so many stories where we can say, hey, that was unjust.
Why don't we protest this?
They don't do it.
They protest the people who have clearly either done something wrong or, like, or it's debatable.
So that's what we have here.
You got all these people sharing a video being like, oh my, a cop stopped someone for eating a sandwich?
And I'm like, why is that news to you?
Like, that literally happens all the time and it's not a big deal.
Just don't eat the sandwich.
Listen, man, you want to talk about injustice and government suppression?
I'm not going to start with a dude getting a ticket for eating a sandwich.
I'm gonna start with, you know, marginalized communities, for instance.
We can talk about St.
Louis.
We can talk about people who are wrongly arrested or arrested for smoking pot.
We can talk about how people should have a right to do, like, to consume certain substances.
I'm much more libertarian on this stuff.
I think pot should be legal.
I think a lot of drugs should be legal.
And I think the government should be focused on rehabilitation and helping people get off drugs and do them safely to help them, not just arrest them.
Can we start there?
Instead, what do we get?
We get outrage over a dude on a train who ate a sandwich and got a ticket.
That's what they're talking about.
And it's frustrating to me.
California is becoming a wasteland, okay?
They've got problems in SF with human waste, so they decided they're going to legalize it.
They're going to decriminalize it.
Well, dude, what do you think's gonna happen?
It's not a quality of life issue.
Sometimes people get drunk and they piss all over the place.
Yeah, tell them not to do it.
I do think there's a big problem in this.
I've heard stories of people who have gotten on the registry, on the offender registry, for public exposure because they were, you know, going about their business in public.
I'm like, yeah, whoa, whoa, whoa.
That's a little different, man.
Come on.
But in the end, how do you solve the problems California is facing?
First, you need an active base of individuals to identify the problem and call it out.
Well, I don't live in California.
I call it out.
What about the activists?
Nope.
They just say the city will hire poop patrol and go around shoveling stuff up, and the activists actually decriminalize the behavior.
It seems like they're going backwards.
So when you've got a failing budget, when you've got mass disaster, you've got mass homelessness, and your response is, we're going to provide benefits to non-citizens, I'm just like, you know what, man?
It's the Wild Wild West.
That's what it's all about.
It is mismanagement beyond mismanagement.
Let me just do some math for you.
How about, instead of giving healthcare to non-citizens, you use that money to help the people who are sleeping and crapping on your streets?
How about, instead of complaining about a dude getting a ticket because he was eating a sandwich, and that's it, he got a ticket, and everyone's like, oh, unjust, injustice, you know, injustice, it must be stopped.
How about you complain about how the government is mismanaging everything?
How about you complain about the rampant homelessness problem and the violence now emerging in its wake, or the drug abuse?
Why don't you get angry about the people in power failing to do their job to solve these problems?
You elect them, they don't do it, and instead you complain that someone got a ticket?
Listen.
You want to change the law?
Fine.
But to me, it's crazy that the priority right now among many of these progressives is we should repeal the law that makes it a citation to eat a sandwich on the train.
Is that what you're focused on?
See, this is the big problem.
You look at Los Angeles and the diseases and the homelessness.
You look at San Francisco, Human Waste, Sacramento and the homelessness, the businesses that are freaking out and they're pulling out.
And what do the activists say?
We should be allowed to eat food on trains and we should be allowed to urinate in public.
Is this really the biggest problem you have to focus on right now?
That some dude got a ticket for eating a sandwich?
That we should repeal the law saying that you can't eat sandwiches on the train?
That's nuts to me.
Okay?
Listen.
If you know you can't eat a sandwich, don't do it.
And I'll throw some slack, you know, some criticism toward the cop.
Cop could have just said, hey, warning.
Put the sandwich away.
You can't eat it on the train.
But he decided to jam the guy up.
So I get it, man.
But am I gonna dedicate a whole video to complain about the injustice of not being allowed to eat a sandwich?
Or am I gonna talk about the greater problems like the massive fires, the blackouts, they had a drought for several years, they got natural disasters up the Wahoo, they got homelessness and drug abuse.
Let's talk about real problems.
You know what?
You get what you deserve, California.
You get it.
Because if that's what you're concerned about, don't be surprised when a dude rides by on a purple bicycle and fires an arrow at homeless people.
That's what you get.
Because you won't deal with the problem.
Maybe that's what it's really about.
Maybe it's easier to say, don't look at the homeless crisis, look at this man and his sandwich.
It's the police that are the problem.
That's probably it.
The reason why so many people are willing to share this is because they know they haven't solved the homelessness problem.
It's only getting worse.
The diseases are getting worse.
The garbage is getting worse.
You need some conservative dude, I think Scott Presley is his name, to come and clean up the messes in California because they ain't doing it.
What are they doing?
Demanding they be allowed to eat sandwiches on trains.
Okay.
All right.
Listen, man.
You get the government you deserve.
And I don't think anybody in California actually cares about California.
I'm being hyperbolic.
Obviously, there are people who do.
But I mean, I think these politicians are like, I want to be rich and powerful.
And these activists are like, I want to feel good about doing something.
But they know that if they actually try to tackle the serious problems affecting the poor in the state, It'll be difficult, it'll make them look bad, and it'll be painful.
But here's what the activists can do.
I tell you what battle you can win in two seconds.
The activists will win the fight over the sandwich.
And the politicians know that they can win in two seconds over a sandwich.
And the cops know it's easier to enforce laws against a sandwich than to enforce laws against the homeless.
And then it trickles back up to the politicians.
Decriminalize the public camping.
Decriminalize public urination.
Congratulations.
You'll get more of it.
No one here is interested in asking the hard questions and solving the real problems.
So in the end, here's where we are.
A guy riding a bicycle fired an arrow at homeless people and struck them.
Yeah.
I wouldn't want to live in California, and that's probably why people are leaving.
We've seen stories about businesses shutting down and people fleeing the state.
Apparently, there were statistics showing that there's more exodus, there are more people leaving California than coming to it, and this is probably why.
Because these are the politicians you voted for.
So congratulations.
If you elect somebody who's interested in only empowering themselves and virtue signaling instead of actually wanting to address real issues, this is what ends up happening.
Nothing gets solved, it only gets worse, but congratulations.
Now you can piss in public and eat sandwiches on the train.
Good job, activists!
See, this is why I don't want to live in these cities and I don't want to live in California.
New York, at least, ships their, exports their homeless to other states.
I'll tell you what, man.
That's nightmarish.
That's dystopian.
They've been accused of doing it before.
But I will say one thing for New York.
It does temporarily solve the problem of homeless people camping and pissing in the streets.
California, on the other hand, does literally nothing and then legalizes the behavior.
So, you know what?
I'm not a big fan of big government.
I'm not a big fan of enforcing ridiculous laws.
I don't know how you can penalize people who are poor.
If they have nowhere to sleep, what do you do?
But I will say this.
Instead of wasting your money and your time and your energy on these nonsensical issues like eating sandwiches, Figure out how to solve the homeless crisis.
Instead of giving money to non-citizens for their health care, why don't you use that money to set up shelters to bring these people somewhere safe?
No.
Instead, California says, if you're under the age of 26 and you're not a citizen, we're gonna give you health care.
Alright, man.
You know what?
You reap what you sow.
This is the government you deserve.
So enjoy it, California.
Because it's what you want, right?
Maybe not.
Because apparently people are leaving.
Anyway, you get the point.
I hope they catch the guy on the purple bicycle who fired an arrow at the homeless people.
That's nightmarish.
But hey, there we are!
I'll see you all at 4pm youtube.com slash timcast for the main channel segment and thanks for hanging out.
A bunch of journalists have leaked their salary information and job descriptions, and I gotta say, I don't think it's gonna turn out the way they think it'll turn out, for the most part.
I think it can benefit them to a certain degree.
But the general idea is, a lot of people work jobs, they wanna unionize, things like that, and some people feel like their bosses exploit them by not paying them as much as their counterparts.
They often say, you know, at jobs, don't talk about your salaries, but you can.
Here's the thing.
Oh, here's what I love about a lot of these woke journalist lefty types.
Listen, you are not going to all be equally valuable.
Some people will do very little work and they deserve less than those who do a lot more work.
It all, it all stems back to something I like to call reality.
See, if I go out on my own and I grow some corn, that's my corn.
I can then eat that corn and no, you can't have it.
It's mine.
It's called property.
Now, if somebody else doesn't grow the corn, there is no reason why I should share my corn with them.
So here's the problem.
A lot of companies will offer a salary to somebody who's talented, has connections, or provides some benefit.
They may then offer a salary that's lower to somebody else who doesn't provide that benefit.
Surprise, surprise!
When they find out they're getting paid unequally, they say, it's a scandal!
But here's the most important part.
For those that are curious, I'm going to read you this article and then show you what may make you angry.
That's right.
People who write articles about Brad Pitt's junk making $60,000 a year, $80,000 a year, wait till you see what Vice and BuzzFeed employees are earning.
And this is why I say I don't think it'll turn out exactly how they think it will.
They're probably all sharing this saying like, we should unionize and like, look how much money we're making and now you know what you can ask for.
I see the inverse.
I now see the bottom of the market.
Really?
You're willing to work for how little?
Okay.
Right now there's an abundance of jobs.
Thousands and thousands of jobs lost this year, like 7,000.
You think I'm going to look at this and think I can reach the high end?
You're an employee and you look at somebody else's salary and you're like, wow, they get six figures.
I'm going to ask for that.
Yeah, I'd laugh.
Sorry, dude.
You know, the market doesn't work that way.
It doesn't matter what you think you deserve.
It matters what we can afford.
And it matters what you're literally deserving of.
Now, you may be able to negotiate for a little bit more.
It just depends on your position in the market.
But in the end, what's going to happen from this?
You're all now able to see these people who complain and talk about injustice.
You're going to be able to see how much money they make.
You know what's funny about a lot of these jobs?
They make way more than the median salary in this country.
Way more.
And these are people They are not oppressed.
They are very privileged.
They even put their, like, you know, whether their CIS hat or whatever.
It's amazing.
Let's read what CJR wrote first.
It said everyone is admitting what they get paid to work in journalism.
And I assure you, it's a lot of money.
And I assure you, the amount of money I made working for Vice and Disney was a lot of money.
Disney was nuts!
That was a lot of money.
Guess what?
The people who work in media, yes, they have a special privileged position in the ivory tower.
They make sure the people who are trying to break in are not being informed properly.
Now, here's the thing.
You may be saying, no, Tim, journalists aren't supposed to speak truth to power.
Yeah, no, see what happened?
At some point, the people in the ivory tower opened the door and said, hey, you're a journalist, come on in.
And that's why ABC spiked the Epstein story.
Because they're a part of that system now, and they are paid lavishly.
Lavishly.
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy.
I'm making an analogy.
It's a joke.
These companies are all about money.
They get paid really, really well.
They don't understand the plight of the working class, and they pretend like they do so that instead of the poor people, for instance, complaining about class issues, they get super wealthy, say, people of color to complain how privileged the poor white person is.
Imagine that.
These people on the left complaining that the homeless white dude is the problem.
When journalists want to talk amongst themselves about something difficult, the anonymous Google Doc seems to have become the mechanism.
They talk about how there was the media men thing that made a bunch of false allegations.
Some of it was probably real, I don't know.
All I know is some people had their lives destroyed.
They go on to talk about there's a new document in which journalists are being encouraged to share their detail, the details of their salaries.
Note, CJR hasn't verified any of the information.
You might think talking about salaries would be a lot less contentious than naming abusers, but what people get paid has always been a touchy subject in the media business.
That is in part because it dredges up all sorts of awkward and uncomfortable issues, like lower pay for women and people of color.
Or how about the fact that you might not just be worth what your neighbor is worth?
A web producer for Wirecutter, the consumer review site now owned by the Times, makes just $45,000.
Oh heavens, just $45,000!
Another at the same site with three years of experience and a salary of only $62,000 for a job based in New York City that seems barely livable.
I would agree with that, yes, but we'll talk about it, it's complicated.
A deputy editor with The Times with 15 years of experience makes $145,000.
But those kinds of figures are the exception rather than the rule.
A senior producer at USA Today makes just $50,000.
Journalists doing anonymous journalism about journalism in the shape of Google Docs, yada yada, we get it, let's pull up the doc!
You are now being granted access to forbidden information.
The doc reads.
Talking about how much or how little money you make feels taboo.
And it shouldn't.
Knowledge is power.
And Glassdoor info is hit or miss.
Wouldn't it be great to know what your peers make so you can use that to leverage a raise?
Or if your company does a market adjustment, yet you don't see the data.
Wouldn't it be great to know how accurate it is or isn't?
So let's share what we make and any relevant info to help each other out.
Please feel free to columns if you think there's more to add.
Expand to see job duties, job history, or last columns.
Let me tell you the inverse.
Let's play this from the business point of view.
Talking about how much or how little money the industry pays journalists feels taboo, and it shouldn't.
Knowledge is power, and glass door info is hit or miss.
Wouldn't it be great to know what other people seeking journalism jobs make so that you could leverage to pay them less?
You don't get it.
Knowledge is power, but for the businesses as well.
Let's take a look at this.
First, Now, I will admit, in New York City, that is not a lot of money.
45k after 5 years of experience in New York City.
Now I will admit, in New York City that is not a lot of money.
But did you know there are many people in New York City who make a lot less?
How much money do you think a cashier makes at a local market in New York City?
You think they're making $50,000 a year?
Oh, I'm sorry.
You get to produce and edit a weekly podcast, writing, editing, building articles in the CMS, sending daily newsletters, assisting with various editorial tasks, and I assure you, there are people doing hard labor who risk injury who make less than you.
I'm not saying your job is worthless.
I'm saying it's funny to me as people don't seem to realize that they are the privileged elites who sit behind a screen complaining about Brad Pitt's junk.
I'm not talking about the hardcore journalists who are resting their lives.
I'm talking about people in New York City who are like, I'm going to write a food article.
It's like, that's great, dude.
I understand food articles are fun.
I like reading them too.
New recipes.
But why should you make more money than a dude who is a construction worker?
Check this out.
Associate Art Director, $95,000.
The other thing I found is that this seems to be predominantly female, and it seems, I could be wrong, that the women are making more money than the men.
Uh-oh!
But hey, appreciate it.
Look, they got gender, identity, and ethnic background.
Let's scroll down.
Ooh, let's get to BuzzFeed.
Here's an audience development strategist making $67,000.
Fielding data requests, putting together coverage recaps, writing timely posts, working on a variety of content strategy projects.
Look, it is hard to live in New York City on that low of a salary, it's true.
But I think the bigger issue is, for one, do you have to live in New York for this job?
You can live on the Jersey side and spend a lot less money.
But as I stated earlier, think about all of the grunt jobs.
Like, you know, like just like menial labor stuff.
Think about somebody who works at a bodega, like selling candy bars.
They're making like half that.
Check this out.
A commerce writer for GQ, $72,000.
BuzzFeed deputy editor.
How many deputy editors are there?
$90,000 with seven years of experience editing.
What does that mean?
Here's another BuzzFeed News employee getting $86,000 and it's a white female.
Six years, New York and San Fran, breaking news, editing stories, managing various social channels, video production, shooting and editing, editorial planning, yadda yadda yadda.
Let's go down, let's find vice.
Here's Slate, $57,000 for a black woman with less than two years, around two years of experience.
Feature writing.
Man, I'll tell you what, you know what the experience a lot of these people has is?
It's like very little.
What qualifies someone to write?
You like Glenn Greenwald, for instance.
He's a good dude, okay?
I'm not the biggest fan of his, but I lean more towards liking him than not liking him.
There's questionable things, but for the most part, I think he's a pretty good dude.
So he's okay.
He was a lawyer.
He started writing.
Now he's a journalist.
A lot of these people, there's no reason why they should be making this much money, why they should be in this industry.
Here's a person with 10 plus years of experience.
In a union making a hundred grand.
But I love this, look at BuzzFeed.
82,000, 81,000, 82,000.
Business Insider 65, BuzzFeed News 74.
I gotta admit, it looks like BuzzFeed pays a lot better than some of these other companies.
Now I ask you, humble viewer, Okay, five years experience is a lot.
I imagine there are many of you who have five plus years experience in your industry and don't make that much money.
So maybe I'm wrong.
You know, maybe I'm wrong.
Some of these people on this list do make very little.
There's one part, like a couple at the bottom, they're making like $30,000.
Some are hourly.
Look at this one's Bustle Media, $18 per hour.
62,000 at Vice.
Wall Street Journal, 95,000 for a female person of color.
The last one is $32,000 for a white male with eight years of experience in Massachusetts.
But, um, I don't know.
Look, I've worked for the nonprofit.
Let me tell you this.
With about a year plus of experience in non-profit fundraising,
and a track record for being one of the best fundraisers in the nation,
signing up substantially more than the average donor, making hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, for
the non-profits I worked for, I was getting paid $32,500 in Los Angeles as a director.
A director at a non-profit.
That's a high-level position.
Decently high.
I managed an office of several staff, and that's what I was getting paid.
So when I started learning about how much these journalists got paid, I just kind of laughed.
Like, they're complaining?
Let this help you get a raise.
Oh, really, dude?
You get $75,000?
You're getting $90,000 a year?
And, okay, you know what?
I don't think these people realize how privileged they are.
That even at $50k per year, $50k per year?
I was a director at a non-profit!
And I was getting... I get it, I get it.
Non-profit's different from a for-profit.
But hey man, we were bringing in millions of dollars per year.
And we had to make sure that what we... It's the nature of non-profits, I guess.
But it's funny to me.
This is designed to help them make more money.
So I'll leave it with two points.
Take a look.
Take it all in.
This can be used as leverage from companies to pay you less because we can see that some people are getting 40.
So that means when someone comes to me and says they want 80, I'll be like, no, I'm pretty confident I can get somebody less than that.
Look at this list.
Tons of people willing to work for less.
Yeah, I can pay less.
I'm not saying I would.
Actually, I'm rather generous in trying to make sure.
You've got to balance sustainability with paying people right.
But this can be used against you.
See, there are people who want to start companies.
This data is going to be used by venture capitalists, investors to figure out what their costs are going to be because labor is the biggest.
So congratulations.
Not only that, we can probably corroborate all of this data to figure out who exactly these people are and how much money they have.
And that's leverage, because knowledge is power.
Perhaps you should keep some of this stuff private.
But in the end, the big point is, the main point, I feel like journalists are overpaid.
You know, look, I get it, if you're a deputy editor for the New York Times for 15 years, 145 makes sense.
You got, you know, you're gonna have a family, you're gonna, you know, you're 15 years of experience, you know?
At the very least, you're like 37 maybe, maybe 40, maybe you worked somewhere else earlier.
So yeah, that I can understand.
And, you know, some of these people aren't getting paid enough.
And that's a fair point, too.
Like, after seven years, you're getting $90,000.
Yeah, sure, okay, I kinda get it.
But, I gotta be honest.
I don't know how much I value the work they do.
I gotta keep this short, so I'll leave it there.
But, just writing at GQ is $72,000 in three years.
Wow.
After about two years of non-profit work, I was getting half.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe you're looking at this and going like, Tim, you are so wrong there.
These poor journalists are not being paid enough.
$70,000, $90,000 is not enough for these poor people.
I mean, a lot of them live in New York and SF, so go figure.
But I love it.
This is the ivory tower complaining about how poor they are when they're actually substantially wealthier than the average person.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
Trump has upped the ante substantially.
He wants to end DACA.
That's kind of crazy if you were to ask me.
Now, it's a challenging argument.
For one, personally, I'm in favor of DACA.
And I think a lot of these people should be naturalized.
A lot of these young people should be offered a path to citizenship.
We should do it rather quickly.
And I think the compromise between the left and the right right now is Let's create a functioning path to citizenship.
We don't make it super easy.
You know, we make sure that people do their due diligence and do right to become citizens, but we also need to secure the border and stop the flow of illegal immigration.
The challenge with amnesty is that a lot of people are going to rush in at the last minute to try and get that citizenship, so it is rough.
At the very least, however, I say personally, I'm willing to have a discussion about naturalization, though I lean in favor of, and I'm much more in favor of DACA.
Like, some of these people, they were six, seven years old.
So I think there's a really good reason to say, people who were brought here as children, the parents are responsible for this, but I think these are people who grew up in our communities, they're people we know.
If you live in a city, you're going to know a lot of these people, and I think it's fair to say DACA is not a bad thing.
However, Barack Obama may not have had the right to actually institute it.
This should have been a matter for Congress, not executive authority, and it's possible Obama overstepped his legal authority here.
In which case, the argument for moving DACA may not actually come down to whether or not DREAMers are deserving of DACA, but whether or not our system was subverted by Obama for political ends.
In which case, there is a constitutional argument for Trump ending DACA, in that it should have never happened in the first place, And it's already been a problem.
But I want to stress, I'm pretty in favor of it.
Sorry, you know, I think that's a fair point.
We can't just be all or nothing individuals and there's a lot of people who, you know, they work here, they live here, they speak the language, they're part of our culture and community.
And we need to say, Stop it now.
You know, stem the flow.
No more illegal immigration.
You know, go harder on border security and immigration rules.
But we can provide, like, okay, your grandfather didn't know, we're good.
However, no new arrivals.
The problem is, the left wants everything.
Even the Republicans don't want everything.
The left wants naturalization for citizenship.
They want open borders.
I say open borders.
Okay, let's break that down.
They want decriminalization of border crossings.
They want welfare for non-citizens.
They want a path of citizenship for literally everybody.
And they want anybody to be able to walk in and then just apply for citizenship.
That does not make sense.
People will start extracting from your system.
They'll start stealing your money and resources.
They will come in.
They will get health care.
They will get welfare.
And then they will leave.
You need to make sure that people in your community are invested in helping that community grow.
So you can't just say, doors open, everybody come on in.
I feel like I'm the odd person out being like, I like DACA, but you know, I think we need to have more border security.
Because for one, a lot of Republicans are probably straight up like, yeah, and DACA, good.
Obama shouldn't have done it in the first place.
But the Democrats have gone off the rails.
So where does that leave me?
They're calling me conservative on immigration.
Isn't that crazy?
Let's read the story and see what's going on.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday was sharply divided over President Trump's move to end Obama-era protections for undocumented immigrants who arrive in the U.S.
as children, as the justices heard oral arguments in one of the most closely watched cases of the term.
Members of the court's conservative wing appeared wary of allowing court to review the administration's decision to begin phasing out DACA, which grants deferral from deportations for nearly 700,000 undocumented young immigrants.
And questions from conservative judges during oral arguments suggested they appeared to think the administration had supplied legally sound reasons for eliminating DACA.
I think, look, I understand a lot of the conservative positions.
I think the most sound one is basically, listen, I understand you were brought to this country against your will.
That's unfortunate.
It is not our job to guarantee that, and so long as we allow DACA, there's gonna be people who exploit that system and take advantage of our goodwill.
I totally understand that argument.
That's why I tend to fall in the position of, DACA good, no more.
Like, we gotta have border security, we gotta have more controls.
But let's see what the justices think.
Don't take my word for it, I'm just simply humble internet man in his bedroom.
The Supreme Court, they'll decide.
Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and Samuel Alito, a Bush appointee, seemed concerned that authorizing a review could give judges too much power over executive agency decisions.
Can you help me understand what is the limiting principle?
Gorsuch asked Theodore Olson, one of two lawyers arguing to preserve DACA.
I hear a lot of facts, sympathetic facts you put out there, and they speak to all of us, but what's the limiting principle?
John Roberts, a Bush appointee, who closely watched as a potential swing vote, also appeared unsure about whether the court had the power to review Trump's decision to terminate the program.
This is really, really interesting.
The Supreme Court seems concerned that they may not have the power to overrule executive authority.
If the executive branch, President Trump who leads that, says this law enforcement institution can or cannot do X, that's his choice.
Not the courts, to an extent, and not the Congress.
To an extent, Congress can pass laws and change what they can or can't do for sure, but Trump can say these are how I want you to do your job.
It's complicated, but checks and balances, right?
The issue here seems to be that the Supreme Court is saying, Obama implemented this, you know, Trump's going to take it out.
That's equal in the executive branch.
I could be wrong.
That's how it kind of sounds.
Michael Mungin, the Deputy Solicitor General of California who argued alongside Olson for
DACA said the Obama administration's program was consistent with historical deportation
relief programs.
If Obama can make it with executive authority, Trump can end it with executive authority,
right?
I mean, that makes sense.
Roberts also pushed back against the assertion saying previous administration's programs
were far less sweeping in their use of prosecutorial discretion.
That history is not close to the number of people covered by DACA.
Stephen Breyer, Clinton appointee, appeared uncertain about whether the court had the power to review Trump's decision.
I'm saying honestly, I am struggling to get the right rule.
This is interesting.
It's not like a right or left thing.
At issue for the justices are two overlapping questions.
Whether the courts have a right to second-guess Trump's action, and if Trump's DACA repeal was lawful.
But the oral arguments highlighted the sharp ideological split, with many of the court's liberal members inclined to view the DACA repeal as falling within the court's purview.
They also questioned whether the Trump administration had provided an adequate justification for their decision to terminate the program.
Above all, the liberal justices questioned the fallout from the decision and whether the administration had appropriately weighed the ramifications of terminating DACA.
Put it this way.
If they feel they don't even have the right to overturn executive authority, then... And I don't think that's necessarily true.
I think they can in many regards.
They can block Trump if something's unconstitutional.
But in this capacity, if they say they can't do it, then Trump wins.
Then DACA's gone.
Trump just does it.
So naturally, the more liberal members are like, we can review this, even though some, you know, one at least saying, you know, no.
So I guess I was wrong.
I guess it is still, to a degree, a bit partisan.
They say a former George W. Bush solicitor general, Olson, seemed to gain ground with members of the court's liberal wing during arguments.
He told the justices that the Trump administration's earliest stated reason for the rollback, that DACA was illegal, was without merit, letting administration officials upend the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who relied on the deportation relief program without taking responsibility for the decision.
Sotomayor, Obama's appointee, was among several liberal justices who questioned whether the administration weighed the impact on DACA recipients, commonly known as DREAMers, who had come to rely on the program.
The word reliance was mentioned 46 times during oral arguments.
Is it the job of the United States to be concerned about non-citizens?
This is a challenge.
People who come to this country, regardless of whether you're a citizen or tourist, you have protections under the Constitution.
But it's problematic, I would say, if our courts start weighing in on the well-being of people who aren't even citizens of this country.
Is it possible then they might weigh on the interests of people who aren't even here?
She asked Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued the case on behalf of the Trump administration, at what point the administration took ownership of the consequences of repeal.
Where is the political decision made clearly, she asks.
This is not about the law.
This is about our choice to destroy lives.
Breyer seems skeptical that the Trump administration weighed the fallout of the decision, including beyond those young adults who are DACA recipients.
Breyer noted that among the Friend of Courts briefs filed in this case were health care organizations, labor unions, businesses, religious groups, hundreds of educational associations, six military organizations, plus states and cities.
Breyer, in question of Francisco, said those groups had raised issues which are not quite the same as those of the 700,000 who have never seen any other country.
The politically charged case sparked a day of drama in Washington and was one of the most anticipated hearings of the term.
Immigration rights advocates gathered on the steps of the court earlier Tuesday morning, where they urged the justices to save the program.
Trump also weighed in on the case just hours before the justices met, blasting DACA recipients, commonly known as DREAMers.
Many of the people in DACA no longer very young are far from angels.
Some are very tough, hardened criminals, Trump said in a tweet.
Now, I'm going to stop right there and disagree with Trump on this one.
Look, man, I get it.
That's the angle you want to play.
But on average, these dreamers are just people who grew up in the US, plain and simple.
Now I will say, there is a really good argument against dreamers.
My parents paid taxes.
My grandparents, my great-grandparents emigrated to the United States legally.
And they paid their taxes, they paid their dues, they became citizens, all that stuff.
From their taxes, they helped plant trees whose shade they knew they would never sit.
And that allowed me to grow up standing on their shoulders, as well as the shoulders of other giants who came before me.
If I pay to improve my home, my community, and then someone else comes in and brings their kid, why should I support their kid?
Now we can say to the parents, you're not supposed to be here, go away, but then DACA provides protections for these kids whose parents did not pay taxes that helped make this country great.
Therein lies a bigger challenge.
Now I get it, there's going to be a whole bunch of arguments about colonialism and whatever nonsense, but listen, I'll tell you this.
I fully recognize the arguments for and against DACA.
I think I begrudgingly accept it.
That's why I'm like, listen man, I think about the individual.
I think about that person who's 20 years old today who doesn't even know they weren't a citizen and grew up here and is now shocked to find out they might get sent back to a country they've never been to.
And they are, they have started working, they are paying taxes, and they are part of the economy.
And so as much as I don't want to incentivize the behavior, I think we can't just, we have to deal with the problem.
You know, dealing with the problem doesn't mean we're going to get the solution we want.
I think it means compromise.
And that's where I end up.
So I don't agree with Trump on this one.
But, um, you know, at the end of the day, I guess I'm just a privileged American who doesn't have to worry about it.
But hey, you know what?
My parents fought.
My grandfather was in World War II.
My family served in the armed forces.
They paid their taxes, they paid their dues, and some of them paid in blood.
And now here I am, getting to reap the rewards of the society they helped create.
To these dreamers, your parents came here illegally.
They came here in violation of our norms and our laws, and now you are receiving benefits from that.
I'm still willing to help you out.
I still think that's the right thing to do.
But I do think there has to be some kind of compromise.
We have to put a hard limit, figure it out.
In the end, I think Trump will win, though.
I think Trump's gonna win this one and DACA's over.
But we'll see what happens.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Hillary Clinton is now being accused of interfering with UK politics by slamming government for delaying report into Russia, doing the same thing until after the election.
You know what's funny?
A lot of people in the United States like to complain about foreign interference in our elections, which is mostly overblown.
What they never talk about are the Canadians, who have a lot of influence, both left and right, in US politics.
And now we're seeing that the more you talk about complaints of interference, well, what goes around comes around.
Hillary Clinton complained over and over again, Russia, Russia, Russia.
And then she pointed Russia at the UK, and now people in the UK are saying, stop interfering in our politics, you American dog.
I don't mean dog as in I'm insulting Hillary.
I'm saying it's an insult on Americans.
Calm down, everybody.
The Daily Mail reports Hillary Clinton has slammed the shameful delay in releasing a report probing Russian interference into British politics.
Enough!
I'm so tired of it.
Conspiracy nonsense.
But has been accused of interfering herself during a UK media blitz promoting her book today.
The former presidential candidate said she believes every person who votes in the UK should see the document before Britain goes to the polls on December 12th.
She said, quote, I'm dumbfounded that this government won't release the report about Russian influence because every person who votes in this country deserves to see that report before your election happens.
Oh, she's so, so concerned about transparency today.
Yeah.
How about we investigate the start of the Russiagate collusion nonsense?
Oh, but I'm not going to point the finger at Hillary on this one.
But the left is complaining that Trump is investigating the investigators.
Oh, no, we can't allow this.
Oh, but in the UK, there must be transparency.
Not here.
Oh, sure.
I get it.
The former presidential candidate spoke out while promoting her new book, Gutsy Women.
With her daughter Chelsea in a series of interviews across the BBC and ITV.
But some critics have questioned the timing of her own intervention ahead of a UK general election and accused her of trying to help Labour.
Didn't, um, I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure some dude in the Labour Party was singing a song, was singing Hey Jude to the, to the, to the words Hey Jews, and it was like a bunch of anti-Semitic lyrics or something.
I don't know, maybe, maybe I'm wrong.
Tory MP Michael Fabricant said, If Jeremy Corbyn thinks that Hillary Clinton's announcements on the radio will be helpful, he is deluded as David Cameron when he thought that President Obama's intervention during the EU referendum would help the Remain cause.
As much as I love the US, neither Clinton's nor her arch-rivals, Trump's, comments endear themselves to the British voting public, quite the opposite.
Nigel Farage told MailOnline that Hillary Clinton's decision to promote her book as Britain approaches the most important election for decades is typical of her.
He added, The Russia conspiracy never dies with Hillary.
She even said I was funded by them.
Oh yeah!
What did Hillary Clinton recently say about Tulsi Gabbard?
It won't stop.
Dude, at this point, Hillary Clinton is like a crazy cat lady throwing cats while screaming Russia.
Like, dude, we're not into it, man.
Okay?
The left doesn't like you.
We're over this.
That's why I wonder why progressives don't support Trump's investigations into her and others.
Not investments.
Investigations.
They say in a series of interviews on her British book tour, Clinton claimed, No.
10 should release Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee report immediately, repeating a claim made by critics of Boris Johnson.
She won't stand again to be president, but her aim is to retire Donald Trump.
The gutsiest thing she has ever done is not leaving Bill Clinton, although many, yes, because Bill Clinton was credibly accused.
Female MPs in Britain have confided in her that they are scared to stand for election in Britain fearing violence.
The report by the Intelligence and Security Committee was sent to the Prime Minister for approval on October 17th, but it has been held up.
Speaking to Radio 4's Today program, Mrs. Clinton said the delay was disgraceful given the upcoming election, referencing the proven Russian interference.
Oh, you know what?
I'm so sick of this narrative.
Yes, the proven Russian interference, of which it wasn't actually the Russian government.
It was individuals who may have been From Russia, and it was like, what, thousands of dollars in ad... You know what, man, I'm so sick of this.
They act like Vladimir Putin is laughing and being like, FIRE!
Like on America, when in reality it was like, random individuals trying to act in favor of Russia.
It's really complicated.
Okay?
Is it fair to say that Russia interferes?
Of course it is, man.
We do it.
Russia does.
China does it.
Probably Mexico does it.
Okay?
Everybody does it.
But they're acting like it's the end of the world.
And Hillary Clinton is waving her sign and they're screaming, the end is nigh.
Just please.
You know?
Speaking to Radio 4's Today program, Ms.
Clinton said the delay was disgraceful.
Yeah, I wish we read that.
That should be an absolute condition.
There is no doubt, we know it in our country, we have seen it in Europe, we have seen it here in Britain, that Russia in particular is determined to try to shape the politics of Western democracies, not to our benefit, but to theirs.
What a, what a, you know what?
Okay.
You're right.
It's Russia.
Wow.
Think about what that means.
It means the world is dominated by Russia.
It means we work for Russia.
Is that really the message you want to get across?
The United States was subverted by Russia, therefore now we work for Russia and the UK as well.
Come on, man.
It's not real.
These people voted for what they wanted.
Okay?
Are you calling the people stupid for voting for what they wanted?
Oh, but the Russians are manipulating the media and Facebook.
Uh-huh.
So you think people are too stupid to realize when they're being had?
What's your argument?
It's democracy.
The worst case scenario is that people used existing legal systems to influence people in ways you didn't like?
Sounds more like you're complaining about losing.
The BBC has been accused of rolling out the red carpet for Ms.
Clinton, who herself has been accused of interfering in British politics during the general election campaign.
Although there has been no indication of the precise contents of the report on Russia, it will assess the threat posed by Moscow to Britain's democratic processes following an 18-month inquiry into illicit Russian activities in Britain.
You know what, man?
What happened to Brexit?
Before we even talk about that, why isn't Brexit happening?
I feel bad for the people in the UK, man.
You know, the main segment video I did was about how people are trying to undermine the duly elected president.
At least he got elected.
At least he's doing some things.
Things I don't agree with.
But hey, he was elected, man.
What do you want me to do about it?
In the UK, they voted for Brexit.
They never got it.
Could you imagine if Trump got elected and three years went by and Obama was still president and they were refusing to honor 2016 so Obama just stayed in?
That would be insane, right?
Well, that's basically what's happening in the UK.
They voted for Brexit.
They're still in the EU.
They were supposed to leave.
They're still in the EU.
Imagine, it's 2019 and Obama's still president.
They refuse to inaugurate Donald Trump.
That'd be nightmarish.
Fortunately, we as a country, we're stable enough to move through.
The problem with the UK was that it was a referendum.
So they won and now it's being jammed up every which way.
I'm not convinced the general election will solve it.
So basically it flows unfamiliar.
I'm only somewhat familiar.
Boris Johnson couldn't get his deal passed.
He had to ask for an extension.
The EU gave it.
So now they're holding a general election and that's supposed to like I guess hopefully that the people of Britain will vote in a new parliament that's going to favor What, you know, Brexit?
It's not gonna happen, man.
Brexit's never gonna happen because powerful elites don't want it to happen.
End of story.
Congratulations, you're serfs.
You are servants.
You serve the elites.
You are not allowed to leave.
It is not your country.
That's it.
Even though you won the vote.
They'll just blame Russia.
And they'll call you a Russian asset.
That's the game they're playing.
You know, it's scary to me watching the US, because it's similar with Trump, I, as an American citizen, have a right to have my voice heard.
I didn't vote for Trump, and I wouldn't vote for Trump, and it's funny when people are like, Tim, won't you learn to vote?
No.
I'll vote for Tulsi Gabbard, man.
Come on.
But I do respect and recognize the office and the election, and I respect that Donald Trump won.
So you know what?
I say, hey, you don't win them all.
Well, Hillary Clinton can't let it go.
Everything's Russia, so now she's going to the UK.
Listen, so far, the only evidence we have of high-level governmental actors trying to influence politics in a foreign country is you going to the UK and then telling them about Russia and trying to act like Brexit was not legitimate.
Because it's basically what they're talking about.
Let's be real, it's Brexit, I'm assuming.
They say there's been no indication of the precise contents of the report, so we don't even know what it's about.
For all we know, the report says Russia did nothing wrong.
The Sunday Times previously claimed nine Russian business people who have donated money to the Conservative Party were named in the dossier.
Here's a bunch of tweets about people.
Why are you giving her a platform?
It's nothing to do with her.
She is voicing opinions against the Tory party in the run-up to an election.
I mean, yeah, that's... Why would you allow that?
But you know, no, I think the challenge comes with the BBC being state-funded.
But let's be real.
Do I think Hillary Clinton's off her rocker?
Yes.
Do I think she has a right to go to a foreign country and talk about what she feels like?
She absolutely does.
I believe free speech is universal, and I'm not going to blame the BBC for putting her on a platform and asking her questions.
That's silly.
So they want to say that she shouldn't be doing it.
Here's what I really want to say.
Hillary Clinton is getting a taste of her own medicine.
Being accused of foreign interference.
Because the people in the UK do not like the fact that she's coming and speaking.
But you know what, man?
We have people in the US who are Canadian and British and they speak about our politics all the time.
So you know what?
Whatever, man.
In the end, the big issue here is that Hillary is nuts.
She's a crazy cat lady.
She's throwing her cats while screaming Russia the whole time.
And it's just so absurd that we're now what?
Four years, three and a half years or so, about four years from the launch of this crazy and insane conspiracy about Russians and, you know, these business people now, and it's like, dude, I get it.
Okay, Russia, they play games, you know, we do, other countries do, Iran does, China does, but to act like we lost the war.
That's what she's saying.
Oh, Russia won!
And she's waving her arms, screaming, Russia won, the battle's over.
Well, You know what?
I guess I'll never forego an opportunity to shine some light on Ms.
Clinton's absurdities.
If she's gonna come out and speak about Russia nonstop, I think it's important to highlight that she's off her rocker.
That after three years of Russia collusion, and then we have the Mueller investigation, they didn't find it!
They didn't.
Did they find that some Russian somewhere did something?
For the most part, yeah.
But it wasn't the Russian government enacting this major conspiracy?